Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Blues/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Blues

[edit]

Self-nom: Great article. Very comprehensive. This is a central topic in music and (Afro-)American culture. The focus is threefold: musical style, history and influence. The history section is also a review of all blues sub-genres, listing most prominent artists. It is referenced more than 1500 times. I think we need to get it featured.

This article has been twice peerreviewed: Wikipedia:Peer review/Blues/archive1 and Wikipedia:Peer review/Blues/archive2

Vb 12:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow...it's brilliant. One peeve: the audio samples box obscures some of the text in the lyrics section on Firefox 1.5 under a 1280*1024 resolution. If this can be fixed, I will gladly support. Johnleemk | Talk 13:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support terrific article. My only question is am I the only one who would have expected it to be called The blues? Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, agreed that it is a terrific article. It has been moved to the blues, which I think is incorrect -- article titles don't generally use articles in their titles (if that makes sense) unless it's a proper noun like an album title or band name. Tuf-Kat 14:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. My objection on peer review has been fixed very well. This is an article that really needs to be featured. rspeer 15:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Should be "Blues", not "The blues": The Middle East redirects to Middle East. Also, some images need fair use rationales: Image:BluesBrothers.jpg, Image:BBKingClub.jpg. -Silence 16:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your first comment has been addressed by Quill. Your second one maybe correct but I have really poor experience with the fair use practice. I'll try to do my best. Could you help? Vb 11:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have taken the liberty of moving the artile from "The blues" to "Blues" in accordance with Wikipedia precedent (Netherlands, United States, &c.) I have checked for any double redirects and changed the {{redirect}} template to {{other uses}} as well as changing the title of the article in the text and adjusting this nomination. --Oldak Quill 18:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. What's in a name? This article is wonderful whatever name it lands on. I'm No Parking and I approved this message 03:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, has just about everything I could expect from this article. Andrew Levine 02:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. First, the choice of images and discussion in the latter part of the article leaves the impression, which I doubt was intended, that blues has morphed into a mode of music dominated by white artists. Second, the article needs a thorough copyedit, not just for things like Howlin'/Howling Wolf, but for segments like "On the other hand, John Lee Hooker's blues is very rigorous. It is based on the rhythmic repetition of a single phrase accompanied by a single electric guitar. His very personal style can sound very monotone to some, but many recognize in it a kind of rhythmic trance typical of the Delta blues." Third, the section on the 1960's acoustic revival is inadequate; it needs discussion of the role of Newport and the efforts of people like Dick Waterman to locate nearly-forgotten major blues performers. Perhaps most important, the set of references disturbs me; it excludes any of the major books devoted specifically to blues research/criticism that come to mind, like those of Robert Palmer, Peter Guralnick, and Elijah Wald (to pick three names that occur to me immediately, not to suggest that those three writers would be sufficient research) or any of the biographies of major artists. I don't like the way the article feels constricted and categorical; you'd never guess from reading it that Louis Armstrong, Bob Dylan, and Duke Ellington made significant blues recordings, or that the Paul Butterfield Blues Band was influential (particlarly on white audiences) in the 1960's. Monicasdude 16:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you very much for your comments. They seem to stem from someone who know a lot about blues. I hope you will soon be able to contibute to this article as an editor.
      • To your first comment: This impression was really unintended. However I think Stevie Ray Vaughan is an influential musician who deserves a picture in this article. It is moreover true that now both black and white audiences have mixed. As contemporary artists (1980-present) are listed Jessie Hemphill or Keb'Mo which are definitively non white. I would be very happy if you could provide us some more precise hints how to get rid of this impression.
      • About copyedit. My mother tongue is not English so that it is difficult for me to write the perfect brilliant prose. I have put the copyedit tag which has been removed by a copy editor after three different copyeditor did the job.
      • In this article we have mentioned the 1960s revival. We have not aimed and comprehensiveness. One could mention the Newport festival but this article is an overview article which is already quite big. Are you sure Dick Waterman and the Newport festivals are really worth being mentioned at this level or shouldn't we need a daughter article for these?
      • I agree with your comments about the bibliography. Well we have tried to find out references to assert some claims. It was maybe not professional enough. I am very sad you have not acted as an editor. The article would have been definitively better. The question is whether -- though this article is not perfect -- it is not worth being featured. Compare it with comparable articles like jazz.
      • Louis Armstrong, Bob Dylan, and Duke Ellington have indeed made significant blues recording but they were definitively not blues artists. Here I don't agree with you. We have stressed the point that blues appears at unexpected places and that many jazz artists are using extensively the blues form. I don't think it needs to be said more often.
      • I don't know Paul Butterfield I'll have a look whether he is worth mentioning.
    • All in all I think your comments need more than just a bit of edit and I will try to do my best to address them. I however have to think a bit about it. Watch this page! Vb 08:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have tried to address your objections -- as far as I feel able to do so. Please don't hesitate to provide further objections. Vb 12:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant object. I really like the opening sections of the article and was on a path to support, but the "Musical and social impact" section is something of a mess, mixing history (spiritual as pre-cursor), analysis, and random facts; it also has some awkward language that needs work. A few other comments: the bit on the etymology of the term should include the fact that the term came generally to refer to the type of sadness often expressed in the songs; the History sections could use to be less of a listing of artists and more of an explanation of the development of the music (for example there should be more explanation of how the postwar migration from South to North (particularly the Delta to Chicago) and the change from informal performance to nightclub entertainment for working men influenced the diversification of styles, something that is covered in some detail in several of the references listed); finally, I must agree that a copy-editing scrub is in order for style and grammar. Jgm 22:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your comments. I hope you will participate soon as an editor. I think you could contribute very well.
      • We have tried to provide the following structure to the impact section:
        • Broad influence of the blues as a musical form
        • Influence on R&B. Because this influence came via gospel-soul-funk, I felt we needed to discuss first the link between spirituals and blues.
        • Influence on jazz.
        • Influence on rock.
        • Influence now as an element of the american culture.
      • Your comment sounds as if it weren't a success. Could you maybe precise your comment so that we can attain our aim. About akward language: We need a pair of fresh eyes. Please copyedit!
      • About the bit of etymology. OK. I'll do asap.
      • OK we have said the Chicago blues is very influenced by the Mississippi blues due to the migration. We should stress it better. I don't know what you mean about "nightclub entertainment".
    • As for Monicasdude's comments, I think they are really constructive and I hope I'll be able to address them. Though I am a blues fan I don't know everything and your help would be very acknowledged for very concrete suggestions. Watch this page! Vb 08:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have tried to address your objections -- as far as I feel able to do so. Please don't hesitate to provide further objections. Vb 12:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear reviewers, since its nomination, this article has been changed according to your suggestions [1], could you please check whether we successfully responded to the objections and whether one can remove the copy-edit tag. If not please let us know. We need some feedback. Vb 17:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object: The article contains a great amount of interesting info, and obviously represents a lot of work. My objection is with comprehensiveness. I have struck my previous support (below) because it seemed to be "inactionable". Here is more specific support. A lot of information is presented, however, a clear narrative does not emerge. I did a quick bit of research, and quickly came up with much information that made me question many areas of this article, for balance and for accuracy. In a topic like this, it is very easy to establish a POV that may distort the subject. Some examples (these are examples, not "every instance of a problem", the problem as I see it is greater):

  • Listing and generalizations are often used in place of detail and context. For example, the article says, "Classic female urban blues singers were extremely popular in the 1920s, among them Mamie Smith, Gertrude "Ma" Rainey, Bessie Smith, and Victoria Spivey. These women were among the first major musical stars in the country." It fails to note:
  • Mamie Smith was the first to record blues songs in 1920 with her versions of "Crazy Blues", and "It' s Right Here for You" [...]selling over a million copies in less than a year, and finally ending up selling over two million copies. The success of "Crazy Blues" prompted other record companies to also try to find other female blues singers that could match the sales of "Crazy Blues". It was a very important record, because it opened the doors of the recording industry to African-Americans, whether they were Blues, Jazz or popular singers or musicians. Smith herself really wasn't that much of a Blues singer. She was more of a vaudeville performer, although she included Blues and Jazz numbers as part of her act.
Well. Don't you think this article is long enogh (48K)? I have the feeling your source is not in contradistinction with what stands in the article. Do you really think we have to go into the controversial issue whether Smith was a blues performer of not? This is intended to be an overview article not a 200-page scholar publication. This is the reason why we have tried to make some generalization and categorization without going too much into the details. I consider the example you provided not correct so please provide another one. Thank you. Vb 12:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to the length of the article as a reason for excluding info is, um, IMO quite bogus. And your statement, Do you really think we have to go into the controversial issue whether Smith was a blues performer of not, perfectly illustrates my problem. Dealing with issues by omitting them, rather than by covering them through skillful writing, is a big problem, and for one, with NPOV. An "overview" should be a really well-conceived and executed distillation of the facts, not a word count target and no "wrong" statements. Much bad journalism is of that latter category: it gets to a point, and doesn't say anything "wrong", but still can and often does miss conveying a true and fair picture. Bottom line, in a topic as broad and contentious as this, if you don't have ALL of the info spinning around in your head like a front-loading washing machine whose agitate cycle never ends, you can't properly boil it down to a great overview. --Tsavage 23:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the paragraph we are discussing about:
    City blues were much more codified and elaborate.[29] Classic female urban blues singers were extremely popular in the 1920s, among them Mamie Smith, Gertrude "Ma" Rainey, Bessie Smith, and Victoria Spivey. These women were among the first major musical stars in the country. Bessie Smith, known as the "Empress of the Blues", was perhaps the most well-known and respected of these women, and one of the top performers of her day.[30] Her mentor, Ma Rainey, similarly respected, was called the "Mother of Blues". According to Clarke,[31] both performers used a "method of singing each song around centre tones, perhaps in order to project her voice more easily to the back of a room" and Smith "would also choose to sing a song in an unusual key, and her artistry in bending and stretching notes with her beautiful, powerful contralto to accommodate her own interpretation was unsurpassed".
So what does it state? (1) There exists a style called "classic female urban blues" with a set of well-known performers. (2) The style was very popular in the '20s. (3) It describes the style using citations of scholar works. Not more than that. It even doesn't claim that this style is clearly to be categorized into the blues category. The question is not the count of the words but the emphasis to be put on the topic in comparision with other sub-genres or historical evolution of the blues. It seems to be clear that the classic female urban blues has had a huge impact on the history of the blues. We say in the "musical impact" section that before the war, the distinction between blues and jazz was quite vague. Would you like us to say here explicitly a sentence like "straddling the blues and jazz genres"? What are you really missing here? The number of disks sold by Bessie Smith? I have not written this paragraph. If I would criticize this I would strike the citations because I think in this case less is more. But as I read you I believe you think the opposite and would like this paragraph to be expanded. Am I right? Vb 10:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Musical style" section seems overly specific in describing "the blues" - The impression (at least, to a non-musician) is that the blues has a strict base definition, the "basic twelve-bar lyric framework of a blues composition". There is no nuance, recognizing:
  • Most blues researchers claim that the very early blues were patterned after English ballads and often had eight, ten, or sixteen bars. (Tanner 36) The blues now consists of a definite progression of harmonies usually consisting of eight, twelve or sixteen measures, though the twelve bar blues are, by far, the most common. etc, and...
  • One of the problems regarding defining what the blues are is the variety of authoritative opinions.
We have already in the article:
  • There are few characteristics common to all blues, because the genre takes its shape from the peculiarities of individual performances.
  • In addition to the conventional twelve-bar blues, there are many blues in 8-bar form, such as "How Long Blues", "Trouble in Mind", and Big Bill Broonzy's "Key to the Highway". There are also 16-bar blues, as in Ray Charles's instrumental "Sweet 16 Bars".
  • At the time, there was no clear musical division between "blues" and "country" except for the race of the performer, and even that was sometimes incorrectly documented by the record companies.[19] Popular misconceptions attempt to place blues into these racial categories: studies have situated the origin of "black" spiritual music inside slaves' exposure to their masters' Hebridean-originated gospels. African-American economist and historian Thomas Sowell also notes that the Southern, black, ex-slave population was acculturated to a considerable degree by and among their Scots-Irish "redneck" neighbors.
  • Songs from this early period had many different structures. Examples can be found in Henry Thomas's recordings. However, the twelve-, eight-, or sixteen-bar structure based on tonic, subdominant and dominant chords became the most common.[12]
  • Spirituals are often cited as the origin of the blues. Musically, spirituals were a descendent of New England choral traditions, and in particular of Isaac Watts's hymns, mixed with African rhythms and call-and-response forms.
  • Most early country bluesmen such as Skip James or Charley Patton were able to play as well both genres, which usually basically only differ in the lyrics.
All those remarks show that we don't neglect the influence of "white" on "black" music and also that we don't consider the blues as purely defined by the twelve-bar scheme. If I understand you well you consider the article does not stress this point enough. There are so many scholars who wrote about the origins of the blues that it seems it is difficult to make a complete overview in this article. Vb 13:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The History section offers no real explanation for the development of blues; other sources note: ::*Prior to the emergence of the blues, solo music was atypical. Such individualized song had never been the main ingredient of black music. Blues music reflected the new status of African Americans. "there was a direct relationship between the national ideological emphasis upon the individual, the popularity of Booker T. Washington's teachings, and the rise of the blues. Psychologically, socially, and economically, Negroes were being acculturated in a way that would have been impossible during slavery, and it is hardly surprising that their secular music reflected this as much as their religious music did." (Levine, Lawrence W., Black Culture and Black Consciousness.) As a consequence, it was the emphasis on the individual that influenced the blues personalized form of song.
  • After some research I have found some sources for a discussion of the social and economical sources of blues. It was not easy because it seems this topic is quite controversial. I have tried not to introduce any POV or original research. Would you mind checking this. Vb 16:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some other items that are not mentioned here and, if accurate, likely should be:
  • in 1895. George W. Johnson's recording of "Laughing Song" was the first blues song to be recorded.
  • Before the field cry, with its bending of notes, it had not occurred to musicians to explore the area of the blue tonalities on their instruments. (Tanner 38) The early blues singers would sing these "bent" notes, microtonal shadings, or "blue" notes, and the early instrumentalists attempted to duplicate them. (Kamien 520) There is much detail in the Characteristics section, but no explanation of bending...which seems to be one of the more recognizable characteristics to a general audience...
  • As your sources mention it. It seems bent notes are similar to blue notes. Blue notes are of course discussed in the article. If I understand you well, you want us to make this clearer. Am I right? Or do you want us to discuss the bending technique on the guitar. This guitar technique allows the performer to produce blue notes but the description of this is quite technical. Vb 14:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The market for the recorded blues was almost entirely black during the 1920s and 1930s - The article says "In the 1920s, the blues became a major element of American popular music", which, unqualified, gives the impression that it crossed over at that point...
  • I have tried to address this point. As far as I understood from my reading on the topic, Ma Rainey and Bessie Smith were performing mostly in front of whites and Handy was also popular in the white segment of the population. However the other blues styles which began to get recorded in the 1920s were indeed only bought by the blacks. I tried to make this clearer in the text. Please check this. Vb 14:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are many more examples, and I only looked at early blues sections.

  • The writing quality is uneven - There are numerous enough cases of awkward writing and also of abrupt, (often unsupported) summary statements, to have an impact on overall reading quality. Some examples:
  • Minnie's blues was less based on her voice than on her virtuoso guitar style sometimes close to Django Reinhardt's.
  • The most representative slide guitarists of the period are Muddy Waters and Elmore James. The most influential guitarists of the Chicago blues style that did not use slide guitars were B. B. King and Freddy King.
  • ''Another important style of 1930s and early '40s urban blues was boogie-woogie, , a style characterized by...
  • Bessie Smith was a very famous early blues singer in an urban style. (phot caption)
  • However, what made blues really come across to the young white audiences in the early 1960s was the Paul Butterfield Blues Band and the style of British blues that developed in England
  • They emerged mostly because the communities could gather easier during mass or worship gatherings, the so-called camp meetings, and because of their—at first glance—politically correct contents
  • In the early 20th century, the blues was considered disreputable, the first of many styles of African American music to be thus criticized, especially as white audiences began listening to the blues during the 1920s.[38]
All the above mentionned akward sentences have been edited. Could you please check whether it has been correctly done and perhaps provide examples of other akward wordings. Thanks. Vb 16:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The selection of samples is not representative Samples may be considered a bonus to the text; since there are a number present, I'm taking them into account. Given the many styles and variations and periods of blues covered with roughly even weight, the fairly substantial set of samples does not seem representative. Also, the notes should be tied more into what each sample illustrates.
  • No significant coverage of blues record labels - There should be some acknowledgement of the important labels, in their own right, and in connection with particular releases and artists. (As for references, labels would seem at least as important as citing written sources...)

Lots of work has gone this article. It's great that it exists. My comments are simple on FEATURED ARTICLE worthiness. Thanks! (And, if anyone felf my previous version of this objection wasted their time...I was only hoping to avoid article improvement research...like this.). --Tsavage 23:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much for this brilliant critique. I think it is very constructive and many of your comments can be put into the article. I shall to try to address your objections asap. Could you maybe cite your sources? It would help us. Thank you. Vb 12:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is perhaps a bit unusual in that it is based in part on the FAC comments above, specifically, the findings of Monicasdude and Jgm. I don't know much about the blues, but I do have some experience in music editorial, meaning, I believe I can separate areas of concern worth looking into, from simple personal opinion. I also know how difficult consensus in an article of this scope can be to find, and how off-the-mark a piece as widereaching as an "overview of the blues" can seem if done wrong. All kinds of lines can be drawn to separate the "essential" from the rest, but a compromise can be found, even amongst "experts" with strong opinions. I am not confident that this knowledgeable review has taken place. Reading that the nomination's promoter apparently hasn't heard of Paul Butterfield makes me seriously question the current editorial oversight. In additon, the peer reviews were insubstantial (a few lines each of comment only), and the Talk page covers only a few specifics. It would be a real shame to have a whole seminal area of modern music misportrayed in any way, and FAR worse than a shoddy song or artist article. Lots of scholarly and detailed work has been done on the blues, and if there are widely accepted references, these should consulted used (and not just listed as references). Doing a concise summary of a huge topic in a way that WORKS is IMO one of the highest achievements possible, it is GREAT for any reader, but it is also extremely difficult. There is no need to make haste with FA status here, the article is out there, fully accessible, waiting for more eyeballs. The discussion here seems to be open and positive, and there's no intention by me to change that, simply to encourage a true review of comprehensiveness. (I also agree, it needs a good copyedit, and I'd like to see a more representative, and better annotated, selection of samples.) Sorry for the cheap speechifying, if any is perceived (not intended!)... Thank you! --Tsavage 18:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dear Tsavage, I think your object is not actionable. An objection for comprehensiveness is only valid if the reviewer says what is missing. I know now who is Paul Butterfield but I really think we had not missed him. It was written before "...when dozens of bands such as Fleetwood Mac, John Mayall & the Bluesbreakers, The Rolling Stones, The Yardbirds, Paul Butterfield Blues Band, and Cream took to covering the classic blues numbers from either the Delta or Chicago blues traditions." without reference to Paul Butterfield. Maybe many think Paul Butterfield was a huge bluesman but it was simply a bluesman from the British blues movement (which BTW, though I like very much Peter Green and John Mayall, I am not a fan of). Many other artists, who in my opinion are more influential or important, are missing such as Buka White, Big Joe Williams, John Jackson, Luther Johnson, Bob Margolin, etc. I have added Paul Butterfield to please Monicasdude but I sincerely think less would be better if we don't want to turn this prose article into a list. The comments by Monicasdude and Jgm are valid and I think they are big enough to judge by themselves whether we have addressed their objections. You speak also about copyedit. As said above I am not able to write brilliant prose like a native speaker would. So I would appreciate if you could give examples of sentences which need copyediting. Thank you. Vb 09:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (via edit conflict with vb) I think this objection is inactionable because it is based on the volume of peer review and talk page interactions and the fact that the nominator was not familiar with Paul Butterfield. I also don't think objections based on which specific sources are used should be considered actionable. If this article was not based on scholarly works at all, that would be different, but simply not referencing certain books seems unnecessary. This is only supposed to be an overview of a large and diverse genre; discussion of the opinion of the more famous blues scholars would really be more appropriate for subarticles like origins of the blues and history of the blues. And the references cited are hardly unscholarly anyway, aside from one newspaper article. Tuf-Kat 09:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thanks for your patient replies. I realized that my comment might not be interpreted as "actionable", however, I do have an objection (as raised) that I feel relates directly to the basic quality of the article. It's a question of rules and how they're applied. For example, the nomination cites "peer reviews", but there is no process for deciding whether a peer review was of value (has the article in any demonstrable way been rigorously examined prior to FAC?), so what is the point of mentioning peer reviews? Or, is it invalid to base an FAC opinion on other voters' opinions, should such comments ideally not be included in this forum? I'm simply trying to contribute a well-considered opinion to each FAC I participate in, while observing the rules (hopefully, the latter supports the former). Anyhow, the operative word here is "actionable", so I will try in all good faith to see if my very real editorial opinion can be made "legal"... (And I am sincerely NOT here just to argue or try and win points or block FAs or take things down to ridiculous levels of detail, only to help promote articles that are of superior quality, by the principles represented in FAC criteria...) --Tsavage 20:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • People always provide links to previous FACs and PRs, because they often contain useful discussion. Sometimes they don't, sometimes they do. An article may not have any prior FACs or PRs, but if it does, it's considered standard to provide a link in the nomination. The quality or quantity of discussion is not really relevant. Peer reviews are not considered a requirement and, if done, need not have been particularly productive. Tuf-Kat 22:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Stifle has just removed the copy-edit tag just as User:Merishi did on 23 Nov. I therefore guess the article doesn't need any major copyedit anymore. Vb 16:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Many change have been done in this article sine it was FAC [2], I think it would be great if the reviewers could once again tell their mind about the improvements. I think they have been substantial. Vb 18:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Although I wonder about FAC as wholesale article improvement zone, which puts a lot of pressure on objectors to monitor and update their original comments based on significant, even major, rewrites, the process overall is quite cool (positive, transparent, and whatnot else). That said, this blues article has moved forward quite a bit, with a constructive vibe. I will review it again. Whether or not I support, and whatever the ultimate consensus determination is on this FAC pass, I do think this should be pushed to be "all it can be" (renominated if necessary). If any single article can have a large effect on overall Wikipedia credibility, a REALLY GOOD BLUES OVERVIEW (with audio samples!) definitely packs a ton of karmic sway...! --Tsavage 02:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Blues/archive1&oldid=1186663577"