Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:47, 13 February 2016

Albums Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Text and/or other creative content from Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Albums was copied or moved into Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Albums/Article body with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Albums was copied or moved into Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Order of sections

I see no logical reason why "Musical style, writing, composition" should be placed after "Release, promotion, marketing". It makes more chronological sense after "Recording, production". Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 10:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There was a discussion about this not too long ago, but I forget where. Can anyone provide a link? — Mudwater 13:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@FunkMonk and Mudwater: I was just about to inquire about this. It actually makes more sense to place a Composition section before Recording, and logically, before Release. I'd really like to see this discussion.--Lapadite (talk) 09:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that if no one comes with any arguments for the current order within reasonable time, that we should just change it. FunkMonk (talk) 09:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's that previous discussion: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 47#Album article style guide: "Musical style, writing, composition" section. But, yes, I still think it makes more sense for the guideline to suggest a section order of "Musical style, writing, composition" before "Recording, production" -- keeping in mind that a different order can be used if editors agree that that's better for a particular article. — Mudwater 12:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't see any mention of the placement of "release" though. FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the table of contents of the Album Article Style Guide, it's easy to see the recommended order of sections, under "Article body". What I'm suggesting, and what I think others are saying also, is to move "Musical style, writing, composition" so that it's after "Background" and before "Recording, production". Although, while we're on the subject, it would probably also make more sense for "Artwork, packaging" to come after "Recording, production" and before "Release, promotion, marketing". — Mudwater 13:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

To make this a lot easier to visualize, here's what I'm proposing, and what others have also at least partially suggested:

— Mudwater 14:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Precisely, the proposed column. It's a logical order. Everyone pretty much agreed on that discussion, we've got three editors' agreeing here, so I don't don't see why the style guide shouldn't be changed now (or why it wasn't when that discussion took place). --Lapadite (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment I don't see how "musical style" can come before "Recording" if the piece of recorded music being discussed doesn't exist before it is recorded but after. Also, this is just a guide, and as this guide says itself, editors are welcome to ignore all "rules" if appropriate--I often do to some degree, as far as the layout for these articles. Dan56 (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment I usually lump "writing and composition" in with "recording," and make "style and lyrics" or just "style" a separate section after recording.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Dan56 and 3family6 – When I write album articles, I try to keep them in a roughly chronological order: First any background context if necessary, then a section on writing and recording the album, then how the album was promoted, then what the album actually sounds like now that it's released and we get to hear it, then how it was received. I've always felt this was a natural way to structure album articles, and plus it's a very neutral and encyclopedic way. But on the other hand, nowhere on this documentation does it say "FOLLOW THIS FORMAT OR ELSE!" so debating the structure of something that's amorphous and not strictly enforced seems kind of trivial to me. The structure of an album article (or any article for that matter) should follow what information you have, not the other way around. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Reply to above - The point of debating it is that, regardless of the fact that it's not meant to be strictly followed (which experienced editors don't), it is a faulty arrangement in a guide. What is the point of providing a style guide if it's admittedly illogically ordered? Dan56 - Composition should come before Recording because songs are written before they are recorded. Musical style doesn't need to be lumped in with Composition; it would make sense to include it in the recording/production section (or, as it's been pointed out and for any other section, wherever it makes most sense for a particular article. I think a faulty guide should be fixed, even if it says it can be disregarded at one's discretion. Disagreement appears to be grounded in 'it doesn't really matter'. I still sense everyone agrees that the present order is not entirely sound.--Lapadite (talk) 06:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Often, the "composition" sections in articles is made mostly of different critics' or sources' interpretations of the music and lyrics in the songs they reviewed, after they were recorded. Dan56 (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

For editors who prefer to include that in the section. Composition is the writing of a record, ergo the creation of the music and lyrics. Yes, outside opinion on the style is sometimes included near the end of the section (and the section accordingly titled "Composition and Style"), again, as pointed out, at editors' discretion; heck Musical style and/or Lyrics can be its own section if there's a significant amount of info on it; It can also be rather redundant as outside opinion, if used, is essentially critical reception (and one may end up restating much of it or reusing the cited sources in the reception section). In any case, given the meaning of composition in musical context, it makes sense to have it before Recording, as something is composed or written before recorded. Readers don't expect "Composition" to be a critical reception section, there's already one; per conventional wisdom, they expect it to be about the composition of the record, the artist's process in that regard; just like they'd expect Recording/production to be concerned with that particular process, and Critical reception to be about that.--Lapadite (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems that more editors support than oppose the reordering of the sections as outlined above, so I'm going to go ahead and update the style guide now. And as everyone keeps saying, what the style guide says about what sections to create in an article, and in what order, should be viewed as a helpful suggestion rather than a standard. Each article should have the sections, and order of sections, best suited to the particular album. — Mudwater 17:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Style for non-star reviewer ratings in album's ratings box

There's a discussion underway at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Albums#New ratings stylisation for PopMatters, NOW, Fact, Kerrang, etc. All interested editors are encouraged to participate. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Archive proposal

In my opinion this talk page could use some cleaning up and I'm willing to do it, it would be too bold to do this at a WikiProject, so I'll leave this message. Just ping me if archiving is desired. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 22:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Mlpearc - there doesn't seem to be any objection, so go ahead and archive.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Personnel sections

Could I get a little more clarification on what's to be included in the personnel sections other than musicians, if anything? I'm seeing a lot of stuff like this: To Anyone#Personnel. Surely that's not useful. There's not a single musician listed, and "hair and makeup" don't make music. Also in songs by vocal groups, I'm seeing all the members of the vocal group listed in personnel...I know this is the albums WP but maybe you have suggestions on that too. It's also meant for musicians, yes? Thanks for any help! Shinyang-i (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Sub-sections for the musicians and the production personnel are generally appropriate. Here's an example of what's often done. — Mudwater 02:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

What I meant was, is the personnel section being used correctly in the example I gave? Many Korean pop albums have sections like that, and they don't seem to conform to the section's intended usage. Should it be removed? Shinyang-i (talk) 02:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The section you used as an example is atrocious. It shouldn't be removed entirely, but someone should comb through and only keep the personnel that were directly responsible for creating the record -- which would be a very small portion of what's there. Anything related to "business" or "management" or "hair" should be scrapped. Fezmar9 (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Heh heh, that's pretty much what I was thinking but I needed another opinion before I started chopping. Korean pop music editors tend to be ultra-inclusionists, and getting rid of anything can be a fight. So I had to make sure I was on solid ground! Thanks so much, @Fezmar9: and also @Mudwater:. Shinyang-i (talk) 05:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Photography and artwork (except in the case of notable artists with their own WP article) are two more which I occasionally see being added to Personnel. The inclusion of either one has always irked me, since in most cases neither have contributed to the making of the music—that being performers and audio production. Any opinion on this? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

If you consider an album to be more than just the audio portion, but rather a full recording package that includes the layout and design of the cover and liner notes, then they're absolutely relevant. It's especially important in indie releases where often times who does the album art is a member of a different band from the same scene. Either way, I still think it's something readers might still be interested in knowing about — definitely more so than who the band's media contact was at the time of recording. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Albums and singles are as much product and commodity as they are creative works, so non-musical credits are relevant IMO. The enlistment of high-profile featured artists on tracks can be seen as much a promotional tool as the stylist who does the recording artist's hair for the album cover in order to make it more appealing to the audience they're targeting, so I think a stylist and hair/make-up person should be given just as much weight and included in the credits as any one else. Dan56 (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra comments. I've already trimmed down a number of pages based on earlier advice, but that can always be undone. The thing is it takes up so much room, and in many cases, that content far exceeds any other content on the article. I guess that isn't a problem, per se. However, most Korean pop album articles have a lot of tables, lists, etc, and a lot of dates, but very little content in actual (appropriate) prose; so I get a little leery of anything that can become "just another giant non-prose list" in those articles. Self restraint and case-by-case assessment don't fly with kpop editors; if something is allowed in one article it will wind up in every article, regardless of circumstances. So that's why I was hoping for a consensus on what "should" be listed. I think photography and album artwork are pretty relevant, but I don't know if I can go for the extensive PR and style-related listings. Shinyang-i (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I would rather photography and album artwork credits info go in the article prose than in the Personnel section, since they did not contribute to the audio component of music (which when it comes down to it, is really what the articles are about). However, I can understand their inclusion and wouldn't fight anyone on it. However, I completely disagree with Dan56. Hair stylists had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of an album - not the music, not the artwork - nothing about the product. If we include them, should we also include the caterers, the janitorial staff at the recording studios? Where does it end? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

"What the articles are really about?" They're about what coverage the topic received, and an album is as much a product as it is a creative work, so for every article on a low-key, artsy record whose music and lyrics the critics waxed poetic on, there's a mainstream pop album where the only things sources on it documented were its sales and marketing strategy. It ends at what or who the damn thing credits--easy place to draw the line. If you happen to find one that credits hair stylists, be sure to check the rest of the booklet or packaging for photos of people--they most likely contributed by styling them for shooting photos for the packaging or artwork, meaning it does have something to do with the product. And if you find a CD booklet actually crediting a studio's janitorial staff, please let me know. I'll be sure to lmao. Dan56 (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

With Dan on this one. Albums are more than just the music they contain, and credits reflect that. --Moonriddengirl 23:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

If we're going to have enormous, unfiltered lists of names, can we at least require collapsible tables? I'm tired of seeing articles with huge credits sections and little other content. If the credits were somehow related back to the content of the article, it would be one thing, but most of the articles I work with are horrible - lists of release dates, track listings, and chart placements. The only things that ever get added to them are lists and tables, never any meaningful prose content that requires actual research, just stuff that can be copied verbatim with no thought behind it. In an article like that, who cares who tied the producer's shoes? I think my view is colored because 99% of the album articles I work with (in Korean pop) are not made by editors who care in the least about quality; they are concerned only with making as many articles as humanly possible for their favorite artists. If huge credit lists would actually improve a crap barebones article, I'd be behind it, but I see it only as being used as another tool for lazy editors to use to avoid adding actual prose content to such articles. Many Korean pop albums don't even have musician credits, only non-musical stuff like "fanclub manager." Shinyang-i (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd like some input on this article's personnel section. This is including credits like Package Production, Product Manager, Marketing Consultant, Management, Digital Editing, and A&R. Neweditorintown has reverted cleaning up the section. Are these non-artistic credits not unnecessary for an article's personnel section? WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Lapadite (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree the credits you identify above are surplus to requirements. BlackCab (TALK) 02:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

A&R I'd say is worthy of inclusion, since they often make creative decisions, such as song selection, in the production of a recording. I'm not sure what "digital editing" means - if it means digital editing of album artwork/design, then yes, that should be included, as it's part of the artistic product. I agree that purely management positions, such as "management" in the example above, definitely should not be included.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

If you look at their other albums, many of those "unneeded management names" are also listed as instrumentalists and producers. I find it rather difficult to believe that someone can go from being an 'additional guitarist' to band's management, don't you? So, it should be safe to assume that they are artistically relevant to the final product even when listed solely as management. I think the question shouldn't be "are they notable", it should be why is allmusic and discog using different formats between albums - listing some as management decisions and others as producers and performers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noneof yourbusiness48 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

If the personnel contributed to the creative output on one album and then worked as management for the next album, then it means that they should be credited on the first and not an the next. The "additional personnel" listing is for that particular album, not the discography as a whole.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but how does one distinguish between "I played that guitar part as a guitarist" vs. "I played that guitar part as a managerial decision?"

Think of a manager at a restaurant. He sometimes has to run the register, but he isn't the register guy. It is just part of the job to do things when others can't or won't. Sometimes they get credited for doing multiple things, and other times they are just considered a manager no matter how much they did. All I am saying above is, when a manager has a history of creative ideas and performance, and was credited as doing such; even though he isn't credited with doing that creative thing but is still listed as "additional personnel", can't we assume he was involved with creative ideas and possibly performance as well? History does repeat itself in businesses, day after day, until the day they fire someone. As you said about A&R guys, they get included because they often make creative decisions. I feel managers should be included for that very reason. Particularly when there is a history that one can see them being creative in. It may be different if it was a big mega-corporation like "Sports One" being listed as management. But when it is an individual person who has been credited with composing, producing, performing, and singing in the past ---- they probably did it here too, but didn't get the specific credit for it.

Noneof yourbusiness48 (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Chart procession and succession

I don't see a guideline for the placing of Chart procession and succession details (data which is placed near the bottom on articles about number 1 albums which shows which albums were number 1 before and after the album in question). I'm looking at Captain Fantastic and the Brown Dirt Cowboy, and the data is placed in the main body of the article, as a subsection of the Charts section.

When I've normally seen these succession details they have been placed below the references or external links, as in Venus and Mars (Wings album).

There are arguments for doing it either way. While such data is not directly about the topic, it is moderately related so people may be curious to know which album it replaced, or which album replaced it as number 1.

Sometimes it may be an important part of the story about the album to mention which album it replaced or was replaced by, though I would expect that if that were the case it would be mentioned in the Release or Reception section with some sourced comment to put that information in context.

My feeling is that putting the succession data in the main body by default seems to add an extra burden on album articles which are already somewhat statistic heavy, and can give such data an undue weight. Unless it's important to the history of the Captain Fantastic and the Brown Dirt Cowboy album to say that it replaced an album by Skyhooks as number 1 in Australia, my feeling is that the default position should be to do as in Venus and Mars (Wings album) and place that data in a collapsed box after the References or External links.

Thoughts? SilkTork 08:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Track listing standard

Editors may be interested in joining a talk being held at Template talk:Track listing having to do with the track listing standard on Misplaced Pages. ilovechristianmusic 17:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Formalising Manual of Style for albums

I have been creating and editing articles on albums for some years and have always endeavoured to follow MOSALBUM. I had a discussion with an editor recently who reverted the changes I made at some album articles, commenting at one revert: "MOSALBUM does not restrict the referencing of songwriting or the inclusion of personnel." (My feeling is that there should be sensible limits on the scope of credits; that credits for such things as management, mixing, remixing, art direction may be going just too far. I also saw no need to add the clutter of citations for songwriter credits.)

It then struck me that MOSALBUM presents itself as a tentative document. It contains the cautionary line at the top that reads: "It is intended only as a guide, to assist in writing well-developed articles"; that language reduces any likelihood of complete adherence to the style. MOSALBUM also seems to differ from, say, WP:MOSFILM in apparently being less formal. MOSFILM is contained in an article named Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Film. It states that "This guideline is a part of the English Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style," and it emphasises the possibility of "occasional exceptions". In this it follows the naming convention of MOS:CHEM, MOS:NOVELS etc. Yet MOSALBUM, in contrast, is in an article named Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide.

I'd like to see a more formalised presentation of MOSALBUM. It should be renamed "Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Albums" and it should plainly state an expectation that editors adhere to it. Misplaced Pages should be aiming for consistency and this should help achieve that. BlackCab (TALK) 12:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Support this. Lapadite (talk) 11:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Overlinks

I addressed WP:OVERLINK issues. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Nice one. That's been overlooked (and overlinked) for some time. SilkTork 08:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

It has taken years to have overlinking of countries or nations removed from the majority of association football and music articles I've seen. It will take a while for album and singles to catch-up. What constitutes a common instrument to one editor may not be reflected in other editors' understandings, so we may see some conflict. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Producer or production

The term is record producer or simply producer. In Amercian English, record production encompasses much more than just deciding which instruments should be in a recording, etc. It includes pre-production, engineering, tracking and post-production including matering. This may be a WP:LANGVAR issue, but "producer" is the role and "production" is not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

This is either wrong or a sudden change of direction. We now have a direct contradiction (see the extract below) after my last edit was reverted. Yes, "producer" is the role: that's why I changed things back to "production"! Looking at some album FAs, there's considerable variation. Before the last edit, the style guide was clear but apparently not followed; what's the best way forward? (Maybe, as User:BlackCab points out above, if the guide is presented as merely some suggestions, it doesn't matter, as people will do what they wish anyway.)

• Johnny Bee – guitar
• Sally Morris – glockenspiel, guitar, organ, kazoo
• Mike Yaris – producer

Note that the format used here is " – ". Do not use the format " – " (such as "Johnny Bee – guitarist".) This means that you should employ "guitar" rather than "guitarist" and "production" rather than "producer". EddieHugh (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree that it's role and record producer is a role, as opposed to production, which is a term that applies to more than simply the role of being a record producer. It's also more than a role, it's a job. Production is not a job. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

More than a week has passed and the direct contradiction remains. It's disappointing, but I'm just passing through here, so will leave it to those more actively involved to address. The message that I (and probably others) will take away is that the style guide is just opinion and almost anything goes. EddieHugh (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

More than a week remains and you still don't understand that "production" is a term that means more than the role of a producer. I'll wait for you to correct the music industry. We are simply required to use the language as it is used in liner notes, not correct that. See , , for instance. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I understand that perfectly well, as I did from the beginning. This is the style guide talk page. The style guide currently tells people to use "producer" and then, on the next line, tells people not to use "producer". This, I suggest(ed), is a problem. EddieHugh (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I have fixed that sentence. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Project-Class Album pages
• WikiProject Albums articles