Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Archive 17

Tagging years in music articles
Do articles like 2000 in music fall under your scope? If so, how should they be tagged? There is not (that I know of) any generic WikiProject Music tag for talk pages, and I hate to leave an article untagged, so should I just use the WikiProject Media template or is there a better way? Any help is appreciated. Thanks! --Cerebellum (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * By 'tags' I think you are refering to project banners. . . . However WikiProject Music is a non-bannering, umbrella project, i.e. banners (and assessments) are left to individual music projects. This is intentional since there are about 150,000 music articles in total. Bannering them all would be a huge (and ultimately pointless) exercise. IMO articles don't need banners if no relevant project has yet been created. -- Klein zach  02:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Leaks
Do we have any policies regarding info on "leaked" songs? Leaks via the internet as such a common occurrence these day's, it's almost trivia. Yet everyone feels the need to add info about something popping up on youtube, at a fan site or whatnot. Firstly it's happening all the time (not a big deal really), secondly it's a terribly boring piece of information. — Realist  2  15:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If it cannot be attributed to a reliable second source then it doesnt belong. --neon white talk 16:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, the consensus at WP:ALBUMS was that a leak is only worth mentioning if it had a significant impact on an album/song's release history and was considered important enough to be covered in music press (ie. it can be attributed to reliable secondary sources). Otherwise it's trivial and unencyclopedic, since nearly every album gets leaked early nowadays and there's almost no way to reliably source the exact date that it "leaked". I recently did a lot of work on Civil War (album) which had an encyclopedic story to tell about the album's leak. If all there is to say is "it leaked onto the internet" then just chop it as trivial and irrelevant. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Album certifications
A lot of articles here on Wikipedia use the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) for citing that an album has gone Gold, Platinum, etc. The problem with this is that the source is that the link is usually something like this and doesn't actually source anything and users have to manually check if the said album was certified what is said in the article. On the other hand, there are some that can actually point out exactly what you're looking for, but he link is just too long. What I'm saying is, either the link doesn't actually source the certification directly, or the link is too long, especially when articles are long themselves, this doesn't really help that issue. Is there any possible solution to this problem? Should the RIAA link direct users to the search results, the search option, or the long link? Diverse Mentality  19:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The length of the link isn't a problem when other text is used for the link, like you have above with the text "is just too long". In what way is that a problem? --JD554 (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've used links to the search option before. The problem is that the RIAA database times out, so if you try linking to a search result for a specific album or artist then later the link won't work because the session has timed out. I'm not sure how the second example was able to link to a result...probably a historical or cached version of the page. In the absence of an alternative source, I usually just link to the search option and note in the citation that it's a "searchable database". --IllaZilla (talk) 19:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd just link to the main database page. As long as the info exists, it doesnt really matter that a search has to be performed to get it, it's still verifiable. I'm not sure how you would construct a citation of a database. --neon white talk 14:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, as long as you state what search criteria needs to be entered it is accepted at FAC etc. A long citation must be preferable to no citation. --JD554 (talk) 09:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, if the reference is to the search option is fine, then I guess I'll just continue doing that. As for the long URL, the problem is not only the crazy length, but also actually getting that URL. There's no possible way unless you copy from an article that already has is, and from my knowledge, that's almost none. But if the search is able to get past FAC, I guess I'm good with that. Should I replace the article that has the long URL while I'm at it? Diverse Mentality  17:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked at Citing sources for some help on how to reference the result of database searches. An example is available at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources --neon white talk 21:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Instructions for using RIAA
Using Janet Jackson as an example:
 * 1) Go to RIAA - Gold & Platinum
 * 2) Type in the artist's name/album/label/format (are you searching for an album or a single?)
 * 3) Press search
 * 4) IMPORTANT: When the result page comes up, click on the link titled "first" located directly above "artist" on the left hand column.
 * 5) This will give you the proper URL: album certification
 * 6) the link is long, which is annoying, but it works well. As for the "time out" session, I have yet to see that happen and I've been using this method with all Janet Jackson related articles. The main biography is FA and 2 of the album articles are GA. Using the RIAA database has never been a problem. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  10:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You could make the url shorter by removing all the fields in it that aren't used, eg. &debutLP=, &category=, etc. and the date criteria fields which aren't necessary. This would shorten your example to http://riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?resultpage=1&table=SEARCH_RESULTS&title=Control&artist=Janet%20Jackson&format=ALBUM&sort=Artist&perPage=25. --JD554 (talk) 11:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) Same explanation with JD554. --Efe (talk) 11:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for helping me sort out this problem. Diverse Mentality  02:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Country Music
I am trying to recruit new members for WikiProject Country Music, as it has been moribund for at least 2 years now (more like stillborn, actually). The country music articles are in horrible shape mostly, and I would really appreciate if someone could help me clean them up. PLEASE help me recruit new members for this project, I can't do everything myself. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 14:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

History merge needed
It's Hollywood Whore (song) and Hollywood Whore. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Associated Acts section
This area seems in much in need of some clarity. Now, if this issue has been dealt with previous, by all means someone point me to where it has. I've had a quick flick through the discussion archives and couldn't find it.

The "associated acts" section of the band infobox really needs some clarification on what exactly should go in. As it stands it just seems a mess, with some people adding in pretty much any band that sounds similar or has been toured with. What should qualify a band to be included in the "associated acts" part?

To be honest, I question the need for such a section at all. It seems inherently a highly subjective notion, and if a band is truly associated there'll likely be a mention of it somewhere in the article already. Can anyone provide some specifications on this section to defend it's existence? Prophaniti (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Since this specifically concerns the musical artist template, rather than music articles as a whole, this discussion would perhaps be better held at Template talk:Infobox Musical artist, with a notice placed here and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Not all the music projects use this box. It really belongs to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians. -- Klein zach  01:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Ta guys. I wasn't sure if there was a better place for it or not. Moving it there now. Prophaniti (talk) 08:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I actually started a discussion about this here. Further participants would be appreciated. Diverse  Mentality  08:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I just now added into the slightly older discussion, the one titled simply "associated acts", if you want to merge mine into that new one, or would like me to do it, just give the word. Prophaniti (talk) 08:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Matotumba
Hey, can someone more familiar with this project's guidelines take a look at this article and tell me if this band could be considered notable? I don't see anything that indicates notability under WP:BAND, but don't want to delete without a second opinion. Thanks for your time. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  08:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure it fails all criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. Diverse  Mentality  08:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the prompt reply, I have sent it to Hades for now. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  01:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Modifying record label's info boxes
I want to add the company motto for ESP-Disk in the article's info-box, but I'm having trouble figuring out how to properly modify the box so that that a 'Motto' line will be displayed. Any suggestions? J.R. Hercules (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to add a new field to an infobox you have to specify this in the template code. There isn't a motto field in template:infobox record label at the moment. I don't think it would be a good idea in general because it's too close to an advertising slogan. I see the motto is already noted in the article, anyway, which is probably the best place for it. Flowerparty☀ 00:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

All music video screenshots to be deleted
Some editors are contending that music video screenshots cannot meet WP:NFCC and thus should be deleted. If you have an opinion on this matter please visit Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content. Kaldari (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Metacritic - Should we be using it? And is it truly professional?
I see a lot of people using Metacritic scores for review analysis. Here is a link to one album. Metacritic provides an average score of all the reviews of an album. My concern is, Metacritic don't seem to have strict criteria on what reviews they will allow in or exclude from their pool. For some albums I've seen them allow in tabloid reviews, dubious websites, sources we wouldn't allow. While Metacritic has a good calculation system, IMHO they have a broad interpretation of what constitutes a "professional reviewer". If they only used top professional reviews I think these scores would be different. Some better some lower. Thoughts. — Realist  2  04:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Are allmusic.com, punkbands.com, www.roomthirteen.com etc. reliable sources for asserting notability of rock bands?
WP:BAND criterion #1 states bands are notable if there are several non-trivial articles about them in reliable sources. To me it means that if a band's releases have been reviewed by established music websites dealing with their genre, it's enough to assert notability. (By established music websites I mean websites that have a staff, been around for years, published hundreds of reviews, and are well-known in the genre they are dealing with.) However, I very often meet editors who don't accept these as reliable. Please confirm if the following websites are reliable:
 * www.allmusic.com
 * www.punkbands.com
 * www.roomthirteen.com
 * www.punktastic.com
 * www.thepunksite.com


 * Strummer25 (talk) 09:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Allmusic is a reliable source for information, with a staff of professional writers. They're cited as experts by other industry publications (one of the tests of reliability), including billboard.com, which mirrors them. However, they aren't selective; their goal is to review as much as they can, and they accept submissions of any commercially available cd. WP:N notes, "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." I personally regard AMG as useful if its one factor of several, but it's not on par with some more selective sources, imo.


 * As to the rest, being "established" requires more than being a few years old. If they're well known, in that they are actually cited by reputable media in the field, they probably are reliable for these purposes. Having a stable staff is helpful; having a professional staff is better. Individual factors to consider also include how and where they get the music they review. punktastic says, "Punktastic accepts all EPs and albums for review within reason." If for no other reason, I wouldn't use punktastic to assert notability because they'll review anything in genre. Hence, being reviewed by them proves nothing more than that somebody sent them the music. The others may vary, but those are the kinds of things I'd look for. As I said above, the number of sources depends in part on the nature of sources. If a source is dubious, more is better. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that if you confine the list of notable punk bands to those who were covered in Billboard and Rolling Stone, you could delete about 99% of punk band bios from Wikipedia. What Punktastic mean is that they accept submissions from less known bands, but they won't necessarily review them, if they think they're not worthy. Strummer25 (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * According to their website, "not worthy" means "anything less than 3 tracks." They specifically say "anything falling under our coverage umbrella (very loosely titled 'punk') is welcome." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * And if you read further: "Please respect that as we receive so many CDs for review we cannot guarantee everyone a write up." Strummer25 (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That doesn't say anything about selectivity in what they write up, however. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not difficult for a punk band to be notable without using the sources you've given: They simply needed to meet any of the criteria at WP:BAND; charting releases, being signed to a notable label, etc. --JD554 (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, punk bands are usually not played in rotation on commercial radio, enter the charts or receive Grammys either :) But, there's an Others section on WP:BAND "for composers and performers outside mass media traditions". Here #5 says "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture." I think this should apply here. Strummer25 (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The best place to ask if websites are reliable sources is at WP:RSN. --JD554 (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and I've just noticed that you already have. Best to see what they say there, that will be the best answer. --JD554 (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There are lots of news sites you can use instead of all the other sites listed aside from Allmusic to find information on underground bands. Start with Pitchfork Media for one. When searching for reliable sources on groups, always start with the most notable resource first (like, say, The New York Times) because sometimes you may be surprised to find that a group has received widespread coverage at some point. Just because it's a punk band doesn't mean that lesser-quality sources should be used. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Pitchfork is a really overrated, snobbish, arrogant website. Do you call this high quality music journalism?


 * * http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/38853/Jet_Shine_On


 * I don't see why they would be any more reliable than punkbands.com. And the list of punk bands that made it to the New York Times would be extremely narrow. Strummer25 (talk) 08:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If high-quality music journalism was the sole benchmark of being a reliable source then the NME would be in trouble. But that's beside the point, The New York Times was provided of an example of where to begin. If that fails then you widen your search to include local media and/or specialist media. --JD554 (talk) 09:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The point of my question was that whether notability could be asserted if the only available references are from specialist media, specifically the ones listed above. When discussing the reliability of the source of a music review, I don't think that the music journalist sitting at the editorial of a mainstream publication knows more about a certain genre than the specialist webzine's author. There's usually little or no factual data in music reviews that should be checked by editors. I mean, Pitchfork's editors certainly didn't do anything with the pissing monkey video. Strummer25 (talk) 10:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The thing is these sites you're mentioning don't seem to adhere to the criteria for reliable sources. While niche publications can be valuable, reliable sources, they must still fit the criteria. How about looking for these bands in Spin? Or NME? The Wire? Or regional newspapers? Village Voice. Local newspapers? San Francisco Chronicle. Notable punk publications? Maximumrocknroll. I haven't even begun mentioning books yet. There are plenty of sources to explore. I'm just giving examples where you should start. There's lots of places I can point you to if you need help. You shouldn't haven to rely on these particular sites to establish notability.WesleyDodds (talk) 11:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Maximumrocknroll has a long history, but its content is totally unreliable. They accept submissions from anyone, and published a lot of clearly biased scene reports and other articles, since they don't verify submissions. Punkbands.com or Room 13 have more control over their content and are surely more reliable sources than MRR. Strummer25 (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Some aspects of Punkbands.com can be used to source info (such as the interviews), but as I've been maintaining, you shouldn't use it to establish the notability of a group. There are other sources you can and should use before you get to the point of using this site. These sites should not be the main way to establish that a group is notable. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Alternative Press is another good resource. Their website has a search function that can help you locate news items & reviews they've done of specific acts. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

← There seem to be at least two issues at play - one is establishing notability and the second is reviews. None of the current criteria state that an artist is automatically notable if a musical release has been reviewed. Reviews are opinions no matter where they appear and while some reviews go into greater detail, thusly may provide more "facts", the main idea is that it is the authors viewpoint, not the publications/websites/editors/publishers. An album review that says "Designer Drugs new CD is the best album of 2008 and prove that female punk singers rule the world" should no more be worthy of establishing notability of the actual band if it appeared in Time or Last Hours. If an editor is looking to find a source in aiding to establish notability of a release for its' own article than a review in Time would be less likely to pushed aside than a review in a 'zine. But this is where I think Wikipedia guidlines can be expanded upon because a review is a review thusly a statement of opinion. Period. I do not think that I am the only one who feels that certain subject specific publications are more credible than the more "notable", mass produced publications are in certain areas. A reviewer in a punk 'zine may have far more knowledge about a subject than an editor in a mainstream magazine who was assigned to write something on the same subject 15 years after the subject became "famous". And, again, a review should not be about "fact checking" because, outside of the name of the release, song titles and the band/artist it is only opinion no matter who publishes it. "Reliable sources" in this case should not enter the picture at all.

As for actual notability - this issue, in regards to musicians, is always a heated topic. At face value Wikipedia lives by the rationale that a subject is notable if it has received non trivial converge in reliable, third party, sources. And that further breaks down to these sources must be verifiable. How that translates to many many people is "If I have never heard of the subject/source it is not notable". So, unless a 'zine is online, with an archive, or held on microfilm or the like at your local library, it is tossed out the window as a source. I have never felt notability = fame and, overall, there is not a written policy on Wikipedia that says it must, but when main stream sources are sought out above sources that would have more information it certainly comes off that way. An artists song being played on a Clear Channel station may be notable but that is like saying "Britney Spears is played on Clear Channel owned stations many times a day so she is notable, but Leon Redbone is not because he is never played on those stations."

So, the direct answer to the question asked is that for simply quoting reviews the source should not matter at all - blog, fan site, or otherwise - as long as it attributes the given opinion to the correct source. (i.e - Some fans felt the album "sucked"1 while critics felt the production was was "too slick"2) In an attempt to establish notability on a subject, no form of release review (Album, demo, digital download, single, etc) should be used because reviews are only opinions and, overall, they do not "address the subject directly in detail". If, however, establishing notability on a subjects release (Album, demo, digital download, single, etc) is being attempted than any form of release review could be used because a review may "address the subject directly in detail". (i.e - a short 'review' saying "The new album is really great" does not, however a review that goes into detail on the lyrics of each song as well as the production and individual musicians playing would) Where the reliable sources would kick in, in regards to a review, is not so much that the source is "reliable" but more that the source has had a "greater the degree of scrutiny" than another source might have had. A statement such as "That album is one of the best" made by your neighbor in their punk 'zine would not be as "reliable" as "Time Magazine listing the album as "one of the years best". Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I mostly agree with you, but the current WP:BAND C#1 does not reflect this. It only states the band should be the subject of multiple works in reliable sources, so it doesn't make a difference between reviews that say an album is great, and the ones that say it sucks. I think that if a release has received multiple good reviews in publications with a track record proving they have expertise on the subject then it's a notable release, and therefore the band who released it is also notable. Any chance of updating the criteria to reflect this? Strummer25 (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind, though, that some things are notable because they suck, not necessarily because they have received multiple good reviews. Notability is distinct from acclaim; it merely means that the subject has been covered in a non-trivial way by reliable sources. That coverage may be positive, negative, or neutral. Any album/act that has received such coverage can be said to be notable, even if the coverage says that this is a terrible album by a terrible act. The point is that they have at least merited the coverage. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, again, more than one issue at play. The Criteria for musicians and ensembles section covers "musicians and ensembles", not albums. A good album review, or a bad one, is not a valid criteria for notability (Or lack there of) on it's subject, meaning, in this case, the "subject" is the artist who created the album. That is what I as trying to say above. In regards to albums and the like having their own articles editors should look at the Albums, singles and songs criteria. As the core, as with all the notability guidelines, the subject of any article "must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The "subject" of an article about an album would be the album, not the artist that created it. So if there were many reviews of the album, good or bad, they could be used to aid is establishing notability, however I am not 100% convinced of they should be. It has been done, and I do not agree with it because any musician can send out a their demo (Or self made CD) to publications/reviewers and have it reviewed. That does not mean it should have it's own article "because it is a notable release." If "reviews = notability = stand alone article" were truly the intent of these guidlines you would see thousands of articles on demos and home recordings on Wikipedia and no articles on the musicians who released them. Which, sadly, will point us back to the reasoning that editors are suggested to only use "reliable sources"...which starts this whole conversation again. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But that's precisely why we have WP:RS. In general the sources that WP:ALBUMS recommends as good sources of reviews don't publish reviews of demos or self-made CD's. In fact, I've rarely ever seen a reliable publication (even online) that does. I've also never seen an article on a demo that had a review in it from a reliable source. So experience tells me that this is not a problem. Reviews are pretty much the gold standard of showing notability for albums, songs, films, books, and other artistic works. As long as these reviews come from reliable sources, and are cited in the article, then I see no problem. WP:N does not set the inclusion bar very high (nor do I think it should, and I'm a pretty staunch deletionist): as long as the subject has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, then it meets the inclusion criteria. Reviews from reliable publications are excellent examples of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. If Alternative Press or Allmusic saw fit to publish reviews of some band's demo, then I would argue that the demo meets the inclusion criteria. 90% of the time, though, demos don't get reviewed by any publications that we would consider reliable. We have to look at the reviews and evaluate their reliability as a source in the same way that we would for any other source. If the only review source for demo is something like www.punkdemosrule.com, then obviously it's not going to pass the smell test. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The album project you mention gives an overview of how articles about albums should be laid out. The specific section you refer to is about which sources are suggested to be included in the info box for reviews, not sources of reviews that can be used to establish notability of the actual release. It falls into the "notability = fame = Wikipedia article" concept. To quote you - "...good sources of reviews don't publish reviews of demos or self-made CD's. In fact, I've rarely ever seen a reliable publication (even online) that does." This is a wrong assumption, and part of the overall issue with only accepting more main stream (ie - "i have heard of that") publications as "reliable sources". How many "reliable publication[s]" reviewed Too Fast for Love, the first Mötley Crüe album? How about Look What the Cat Dragged In, the first Poison album? Both of these were DIY albums that were put out by the bands at first. They were picked up for distribution by majors and, over the years, have been reviewed and discussed in numerous "reliable sources". According to the album article on Look What the Cat Dragged In "The record was described by vocalist Bret Michaels as a "glorified demo"." But lets go beyond that - numerous artists self produce, put up their own money and create their own label and than sub-license the albums to distributors. If we exclude albums simply for being "self produced", "self made" or "demos" that were released under the assumption that "good sources of reviews don't publish reviews of demos or self-made CD's" we would have to start weeding out "notable" album articles such as Turnstiles, The World Inside, Just Be Free, Cinéma Vérité, 5150, The Best of Both Worlds and Cloud Nine. Mind you these are only a few recordings that were self produced, recorded at a studio owned by the artist, released on an artist owned label or demos that were discussed and reviewed in publications that are considered reliable ones. One the other hand we have articles on The Iron Maidens: World's Only Female Tribute to Iron Maiden, Route 666 (album) and The Root of All Evil (EP) will which seem to have passed the "smell test" somehow. As have Bootleg (Eric's Trip album), Has a Good Home, Discosadness and Lost, Picking Flowers in the Woods (Which, according to the article, "was limited to 84 copies"). I am not saying any of these should be deleted really, just pointing out that these all exist here and have all passed the notability guidlines by some means. However many of these have no links to reviews at all and seem to only pass because there is a parent article on the artist who created the album. I have no doubt though that each one of these has received some sort of review somewhere. I notice that a few cite All Music but really there is no review - just a listing with a "star" rating. This goes back to what I said above - "A statement such as "That album is one of the best" made by your neighbor in their punk 'zine would not be as "reliable" as "Time Magazine listing the album as "one of the years best"." I would give this a little slant however and say that, in this case, if your neighbor gave a one page review of this recording in their 'zine and All Music did nothing more than provide a track listing with a star rating but not "review" at all than the 'zine should be considered more notable because it would clearly cover the "subject" in more detail. Should either of them be considered enough for establishing notability?  If a "non-review" rating in All Media Guide is fine than a more detailed review in a punk 'zine should me more acceptable as it more clearly fits the "address the subject directly in detail" concept much better than a listing on the All Media Guide website does. Again - a statement of opinion is just than, no mater what the source. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * But a statement of opinion can still be used as a reliable source for that opinion, so long as the publication is reliable. Time magazine calling a particular album, artist (or anything really) "one of the year's best" is a statement of opinion, but is almost unquestionably a reliable source attesting to the subject's notability. This can be cited in the article, so long as it is made clear that it is an opinion from a specific source ("Time magazine rated xxxx as one of the year's best albums" ). In the same way, reviews from reliable sources attest to the notability of whatever it is they're reviewing, because they show that subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources. As to your All Media example, a lising that is simply a track list and star rating with no review would not be considered significant coverage. A full review in your neighbor's 'zine is more significant coverage, but is not reliable because it is not credible published material with a reliable publication process, whose authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative, and which has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This same principle applies to websites like the ones we are discussing here. This is something I have direct experience with: My friends and I have a website, and on that site I publish reviews of albums. In 2007 I reviewed over 60 releases. But our site does not have a reliable publication process (as it's self-published), nor are I and my friends regarded as authoritative voices in our fields. So I would never suggest that any of the reviews I wrote be used as sources in a Wikipedia article, even just as a review link in the infobox. The question is, do the sites listed above pass the test for reliability as described in WP:RS? If they do (although I feel that only Allmusic does, and I have some experience with each as I'm a punk fan), then they can be used as sources. And reviews, even though they are opinions, do attest to notability. A non-review rating in AMG provides no information, even though AMG is a reliable source, and so it shouldn't be used. But by the same token a detailed review in a punk 'zine my provide much more information, but is not considered reliable and thus shouldn't be used either. Neither passes the tests for inclusion.
 * As for the albums you mentioned above, yes there are good examples of self-released albums, and even demos, that have been covered by reliable sources. As such they meet the inclusion criteria. As I mentioned earlier, it's been my experience that most demos and self-released material don't receive coverage in reliable sources, but those that do receive such coverage (including reviews) meet our inclusion criteria. However you note several others that have no sources, only empty AMG listings with nothing but a rating. That isn't a source, because it provides no info. Those articles should probably be considered for deletion or merger if no reliable sources can be found to support them. If sources do turn up, then fine, they can stay. But those souces have to be found, and they have to be reliable. A vast majority of 'zines and 'zine-like websites do not pass RS and would not be sufficient to establish notability, even if they address the subject in detail. I can write a 2 page album review on my website, but just because I wrote more about it than AMG doesn't make my site any more of a reliable source. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You said that "full review in your neighbor's 'zine is more significant coverage, but is not reliable because it is not credible published material with a reliable publication process, whose authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative, and which has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and my reply is - But how do you know that it is "not reliable because it is not credible"? Just because you feel that your website is not, perhaps, reliable or crediable does not mean other websites or 'zines are run the same way. And, again, if it is only review of a live show or a musical release than "reliable" does not really matter as it is just an opinion. A lot of people don't think Lester Bangs was very good, perhaps not even reliable or credible. His style was unique and to me he was pure godhead. That is my opinion however even though I have publicly stated that many times over the last few decades and many of my peers have also stated the same thing. I used to love Trouser Press and certainly Creem magazine is something that I looked at for the pictures but never fully felt was "reliable" as far as stories go. As far an images, the captions were all extremely tounge and cheek. Fact checking? Somewhat debatable. My point is that I would have loved to have written for Trouser Press even though Lester did not always speak fondly of it and being featured in Creem was considered a good thing and I was lucky to have been published in that before it folded, although not my writting - my photos. Two sides of a coin you might say. Both, to me, were somewhat higher end 'zines, much like Rolling Stone was and like "Bucketfull of Brains" still is. And the Lester Bangs article "Let Us Now Praise Famous Death Dwarves (or how I slugged it out with Lou Reed and stayed awake)" seems to be considered very notable now on many levels even though at the time is was somewhat tossed aside. That same article could have been in a 'zine and in many eyes no longer notable. I can speak for my self and say that if people do not find what I have written "reliable" that is fine if it is a review, and certainly I never have asked anyone to take my opinion on how a guitar sounds as "fact" - only my opinion. And that is simply what is being discussed overall - the original question posed was based on the following comment: "To me it means that if a band's releases have been reviewed by established music websites dealing with their genre, it's enough to assert notability." And I maintain two things in my response - First if it is a review than it is nothing more than that authors statement of opinion and as such is reliable as being the persons feelings on that subject. As long as the reviewers opinion is attributed as such, than it does not matter what the "source" is. Second part is the issue of if a review or a recording should be used to establish notability. As I like to say there is real world and wiki world. In the real world a bands demo being reviewed can be very "notable" as it can help an unsigned band get noticed, material for a press kit and/or get the attention of an A&R person. There have been many notable music publications that review demos however in wiki world unless a demo has been reviewed in a publication that only covers major label acts it could not be considered notable. Likewise, as can be seen time and time again on Wikipedia, in regards to music, if there is an entry in the All Media Guide than somehow that asserts automatic notability yet AMG is really nothing more than a directory of sorts. (Related information - in the "old days" there were some clever ways for an indy tog et into beigger chains. They would look at "the book" to see if that label, or release, was listed. How to get listed? All that was needed was to send an album cover or video cover down to San Diego. They would enter the info into their database. When someone walked into, say, Tower Records and wanted to order that release they would flip the pages and find it and could order it. As time progressed most chains stopped taking indy product, but the overall scenario was the same. Go with a sub who would sell the one of the majors such as Baker & Taylor, VPD or ETD and then send your cover art down. With kiosks they started to also scan sleeves so when a consumer walked into a store they could type in a name and up would pop the cover art. They expanded, added review and now it is all merged under the Macrovision roof and available online. Has an artist released an album? The artist can be listed. Indy or not. You just have to know how to get your stuff to them. "We will add any CD submissions we receive to the database as long as they were commercially available in the country of their release." "Providing Review Product to AMG - A Sound Investment") And that brings it back to what I mentioned above - that the simple fact AMG has an entry for an artist or album/song should not mean it is automatically "notable". Many time the "bio" is nothing more than a re-written press release which, again, should not make it any more notable than any other source that has used the same bio and re-written it. For me, my overall rule of thumb as a writer, was to ignore the press release. See the band or listen to the album. Come up with my own viewpoint. For interviews - same thing. Ignore the bio, listen to the music and ask questions based on what is interesting and what the person being interviewed has to say. But that is me and that is also why I looked up to people like Lester Bangs and Craig Lee. They could walk into a situation and not play it safe and not worry too much about if artists got pissed off.


 * But before this strays too far off track - overall an opinion should not be able to assert notability in regards to an artist or a musical release. Currently we have many guidelines that define various items - for example we clearly state a press release should not be used for notability. This makes sense in some regards, but not so much in others. Should it be used to assert notability? No. How many press releases make claims such as "The best album this year", "The hottest new band to hit the scene" or "A new recording set to blow the doors off AOR radio."? These comments are hype, pure and simple and it is undertsanable why they should not be used for notablity. However, as it relates overall, when used to cite factsit is otens toosed asid as a "self published source" but facts such as "The album was released..." or "The band hails from..." could be used for fact checking. What better way to find out things such as a track listing, date or release or other details than from a "self published source" that is the source? And that sort of leads to one of the biggest overall issues with at least one of the criteria - and it has got me thinking more about it when discussions such as this come up - Criteria for musicians and ensembles, number 7, says that a musician or ensemble would be notable if they "become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city" but than adds on that they "must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards." Think about what we have been discussing for a minute - now tell me how this would be at all possible based on the concept you, and others, have laid out. Most people have no idea what the music scene in Bumfuck, Idaho is and there is a high probability Time, Newsweek, LA Times, Rolling Stone or even The Village Voice, Billboard or All Media Guide are not going to do any sort of article about that scene or that local act. One might, however, read about this "prominent representative" of the local scenes self produced, home made, self distributed, CD in the local BF school paper, BFCC paper and your neighbors "Punk rock in BFC" 'zine. With the internet there is fairly good chance this local band could have a myspace page with several thousand "friends". But most sources such as that are routinely ignored.


 * Finally you said that "a statement of opinion can still be used as a reliable source for that opinion, so long as the publication is reliable." Please do not get me wrong - I fully understand, and have stated it, that being reviewed in certain sources should be somewhat more "notable" because of what that source is. However in discussions about what should be used as a source to establish notability, as a general rule, I am not convinced that any review (be it album, demo, live show, live DVD) should be used to assert notability unless it was an event were something worthy of note occurred in itself. Live Aid, Woodstock Festival, the Who - December 3, 1979, The Station nightclub fire or Dimebag Darrells death for example. But beyond that - why should your opinion, for example, of a Chiodos CD hold any less validity than Drew Beringer's or Jo-Ann Greene's opinons? Any of you could say "The songs are exceedingly complex, involving a series of shifts in time signatures, genres, and moods along the way" or "Every song features something different, yet maintains a distinct sound" but, again, in wiki world, the fact that Ms Greene's opinion of ["All's Well That Ends Well" in found at allmusic and Mr. Beringer's is found at Absolute Punk and your opinion is not is the only reason needed to ignore your opinion - even by your own standards. But, first, I see no credible assertion that fact alone makes the album any more notable. Even if I have no reason to doubt your opinion is as valid as theirs, to me, it is still only opinions. With music we walk a thin line with the concept of notability by association with bands, albums and songs. I have seen arguments such as "This album is notable because it is on a major label and the band is notable", "This label is notable because one act on it is notable" and "This band'album is notable because they are listed in AMG." Well, given that should articles on Drew Beringer and Jo-Ann Greene be created because their opinions are valued enough to allow an article to be created based on what they said about it? Until they rise to the level of critics/journalists such as [[Lester Bangs]], Robert Hilburn, Craig Lee, Pauline Kael or Robert Christgau I don't think so. Second, as for actual notability of any album, I would clearly see the difference if that album were featured on the cover of Time as "Album of the year" as would I see the notability if Craig Lee or Lester Bangs rose from the dead to write about the album. Bottom line is we are, or at least I am, only talking about reviews of releases. Certainly we can extend this to include reviews of live shows to assert notability of artists, which I have also seen being done (See Criteria for musicians and ensembles, criteria 4) but that brings up other issues. Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)