Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Archive 19

Expert eyes requested at Voice type
In the Voice type article, it claims the ranges of baritones and basses are the same (F2 to F4). My hunch is this is wrong so wouldn't mind some people who know more about this would have a look. Thanks, Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In my experience, basses and baritones sing the same part line in the majority of choral works ('the bass line') and the range of the voice is effectively the same, the quality of tone across the range is what marks out a baritone as opposed to a bass - the top end of a baritones voice will usually be lighter and the lower range - at the bottom of the bass stave - will be fairly weak - the bass will be stronger there but will either have to 'blast' those top Fs or go into falsetto (and I hear some don't try singing them at all).--Alf melmac 17:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I suppose that makes sense. Thanks for checking.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Baritones and basses do sing different ranges: that's why they are baritones and basses! Voices are not differentiated so much in choral works, but they are in opera, for more details see Fach. -- Klein zach  03:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Josh Rosenthal (singer/songwriter)
I removed a db-bio tag from this article as it claims notability with references to 2 news articles. I've placed some improvement tags on the article but the author has repeatedly removed them without improving the respective areas and without leaving any reasoning on the talk page. I've tried to get the author to ask me if they have questions but have not received a response. He's been putting in references to myspace which have been revered and he's been warned (by a bot) twice. He's recently added a picture which but at the same time gives credit to someone else in a caption see here.

I'm getting frustrated with this article (and its author) and I'm looking for input from others. Thanks for your time. Ol Yeller '''Talktome 22:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Replied on your talk page. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there a connection to music here? -- Klein zach  03:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Someone changed my link, not real sure why. The initial link was for Josh Rosenthal (singer/songwriter).  I'll changed the intitial link back too.  Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 03:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The page was moved. It's now Josh Rosenthal (musician).  Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 01:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Can someone verify (or delete) this genre?/Zombie Garage
A new article has appeared for something called Zombie Garage. Comes across like a hoax but seems to be created by a band fanboy and may be just a term from a teen chat room or blog about the band related to the article. No real reliable sources for the page. An easy afd or even a speedy delete. Can someone else take a look? Thanks. Fair Deal (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ooh, the zombie garage rock tag was used eight times at Last.fm. It must be real! Also note the weasel words in the opening sentence. I suggest making the page a redirect that leads to The Horrors. -Freekee (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Has failed Speedy A7 twice. Just prodded it. If that is contested, then we put it up for "proper" AfD and have it deleted. No one will protest, except maybe the article creator. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

A debate over re-directs needs more input
For anyone who has time the debate here: Talk:Dio could use some more input. The debate is over whether the Dio page should be owned by the band Dio or if it should re-direct to the Dio dab page because the word has other uses. It is similar to the debate over "Iron Maiden" where the band ended up controlling the main link to the 'term' simply because the stats showed the vast majority of Wikipedia readers were looking for that page way more than they were reading the page about the torture device. As a side effect from this conversation over 'dio' (and I have commented on this on this Dio talk page), this same debate should likely be re-visited on the Jethro Tull link as well. Fair Deal (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I remember when the Tull page was switched to a DAB. I still think it should be switched back. -Freekee (talk) 03:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The norm (as I understand it) is to quality (in parentheses) the derivative name, e.g. Engelbert Humperdinck and Engelbert Humperdinck (singer). -- Klein zach  03:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not really the norm according to the guidelines; see especially this section. In any event, the discussion on the link seems to be covering the important points, including the rule that you should NEVER try to rename a page by copying and pasting, because the edit history becomes lost. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 10:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Amen to your last point. I note that your ref. above says "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)"." That would seem to apply to the Dio case. -- Klein zach  23:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't trying to argue one way or the other, just saying that neither solution applies to all cases, and there is no "norm". I really have no opinion about the Dio case.  I do agree Jethro Tull should point to the band, and (at the risk of shocking Iron Maiden fans) I think Iron Maiden should be a disambiguation page, because the "device" of the same name really is well known, and is something that is likely to be looked up. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I have already commented on the Dio talk page about my concerns on the page move. I do not feel that the page should be treated any different then U2 or Iron Maiden. If the prime search and page reads favour this page, which they do, then the page should stay the way it is right now. Wether B (talk) 01:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Mexican Music
I Wish to make a wikiproject that work on pages related to mexican music, Mexican Artist, and bands. --DJ Yung Dre 21:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You posted this last month and I answered you then, see Archive 18. -- Klein zach  22:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh my bad. I just don't know how to make it. --DJ Yung Dre 23:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * First, figure out if there are enough people interested. If there are only two or or three interested, it's simpler just to collaborate on each other's talk pages. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Objective Expert musician needed to resolve: Editor abusing his admin status in personal vendetta, supporting misinformation
I hope that an objective administrator/editor without vested interest in the guitar could please help resolve an adit war in which I (as an authority on the topic) am being attacked by an administrator who does not seem intent on the truth, but more on a personal grudge...

According to WP:LINKSTOAVOID article 2: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" cannot be included in wikipedia. Andrewa has purposefully breached this policy in his continuing personal vendetta against me. Here is the proof:

After repeatedly being warned by myself against the misleading and factually inaccurate material presented on an external webpage Janet Marlow's site admin Andrewa still intentionally linked to this misinformative page in the following edit:


 * 

Andrewa has since made the statement: "there is no misinformation on the particular page to which I linked. Both sides are describing the same eight notes being provided by the same four resonant strings. Whether that is four "resonances" or eight is a non-issue." []

Not only is Andrewa mistaken in claiming that there is no misinformation on the page, or that the two sides in the argument are describing the same thing, he has clearly been abusing his status as an administrator. Let us first consider the contents of this argument:

The page to which Andrewa linked makes the following claims:

"Therefore, there are four missing sympathetic resonances on the six string guitar. If you play a C, Bb, Ab, and Gb on the first string E,  there will be less sustain from these notes than the others because there are no sympathetic resonant strings. This was Maestro Yepes’ primary reason for conceiving the ten-string guitar. By adding these pitches in four extra bass strings, now provides each half step with the sympathetic resonance making a more physically completed instrument." (Janet Marlow Janet Marlow's site)

Now, in western classical music there are 12 notes in the octave: C, C#, D, D#, E, F, F#, G, G#, A, A#, B. If it is claimed (as above) that four of these notes lack resonances, then logically/mathematically, this means that the other eight out of the twelve do not lack resonances. Marlow lists the four missing resonances as C, Bb (=A#), Ab (=G#), and Gb (=F#) and states that "there will be less sustain from these notes than the others". Any person who is a competent speaker of the English language will understand this as meaning that these four listed notes have more sustain (more resonance) than the other notes, the "other notes" being C#, D, D#, E, F, G, A, B. In other words, Marlow is claiming four notes don't have resonance and eight do.

However, Narciso Yepes (who invented the modern 10-string guitar) always, ubiquitously and verifiably talked about eight missing sympathetic resonances on the guitar, not four as claimed by Marlow. Yepes lists the eight missing resonances as C, C# (=Db), D# (=Eb), F, F# (=Gb), G, G# (=Ab), A# (=Bb). He lists the other four notes that do have resonance as D, A, E, and B. Yepes's quotes from numerous articles/interviews can be read here with references to follow them up. There is also further information on my site www.tenstringguitar.INFO about the resonance, the science behind Yepes's statements.

Janet Marlow (and Andrewa) are clearly, in fact, not saying the same thing as Narciso Yepes (and Viktor van Niekerk). Both sides are certainly not "describing the same eight notes being provided by the same four resonant strings", as Andrewa is falsely claiming. If they were describing the same thing, Marlow would have to speak of eight missing resonances (C, Db, Eb, F, Gb, G, Ab, Bb) not only four (C, Bb, Ab, Gb).

Andrewa only goes on to claim that "Whether that is four "resonances" or eight is a non-issue" [] because to admit the truth - that it is very much an issue and a source of misinformation - would reveal his involvement in not only deliberately promoting misinformation on wikipedia (going against WP:LINKSTOAVOID article 2), but also misusing his status as an administrator to abuse me in his ongoing personal vendetta over an edit disagreement. This defamatory conduct includes, but is hardly limited to his claim [] that Janet Marlow "is a more authoritative figure than Viktor", despite the fact that Marlow has been proven to publish misinformation while my website www.tenstringguitar.INFO is presently the only online resource that faithfully represents Narciso Yepes's statements about his invention as well as a scholarly explanation of the science informing those statements.

Viktor van Niekerk tenstringguitar.INFO Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 08:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: links to my own website for evidence: I do so simply because my website lists numerous articles and interviews published in reputable books/journals and these contain verifiable evidence of Narciso Yepes's statements, including that the 6-string guitar lacks eight resonances, which his 10-string guitar's tunign adds. The admin who has been waging a personal vendetta against me has again on 8 March defended his support of links to misinformation, pages that contain verifiably incorrect information, like claiming that Yepes heard that the guitar lacked four (not eight) resonances. I will follow your recommendations. Thank you. It is just that I am not au fait with the ins and outs of wikipedia red-tape, while the administrator is. I feel that he has been abusing his status and know-how of wikipedia policy to get his way in something that is nothing more than a personal grudge against a more authoritative editor. For example, he has accused me of sock-puppetry, simply because it sometimes appears (incorrectly) that I am signed in because I haven't refreshed my browser. He has also on 15 March accused me of attacking him. It is quite the contrary since he is the one involved in making defamatory statements about my authority on the subject of the 10-string guitar, while I am defending certain historical/scientific truths as well as wikipedia's policy on linking to misinformation by objecting to his continuing desire to link to a page that contains proven misinformation. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 05:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This has already been posted to the Classical music project. Maybe that's enough. -- Klein zach  07:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would value input from other editors on this. Viktor's charges above are I think simple harassment, and I am not the first editor he has abused in this way. See also Editor assistance/Requests. Andrewa (talk) 08:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Mason Williams single
There's an editor who owns a Mason Williams single that he can't find a reference to anywhere and he wants to have the info added to the article. I'm hoping someone here could either find a source or at least decide if the info should be included. Please see the article's talk page. Thanks! Katr67 (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Vote on date autoformatting and linking
People may be interested to know that the Vote on date autoformatting and linking is now open. All users are invited to participate. Lightmouse (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Arular
Hi there. I was wondering if anyone from this project might be interested in checking out this current FAC....? Cheers! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Third opinions wanted on genre debate
Hi, we need more input on the discussion about genre inclusions in the infobox of System of a Down. While a previous consensus lasted for more than a year, it appears a user contests it. If anyone could join the discussion, especially one that understands the concepts of verifiability, neutrality, and consensus, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   19:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Correction. There was never any consensus. Anyone who has looked through the archives would see that opinions of the band's genre have been sharply divided from the start, even from the periods in which this user claims there was a "consensus". This user has repeatedly engaged in bashing other editors who do not agree with his opinions, and has been trying to push his own opinion as fact when the consistency of the sourced information reflects the opposite of his opinion. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC))
 * More information on the dispute can be found here. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

Sicx
I posted this on the WikiProject Hip Hop Music page, but nobody has responded, so I'll try here:

Could somebody take a look at the Sicx albums? The release dates in the infoboxes don't match the release dates in the article text. For example, Dead 4 Life says it was released in 1995, and so does the infobox, but Dead 4 Life says it was preceded by Nigga Deep in 1994, but the article for Nigga Deep says it came out in 1998, so there's no way it could have preceded Dead 4 Life. Those all need to be fixed, somehow. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the album articles have exact dates, I would assume they are correct, and the infobox chronologies are incorrect. Feel free to put the correct preceding and following albums in that part of the infoboxes, and also to fix the discography part of the Sicx article. -Freekee (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about this performer, whom I have never heard of, so there is no way I can fix this information. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If we are to make the assumption that the dates on the album articles are correct, then we are allowed to fix it. If we don't want to fix it because we don't want to make the assumption, or for some other reason, then I guess we're stuck. Users here are less likely to be familiar with that artist, than editors at the hip hop project, where you've already asked. Ones that are most likely to be familiar with him and want to fix it would best be found at that article. Try pointing out the problem at Talk:Sicx. But please don't assume you are not qualified to made the changes. -Freekee (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Writing credit vs original artist when mentioning a song
There are many music related articles where mention of a cover, or remake includes the name of the prior artist to which a song is attributed. As is often the case the song is actually written by someone other than the artist who popularized and first released the song as a recording. Examples include Paula Abdul's "Forever Your Girl" here, Little Richard’s "The Girl Can't Help It" here, Little Richard’s “Good Golly Miss Molly” here and here and Elvis’ “Jailhouse Rock” here, here and here. None of these songs were written by the artist whose name is mentioned.

The reason I’m presenting this is related to “How Many More Times” where a component of the track is a remake of Albert King’s “The Hunter”. In this case editors are consistently removing King’s name because “he did not write the song” (most recently see here). If this is conceded to there is a double standard. To me removing the prior non-writing artist name in every case seems inappropriate. Shouldn’t the original non-writing artist’s name be included when mentioning the source of a cover, or remake? - Steve3849 talk 14:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at the particular edit in your link, the reverting editor left this edit summary: "rm incorrect statement. The lyrics were by Bookler T. Morgan. The Mendelsohn reference is incorrect and shouldn't be used." But your edit does not claim King wrote it, and if the other editor misunderstood, this could be corrected by adding a mention of Morgan to the content you are trying to add.  (The more info, the better, in this case.)  But the other editor is also saying the Mendelsohn reference is incorrect in some way, and therefore should not be used.  If that's true, you should find another reference.  Have you asked the other editor what is incorrect in the Mendelsohn article? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking further at the existing discussion between you and others on the article's talk page, and the Mendelsohn article, it appears Mendelsohn is not so much incorrect as vague about whether or not he is saying King was the author. (And it's a dreadful review, too!)  Your first attempt to add this content to the article, stated King was the author, and used the review as citation, and that's what prompted the objection.  My advice is still to find another citation for King's version, and until you have one, the edit should remain reverted.  It shouldn't be too hard to find another reference. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this one would nail it. However, does musicianguide.com qualify as a viable source? - Steve3849 talk 15:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks okay to me, but the other editors of the article are the ones to ask. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * by the way, it looks to me like at least some of the articles you linked to in your sentence about Little Richard and Elvis are referring to particular recordings/renditions, not stating anything about songwriting credits. articles that seem confused/confusing about that sort of thing can and should be changed to "Artist X's rendition [or recording] of Song Y". Sssoul (talk) 05:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Adding "rendition", or "recording" is a compromise that makes sense to me. It is more accurate for credit yet still allows the pop reference. "Rendition" might be better when it has been previously recorded by another because it is less likely to be misconstrued. "Recording" when the artist was the first to release the song, but did not write it. - Steve3849 talk 05:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

naming of articles
There is currently some kerfuffle with article namings and cut&paste moves at Free (Dani Harmer song) & Free (Dani Harmer Song) as well as Superheroes (Dani Harmer album) & Superheroes (Dani Harmer Album). Before I try and fix the history I'd like some input form the project as to which of the two namings is the correct one. P.S. there is also an AFD @ Articles for deletion/Free (Dani Harmer Song) Agathoclea (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The versions with album and song in lower case are correct. Examples can be found at WP:NCDAB, part of Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MOS).  There is also a general rule that capitals should not be used where there is a choice between using them or not, see MOS:CAPS.  (Although, there is also a rule that the first word of a section title, for example, should be capitalized; see MOS:HEAD.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Seeing no template...
No music WikiProject template was added to UK Single Chart... It seemed too general for anything in the music projects (I looked at the subprojects), save for the top-level project. But I couldn't find a template for this project, soz... --Izno (talk) 04:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a Record Charts Project. -- Klein zach  06:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Genre infobox redesign
There is currently a discussion going on about proposed redesigns to Infobox Music genre; input from the music project would be appreciated. The discussion can be found here. One of the observations that's come up is that the various infoboxes across music articles have inconsistent font sizes (ie. Infobox Musical artist, Infobox Album, Infobox Single, infobox Music genre, and infobox musical instrument). I've suggested standardizing font sizes across these boxes, for consistency across music articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Genre generalization
I've been meaning to bring this up for a while, but never got around to doing so. It's well known that in the genre field of Template:Infobox Musical artist, genres should be generalized (for example, hip hop rather than East Coast hip hop). I've seen this rule apply not only in biographies, but also in articles about albums and songs. The WikiProject for albums and songs, as well as Template:Infobox Album, Template:Infobox Single and Template:Infobox Song say nothing about generalizing genres. Considering these inconsistencies, there always seem to be issues revolving the genre field. Shouldn't all these pages note that genres should be generalized to avoid subgenres? —  Σ xplicit  20:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My answer would be no. We have to aim at being as precise as possible when possible, with common sense of course.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   20:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I think the recommendation you quoted on Template:Infobox Musical artist should be removed, for the sake of precision. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If that were to go, wouldn't the genre field be more of a battle zone than it already is? For example, if we were to include all subgenres, some lists would be considerably long. Thinking of simply Nas, I can list East Coast hip hop, political hip hop, hardcore hip hop, gangsta rap, etc. An excessively long list that can be summarized with hip hop music. —  Σ xplicit  21:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, genres should ideally be cut down to one, instead of using a list. But if that's what it means, that what it should say. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * And by the way, we get a lot of suggestions about changes to genre rules in response to "battles" (including the idea to remove genres from infoboxes altogether), but I've always said people (especially new users) will battle anyway, regardless of the rules. When you see unnecessary or counterproductive changes to genre fields, just revert and explain.  If you think it's too much of a hassle, don't bother, leave it to others.  (Not saying this to you personally, but to everyone who worries about this.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The recommendations come from the nature of the article. A given artist is likely to cover multiple genres/subgenres in their oveure, so it makes sense to keep their genre description general. An album, however, is likely to only encompass a couple of genres, so one can get more specific. Most individual songs fall under only a couple of specific subgenres, so those can be mentioned. The narrower the subject, the more precise the description. By way of an analogy, Ford makes many different types of automobiles, but the Panther is a particular automobile platform, and the Lincoln Town Car is a very specific model of car. The description gets more specific as you go down the chain. Similarly, No Doubt is a rock/pop act, Tragic Kingdom is an alternative rock album, and "Spiderwebs" is a ska punk song. As the scope gets narrower, it makes sense that the genre description would get more specific. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose that makes sense. In that case, maybe it should be noted in the WikiProjects and templates that genres shouldn't necessarily be generalized? I am one of many that have generalized genres outside of biographies, so this clarification would be useful. —  Σ xplicit  22:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Specificity is often more relevant and more useful to readers. be general when dealing with a lot of broad genres (like in the case of Prince or Michael Jackson), or to quell edit debates in a NPOV fashion (you might argue what specific rock genre HIM is, but they are inarguably a rock band, so just stick "Rock" in the infobox). I'm always amazed by how big a deal people make out of genres in the intros to music articles, often ignoring the rest of the page. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)