Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of unreleased Michael Jackson material/archive1

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:50, 12 December 2009 [1].

List of unreleased Michael Jackson material

[edit]
Nominator(s): Pyrrhus16 17:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria. I welcome any comments and suggestions. Pyrrhus16 17:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments; I'm new to the voting process, so I may be incorrect, but I have some comments:

  • The colour of the yellow, pink and purple used in the table is very harsh, and the purple especially is difficult to distinguish from the black text, making it difficult to read.
  • Changed the purple to orange. I'll wait for further opinions on whether others share the view that the colours are harsh; as I had thought they were ok. :)
  • Maybe the table should also list who holds the patents, unless of course this is unavailable or unable to be referenced, after all, they are mentioned in the lead, then (almost) never again.
  • There is no detail on whom owns the patents, though it is usually the songwriter(s).
  • Were any reasons given as to why some of the songs were not listed on their original albums?
  • Information is given where possible, because reasons have not been given to the majority of the songs.
  • Which songs were the ones brought up in the court case, or were they already previously released songs and thus not on the list?
  • The unreleased songs mentioned in the court case are highlighted in blue with an accompanying asterisk (*).

--Lightlowemon (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. :) Pyrrhus16 18:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome, I thought you had listed the court case ones, but after a couple of read throughs I couldn't find where it was, *wipes egg off face*. I stand by my statements on the colours, but the orange is much better. Thanks for answering the other questions too, if you don't mind, I think I'll wait for some other comments before a final decision. But I'm happy right now.--Lightlowemon (talk) 11:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all comments by other editors addressed, and I have no other qualms. --Lightlowemon (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from WFCforLife (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
* I don't like the third paragraph in the lead. It's very vague and seems more a token attempt to list his discography. I think there is scope for talking about his albums, but I don't like the way it's been done.
  • It's there to note which album the majority of the songs came from. They are also there to avoid overlinking in the notes section of the sortable table. I'm open to suggestions on how to improve it.
  • Part of the issue is that six (albeit bigger) albums have arbitrarily been picked. To list this many and not the rest seems strange. Then again, I suppose making the sentence even longer won't improve the list, and you make a good point about overlinking. I'll wait for another opinion on this. WFCforLife (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a fan of those bullet points in the notes section of the table.
  • The bullets are there to avoid long rambling paragraphs, which I had to begin with. Can I wait for a third opinion on this?
  • In response to the colour conversation, I think the pink is too strong. Try something like this shade: #FF99EB
  • Much better colour! Thanks. :)

Hope those help! WFCforLife (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you comments. Pyrrhus16 14:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WFCforLife:

  • The criteria for inclusion isn't clear. State of Shock was released by The Jackson 5, Higher Ground has been released by both Stevie Wonder and RHCP, and I'm guessing there are several other songs that fall into one of these categories.
  • Tried to clarify in the third paragraph of the lead section.
  • It's better, but if songs released by the Jackson Five and then re-written/recorded by Jackson are going to be counted as unreleased, this should be explicitly mentioned. Personally I wouldn't consider a song released by an act Jackson was in at the time as "unreleased Michael Jackson material". WFCforLife (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Covers should be denoted as such.
  • Noted in the prose of the notes section where known.

At this point I would consider myself neutral. Of my two remaining comments, one is a small thing that I'm not really too bothered about, and have left it on the off chance that someone else has an opinion. But the clarification about Jackson 5 songs is what is keeping me from supporting. IMO they should either be removed, or the lead should explicitly state that released Jackson 5 material is included, with an explanation as to why they are considered unreleased for the purposes of this list. Covers are a slightly different kettle of fish, but with Jackson 5 strictly speaking Jackson has released the material. WFCforLife (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added "and Jackson 5 songs" in order to clarify. The J5 songs in the list are considered Michael Jackson material because it was only he that recorded the unreleased demos of the songs. They are the solo works of Jackson; his other brothers weren't involved in the recording of the material, only Jackson. Hopefully my edit to the page has clarified that. In regard to the cover versions, there are only two songs on the list recorded as covers and they are noted in the notes section. Pyrrhus16 19:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. WFCforLife (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "of the pop star's" - POV.
  • Changed to "pop singer".
  • Second para, what relevance does this have to unreleased material of MJ?
  • It explains to the reader that many of the unreleased songs are known to exist solely because of Jackson's testimony at the deposition.
  • "The pop star's unreleased material " - ditto above.
  • Changed to "pop singer".
  • "and notable demo versions" - notable? Why? According to whom?
  • Removed "notable".
  • "One such example involved" such is redundant.
  • Removed "such".
  • "time of the leakage" - just leak is fine, leakage sounds, well, a little too medical for me...
  • Done.
  • "of the peace song" what's a "peace song"? Is this referenced?
  • 1988-1990 - endash required.
  • Done.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Pyrrhus16 20:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I am not familiar with the subject (apart from having heard of Michael Jackson), so please ignore if my comments don't make sense.
  1. Could we have a little statistics in the lead: how many unreleased songs (Is this list complete?), how many of these written by Jackson, how many jointly written by Jackson, how many by other writers
  2. If a song was not written by Jackson (e.g. "Angel"), does it mean that it was written specifically for Jackson?
  3. Is it possible to find out the year a song was registered with Broadcast Music Incorporated or EMI Music Publishing?
  4. How is the sorting of the "writers" column arranged in case of multiple writers?
  5. In the "Key" section, the phrase "Jackson-written (unless otherwise noted)" could be removed in my opinion. It is like saying A OR (NOT A). Is it technically possible to have a combination of the blue and magenta color instead of the orange?
  6. The lead mentions the "Songwriters Hall of Fame" (with apostrophe or without?), the ASCAP and the CMRRA as bodies which registered unreleased Jackson songs. However in the main table, I cannot see any of these bodies mentioned. Why? bamse (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The exact number of unreleased Jackson songs is unknown. I have added to the last paragraph that there are known to be hundreds of unrleased songs written/recorded by Jackson. The list is incomplete, in that not all of the existing unreleased songs/collaborations have been named in reliable sources.
  2. No, not all of the non-Jackson-written songs were written specifically for him.
  3. The book I'm using doesn't have dates for the songs published with BMI or EMI. Their websites don't provide the dates either.
  4. In the case of multiple writers, the person with the highest letter surname (eg, Sue Shifrin) comes before those with lower letter surnames (eg, Terry Britten). The only exception is when Michael Jackson is one of the multiple writers. In that situation, he is above everybody else, as it is most probable that readers are sorting to find songs written by Jackson. Note to any other reviewers I am, of course, open to any other suggestions on how to deal with multiple writers in a sortable table.
  5. Removed "Jackson-written (unless otherwise noted)". Blue + pink = a light purple(ish) color, so I've changed the orange to medium slate blue, as purple was considered too harsh (see first review).
  6. Removed apostrophe from Sonwriters Hall of Fame. Jackson is known to have published unreleased songs with ASCAP, CMRRA, etc, but they have not been named. That's why they don't appear in the table.
Thank you for your comments. :) Pyrrhus16 14:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. See "6." below.
  2. I see. What makes the songs that were not written specifically for him a "Michael Jackson material"?
  3. OK. Would be interesting though.
  4. This way of ordering makes sense to me. An alternative would be to introduce a sortkey and have multiple writers sort as "multiple" or something like that.
  5. I was thinking of a striped blue-pink, but the new color is fine with me. Also, could you rewrite the line "Denotes the year a song was registered with the United States Copyright Office" in the same style as the other keys, i.e.: "Denotes songs registered with the United States Copyright Office and the year of registration"? Also in the same line, the "(Year)" should be made smaller as it appears as superscript.
  6. It should be made more clear which songs are included in the list (all? songs registered with Broadcast Music Incorporated, EMI, United States Copyright Office, mentioned in his 1993 deposition?).
Thank you for the reply. bamse (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re number 2: Does it have to be the first recording of that song or could it be the recording of an old song (released and sung by others a long time ago, but now with Michael)? Thanks for fixing 5. Also 1 and 6 are much clearer now. I suppose that all songs mentioned in the 1993 deposition are listed. Correct? bamse (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the only songs on the list that have been recorded before by other artists are "Behind the Mask" and "Higher Ground". I believe the rest are first recordings, though the sources do not explicitly state this. And yes, all of the songs mentioned in the 1993 deposition are listed. Pyrrhus16 19:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. bamse (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments –

  • Not a big deal, but could the out of order references in the second paragraph ([4][1]) be changed to numerical order?
  • Done.
  • Comment Complete sentences in the notes need to have periods at the end, example: "Jackson worked on the song with Temperton and Quincy Jones during the Thriller recording sessions" Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2009 (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_list_candidates/List_of_unreleased_Michael_Jackson_material/archive1&oldid=1257290408"