Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Friends (Beach Boys album)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2018 [1].

Friends (The Beach Boys album)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This album is approaching its 50th anniversary on June 24. It's the third LP of the Beach Boys' so-called "lo-fi trilogy" (after Smiley Smile and Wild Honey).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:BeachBoysFriends.jpg needs an expanded FUR

Comments Support by Ceoil

[edit]
  • Some online refs contain retrieval dates, but most don't. Also, "Brian Answer's Fans' Questions In Live Q&A". January 29, 2014. Retrieved 27 June 2014." - no mention of publisher. Ceoil (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Done --Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The LP was met with poor sales - not sure about "was met" here, maybe just "did not sell very well, compared to previous.." "commercially unsuccessful" or something.
    Done --Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you could put together a stronger lead
    Done--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general the writing is very strong; will take a proper look later today. Ceoil (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources see fine as regards reliability, no red flags. Some of the book sources lack the publishers location, which will need to be sorted. Ceoil (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it necessary? I removed a lot of the location values to maintain citation consistency. WP:CS does not include a location in its lead example, and it would seem a bit superfluous to mark "London" onto something published by Oxford University.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It is at FAC, and partially related to V, and that different locations relate to different editions. You might not get pulled up on it later, but you probably will. BTY, Oxford is not in London. Ceoil (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • that echoed some of the qualities of Smile - would be interesting if this was briefly expanded on - "some of" is vague. Ceoil (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Done--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new, expanded lead is a huge improvement
  • Friends marked the last Beach Boys album where Brian held most of the writing or co-writing credits until 1977's The Beach Boys Love You. - "until" isn't the right word here; there are tense and logical issue with the sentence
    Done? --Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the songs were inspired by Transcendental Meditation and the group's recent involvement with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi - This implies two separate influences. I suspect you should swap the order (he was a fashionable charismatic) and use the words "which lead to"
    Done --Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subsequent albums would also see Dennis contribute more original songs - "Denis contributed more songs in later Beach Boy albums". Also "Pacific Ocean Blue" deserves an accolade; maybe seminal, or just critically acclaimed classic.
Done I think "critically acclaimed" would be WP:PEACOCK and to say anything more about his solo career would be drifting too far on a tangent 10 years removed from the album. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, it's factually "critically acclaimed", and the point needed is that he emerged from under Brian's wing Ceoil (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That point already comes across regardless of whether the album was acclaimed (it was not celebrated at the time of its release).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So what that it was not at first appreciated when we are talking here some 30 years later? Also, we called Pet Sounds here a "masterwork". Ceoil (talk) 22:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead should probably more explicitly make the connection between "It sold poorly, peaking at number 126 on the US Billboard charts, the group's lowest US chart performance to date" and "Bruce Johnston described the album as a conscious attempt to make something "really subtle ... that wasn't concerned with radio." Spell out the band's situation and Wilson's thinking, then add the Johnson bit, then the chart numbers.
I'm not sure what you mean. They weren't deliberately making an album that would bomb. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing establishing the apparent cause and effect, deliberate or not; "subtle" + "that wasn't concerned with radio" = "sold poorly". The sequencing is out here Ceoil (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That point already comes across in the lead's second sentence (" ... its calm and peaceful atmosphere, which contrasted with the prevailing music trends of the time ... ").--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first and third paras of the reception section open with the 2017 MOJO review.
That is on purpose - one claim is concerned with the contemporary reception and the other is the author's opinion.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if you paraphrase the first para as recommended below it wont be an issue. Ceoil (talk) 22:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jardine remembered: "I really valued that time that I had with [Brian]. I felt that he still had a lot to offer. ... We wrote [most of the Friends music] at his house right under that beautiful stained glass Wild Honey cover window."[12] - Maybe begin the quote with "I felt that he [Brian]..."
  • According to a Mojo retrospective, the group's remaining fanbase reacted - over attribution. The statement is fact, so we dont need "According to a Mojo retrospective", and thus "any hope that Brian Wilson would deliver a true successor to his 1966 masterwork," Pet Sounds.[2] would be better paraphrased as "stopped believing that the Beach Boys would release an album as commercially accessible as "Pet Sounds", or something.
That cannot possibly be a factual statement unless the author surveyed every Beach Boys fan in 1968. That paraphrasing would also be distorting the author's meaning. The implicit suggestion is that most fans of the group were already turned off by Smiley and Honey.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sales figures give a pretty solid indication, as ever. Also it's established in pretty every Beach Boys book I've read. I think you may be over cautious and over thinking. My wording was a suggestion only, you might be able to do better in paraphrasing. Ceoil (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a connection between the poor sales of Friends and whether anyone believed that the group would make another Pet Sounds. They could have potentially made 10 more albums like Pet Sounds if Brian didn't get sick. The public had no idea what was going on within the group at the time - most people probably thought Cabinessence and Our Prayer were brand new when they were released on 20/20. You really shouldn't take music critics and biographers as gospel when it comes to questions like this, and especially for these kinds of vaguely hyperbolic/generalized claims. XTC's Nonsuch is a good example - most people who write about this album contradict each other on whether it was loved or loathed at the time. And that album only came out 25 years ago! The only way we can confirm what the critical reception was like is by finding the original reviews. As it happens, the two I could find for Friends were both positive. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok accepted. Ceoil (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "ignominy" sits uneasily in the lead.
Done--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Was credited" is an obtuse way of saying "wrote".
That is on purpose. Honey was the last album where he was "primary composer", Friends is the last where he was credited for most of the songs - he did not write most of the album. It's a nitpicky but important distinction. This is why some people get confused about whether Honey or Friends was "the last Brian-led album".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that makes sense. Ceoil (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is overwhelmingly sourced to websites and magazine articles, rather than books, of which, of course there are stacks. Could this imbalance be addressed; ideally we would have a "notes" and "sources" sections. As it stands there is no handy guidance as to dead tree reading.
  • ??? There's 8 web citations, 16 book citations, 8 magazine citations, and 4 liner notes citations (lost count of what the remaining 5 are).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I say, I prefer a split between footnotes and sources so I immediately know what I'm dealing with. But regardless this is a content and prose review, not the source review, so fine. Ceoil (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean now. The reason it's like that is because most of the books devote less than 2 or 3 pages to the album, so it seemed unnecessary to incorporate harv referencing.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting doesnt at all imply harv referencing, but the point (to me) is not substantial or deal breaking. Ceoil (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by JG66

[edit]

Surprised to see this one nominated for FAC – in my opinion, it seems pretty rough and under-developed. I'm talking mainly about the handling of the Maharishi tour, since I came here from the '68 BBs/Maharishi tour article.

I suppose it's partly because I recognise much of the text from the other article, but the Maharishi tour section reads as if it's been inserted without much effort paid to addressing the subject in the context of this album article. Similarly, Legacy gives over almost a whole paragraph to the fallout out from the tour, but it's not really established how this has a bearing on the album's legacy. The tour is relevant through being contemporaneous with the release of Friends, and both projects reflect the Beach Boys' public association with the Maharishi, but that text under Legacy focuses solely on the legacy of the tour itself. Aside from this issue, though, the section's more like "Aftermath" – a preview of Beach Boys history to follow. Strictly speaking, only three sentences in the third para there ("In 1990, biographer David Leaf wrote that Friends had 'grown in stature …' Among cover versions of the Friends tracks … Lo-fi musician R. Stevie Moore ...") strike me as album legacy-related.

I also find the Background section unfocused. In the same way as Legacy gives way to BBs subsequent history, it seems that Background mostly takes the form of BBs history pre-Friends: both sections appear to be giving details for the sake of it, almost, rather than with a clear focus on how the events described actually fit in the context of the album article. I appreciate the importance of Smiley Smile and Wild Honey, because of their place in the lo-fi trilogy, but I'd say the writing could be tighter and more focused. Given that I know more about the Maharishi tour than I do about Friends, I'm aware that I might be attaching too much significance here to the association with the Maharishi. On the other hand, the lead includes three references to the Beach Boys–Maharishi association, which seems to suggest it is important.

So, my solution to all the above would be to cut down the backstory given in the first two paragraphs of Background (just a thought, but perhaps mention of Brian's "reduced involvement" in Wild Honey could go to Recording instead). Then, in the third paragraph, give more on the band's initial embrace of the Maharishi's teachings. For instance, when writing the tour article, I remember reading Brian's reaction to meeting the Maharishi in January 1968 and how he was intending to introduce TM to his father. This would better establish the relevance of Maharishi so that the association becomes more of a foundation from the start. (Whereas, currently, we have a brief mention under Background and then mention of the Maharishi influence in some of the songs, before dedicating a full section to the tour and then, under Legacy, giving the impression that the tour and the album are as one.)

I find the discussion of post-Friends musical activities also lacking focus in terms of relevance to the album. One expects to read about the band's activities around the time of the album's release but everything from "Around June, Dennis befriended Charles Manson" onwards seems to have that same history-for-the-sake-of-it feel without a clear relevance to the album. This is especially the case with mention of "Do It Again", and I get the same feeling with the sentences dedicated to that single in the lead, in fact. I mean, in the lead and in the article body, the implication's there but it's not stated: was this "self-conscious throwback to the group's early surf songs" a reaction to the bad PR caused by the band's public association with the Maharishi and the commercial failure of Friends? And were the July and August US tours undertaken in support of Friends? Did songs from the album feature heavily in the setlist – or did the group deliberately put the experience behind them in an effort to reconnect with their US audience, and instead stick to the much-loved hits? It's this sort of implication and/or omission that I meant above by "under-developed". In much of the Background, Maharishi tour, Release and Legacy sections, the details sit on the page without anything really tying them into the whole. That's not the case at all in the Production & style, Content and (first half of) Release sections – and they're great because the text there is engaged and engaging.

I'm sorry these comments aren't of the bulleted-list variety, but it's hard to nail it in a list of quick-fix items, which is an indication of how, in my opinion, the problems are much deeper. I just think the article needs a bit more time and care given to it. JG66 (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some of those points are kinda weird. The article is about the recordings the Beach Boys made and released in early 1968, and so naturally there should be much supporting details regarding the state of their career in that point in time. A lot of the rhetoric about the album concerns two things: 1) the Beach Boys became more of a group effort while Brian took a back seat 2) The album was a bomb and its music didn't fit in with the times. Both are also true, to an extent, of the albums that directly precede Friends. So, to paint a comprehensive picture of the historical context of Friends, there ought to be some acknowledgements that the band were going through a transition.
The "Release" section details the band's activities from June to August while the album was making the rounds on the charts. Note that all of the contemporary reviews were published after the "Do It Again" single was issued. And "Legacy" is, as you said, a kind of "aftermath" section. It summarizes how Friends was the beginning of numerous trends for the group. All of this, including the lasting effects of the tour and the band's continuing association with TM, helps put the album in context.
Here's some of the concerns I share: there could be more info about the Maharishi's influence on Friends, but I couldn't find much. I remember reading that the Wilson brothers were nowhere near as interested in TM as Love or Jardine. That isn't noted, but should be. Other details, like the group incorporating Friends songs in their set lists, would also be good, but the sources that note that kind of thing aren't available to me. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'm relieved to hear that. I think the article still needs some more work. I came here on 3 May to add a link to the tour article and noticed it was pretty flimsy on content. You started expanding it on 24 May, and I'd agree it's now a B on the quality rating, but here it is, up at FAC just days later. I'll add anything else I come across that might help alleviate the problems I mentioned. I think a thorough copy edit from a fresh pair of eyes might be a good idea.
  • Incidentally, are you sure that the non-specific citation method is acceptable for an FA? I was surprised to see you adhering to the approach whereby each citation contains multiple pages from the same book source. For instance, refs 8, 9, 10 and 12. JG66 (talk) 03:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't think most of the books would cover Friends for more than 2 or 3 pages, and they don't, so spreading out the page citations seemed like it would just clutter the refs. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 03:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surprised you say that – I would've thought the multiple pages for each book, bundled into a single ref, was worse. It's only when we get to the album guides under Critical reception that there are books we delve into just once (although, I just noticed a second page needed for the RS Guide). Before then, the reliance on Badman, Matijas-Mecca, Gaines, Carlin, Love and Dillon, with many pages from each one, is noticeable. Up to you, I guess.
  • I've been looking for something more on the album cover, because I remember reading some commentary on the design, somewhere. I notice that Johnston is shown on the cover (for the first time on a BBs album, perhaps?) yet he's not listed under Personnel. Maybe this deserves a mention in the text; he is quoted early on in Production & style. JG66 (talk) 04:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: I'm going to archive this nomination, as it feels like significant issues have been raised that should not be addressed at FAC. Please open a Peer Review and work with JG66 and others to resolve content issues, and resolve the citation/footnote issues. You may renominate after a minimum two week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Friends_(Beach_Boys_album)/archive1&oldid=844010860"