Talk:Live and Dangerous/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sparklism (talk · contribs) 10:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while, but I'll take this one on, though it might take me a few days to make a proper start. — sparklism ^hey! 10:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, I'll go and listen to the album on full blast now :-) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While you're at it, ref #28 is dead. — sparklism ^hey! 11:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nah nah nah, it's just resting. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First look

Sorry this has taken a while to get to, but here's what I picked up on a first glance through (going quite quickly, so forgive me if it seems brash in parts...):

Lead

You've linked Philadelphia & Toronto, but not London or Paris. Is this deliberate?

I think this is just a nautral result of random editors linking and unlinking, but I think the guideline is MOS:OVERLINK which says "names of major geographic features" Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, it wasn't "the last album to feature" Robertson, as he featured on many other albums later in his career

Fixed Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

compiled the best versions into the album doesn't quite scan right for me. Do we compile into an album?

Changed slightly. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've forgotten what's technically correct here, but is "No. 2" better than saying "number two"?

Well it's consistent with all those London street GAs I've done that use No. x left right and centre, so I would assume so :-/ Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should we link "UK charts" to the "UK Albums Chart"?

Don't see why not Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recording

developed a strong live following by headlining the Reading Festival - by headlining the festival?

changed to "following, including headlining the Reading Festival"

It might add some colour if we knew roughly when Roberston had briefly left/rejoined (and why)
at the start of the year - which year was this?

Clarified Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Might be nice to describe Visconti as an American producer

Do we need to? I don't think his nationality had any impact on his specific production skills

Fair enough. — sparklism ^hey! 20:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

maintained huge success feels a little weasely

Agreed. Fixed Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However, Visconti had a very tight schedule and had committed to producing several albums for other artists → "Visconti had already committed to producing several albums for other artists and had a tight schedule...". Hmm, now that I've written that I'm not so sure. It's the "very tight schedule" bit I have a problem with.
two weeks together compiling a live album instead from earlier recordings → "two weeks together compiling a live album from earlier recordings instead"?

Fixed Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add some context to JtF by introducing it something like "their seventh/1976 album Jonny the Fox"

Done Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Visconti later revealed that shows → "Visconti later revealed that recordings from shows"

I've changed "used" to "recorded", which amounts to the same thing

In the image caption, shouldn't the album title used be in italics per MOS:ALBUM?

Yup. Fixed Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Production

I made a small edit here, revert if you disagree [1]

The problem with that is that the sentence now has "overdub" twice in the same sentence, but on the other hand it does make it obvious to the reader what "them" is talking about. I'll have to come to back to this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is 'separation' in this context the same as Separation mastering points? Link if so.

It isn't. That's taking say, kick, snare, hi-hat, overheads and tom mics and sub-mixing them to a group called "drums". "Separation" here refers to the lack of bleed of other instruments on a track; for example, if the guitar is completely separated from the drums, you can replace the track entirely without worrying about the original version still be audible elsewhere. Conversely, "Fifty" by Rhonda and the Great Unknown (conflict of interest, moi?) had the drums, bass, rhythm guitar and lead vocal all recorded live, so if anyone made a mistake, we had to do a completely fresh take. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay :) — sparklism ^hey! 20:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the quote box, should we link 'bleed' to Spill (audio) or does the MOS say otherwise?

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Linking says "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader." (so that's a "no" then) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cover

Bit on the small side, this section, though it reads quite nicely. Could this be merged with the following 'Release' section into a 'Packaging & Release' section or something similar?

I've merged it with "production", which seems to be the most suitable place Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does ref #1 really include the "overt reference to cocaine"? Why would this be important enough to make the cover? (i.e. did the band have a history of cocaine use etc.)

The citation is the LP cover, a scan of which is here. I personally would not count a straw, a rolled up £5 note and a razor blade as being an obvious cocaine reference as "information challenged or likely to be challenged"; your mileage may vary. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can hazard a pretty good guess at what the designers meant, but personally I don't think this is a strong enough reference to back up that claim. — sparklism ^hey! 20:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Release

"No. 2" again. And do we know if it peaked in the first week of release or later?

It's definitely later, but I'm not sure Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which label(s) released the album outside of America?

Vertigo Records (also added to the article) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was the original release on double vinyl? Was there a cassette release?

I have an original LP (although it may be an early 80s reissue; they are technically indistinguishable). It probably would have been issued on cassette like most high-charting LPs in the 1970s, but I don't think we normally bother mentioning that unless there is a specific difference in track listing or something else worth

The original (and every) vinyl release was a double album. There was a cassette released in '78 (I have a copy), and it's a single cassette with all the songs crammed on to it. A double cassette was prepared but not issued, IIRC. Just an FYI, not saying it should or shouldn't be in the text. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(after previously being with Mercury Records in that region) → (after the band had previously been with Mercury Records in that region)

Tweaked. As I understand it, the band really wanted to crack America as that's where the big market was and were getting pissed off with their label not bothering to promote them very much. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"UK charts" → UK Singles Chart

Done Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

after a one-off gig in Ibiza - what was "one-off" about it?

It wasn't part of a tour featuring multiple gigs on consecutive nights. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another tweak of mine [2] - again, revert me if you like
We are repeating Roberston's brief departure that was mentioned in the 'Recording' section

Fixed Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We should 'introduce' Bain & Moore by describing who they were

Bain is easy; Moore had been playing on and off with Lynott for about ten years at this point and their careers have intersected a lot. I'm not sure what to do here Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

a number of short occasions doesn't quite make sense (to me, at least)

I've reworded this to give the specific years; basically Moore had three stints in Thin Lizzy - he quit the first, the second was temporary, and in the third he was either fired or quit depending on who's talking. Who needs soap operas? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a nitpick, but are we sure the reader of this article would be completely familiar with video, DVD & CD - enough not to link them? (Some of these appeared earlier too)

I think for now this comes under "common terms" as hinted by the MOS; though I think it's only a matter of time before kids don't know what a video is. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are repeating about the video & DVD release here, though I get why it is in both sections

I've tweaked the first mention; I'm not exactly sure when the first video came out, early 80s? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

I'm AGFing on lots of these sources, but did Bailie really say that the album holds "his own"?

I don't have a copy of this, but I don't think we need specific quotations; I've trimmed it down to generalities. It doesn't sound anything out of the ordinary - the review copy is basically designed to hype up the album and get people to buy it (again). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

one of the best despite if there were any overdubs Hmm, this doesn't quite scan right to me.

Fixed Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NME should be italicised
For context, in which year was 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die published?

2011. I've added this as the content of 1001 Albums is different between editions (new albums come in, which means older ones have to go). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Track listing

In the 'Release' section earlier, we had "Rosalie / Cowgirl's Song", but here we have "Rosalie/Cowgirl's Song" - just choose one format for consistency

Done Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remastered edition

I've got a feeling this needs some work. The text could (possibly) do with a bit of work, CD song titles are not formatted properly (might be better in a collapsible box, too) and the numbering is wrong

The problem with the prose is that you would have thought at least one magazine would have covered the remastered edition, but a quick Google search reveals nothing obvious that I would call an independent and reliable source that can be used here. As I've only got the original LP, and never particularly felt like upgrading to any remastered version, I'm stuck beyond just the basics. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be full scans here if needed. — sparklism ^hey! 20:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personnel

There's no mention of any technical personnel here, do we have anything on recording/production staff to include?

There's a whole load of stuff on the rear LP sleeve, I'm just wondering what would be useful to add. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

My biggest gripe is that there isn't much here to describe the music/performance - what does this album sound like? We have lots about recording, overdubs etc., but not much about the actual music. Is it realistic to work some of this into the article given the sources available?

This seems to be general problem with live albums, from what I can tell. While band biographies tend to go into studio albums with some depth eg: choice of songs, studio, any artistic disagreements, they don't go much into live albums beyond saying "the group's tour of 'x' was recorded and later released as the live album 'y'". I don't know if Bretonbanquet has got any other sources I've missed, but certainly there doesn't seem to have been much conscious decision to record a live album other than it just felt like the right thing to do at that point. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm sort of cool with this. Usually I'd fail GA-album nominations for not talking enough about what the album sounds like, but if the sources don't exists then we shouldn't try to invent them. I guess live albums are slightly different anyway. — sparklism ^hey! 20:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be fairly standard with live albums; it explains why two sources can get most of the way there for about at least 5 Who studio albums, they fall short for Live at Leeds. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, this is a great article already. This was just a very quick run through, so I might find more next time through. I look forward to seeing your responses Ritchie! :) — sparklism ^hey! 15:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've only just noticed this! Haha.. it looks good. I have a few points (and a hell of a lot of source material if required). I'll just ramble on and people can take what they want from it, or ask, or whatever. All three nights of the 1976 Hammersmith shows were recorded (14-16 November), and the first night was also filmed but that footage was never used. The shows were recorded by Will Reid Dick, using the Maison Rouge mobile studio. Lynott asked Dick to mix the shows roughly and put them on a cassette so Lynott could listen at his leisure and pick out the best bits for potential use. Dick did this at Ramport Studios a month or so later. Dick does say though that the first night (14 Nov) was deemed to be "not very good or something" and he only mixed the 15-16 November shows. Whether or not the 14 November show was later used, I don't know at the moment.

They didn't really have a plan to release a live album until it emerged in early '78 that a) they didn't have enough material for a studio album – having started work on what would become Black Rose, all they had were a bunch of tracks of varying quality, several of which were never used; and b) Visconti didn't have enough time because he was tied up with Mr Bowie. According to Visconti's biography, Lynott gave him a choice: either work on a Lizzy studio album for a month, go off and deal with Bowie, then come back and finish the Lizzy album; or spend that month putting together a live album. So they went with the latter, as it would keep them in the public eye while giving them time to get some new material together.

When it came to choosing the songs for Live and Dangerous, there was basically Thin Lizzy, Visconti and tape operator/engineer Kit Woolven. Woolven said there were "at least three" gigs on 40 tapes and each tour was recorded by a different engineer in a different way, making it difficult to edit them into a coherent live album. Also the tape formats were different; this is probably veering into "too technical" territory, but basically it cost more than expected and took longer. Woolven backs up the band's claim that there were few overdubs – no solos were re-recorded due to leakage across the mikes onstage as Robbo says. Woolven also said, "Downey didn't have to do anything in post-production." Some bass mistakes were overdubbed. It's very difficult to say for sure just what was overdubbed and what wasn't, as many of the protagonists simply disagree. All overdubs were done at Good Earth – Visconti's bio backs that up, not sure where the Studio des Dames claim comes from. Some songs ("It's Only Money", "Johnny", "Opium Trail", "Soldier of Fortune" for example) were recorded but not used, which was probably Lynott's decision. Visconti would have had some input into sequencing, but Lynott would have ultimately decided everything.

Photography was by Chalkie Davies and the article already covers the thing about the cover initially being mooted as the back cover. Davies says that the album cover was originally supposed to feature the band's logo in the photo, but it proved impossible. Lynott wanted the whole band on the front cover, but Davies, O'Donnell and the record company wanted the big photo of Lynott on his knees as the front cover. That photo was taken on 11 October 1977 at the Municipal Auditorium in San Antonio. The folks responsible for putting the whole photo package together were Sutton Cooper (they also did Bad Reputation) and Davies wasn't involved in that side of it. Roger Cooper of Sutton Cooper says that no other photo was seriously considered for the cover, and Lynott was consulted on every aspect of the album package. Gorham was also interested, but Downey and Robertson were not. The working title of the album was Thin Lizzy Live. I also have a source (Bailie p.131) that says the photo of the mirror/straw/razor blade etc was taken by Lynott in the Maison Rouge mobile, and he insisted it be included even though everyone else thought it was a stupid idea to advertise the band's drug use.

I've got loads of this stuff. Does anybody want to know anything specific? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sparklism: Just a quick update where we are this, there is some content I want to get off the LP sleeve notes, plus checking what missing information me want to get out of Bretonbanquet's collection of sources, plus I've been busy with a few other GA reviews (typical, you wait ages for a review then three turn up at once - like buses). Then I think we will have got everything sorted out, more or less. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all - take as long as you need. — sparklism ^hey! 20:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sparklism: Okay, I've expanded out the remastered edition so there's some more "meat" to it, added the source referenced about re: the cocaine image and done a few other bits and bobs. I think that's everything covered, unless I've missed anything? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see the reviewer disappeared and everything looks addressed, so I'm gonna double-check this article over the next couple days and I'll pass if I don't see any remaining issues. Wizardman 02:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finally found a moment to look through and didn't see anything of note, so I'll close and pass this. Wizardman 00:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]