Talk:Band of Gypsys/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 11:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Hi, I will review this article soon. FunkMonk (talk) 11:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
• First off, the paragraph under "Musical style, writing, composition" needs a citation.
• The fourth under "production" does too.
• Last under "release" as well.
• Last under "Release history" too.

Thanks. I've added refs; let me know if I missed any. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Nice, this still needs a cite: "and Band of Gypsys 2 has not been reissued."

Wasn't sure the best way; I've added a ref to the AllMusic discography (which doesn't show a reissue). If not sufficient, I'll just remove it. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't people already assume it hasn't been reissued if it isn't stated to have been? I believe it would be better just not to mention it. FunkMonk (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Removed. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Another thing, I can see that you end sentences that introduce a quote with : in some places, but not others. Could be nice if it was used everywhere.

From what I understand, a colon is only appropriate if the preceding is a complete sentence. Otherwise a comma (if a sentence fragment) or nothing (if the quote logically completes the sentence or is a block quote) should be used. Let me know if I have it wrong. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Here it's more to aid the reader, since the quote is separated so far below, but it's no big deal.

• Note 14 and 89 need citations.

Haven't been able to find these yet, though I seem to remember reading them. Removed for now. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, you can of course re-add them if you find sources. FunkMonk (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• If the three BoG2 tracks were bonus tracks, why are they listed here as 1, 2 and 3? Shouldn't they be numbered as how they appear on the CD?

Added track nos. (7–9). —Ojorojo (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Additionally, he was becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the limitations of bassist" He: Hendrix? Just top be clear.

Done. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• "while introducing the group Woodstock" At Woodstock?

Fixed typo. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• What are the circumstances of the recording of some BoG songs that can be found on South Saturn Delta? Is it worth mentioning here?

I added a mention under "Production" along with the studio versions of "Power of Soul" and "Message to Love". There's more BoG material out there; I've mentioned some under "Release". Maybe add another three Fillmore songs on West Coast Seattle Boy to release history? —Ojorojo (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I added Burning Desire to "Releases". Also, added WCSB to "Release history" and cut down on BoG 2. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• "felt that Cox and Miles were best rhythm section" The best?

Fixed typo. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Both John McDermott and Keith Shadwick point out that Hendrix was more animated during the first and second shows and described them as crowd pleasers." What are all these observations about individual shows based on? Bootlegs? Footage?

I'm going to rewrite this. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Clarified (and simplified). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Jimi was kind of resigned to the fact that he we are" Here we are?

Fixed typo. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Not sure if this is some kind of jargon, or mistakes: "Thing thing was, we owed the record company an album and they were pushing us, so here it."

More typos. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Writer Rickey Vincent describes" You only introduce writers/critics like this a few times, but many times only a last name is mentioned, without any context. Could be nice with a similar presentation each time a new name is mentioned.

When the sections were moved around, some of these got lost. Have re-added. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• The lead is supposed to be a summary of the entire article, but there is practically nothing about writing, recording and production, which takes up most of the article's length.

Yes, plan to expand/rewrite. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I expanded it to three paragraphs with a wider view. Hope it isn't too negative. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

To balance it out, you could perhaps add soemthing about the album's subsequent influence?

Added. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Per the above, I find it a little puzzling that so much of the lead is devoted to the little known Band of Gypsys 2. It could be cut out entirey.

Agree, as above. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• All looking much better, I added a comment more above, but ready to pass after you respond. FunkMonk (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I have a concern with a statement in the "Critical reception" section. The last sentence includes "because it finds him remarkably limited by the rhythm section's simple time signatures". The original quote is "Because Billy Cox and Buddy Miles are committed (not to say limited) to a straight 4/4 with a slight funk bump, Hendrix has never sounded more earthbound." (emphasis added) How do the two reconcile? (and in light of the statement in Musical style, writing, composition: "Nearly all of Hendrix's music, and contemporary rock in general, uses common or ⁴
₄ time; "Manic Depression" (³
₄ or ⁹
₈), "Dolly Dagger" (⁵
₄), "Stepping Stone" (⁸
₈), and the slow blues ""Red House" and "Belly Button Window" (both ¹²
₈) are among the exceptions.(refs)") —Ojorojo (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems like the article makes it a bit more dramatic than it is. "Remarkably" seems to come out of nowhere. Probably rewrite that? FunkMonk (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I think what Christgau is trying to say is that Cox and Miles chose to stick with a straighter, simpler groove (aka R&B/funk) as opposed to Mitchell's and Redding's busy approach; by adding "not to say limited", he is removing the negative implication. Noting 4/4 and simple vs compound time signatures doesn't really make sense, since practically all Hendrix's music is 4/4 with the Experience and BoG (and after). I am going to change it to "because it finds him with a straighter, simpler rhythm section..." —Ojorojo (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Christgaus says "Hendrix has never sounded more earthbound", which means he is limited remarkably; the "no to say limited to" is a reference to the rhythm section not being limited to a "straight 4/4". "earthbound" means "lacking in imaginative reach or drive", so there is a negative implication. Dan56 (talk) 03:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

So, it would read "Because Cox and Miles chose to stick to a straighter, simpler rhythm, Hendrix was never more lacking in imaginative reach or drive"? If this is what he is saying, it's such a fringe claim that I didn't even consider it. "Lacking..." could be a reasonable opinion of the rhythm section, but it's muddied by the simple time signature reference (why would it be a hinderance with the BoG, but not the Experience?). But to include that "Machine Gun" or some of his guitar work on other songs shows Hendrix is "lacking in imaginative reach or drive" or "remarkably limited" is contrary to about every other view. Just because an extreme opinion is out there doesn't mean it should be included. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

In any case, since it is only an opinion, it should be written with attribution, such as "X believes/states" or some such. FunkMonk (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Reworded with "limited by" as a compromise and added direct quote. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• "and elsewhere." I don't think this is needed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I'm ready to pass, if you're satisfied with the current article. FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for your suggestions. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)