Talk:Fun House (The Stooges album)

Fair use rationale for Image:StoogesFunHouse.jpg

Image:StoogesFunHouse.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free Jazz?

What's the justification for this being considered "free jazz" under the genres? 98.213.163.145 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not free jazz, but it's certainly informed by such. Steven Mackay employs the basic techniques of free tenor sax players, such as overblowing and saxophone harmonics. And "L.A. Blues" resembles a free-jazz performance with its use of free time, absence of tonal centre, and completely improvised nature.--Vonbontee (talk) 08:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LA Blues resembles the outcome of an explosion in a music shop full of leopards, more like. Mr Larrington (talk) 11:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Going off of citable sources, a number of music critics have hailed the record’s free jazz elements, warranting it being in the article. Morganfitzp (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fun House (The Stooges album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604151531/http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_rocking_studio_stooges/ to http://www.mixonline.com/mag/audio_rocking_studio_stooges/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Hard rock" genre ; November 2021

In the article, there are only two sources qualifying this album as 'hard rock'. Is that enough to say that the main genre of this album is Hard Rock ?

The Billboard source (1970) [1] is uncredited: it is not a review, it is just a short description of the record and it sounds like an advertisement.

In fact, if you read all the reviews on that Billboard publication, each one is loaded with superlatives. No review on this Billboard page is bad or average. That's business. Billboard was, is still, a publication know to publish what the A & R men of the majors want them to publish. Billboard has never been known to be an independent magazine, they never talk about an artist in an impartial way.

The second source (October 2021), "Cleveland.com" [2], is brand new, but it is quite a poor source according to these reviews included on the wiki article about the Cleveland.com site.

Remark: wiki has got some flaws, there are users who tend to edit with a positive bias, they want to promote their own opinions on a subject, so they are doing biased research and quite often they find a few marginal lame sources to support their views.

question: So after these remarks, is it relevant to mention "hard rock" as a genre in the box and if Hard Rock is kept with only two sources, would it be not better to put it in the last position in the box, due to the nature of the sources as none of them was written by a famous music journalist who is known for their expertise. Woovee (talk) 03:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, stop assuming bad faith; no one is interested in your assumptions about editor behavior, nor do these kind of remarks belong in a content discussion (WP:READFIRST). Piotr Jr. (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second, a description of this music as hard rock in a review doesn't count to an appraisal of its merits, which you are suggesting is an issue in Billboard. Piotr Jr. (talk) 03:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And you don't know what the reason is behind that one page of reviews being positive. Maybe they just picked a selection of albums to print something about that they had positive thoughts on while ignoring the rest that week... Piotr Jr. (talk) 04:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Third, stop genre- and edit-warring @Woovee:. WP:BRD places the burden on you; it was your removal that was challenged. Piotr Jr. (talk) 03:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funny that you question the objectivity of Billboard (as if a genre description would even be affected by that...) yet in the same breath you cite reviews from competitors of the Plain Dealer site to degrade its reliability... Piotr Jr. (talk) 04:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

when people disagree, it is time for other opinions. Woovee (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

is Billboard source a magazine financed by the music industry and the majors ? Yes. Are the "music reviews" of this Billboard 1970 source [3] objective music reviews ? No, they are not signed with a name and each one is an advertisement written with a series of superlatives. Is the 2021 Cleveland.com source written by a journalist known for a music expertise in their profession. isn't that light to declare Hard rock is the first genre for this album ? Woovee (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to remove any of those sources you just questioned?... Piotr Jr. (talk) 04:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to offer anything new beyond your own analysis?... Piotr Jr. (talk) 04:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to come off your high horse and talk civil with anyone who objects to your changes?...... Piotr Jr. (talk) 04:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. What a piece of shit... Piotr Jr. (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake [4]. Woovee (talk) 05:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you... Piotr Jr. (talk) 19:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One way to deal with older reviews, like Billboard’s from 1970, is to add a qualifying statement such as, “At the time of its release” and be upfront about it coming from a music industry magazine (which has now been done for this article). Knowing that this record was lumped into “hard rock” is worthy of inclusion given that words like punk (and certainly proto-punk) were not yet being used by the press to describe music. I like the way editors have also included both Christgau’s quasi-dismissive contemporaneous review and then his reflection from years later. Morganfitzp (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]