Talk:List of music considered the worst/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Sources for Positive Sgt. Peppers Reviews?

I only put this here because I'm unsure how to proceed due to being new and the topic understandably being locked.. I do agree that, with the sources given, Sgt. Pepper should remain on the page, and while I am pleasantly surprised that there is indeed a quick notice on the positive reception the album received, it feels rather incomplete.

Would it mean more, or would it be more of a NPOV, to allow a few more references for that sentence? Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums as a source instantly comes to mind, as they listed it as no. 1. I feel something like this might ease some of the weird tensions going on about Sgt. Pepper, from what I've read on the talk page. Ryanson209 01:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanson209 (talk • contribs)

I don't think it's a case of needing to add more on the favourable reaction to Pepper, necessarily – more a case of cutting down the amount of negative comments that appear. There's currently a litany of unfavourable opinions almost for the sake of it – very few actually correspond with the title "List of music considered the worst". For example, the Hilburn, Goldman and DeRogatis quotes offer highly unfavourable assessments but no indication that those writers said the album was "the worst", nor do those from Childish, Goldstein, Bangs or Kelly, for that matter. In the case of Goldstein, he was under considerable pressure to recant what he'd said in NYT but he didn't back down: he wrote a second piece about the album, in The Village Voice, in which he restated his opinions and described Sgt. Pepper as "better than 80 per cent" of contemporary music (just not as good as what he expected from the Beatles). So, Goldstein never identified it as "music considered the worst" ... But Pepper's entry here seems to be home to any derisive remark about the album. Get rid of all that stuff, and retain or add comments that explicitly identify it as "the worst [album]", and it would be okay.

Having said that, the next album on the page, the Shaggs' Philosophy of the World, does carry information that balances the situation – comments from/about AllMusic, Blender, and the albums' legacy. So ... well, I'm confused. At least with Philosophy, there doesn't seem to be that derision-for-the-sake-of-it approach. JG66 (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

This article is biased against Sgt. Pepper's. Always has, since its inclusion. Those points you presented are the most notable evidence. That's why I'm willing to proceed to an RFC - to formally establish why an album appears in this article. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 17:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Well yeah, someone's just added a whole lot of examples of critics and musicians not liking it, which is clearly a far cry from the album being "considered the worst" by those individuals. JG66 (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

We require a source to call it the worst ever in some capacity for inclusion in the article, though it’s not uncommon to include more general negative commentary to round out the prose premise a bit. Not defending anything in particular, just saying that’s present in many entries here and in similar lists, not just the Beatles entry in question. Sergecross73 msg me 18:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, so some commentary might be welcome to avoid each entry becoming a short list of "worst ever" mentions. But are you saying that having seven such comments is appropriate? It's quite obvious from all that text, and from comments in previous threads such as the Pepper RfC above, that one or two editors are treating this issue as an opportunity to vent some sort of personal vengeance against the album. That's no more appropriate on Wikipedia than if editors only want to see flattering things said about the subject.

I've done a lot of work on the Pepper article over the previous year (and intend to get back to it sometime soon), and that's not through any affection for the album – it's because it was such an important work in the development of 1960s music. The reason why some critics and musicians (not to mention at least two of the four members of the band that created the damn thing) turned against Pepper was and is mostly in reaction to the impact it had, what it symbolised and what it continues to symbolise. At the album article, we had the same derisive opinions (MM poll, John Robb quote, the Guardian, er, "critic") all added in 2014, as they were here. I replaced most of that with text from a 2007 Mojo feature by John Harris and a comment on the album's fall from grace from Chris Ingham/Rough Guides, because those writers reported on and explained this phenomenon (quite well, I thought); I was then encouraged to go further, which is why the Robb quote is now relegated to a footnote. The point is, while the album's always had its detractors, the only reason why it would belong in this "List of music considered the worst" is because of that backlash or, in Harris's description: its "seismic and universal" impact and its identification with 1967 has led to a "fashion for trashing" the album as "iconoclastic", etc. I appreciate we're now working on a clear criteria for inclusion in the list, and thank god (and Thryduulf) for that. But to see the amount of gratuitous negativity provided by the Robb-Childish-Goldstein-Bangs-Kelly-Hilburn-Goldman-DeRogatis combination is ridiculous, as was your statement, Serge, that all their opinions should appear without anything in the way of context. As far as including Sgt. Pepper in this list, the context is paramount. JG66 (talk) 06:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I again note that, that dif of mine was one revert, from almost a year ago, that was uncontested for months, and when it was contested, I didn’t revert it again, nor have I to-date. One revert from a year ago. It’s truly baffling how much of an argument point that has been. At the time, it looked like a bit of “fan-commentary-creep”. Fans add that sort of unsourced commentary to commercial products they like all the time. I have no connection or thoughts on the album. Just maintaining an article that has otherwise been poorly maintained. Sergecross73 msg me 09:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

"One revert, from almost a year ago. It's truly baffling how much of an argument point that has been." No, not once. You did it more than once. So stop saying that "it was only one revert" when you have proven, time and time again, that you don't want any positive light about Pepper in the article. In fact, as @JG66 says, Pepper is painted as extremely negative in the article, contrary to the other albums. I'm sure that the only sentence that remains in the article (which is very recent), "The Beatles' 1967 album has topped several lists of the best albums ever recorded and is a totem of the 1960s psychedelic era, yet its status has also invited a critical backlash", hasn't been deleted by you, because now you noticed how you've acted against Wikipedia guidelines in the past. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 20:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, it appears two reverts, not one, occurred almost a year ago, on a point I’m no longer advocating. Thanks you for clearing this up! This of course changes everything... Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, at least I don't have to read "ONE revert from almost a year ago" again. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 20:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

You shouldn’t have had to have read it this time. I have no idea why this point keeps being brought up. It is no longer being advocated for anywhere. Sergecross73 msg me 21:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Excessive negative bias against Sgt. Pepper

All right - I'm getting tired of this. This page contains the next for "Philosophy of the World":

The Shaggs recorded this album at the behest of a band member's father, Austin Wiggin; the album achieved wider release in 1980, long after the band had disbanded and Wiggin had died. Chris Connelly wrote for Rolling Stone: "Without exaggeration, [Philosophy of the World] may stand as the worst album ever recorded."^[7] The New York Times dubbed it "the worst rock album ever made".^[8] Much of the attention surrounding Philosophy of the World was derived from the perception that it was so bad that it was good; Debra Rae Cohen in Rolling Stone was so enthralled by the album's poor quality that she referred to it as "the sickest, most stunningly awful wonderful record I've heard in ages".^[9] However, other reviews were kinder, with AllMusic giving the album 4.5 out of 5 stars.^[10] Blenderplaced it 100th on a 2007 list of the "100 Greatest Indie-Rock Albums Ever", and it was cited as influential to other musicians, including Kurt Cobain, Frank Zappa, Kimya Dawson of The Moldy Peaches, and Deerhoof.^[11]

And for "Chinese Democracy":

This album was mired in development hell for 14 years, and it received widely polarized responses ranging from positive to scathing. Popular music historian Stephen Davis named it "the worst album ever".^[31] Music editor Ayre Dworken^[32] wrote: "Chinese Democracy is the worst album I have heard in years, if not in all my life of listening to music."^[33] It was included in Wired magazine's unranked list of the "5 Audio Atrocities to Throw Down a Sonic Black Hole",^[34] and placed first in Guitar Player's "10 Awful Albums by 10 Amazing Bands".^[35] Chinese Democracy was ranked as the worst record of 2008 by several publications, including Time Out New York, Asbury Park Press and IGN.^[36][37][38] Chicago Tribune noted the record in its end-of-year appraisal of the worst in arts and entertainment.^[39]On the other hand, Rolling Stone ranked it number 12 on its year-end list of 2008's best albums.^[40]

So naturally I edited out many of the negative reviews of Pepper, which said it was an "overrated" album, and left only the reviews that called it "the worst album". I added some positive reception, following the same formula from the other two albums. It read:

The Beatles recorded their eighth album after deciding not to tour again. Released in 1967, it was voted the worst record ever made in a 1998 Melody Maker poll of pop stars, DJs and journalists.^[2] Guardian blogger Richard Smith said it is "if not the worst, then certainly the most overrated album of all time". He contended that the "excruciating" LP was often named the best ever for its cultural impact, and "not because of anything intrinsically great about the record".^[3] In a 2007 article in The Guardian where musicians were asked to select the "supposedly great records they'd gladly never hear again", Billy Childish named Sgt. Pepper and argued that it "signalled the death of rock 'n' roll".^[4] In 2010, musician and author Bill Drummond called the album "the worst thing that ever happened to music for a lot of reasons".^[5] The album, however, has been called one of the best albums ever recorded,^[6] earning a 5 out of 5 stars in AllMusic,^[7] and Rolling Stone placing it number one in their list of "500 Greatest Albums of all Time".

The user Popcornduff reverted my change. I reverted it back, saying that since the other two albums follow that formula, Sgt. Pepper should be no different, to write as per WP:NPOV states. Sergecross73 then reverted it, saying that it added unnecessary detail. I then left the entry as follows:

Voted the worst record ever made in a 1998 Melody Maker poll of pop stars, DJs and journalists.^[2] Guardian blogger Richard Smith said it is "if not the worst, then certainly the most overrated album of all time". He contended that the "excruciating" LP was often named the best ever for its cultural impact, and "not because of anything intrinsically great about the record".^[3] In a 2007 article in The Guardian where musicians were asked to select the "supposedly great records they'd gladly never hear again", Billy Childish named Sgt. Pepper and argued that it "signalled the death of rock 'n' roll".^[4] In 2010, musician and author Bill Drummond called the album "the worst thing that ever happened to music for a lot of reasons".^[5] The album, however, has been called one of the best albums ever recorded,^[6] earning a 5 out of 5 stars in AllMusic,^[7] and Rolling Stone placing it number one in their list of "500 Greatest Albums of all time".

Popcornduff reverted me again, saying that two editors are against me.

I'm trying to follow a Neutral point of view here. If the other albums talk about when it was recorded, the bad reception it has, and then the good reception it obtained, why must Pepper be different? In first place, I didn't agree about its inclusion here, but since the RFC about it is taking ages, I rewrote its section to make it more neutral.

I really don't see where's the problem. It clearly shows a negative bias from this article, and its editors, against Pepper. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 17:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This is a long article and I've so far only touched the Sgt Pepper section, and only because it attracts controversy and has needed help the most urgently. This is not an implicit endorsement of the rest of the article, nor does it suggest that the Sgt Pepper section should be written in the style of the other sections. It is altogether a fairly poorly written article and using other sections as any kind of model is not a good idea. Popcornduff (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I hope then, that you remove any positive reception from the other albums - so the article is completely neutral to every entry. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 18:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Exactly this. Please learn the concept of WP:OSE, WKMNL. Additionally, I’ll point out that I didn’t write the Beatles entry or the Philosophy of the World entry. Nor are there currently opposed changes to Philosophy of the World. Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I still fail to see why you have reverted any positive blurb about Pepper citing that it doesn't belong here, yet the other albums contain information about their positive reception and you haven't had any problem there. I don't understand why if the other albums contain it, Pepper can not. I'm not implying you wrote either section - but you have advocated deleting any positive thing about Pepper, while leaving positive receptions from the other albums intact. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 18:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I still fail to see why you have reverted any positive blurb about Pepper citing that it doesn't belong here, yet the other albums contain information about their positive reception and you haven't had any problem there Because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Popcornduff (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

So you are in favor of deleting any positive reception from one entry, but not from the others, even if it's against WP:NPOV and WP:BIAS? WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 19:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I’ve been doing the same thing for years - I review changes that pop up on my watchlist, and I address/approve/deny edit requests that arise because the article is frequently protected. It’s not any more complicated than that. I do this for lots of pages. Many regulars do. Sergecross73 msg me 18:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I asked why did you delete positive blurb about Pepper, citing that it's not the scope of the article, but left positive receptions from the other albums, and never deleted those with the same argument. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 19:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

And I explained: no other edits for other entries have popped up on my watchlist that have needed to be reverted. Sergecross73 msg me 19:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

This is about the scope of the entire article, not individual entires. As it appears right now, you're against positive reception in the Pepper entry, saying that it's against its scope, but the other albums have it, and there's no problem there. So you're dictating a scope from an individual entry, not the whole article. Should I go ahead and delete the positive receptions from the other albums, to leave the article completely neutral in all of its entries? WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 19:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

If you have good faith changes you want to make on other entries, feel free to make changes. (Though be aware of WP:POINT.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I would like the article to follow the same formula for all entries. So if somebody says, "Why does this entry mention this?" - we can reply, "All of the entries follow the same rules". WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 19:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, if you want to make an actual proposal that you feel could work with every entry, you’re free to propose a well thought out plan and try to get a consensus for it. But just picking one entry and blindly replicate it isn’t going to work. And you’re probably going to have a hard time creating a one size fits all formula that adheres to WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:RS. Not all music is received the same. Some things aren’t covered positively and negatively, and some aspects aren’t covered at all. Sergecross73 msg me 20:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, I don't understand why if another entry contains "Blenderplaced it 100th on a 2007 list of the "100 Greatest Indie-Rock Albums Ever", and it was cited as influential to other musicians, including Kurt Cobain, Frank Zappa, Kimya Dawson of The Moldy Peaches, and Deerhoof.^[11]", Pepper cannot contain something similar. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't apply here, all I'm saying is to include more positive reviews of the album, to balance the entry as the others have. I still haven't read a valid reason of why my changes were reverted and why they're not valid here. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 04:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

WKMN, the information about Sgt Pepper being widely acclaimed is already in the section. It's the first thing the section says, which I think is appropriate because the album is far more notable as an acclaimed album than a derided one, so it's good to qualify that first. We don't need extra sources or claims about that - we have the whole Sgt Pepper article to cover the critical acclaim.

As for the other sections, as I said before, I've barely looked at them, but they don't seem to be in good shape. Letting those stand is nothing to do with bias, it's just work that hasn't been done yet (remember Wikipedia is volunteer work - no one has to do anything). I'll take a look at them next. Popcornduff (talk) 04:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

All right, thank you very much. I'm willing to help there. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 06:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, that would be a welcome change, as I don’t think you’ve made an edit unrelated to Sgt Pepper since like last February. Sergecross73 msg me 11:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if that's a personal attack, but either way, I don't see the problem with trying to improve this page, especially in a controversial entry such as that one (although my changes are reverted without a logical explanation other than WP:DROPTHESTICK). I'm still looking forward to the RFC though.WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 15:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Not an attack, just literally what your contributions show. Your every edit for almost half a year has been related to the Beatles entry on this list. Take that as you will. Certainly not a bad thing that you want to branch out to other entries, I’m just shocked, because you’ve never edited another entry on this list, and generally don’t even mention other entries unless it’s a thinly-veiled, obvious effort to advance a change to you want for the Beatles entry. Sergecross73 msg me 23:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC - Inclusion criteria

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Further discussion needed, namely in regard to the definition of "general consensus". ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 18:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

---

It has been proposed that for an album or song to be included on the list, the album or song must have been considered "the worst" in multiple reliable sources, and the general consensus of the reviews must be negative. An album or song does not meet the criteria for inclusion if the general consensus of the reviews is positive.

Would anyone be on board with this inclusion criteria for this article? ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 16:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• Weak support Let's put this to bed. But it needs spelled out what "general consensus" is. -- ferret (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - this proposal, as is, is too vague to be effective inclusion criteria. “General consensus” is too vague, and will just lead to the same sort of arguments that we’re trying to avoid with this. This also completely ignores the brainstorming/planning discussions that have been happening for the last few months. If something as vague as this would work, we would have started this RFC months ago. Sergecross73 msg me 17:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Noting that the RFC writer attempted to change the premise of the entire RFC after 5 people have given stances. That’s extremely dishonest and not okay. This really needs to be closed and redone by someone who knows what they’re doing. Sergecross73 msg me 18:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• Weak support I would like to see something more stringent than "general consensus" which is vague enough to be almost useless as a qualifier, but I concur with the spirit of the idea. --Jayron32 17:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support Establish what "general consensus" means first, though: 8+ sources, 3+ sources? Etc. After that's defined, yes, an album only should be included under that criteria. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 17:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Sergecross73. This RfC is premature as "general consensus" is too vague per all the discussion on this page. Thryduulf (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

And it's already closed. Rjrya395 (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Rjrya395: - a great example of why people shouldn't rush to start an RfC. Feel free to contribute to the discussion at #Defining general consensus above though. Thryduulf (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue - Toby Keith

I may have found some sources for Toby Keith's "Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue (The Angry American)" as being a candidate for the list. I'm not sure if they're enough or are actually considered valid sources.

https://web.archive.org/web/20050124091143/http://www.blender.com/guide/articles.aspx?id=819 https://www.villagevoice.com/2009/12/09/the-50-worst-songs-of-the-00s-f2k-no-18-toby-keith-courtesy-of-the-red-white-blue-the-angry-american/ https://music.avclub.com/week-31-toby-keith-american-1798219834 https://www.wideopencountry.com/14-controversial-country-songs-throughout-history/

73.240.105.138 (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, none of these actually called it “worst song ever”. Two only place it around 20th worst - not a convincing argument - an the others just seem to calm it “controversial”, which is a separate issue really. Sergecross73 msg me 13:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Off-topic

Yet Sgt. Pepper's gets to stay on. Rjrya395 (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC) The sourcing is very different between the two. Have you not taken the time to read it all? Sergecross73 msg me 02:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC) Buddy, your entire argument for Sgt.'s inclusion is one critic poll calling it the worst and a handful of people claiming its over-rated (which apparently trumps the majority of sources calling it the best album ever made). You have no right to talk. Also, when are we going to open that RFC? Rjrya395 (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC) Please actually comment on the sources in question. Sergecross73 msg me 03:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC) What? You don't like I'm pointing out your hypocrisy? Rjrya395 (talk) 03:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC) Please check the topic of the section you’re commenting on, and answer accordingly. Please stay on topic. Sergecross73 msg me 03:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)