Talk:Album era/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 13:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments

What an interesting article. I much enjoyed reading it. Here are a few minor comments, and a couple of questions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Suggest "LP record" be spelt out in full at first usage.
  • I believe it is, in the lead, and in "pre-history". isento (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I've done it for you.

• I've adjusted the text of the link to Rock music to include "music" for clarity.

In fact, why not say how long an LP was - much longer than a 78 record which was the previous standard; and article ("Pre-history") should mention that 78s were too short to be used for albums, i.e. the arrival of LPs defines the start of the album era.

• • An era is defined as a period of time that is defined by a particular feature or characteristic. LPs merely existing at a certain time does not mark an era of the LP; the era was still dominated by the shorter format. The article does say LPs were 12-inches long. But I have added more background about 78s and the circumstances in pre-history. isento (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Well, the extra background is useful. What you've said here about what an "era" is, is also useful, and something like it is needed (suitably cited) in the article, so the item remains open.

• "The mid 1960s to the late 1970s was the era of the LP" - is untrue as written, LPs existed before then (from 1948). Please reword.
  • My previous response touches on this. By the same token, LPs continue to exist, but it is no longer considered the era of the LP. isento (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Hmm. I agree these are linked, but the other item is still open; action on that SHOULD also close this one, I hope, in due course.

• I think the discussion of Rubber Soul should be in a single paragraph, rather than splitting by critic; the key division here is by event/album, not critics.
  • It is in a single paragraph. The second paragraph of the second section. isento (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Well it is now, I've merged the two paragraphs that mentioned it.

• "increasingly moving towards" is repetitive, suggest drop "increasingly".
  • Done. isento (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• One question I would like to raise is whether the article ought not to say something about Classical music albums, which existed from the 1950s (at least); see for instance A Look at Classical Music Album Covers.
  • Yes, more can be added from this article, about the development of cover art for albums in general. But the album era is a popular phenomenon, and classical music has been a niche market that had little if nothing to do with the album's popular dominance. This is my impression from sources covering the album era - it's a footnote. isento (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Ok, thanks for the reply. So we need text and sources on the question, even if it's just to close the question down. I don't think a footnote will be sufficient, but a sentence or two in the text should be enough.

• I suppose an associated question would be whether "album era" is a term of art or simply a description; if the latter, classical should certainly be included in some detail (at least a section on the topic); if the former, then classical probably needs a mention at least to say something along the lines of "the period of production of classical albums is generally not included in the definition of the era by critics, although such albums had been in existence from the 1950s.[1][2][3]"
  • I think these questions stem from a misunderstanding of the term era. Take Elizabethan era (1558 to 1603), for example. She obviously existed well before 1558, the start of her reign, but that is not what an era is. It marks, for historiographical and chronological purposes, a time of dominance or prominence of someone or something. isento (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
    • No, that wasn't my point. The question is whether the article is using a term of art, "album era", as employed by scholars and critics in hundreds of learned articles, or whether it is basically coining a descriptive phrase for a thing that can be seen to exist but isn't sharply defined by scholars. It looks much like the second one. If so, see above for required action. Item remains open.
      • Unless there are reliable sources that support such a statement, the action is not required. I don't think you are defining your question very well. isento (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Um, I was asking you whether you are using a term (I already supplied a wikilink, the section on term of art seems perfectly clear to me, and no, I didn't write it) that scholars and critics are already using, and have defined precisely in ways that can be cited, or whether you have a topic that lacks a good name in wide use, and therefore the article has a merely descriptive title you've invented as the page needs a name, like "Napoleon's early campaigns". Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions

• Perhaps what is missing is a short section discussing what is meant by the album era; I'm no fan of sections labelled "Definitions", still less of dictionary citations, but we should I think have something on how critics have used the term. For instance, The New York Times has the term in a headline, but uses "LP era" in the text as a (rather imprecise) synonym. Popcravenews 2019 seems to have an entirely different definition: "most music fans (especially pop fans) love an album era – the singles, visuals, concept and tour." Well they said it, not me. Billboard 2020 uses it a third way, meaning Mariah Carey's days when she personally made albums. I don't get the impression from this that the term has any very solid meaning, so I'm thinking we should have a section on the classical album era, but happy to discuss.
  • The article is clearly defined in the lead sentence, in accordance with numerous high-quality sources sharing the same definition. A search for "classical album era" comes up with no hits. Which reiterates my point above. From those lesser sources you've cited - popcravenews and a Billboard article on Mariah Carey - they are not explicitly defining the phrase; but rather it is you who are deducing their intended meaning. isento (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Um, the lead is meant to be a summary of the article body, not a substitute for it. If that is meant to be the key definition on which the article is based, the definition must be placed in the article body, with supporting citations. However, ALL that Zipkin says in that source is 'the "album era" from the mid-1960s to 2000s', which isn't exactly defining, and adds "LPs (full-length albums) were the chief means by which artists communicated to their fans." where it isn't clear that is definitional, either, though it could be. I think the article needs to group several such statements, preferably with one or two that are a good deal more obviously definitional (i.e. academic). As for the "numerous high-quality sources sharing the same definition", where are they? They are required in the definitions part of the article body, but while ref [1] is reused down there, it's not definitional, which would presumably be near the top of the "1960s: Beginnings of the era". I'm actually becoming convinced that we do, after all, need a section that just defines what the era means; that could perhaps be the 1960s section, but it needs to be made far clearer that a definition is being attempted.

• The article is missing a discussion of the visual impact of the 12" LP album, along with the fact that The Beatles and others produced albums in covers that folded out to make 12"×24" of space for images and text, and sometimes booklets of lyrics and other materials to pull out. The artwork for Sgt. Pepper would be an obvious place to start.
  • The packaging feature of Sgt. Pepper is noted in the second section, and there is further discussion of these aspects of the LP in the section on the 1970s. Keeping in mind WP:DETAIL and WP:CFORK, the Wikipedia article on Sgt. Pepper should contain a greater discussion of its packaging. isento (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the reply, but I am not AT ALL asking for an over-detailed content fork on one album, that would be absurd. What is required is an account of visual impact of albums-of-the-album-era as a whole, which will inevitably mean describing some salient examples, and citing some reliable sources about the era's albums and their effects. A measure of detail on how the albums-of-the-era functioned is required to explain what the nature of the artists' communication with their fans (see Zipkin quote above) was at that time. It's not a side detail, it's central to the article.

• I'm not sure a global encyclopedia should use words like "megasuccesses". Best reword.
  • Done. isento (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• The section on visual impact should clearly link to Album cover, but it is poorly cited and completely unillustrated. It's linked to Cover art#Album cover art which at least has a small image gallery, though its coverage of "the album era" is very limited. There is obvious scope in this article for something more specific and certainly more colourful. I would suggest we have a more than adequate mandate here for using the front of Sgt Pepper. Joni Mitchell's album released under her name (and as Song to a Seagull) would similarly fit well as you've mentioned her; it folds out to reveal the lyrics and a monochrome portrait photo inside, and there's a psychedelic drawing of hers (one of several musicians who liked to draw their own album art) around a photo of her in a street on the back, continuing the front cover but with a markedly different effect. For something completely different, Their Satanic Majesties Request has Mick Jagger and the other Rolling Stones looking suitably majestic, in a cover with a lenticular image that gives a vaguely (drug-induced) three-dimensional effect, on a background of wispy smoke or cloud; the LP is wrapped in a red and white paper version of the same (flame?) background. The album opens out to a 12"×24" collage of classical artwork, flowers, map, photographs and a large maze. Or there's Andy Warhol's The Velvet Underground and Nico in white with a peelable banana; it opens to reveal monochrome photos of the band members, and a set of newspaper and magazine reviews of the band! The back cover has portraits of the band, this time in colour under disco lights. Finally, you might consider Janis Joplin's Janis, with large portraits front and back as a rock chick, and a monochrome Watkins Studio portrait inside as a demure debutante; that lifts to reveal a 12" booklet stapled into the album, with portraits of Joplin from early childhood to outrageous rocker. Well, some suggestions, but since the appearance of "album era" albums was very much in the purchaser's hands while listening, for hours, sitting in a room with large stereo speakers, the physically printed, coloured, explorable artefact of a cover with foldouts and booklets and the rest was a key part of the experience.

• • "Poorly cited and completely unillustrated"? Are we reading the same article? lol isento (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
    • What? Why are you laughing? It's certainly not funny. The article Album cover indeed has no illustrations, and only 14 refs; it doesn't do a quarter of what I'd have expected, frankly.
      • You're supposed to be reviewing this article... isento (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Absolutely. I mentioned the other article only to say that there isn't (as I would have expected) another article which we could use to head a section about album covers and album art with a "main" link, i.e. we'd have summarized that article here with a quick paragraph and some refs, with an image or two, and we'd have been complete - only, as you can see in that article, it's not fit for that purpose as its scope is far wider than the "golden age", and its coverage doesn't extend to artwork and communication with fans.

• White male: well, Joni Mitchell, Janis Joplin, Suzi Quatro, and Patti Smith certainly weren't; nor was Jimi Hendrix for that matter. For something a bit later, how about Bananarama? Perhaps we are missing a Section on "Women artists" (or a similar heading) here.

• The last two sections, on transition and decline, are long and detailed, where one might have expected only a brief coda. They come close to unbalancing the article; however, if we can add some description of how albums appeared and functioned during the "Golden age of the LP", as suggested above, with suitable nonfree illustrations (I can help if need be) then it should work well. It might also be helpful to shorten (summarize) the coda sections somewhat.
  • Perhaps, instead of putting the cart before the horse, it would be wise to first find high-quality sources that actually connect any of those album covers and titles to discussions of the album era? (WP:STICKTOSOURCE) isento (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Of course you must find reliable sources, that goes without saying. But talk of carts and horses is not helpful: the albums are the communications between artists and fans, so without them the article is empty.

• The last, long, paragraph of "21st century: Decline in the digital age" about the pandemic, etc, is extremely recent and liable to revision (see WP:recentism for possible reasons for concern). It doesn't fit well in the "Decline" story, either; if Swift, Perry etc are defiantly continuing to use the format, this suggests splitting off the paragraph as "Ongoing mini-eras" or some similar heading, i.e. a new separate Section after "Decline". I think it also needs rewording to avoid saying too much about any one artist (Swift is over-represented), to use more sources, and from those sources to give an overview that has some chance of still seeming balanced in 5 or 10 years' time.
  • I'm detecting a misapprehension of certain aspects of writing Wikipedia articles, which should represent content and viewpoints in proportion to their prominence among the best sources available on the topic of the article (WP:WEIGHT). Not our personal visions for an article or preconceived ideas about the topic. The documented weight dictates a longer section, not a shorter one. Robinson's point about 21st century artists is represented in the past tense ("still continued") amid the decline documented in the 2000s and 2010s, and Swift is tied to the album during its decline in at least three high-quality sources, who clearly establish her relevance to the topic and its condition in the present. And tied to the CD era specifically in more sources. I don't believe this should be downplayed because of an essay that cautions editors to balance current events with historical perspective, when this article overwhelmingly favors historical perspective. Also, six to seven sentences in not very long for a paragraph. isento (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Well, possibly the content is not excessive, but if that's the right amount of detail for the "coda" sections, then we are missing a substantial amount of detail on the golden age section.

You seem to have a severe case of IMPOSING YOUR PERSONAL CRITERIA, and I've been here before. Just fail the nomination, and I'll renominate for someone else to review it... isento (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that; obviously sharing enthusiasm and I hope insight was unwise. However, I have only 6 criteria, the ones on the GA page, and in particular I'm concerned about criterion 3a: "it addresses the main aspects of the topic". I believe the article as it now stands does not yet meet that criterion as it doesn't address the use of albums in the golden era to communicate from artist to fans, and I was expecting it to be a pleasant task to work with you to fill in that gap, with friendly suggestions and constructive responses. I'm still willing to give it a go, surprisingly.

Let me ask one question, then: do you agree with Zipkin that "Throughout the "album era" from the mid-1960s to 2000s, LPs (full-length albums) were the chief means by which artists communicated to their fans"? Because if you do, then surely the article needs to talk about how the LPs actually did that? That's all that I'm asking. There are plenty of books out there that discuss that communication. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

It does talk about how the LPs actually did that. Now fail the nom so someone who sees it can review the article. Thanks. isento (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

That is no way to talk to other editors per WP:CIVIL, as you well know. For the record, I believe the article does not adequately cover the means of communication between artists and fans using LPs, as it is wholly unillustrated, gives no account of the innovative graphics of the period, nor any account of the personal nature of album covers, text, booklets, photographs, paintings, and indeed music and lyrics, and how these combined into a wholly new medium, as discussed in books about rock music. Since the nominator clearly does not wish to improve the article in this way, there is no alternative but to fail the article under criterion 3a for not covering the subject. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE. isento (talk) 18:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

References

You have a few refs (Danesi 2017; Harrington 2002, Simonelli 2013) in short form mixed in with the others, but no list of Sources at the end as one would expect. I see that these link to other refs in the list (e.g. #7 jumps to #6 Danesi), which feels very strange. Further, Danesi also occurs as another full ref (#24), which is certainly inconsistent. There are at least 3 ways this could be avoided: 1) use full refs for everything; 2) list all reused refs in a "Sources" section and link to those; 3) give all three Danesi pages in one ref. Pick whichever you prefer.

Ah, yes. Okay. I have gotten rid of the short form completely. isento (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Further reading

Well I'm always a bit ambivalent about this sort of section (why are they here? - in some articles, there are dozens of serious and plainly relevant textbooks, hardly the case here; otherwise, if the sources are relevant, use them; if not, get rid of them), but in this case I'd have thought it obviously better to use each one as a ref in the text, it won't be arduous.

Most of those are opinion pieces, with strong ties to the article's topic. Their incorporation is not essential to the article, but they can still be useful to readers. Which I imagine is the point of such a section... isento (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, ok, you don't want to cite them. It would be better, and not much work, but we have far bigger issues right now. I'll strike this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Summary

That's it from me. Looking forward to your response. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

If your suggestions also demonstrate reservations about passing this article, I would prefer to focus on specific content one-by-one rather than broad strokes that may leave the wrong impression. I can see where some areas could use a trim... isento (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, that sounds helpful, let's see where that takes us. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry this has taken this turn, but with nom unwilling to work on the article, a fail under criterion 3a is the only remaining option. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Drive-by comments from JG66

I did a bit of work on this article a while back before leaving it to Isento to take on to greatness (and, I'm sure, Good-ness). Hope it's okay if I make a comment or two during the review process.

Chiswick Chap, I greatly admire your passion for the subject and engagement with the article (it's not always the way with reviewers). With regard to your suggestions about significantly increasing coverage of album art, though, is that not pushing the limits of what reliable sources discuss in the context of the album era and therefore what the scope of this article should be? I worry it's an invitation to get creative in one area, and perhaps other editors might then choose to get creative in another. The idea of albums as artistic statements, for instance, could go on forever, with partisan sources claiming greatness for a specific album. When coming up with discussion of the 1960s LPs, I was careful to use sources that approach the subject from the perspective of the contemporaneous music scene or recording history, and not band biographies. There is Mat Snow's Who biography and a couple of latter-day pieces on Sgt. Pepper, but otherwise I think they're all sources from outside coverage of a specific artist or work.

If a source dedicated to or significantly covering the album era explores this and other areas, then obviously it's no problem. Perhaps I'm wrong on this? – but I believe it's the approach used as music genre articles. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for your knowledgeable interest and concern. If you are saying we must base everything on reliable sources, of course you are correct (we certainly can't have WP:OR). If you are saying there are no usable sources that discuss the golden era LP approach and style, that seems less likely to be right. Albums certainly were artistic in terms of music, lyrics, graphics, and liner text. There are numerous books on "golden age" rock albums, rock groups, and rock album art. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)