Jump to content

Talk:Rainy Day Women Nos. 12 & 35/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Ojorojo (talk · contribs) 16:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Benny & Mick: I'll review this. On first reading, it's interesting and checks all the boxes. I might be busy for the next couple of days, but I'll get to it soon. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]
Resolved
  • Inline citations – Genres are normally stated and referenced in the body of the article (Template:Infobox song#genre). Although Ruhlmann uses "folk/rock", it's unclear if this is different than "folk rock", which is how the genre is usually written (& linked). From the main body, it seems that "blues rock" and possibly "novelty song" may also apply.
  • There are quite a few options for genre, none of which I can find consistently across sources, e.g.
  • New Orleans R&B: from Ribowsky, Mark, 2015. Whiskey Bottles and Brand-New Cars: The Fast Life and Sudden Death of Lynyrd Skynyrd. Chicago Review Press (I had previously removed this)
  • Blues: "An example of Dylan pairing musical twelve-bar blues with a different pattern of lyrics" (Starr, 2021)
  • Pop: "tighter pop songs, all of which became hits" [e.g. Rainy Day Women ♯12 & 35] (Robins, Wayne (2008). A Brief History of Rock, Off the Record, Routledge}}; "lightweight pop" (Charlesworth, Chris (2008). 25 Albums that Rocked the World, Omnibus)
  • Soft rock: (I'm not sure if it's actually a genre, but it gives me a chance to add this odd quote!) "WJBK ... has launched a soft-rock format ... The station is now injecting current Hot 100 singles of non-raucous nature ... [for example] 'Rainy Day Women'" ("WJBK amends its format to soft rock", Billboard, May 14 1966, p.24)
As far as I can tell, the major Dylan books don't describe the song with a genre. I'm not a fan of genres in infoboxes unless there is one clear genre mentioned across sources, but I know that other editors see value in adding them there. Should I include the various genres such as the above in the article text, and then add to the infobox, or is there a better way? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no fan either. Most comprehensive artist bios I've come across rarely indicate a unusable genre, so it often falls to miscellaneous reviews, etc. Genres should not be added simply because they exist somewhere. In this case, neither folk/rock nor psychedelia is discussed in the article and I don't think that there is anything to support their inclusion. The brass band and marching-style drumming reminds me of New Orleans-style, but pop and soft rock are fringe views IMO. It has the structure of a 12-bar blues, but is not blues per se. "Rock" is always an option, but anything else should be stated and preferably receive some discussion in the main body. Up to you.
I've removed genres from the infobox; sources lack consistency on this point, and a lot if them are not in-depth. There's an interesting 1966 ad in Billboard for the single on page 43 here: "First it was folk. Then folk-rock. Now: a completely original bag so new it doesn't even have a name. Yet." BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It will be interesting to see what the genre editors add. "You Know My Name (Look Up the Number)" uses "novelty", but it has a solid source.

Lead

[edit]
Resolved
  • Will address after the rest is reviewed.
  • I hesitate to advise on writing style; please take this as a suggestion to be used or ignored as you see fit:

"Rainy Day Women #12 & 35" (sometimes referred to erroneously as "Everybody Must Get Stoned") is a song written and recorded by American singer-songwriter Bob Dylan. Columbia Records first released an edited version as a single in March 1966, which reached numbers two and seven in the US and UK charts respectively. A longer version appears as the opening track of Dylan's seventh studio album, Blonde on Blonde (1966), and has been included on several compilation albums.

"Rainy Day Women #12 & 35" was recorded in one take in Columbia's Nashville, Tennessee, studio with session musicians. The track was produced by Bob Johnston and features a raucous brass band accompaniment. There has been much debate over both the meaning of the title and of the recurrent chorus, "Everybody must get stoned". Consequently, it became controversial, with some commentators labeling it as "a drug song". The song received acclaim from music critics, several of whom highlighted the playful nature of the track. Over the years, it became one of Dylan's most performed concert pieces, sometimes with variations in the arrangement.

I'm glad it was useful. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background and recording

[edit]
Resolved
  • bjorner.com – Appears to be self-published and includes a lot of copied articles that are likely copyrighted. Wilentz is also used for the same sentence, so maybe bjorner isn't needed or can be replaced.
OK, he appears to meet the SPS exception.
It looks like it is used by several RSs, so OK. Maybe include a hidden note "Self-published, but used by several RS".
  • Last paragraph – Since this describes the song structure and some musical elements, it seems that it would be more appropriate for the Composition section. Also, so a brief description or elaboration of "chromatic decent" and "Sousa-style 6/8 beat" may be helpful since the terms don't link well.
  • Moved the text. I've removed that part of the description as I'm not able to helpfully explain it. (None of the Oxford, Harvard or Bloomsbury dictionaries of music has a definition of "chromatic decent"; the comparison to Sousa is, I guess, helpful to only a minority of readers.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I usually do a little at a time and your feedback is helpful to see if we're heading in the same direction. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Composition and lyrical interpretation

[edit]
Resolved
  • In Robert Shelton's biography of Dylan, Shelton said ... – This construction is a bit awkward. Maybe, "Dylan biographyer Robert Shelton writes that" or such.
  • embarked on his 1966 "world tour" – Is there some reason that quotation marks should be used here?
  • ellipses – These are formatted somewhat inconsistently throughout the article. MOS:ELLIPSES includes "Generally, use a non-breaking space before an ellipsis, and a regular space after it: "Alpha, Bravo,{{nbsp}}... Zulu" Also, I've been advised in reviews that ellipses at the beginning and the end aren't needed except for special cases, but don't have a MOS link for this.
  • Hopefully now consistent (although I did one retain one closing ellipsis in "They'll stone ya when...). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”For example, some people still see "Rainy Day Women" – Song titles should use single quote marks when within a quote (MOS:QWQ).

Releases

[edit]
Resolved
  • highest placing was 7th – Words are preferred in prose (MOS:ORDINAL, MOS:SPELL09).
  • It was also a number 3 in Canada, 9th in the Netherlands. – This type of short-hand seems too informal. Maybe, "It also appeared at number three in Canada and ninth in the Netherlands".
  • this has a duration of 6:17 – Maybe clarify: The album version is 4:36, so the rehearsal is only 1:41? From one video,[1] it sounds as if only the tail end of some discussion precedes the song, rather than a run-through. Also, see earlier comment about bjorner.

BennyOnTheLoose I'll give you a chance to address the comments so far before I add more. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So far, so good. I should finish this before long. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Critical comments

[edit]
  • Looks fine.

Live performances and cover versions

[edit]
Resolved
  • Dylan has performed ... live 963 times – This would be better with some context, such as (if true) "It is in the top 10 of his most frequently performed songs", "It is only surpassed by X, Y, and Z from his post-folk troubadour period", or "He has performed it more than any other song from Blond on Blond". Otherwise, it seems like a random statistic.
  • A day earlier – Two dates are mentioned in the preceding sentence, which makes this a bit awkward (to me at least).
  • During the Dylans' 1978 world tour – "the" appears to be a typo.
  • several decades later were preformed – another typo
  • The first cover version – Maybe add a brief sentence about the group or album. Deming has some good quotes that may be mined, "became so enamored of the shambolic sound of 'Rainy Day Women' that he and the Nashville session crew who played on Blonde on Blonde used it as the basis for an entire album", "turns each song into a massive practical joke, with nearly every number featuring addled march time drumming, bleating horns, incongruent sound effects, and vocalists desperately trying to keep a straight face amidst the chaos", etc. I think there should be something more to mentioning covers than the fact that they exist, but up to you.

Credits and personnel

[edit]
Resolved
  • Section title – Not sure that "Credits" is needed. It appears to be just a list of the personnel.
  • Credits adapted from – Personnel sections don't usually identify the source in the prose, unless there is a good reason (edit warring, etc.) Inline citations after "Musicians" and "Technical" should be sufficient.

Charts and positions

[edit]
Resolved
  • Section title – Not sure that "positions" is needed. I've used "Chart performance" and others simply use "Charts".
  • in the week of May 21, 1966, kept off the top spot – Awkward construction. Maybe split "in the week of May 21, 1966. The Mamas and the Papas' "Monday, Monday" prevented it from reaching the top of the chart".
  • New Zealand Listener – As indicated, Listener was a magazine poll and not tied to sales or airplay. The WP:CHARTS guideline specifies that charts should "cover sales or broadcast outlets from multiple sources". Also, Flavour of New Zealand is self-published and most were added by a now-block user (to increase traffic?). Up to you.
  • I had removed the NZ entry in December, but restored it based on the Scapolo book. However, I think the NZ charts from 1966 fail on the point you quote above, so have removed that entry. (Incidentally, I see the quote from the Scapolo book at [Wikipedia_talk:Record_charts/Archive_18#Listener_New_Zealand_charts] has "The polls were eventually replaced in April 1970 by sales figures, which were reasonably accurate"; in the later edition, 1966 to 2006, this has been replaced with "In April 1970 the charts were formatted differently, allegedly by sales...") BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC didn't resolve the issue as far as I'm concerned – a magazine poll is not a record sales/airplay chart and shouldn't be presented as one, even to fill in a gap. Whitburn produced an interpretive chart, but it wasn't accepted, even though he is an expert.
  • US Billboard Hot 100 – AllMusic no longer has Billboard listings. Here's the website chart history link.

I'll finish reviewing your changes, the refs, and lead tomorrow. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
Resolved
  • Koozin #24 – There's an extra { in the sfn.
  • Scapolo – No longer needed.
  • Based on spot checks, the rest look fine.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

[edit]

See discussion above.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
Good work Benny (& Mick). I'm glad I had the chance to review this. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Ojorojo for your scrutiny, and BennyOnTheLoose for doing all this work. Mick gold (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for a thorough and constructive review, Ojorojo. Much appreciated. Thanks also Mick gold for all of your contributions. It was a pleasure to work with you both. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So because someone decided we don't need genres in the infobox, for some stupid reason, we're just not going to have genres in the infobox? This site has been jumping the shark for quite some time. Dpm12 (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rainy_Day_Women_Nos._12_%26_35/GA1&oldid=1227819308"