Talk:Note Worker

Genre

I think a certain someone needs to make up their mind as to what genre this is. First you take away instrumental rock and add jazz. Then we agree to keep instrumental rock. Now you take away jazz and instrumental rock! If it's going to come down to sources, one could just as well ask: where are your sources for smooth jazz? Granted, there's a single result which comes up on a Google search, but that's just one passing mention on a review site. We already discussed all this stuff ad nauseum and came to an agreement, yet now you've changed your mind. That the album doesn't classify as instrumental rock to you does indeed make it subjective, but that's the crux of the very word—to you it isn't, to someone else it is. If the entire population of the world doesn't see it as instrumental rock, then let them decide that instead of simply removing it altogether. And "High 5" is as instrumental rock as anything from its day (see "Not Again" from Powers of Ten by Shawn Lane). Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi sir. The thing is that Frank's Bio should read like this: jazz fusion, smooth jazz, jazz, instrumental rock. Which it does. I've actually even contemplated putting in "vocal pop" since I have found numerous sources that have stated his vocals in his songs are "pop". The only thing is that Wikipedia does not have a page for "vocal pop". The two albums that represent his instrumental rock work are The Great Explorers and Coming to Your Senses. So pretty much the pages for The Great Explorers and Coming to Your Senses should have "instrumental rock" on them. Really I have not been able to find any sources for the rest of the albums where you have put instrumental rock; so I may end up taking a few of them off. You say that CD Baby is just a review site; but really it is a good source. I'm not sure what you mean by review site? But it's actually a site where you can purchase albums and they give a good analysis of the album. They also give a detailed paragraph on how the album qualifies for that particular genre. Also the genres are put down by Frank himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.106.247.192 (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

First of all, you might want to lose the "sir" thing—I'm nobody's boss here, so there's no need to refer to me as such. Secondly, as we've gone over again and again (I assume you're the same user with whom I edit warred back and forth in July, and at one point came to an agreement to keep all the genres we'd discussed?), Gambale has been documented to have touched on instrumental rock many times over the course of his career. Despite your say so, Passages and Raison D'être also have their rock moments and aren't pure fusion, so that's why I've insisted on keeping the genre for those two albums, whilst providing sources. For the rest (except The Great Explorers and Coming to Your Senses), I elected to remove instrumental rock yesterday because it ended up looking like list crufting, and jazz fusion tends to be an all-encompassing term which can often include instrumental rock under its broad umbrella. However, wherever an album of his is indeed stated to be rock, then I believe it should be included in order to highlight that it's not an all-fusion album, and therefore more diverse than something like Brave New Guitar or Thinking Out Loud. When it comes to "jazz rock", which is an outdated term that has been all but replaced by both jazz fusion and instrumental rock, I prefer to use it in conjunction with the latter in order to provide a separate article to which to link. So rather than pipe back to the jazz fusion article by putting jazz rock, instrumental rock is a better term to illustrate the presence of rock alongside fusion. You seem to disagree with this, yet can't provide anything to back up your reasoning—other than edit warring silently behind your keyboard and monitor. I must say your manner of doing so in such an impulsive manner, without engaging in any prior discussion, is quite fascinating. Are you a relative of Gambale's, since you're so vehement in pigeonholing him into this one genre and denying his laudable diversity even amongst rock circles? As I've said before, we can do this forever if you like (or at least until Wikipedia staff get involved), but doesn't it get boring not being able to come to an agreement like we did last time? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 07:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I pretty much have no beef with you anymore since you did your "change of heart". The only two albums that I believe you should get rid of the instrumental rock is Passages and Truth in Shredding. Usually, if you put down instrumental rock, then I put down jazz in order to kind of "equalize" it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.68.229.237 (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Do let me be clear that I have no "beef" with anybody on Wikipedia, since we're all here to contribute. What I do have a problem with, however, is edit warring without even an attempt at resolution via these talk pages. I've made the effort in finding sources for all the articles which I believe warrent the instrumental rock label, as well as offering to engage in discussion, but your impulsiveness in undoing my contributions basically slaps it all back in my face (proverbially). What I've done is attempt to maintain these pages and keep them informative for a diverse viewerbase (be that the jazz fusion and/or instrumental rock crowd), yet all you've mainly done is anonymously get rid of any sourced information I've provided, whilst barely acknowledging—or flat out ignoring—the need to discuss such action beforehand. Also, the "change of heart" you mentioned was rather a case of my striving to keep the articles as clean and to the point as possible. Jazz fusion can be an all-encompassing term which includes any presence of rock, but not always. Sometimes an additional genre is needed in order to emphasise that an album is not 100% of anything in particular. For the albums from which I removed instrumental rock (such as Brave New Guitar and Thunder from Down Under), I did so to avoid list crufting because jazz fusion was the predominant style and thus automatically covered any underlying elements of rock. For Truth in Shredding, Passages and Raison D'être, however, I strongly feel as though rock is basically 50–50 or 40–60 alongside jazz fusion—therefore entailing the need to include instrumental rock as a further description of the music. On the other hand, that you insist on lumping such a broad term as jazz itself in between them solely for the purpose of "equalising" or counterbalancing things is, as I've said before, unnecessary list crufting. If jazz fusion and instrumental rock adequately cover it, then why bloat it even more? To do so for the reasons you've stated in the past such as "People will think this is some Satriani/Vai shred crap, when it's mainly fusion!" is absolutely ludicrous, because it only serves to satisfy one's own elitism—the latter of which clearly has no place on Wikipedia. This is not my own ego or preference I'm trying to stroke here (which is what it seems like you're doing). I'm trying to be diplomatic towards readers worldwide by stating that there is also another style of music present alongside the main one (in the case of Truth in Shredding and Passages, jazz fusion supported by prominent doses of instrumental rock). But once again, if you choose to keep on edit warring and not make an effort to resolve all this stuff, then I'm more than happy to get in touch with Wikipedia staff. Which would you prefer? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey you say that I list cruft? But why do I find so many times on these websites they too put down "contemporary jazz, jazz fusion" or "jazz, jazz fusion"? It only seems right. You know some songs are really jazzy and are more "jazz" than fusion. On the other hand sometimes they will be more rocky than just plain fusion; such as in The Great Explorers. Check out my sources; they are always stating: "jazz, fusion" or "jazz-rock, jazz fusion". It just better describes the music. On Raison D'être, though you did have a source that stated "jazz fusion, progressive rock", so I don't understand why you put down "instrumental rock" instead of "progressive rock" in the wikipedia article? It's ok if you put down progressive rock, I just don't understand what your deal is with instrumental rock? As for Truth In Shredding and Passages those are quiet a bit controversal as you do not have a source that directly states that they have instrumental rock in them. You might as well just put down metal. I put down "jazz" on both of those articles because I find a ton of sources that list them down as "jazz, fusion". Heck, Passages was listed as "smooth jazz,contemporary jazz"; so that's why I put down jazz and smooth jazz for Passages. It really isn't list crufting. I'm just putting down the two main genres that best describe the album. The only reason why I don't put down "contemporary jazz" is becasue there is not a wikipedia article on contemporary jazz. Kind of like how you put down "instrumental rock" when you see metal in a source; except mine makes a little more sence since I transition from contemporary jazz to jazz, yet you go from metal to instrumental rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.106.247.28 (talk) 05:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You ARE list crufting. We had this exact same discussion in July, yet you're still pent up about it and refuse to let it go. At the very least I made a retroactive effort earlier in the week to avoid list crufting by going ahead and removing instrumental rock from those aforementioned albums, which were primarily jazz fusion with only small traces of rock. That should've been enough to satisfy any close-minded elitism. However, when it comes to Truth in Shredding, Passages and Raison D'être, I strongly disagree that jazz fusion is the predominent genre, therefore have insisted on keeping instrumental rock alongside it for the sake informativeness. The sources I have found for each of those albums have included the terms "rock" and "metal" which, by themselves, are very broad but at least serve to prove a point in the sense that they are profoundly rock/metal-orientated rather than 100% jazz fusion. In putting down instrumental rock, I do so because it is a related but nonetheless separate genre to jazz fusion. If I simply put down "rock", that would be too broad and not descriptive enough. Yes, the sources say the music is rock (or metal, which is a subgenre of rock), but what type of rock is it? There are no vocals, therefore it's instrumental rock. As for progressive rock, it wouldn't be entirely accurate to quote that particular source verbatim because progressive rock usually entails vocals—these albums are completely instrumental. As a result, I combine the broad term of "rock" with "instrumental". You seem very annoyed by something so harmless, but have yet to provide a valid reason as to why. I have provided an abundance of arguments for why I think instrumental rock should be included, whereas you've done nothing but whine endlessly about its inclusion without any points to back you up. As for putting down "jazz, jazz fusion", does that not look silly to you? The word "jazz" is ALREADY part of jazz fusion, so why the crufting? It does nothing more than bloat the infobox. Jazz fusion is a subgenre of jazz, so it renders the latter unnecessary. Granted, the sources cruft it that way, but Wikipedia is not about that. There's descriptiveness, and there's overkill. But OK, since we've been unable to come to any agreement over the past week (or half a year, even), I'll go ahead and contact Wikipedia about resolving a dispute. The albums I'll include for their consideration are Truth in Shredding, Passages and Raison D'être. I really would suggest you get a login if you're serious about all this, because it'll be easier to explain to them as to with whom I'm in a dispute. Currently I only have a general IP range on which to go by, and I don't know how they handle those when it comes to disputes. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 08:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

My dear good sir, have you not been reading my paragraphs? I've totally explained why I put down "jazz" in the paragraph above. The reason why I put down "jazz" is because I find many sources that state an album such as "Passages" as being "contemporary jazz, smooth jazz"; on Wikipedia I cannot put down "contemporary jazz" because there has not been a wikipidia article created for contemporary jazz. If I put down contemporary jazz, then it will be in black words, and people won't be able to click on it. Instead I just put down jazz. I feel it's the best way for me to represent the "contemporary jazz" category within the particular album. If you have a better genre of jazz that you feel would better represent contemporary jazz than just "jazz", then please suggest it. The reason why I have not wanted you to use "instrumental rock" is becasue you have no source that states that the particular album actually contains instrumental rock. Instead you tweak words around to make it work out for "instrumental rock". If you find one, then I'll be more than happy to let you use it. Technically speaking it is also list crufting by putting down jazz fusion, instrumental rock. According to Prog Archives, Jazz fusion is also a subgenre of rock.

Also, you stated that you strongly disagree that Truth in Shredding, Passages and Raison D'être is jazz fusion as the prominant genre. But that is just your opinion, which is extremely subjective. Do you have any sources to back that up? I am actually on the opposite end of the spectrum. I believe that Passages and Raison D'être are more contemporary jazz/jazz fusion/smooth jazz oriented. Funny thing is that I actually have sources to back up my opinion. I also believe that Truth in Shredding is pure 100% fusion. I think pure jazz actually has a bit more influence considering they are playing jazz standards in a fusion setting. Of course rock and funk influence it, I mean after all it is jazz fusion. Yet we do find articles that state Truth in Shredding is jazz, fusion, and even metal to my surprise. So if we really wanted to we could label it as jazz, fusion, metal. Sprecher (talk) 09:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have read your paragraphs but they contain nothing new. It's like reading the same sentence over and over again. In case you didn't know, smooth jazz is the same as contemporary jazz on Wikipedia. So you've chosen smooth jazz as a genre? Great. There's jazz fusion as well? Great. The result—no need for jazz on its own, because it's already covered. However, since other sources mention rock (or metal, a subgenre), I include that as well but in the form of instrumental rock. Why? Because it's instrumental. I'm not tweaking anything, other than expanding on what type of rock we have. Yes, Raison D'être is listed as progressive rock, but what type of progressive rock? Instrumental. So what do we get? Instrumental rock. You say that Truth in Shredding is pure fusion, but allmusic disagrees since it is listed as heavy/funk metal as well. What type of heavy/funk metal? Instrumental. Since there is no genre called "instrumental metal", we get instrumental rock instead. As for sources backing up your opinion, I have mine too. They all mention rock, so they carry equal weight. The one thing they fail to mention is that the rock is instrumental—hence I've linked to Wikipedia's article on instrumental rock. And whilst rock is a forefather of jazz fusion, it's still a distinct style and not always present where there is jazz fusion (i.e. Brave New Guitar). Mac Dreamstate (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, do remember that back in July you eventually conceded with my having listed The Great Explorers and Coming to Your Senses as instrumental rock. I provided sources for both (from Gambale's own site, no less) which stated that the albums are "on the rock side of fusion", and you were completely accepting of that. The term instrumental rock not being stated explicitly on the sources doesn't matter so much, as it should be self-explanatory due to the albums being completely instrumental. Wikipedia readers might not know that, however, so that's why it's better to point out that the rock in question is of the instrumental kind and not just Bon Jovi or something. For Truth in Shredding, Passages and Raison D'être, we also have sources stating rock as a genre—it's right there to see. But since rock on its own (like jazz) is too broad a categorisation for these particular albums, just like with The Great Explorers and Coming to Your Senses, one surely can't be opposed to adding the "instrumental" prefix in order to emphasise the lack of vocals. Is it fusion? Correct, because the sources say so. Is it rock? Correct, because the sources say so. Is it instrumental? Correct, even though the sources don't say so. Why is that? Because the onus is on the Wikipedia editor to take the initiative by linking to the article for instrumental rock. Jazz fusion is not always instrumental and neither is plain old rock, so it really isn't such a bad thing to make that clear in this case. You may think that's completely subjective garbage, but other readers may actually find it helpful. Having said all that, if you still fail to understand my point, then I can't add anything else. If you choose to go ahead and repeateadly delete the sourced information I've provided, then we've got a problem on our hands which needs the attention of other editors. In which case I'll keep asking you until I get an answer—SHALL I CONTACT A FEW OTHER EDITORS FOR A THIRD OPINION, or can we finally just leave things as they are? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

As the pages are exactly right now, yes I'm pretty satisfied. The reason why I will put "jazz" is becasue some of the sources state "contemporary jazz, smooth jazz, jazz fusion". The sources do this becasue some of the music drifts more to instrumental "jazz" rather than plain old "jazz fusion" (the same thing how you put down fusion, instrumental rock). I mean if wikipidia had a page for "instrumental jazz", then I'd put that down; but the problem is that they don't. Unless you have a better jazz genre to put down than just jazz, then I'm not sure what more I can do. Take a look at Natural Selection. That is labeled as "contemporary jazz" on CDBABY. On wikipidia we list it as "jazz". So basically we have made the transition form "contemporary jazz" to "jazz". I don't see why we cannot do this on other sources since we have done it on Natural Selection for example. I'd love to label a few of our sources as either progressive jazz, contemporary jazz, or instrumental jazz instead of just "jazz". The problem is that wikipidia does not have any articles for progressive jazz, contemporary jazz, or instrumental jazz. If they did, then I'd totally put them down instead of "jazz". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprecher (talk • contribs) 20:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

On that note, I'm finished with all discussion from my end. If the pages are to be left as they are, then I won't need to go and seek a third opinion from other editors (a process with which I'm not even familiar, although am willing to try if need be). However, I will say that I'm getting a slight déjà vu feeling here because we've already arrived at this conclusion before in July. In case you've forgotten, we came to an agreement on the Gambale talk page and everyone was happy. Then, four months later, you suddenly to decide to go back on that agreement and remove instrumental rock again from this article as well as others. How can I be sure that you won't return once more in some months time and start this whole mess again? It's very tedious. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think what Kudpung said was well stated. The only question I have is what are we going to do with Note Worker? We listed it as jazz fusion, smooth jazz, jazz rock. I really wish I could put jazz pop, but Wikipidia does not have a page for jazz pop. I think maybe for Note Worker we should put jazz, jazz fusion, smooth jazz. Also, the only way I won't "start this whole mess again" is if the Holdsworth and Gambale pages stay exactly as they are. I also have a question about Holdsworth's "With a Heart in My Song". Have you listened to that album? Exactly what genre is it? Is it jazz or fusion? Also would it be reasonable to list Igginbottom as an English jazz group? I've only listened to a few of the songs, and read reviews; so I'm not sure? In closing, if you see someone else messing around on editing what we have already done, then please tell them to leave it alone and not mess with it. Thanks.

Regarding this article, Note Worker, I'm actually happy to remove jazz rock/instrumental rock because in this case I'm of the opinion that all the jazz stylings mentioned are completely predominent—that is, any presence of rock is significantly diluted and overrun. The same also applies to the four albums that precede it (Brave New Guitar, A Present for the Future, Live! and Thunder from Down Under). The rock stuff only really takes off with The Great Explorers and so forth, and we've seemingly already agreed on those. But... we did so last time as well, and no changes were made for four months until you came along again this week with an agenda. As for Holdsworth and Beck's With a Heart in My Song, I've listened to the album a few times and it's quite a strange one. Barring one track ("999"), there are no natural drums whatsoever and the whole thing sounds bizarre at times. When I created the article, I initially put down both jazz fusion and jazz because the album seems to be a very mixed bag. Listening to it again now, I think it's best that jazz on its own is taken away because it's so non-standard that jazz fusion basically covers it. There's definitely no smooth jazz on there, if that's what you're thinking! More like it's the furthest thing from it, since Holdsworth never does smooth jazz or anything contemporary for that matter. Finally, for 'Igginbottom, I've barely listened to that one so I wouldn't know as to what to list it. From reviews, they're widely considered progressive rock and fusion—most likely not the purest of jazz, so perhaps categorising them as a jazz group wouldn't be entirely accurate. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 11:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

"....Until you came along again this week with an agenda"; haha, that was actually pretty funny. The reason why I came along with an "agenda" was because I truely felt that in order to settle our discrepancies that we should provide reliable sources. I truely felt that most of Gambale's work has been in the fusion category. Yet, I'm fine with Passages and Raison D'être the way they are right now. I guess the only one I feel not easy with is Truth in Shredding; but whatever. I think it's pretty much settled, except I think you should label Igginbottom with "English jazz fusion groups". I'm pretty sure that I won't come up with another "agenda" unless the articles get messed around with by another person. I think unless Frank or Holdsworth make another album that then we should maybe discuss the genre again. I've been an avid fusion listener for about 18 years. I guess this is which why I'm so concerned with these topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprecher (talk • contribs) 04:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

And so it was settled. Good stuff and happy to hear it. But if you do decide to change your mind yet again—perish the thought(!)—then I would sincerely suggest to at least post on the talk pages first, rather than impulsively removing/adding stuff like on these two previous occasions. As you can see, it averts all this disruptive edit warring and is simply more curteous in the scope of editing. Without civil discussion, the whole thing just becomes a pointless game of one-upmanship which is to the detriment of the project. These album articles aren't solely for our benefit or to satisfy egos/opinions/elitism. Rather, their purpose is to inform a worldwide reading audience about the music entailed within. That we've made an effort to fully expand upon what exact styles and genres are present, with the use of sources, is clearly beneficial to everyone with an interest in the music. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 07:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose it is all set and done. Like I said the only album that still frustrates me is Truth in Shredding, yet I'm not really able to do anything about it. As far as everything else goes, yes I'm satisfied. Actually, I wouldn't mind if you did label Allan Holdsworth's "With a Heart in my Song" as "fusion, jazz"; it does seem to be both on the jazzy and fusiony side of his playing. I don't know if you'd mind if I changed it back? If you wanted, I could find some sources. But as far as everything else goes; I think we will only be conversing together until Holdsworth or Gambale come out with a new album. Also, like I said before, if you see anyone else tampering with the pages, please make sure they remain the way we agreed on. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprecher (talk • contribs) 06:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, Truth in Shredding will have to keep on frustrating you, because there are sources which list it as rock. That's it. Can't do anything about it. Done. Finished. The worldwide readership benefits from it. As for With a Heart in My Song, I don't really mind so much. I'll go ahead and add it back because, like with None Too Soon, Gordon Beck's piano playing does sound like plain old jazz at times, whilst Holdsworth on his own never does anything but bizarre fusion. Gambale's the one who does normal jazz a lot. However, I don't quite understand what you mean by us having to converse together until Holdsworth or Gambale come out with new albums. Don't you mean the other way around? As in, we don't have anything more to discuss until they put out new works. Also, you've used terms such as "messing" and "tampering" in a rather defensive way to describe other people editing the articles. One must make it very clear that they are not our property—anyone is free to edit and contribute to Wikipedia. Therefore if someone other than us comes along and feels the need to expand upon them, then that should be seen as a good thing by default. Obviously, if they're making detrimental edits such as removing any sourced material we've made the effort to provide, then we'll have to encourage them to engage in discussion on the talk pages (which, for reasons I won't bring up again, took us much too long to do). No edit warring, though! If there's a change that doesn't look right, then one revert should be fine. In most cases that'll be the end of it. If they subsequently return and revert that as well, then it's on to discussion. You and I both know that's what we should've done first. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 07:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much I don't want someone else to come along and remove anything that we have already agreed upon. Also, I was mentioning that maybe when Frank or Allan produce a new album; then possibly we would have to discuss it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprecher (talk • contribs) 19:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Any fan of Holdsworth's will know that it's unlikely that he'll ever release a new album (studio, at least). That's almost a given, considering his lack of output during the past decade. As for Gambale, he's said to have a new fusion album in the works, so whenever that gets released I'll create the article for it and put down whatever genres are available through sources, personal perception and good ol' common sense. Should there be anything to discuss—and it's likely that there will—then let it be done on the talk page without any petty edit warring. Talking really does achieve a lot! Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

When deciding on genres, do remember that Wikipedia does not apply its own interpretations to music. Genres are based upon on the ones under which the pieces of music (and/or the musicians) are recorded, published, distributed, and catalogued by the mainstream music press and quality web sites.--Kudpung (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)