Talk:Bill Hare

Engineering style and techniques

This section might benefit from critical commentary on Hare's work. What distinguishes a Bill Hare recording from others, as discussed in reviews published by the Recorded A Cappella Review Board, and other critics?

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Bill Hare pioneered studio recording techniques in the 1990s that would define the sound of contemporary a cappella music?
  • ALT1:... that Bill Hare pioneered the sound of contemporary a cappella music by recording human voices like instruments?
  • ALT2:... that audio engineer Bill Hare has been called the Dr. Dre of a cappella recording?

• Reviewed: N/A—1 DYK nom & credit so far
• Comment: Article created 7 days ago on 9 January. Sources for all hooks:

1. Deke Sharon, founder and longtime president of the Contemporary A Cappella Society, wrote in his 2018 book that "the sound of contemporary recorded a cappella owes more to [Bill Hare's] technique, style, and pioneering than any other person."
2. The writer whose book became Pitch Perfect wrote in 2008 that, "in many ways, the history of collegiate a cappella recording is the Bill Hare story. Bill Hare is sort of like the Dr. Dre of a cappella recording."
3. "Producer Bill Hare ... had changed the game by being the first to mic individual voices while recording, and to mic singers as one would instruments if they are indeed singing instrumental parts." —2015 Flavorwire article about Pitch Perfect

Created by Shrinkydinks (talk). Self-nominated at 23:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC).

• 1) article is new enough and long enough 2) Doesn't appear to violate copyright 3) Article appears neutral 4) Article contains inline citations Skyes(BYU) (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• I have some concern about the use of the podcast as a citation, because it can't necessarily be considered a reliable source. However, I went through and the information you cited wasn't really controversial so I think it works as a source of background information on the subject. However, other editors may not agree with me.
• along with the points in the top line, article appears to satisfy DYK requirements. QPQ not needed as this is their second DYK. I'm okay with the original hook and ALT2. ALT1 is passable, but I feel like the source reliability is much weaker. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)