Jump to content

Talk:Progressive pop

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleProgressive pop has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 27, 2016Good article nomineeListed

A "Good Article", without a review?

[edit]

Could anyone provide a link to the GA review? I can't see that it exists, simply that the article was listed on the Good Article page ([1]), and then this talk page was doctored accordingly. JG66 (talk) 10:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Americanfreedom: was the one who listed it as GA--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's who added the icon to the article, but the listing at WP:GA was added by @Cartoon network freak: in this edit. Regardless of the exact sequence, what seems clear is that there was no GA review, so I will remove the icon and the listing. --RL0919 (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JG66:, @Americanfreedom:, @Ilovetopaint:, @RL0919: I'm so sorry! The article that I've reviewed was Progressive music; I'm SOOO Sorry... Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to talk about this, I saw this last week and was suspicious. Is it a delisted article now or are we just going to remove it? dannymusiceditor Speak up! 03:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Progressive pop/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MarioSoulTruthFan (talk · contribs) 01:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I will take this one, since I hope to find more information regarding this genre. However, I have to warn you that a full review might take 2/3 weeks if you don't mind of course. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]
  • This needs to be on the body of the article "Cultural origins:United States and United Kingdom".

 Done

Lead

[edit]
  • changes in key and rhythm, experiments with larger forms, and unexpected, disruptive, or ironic treatments of past conventions. → needs examples.

 Done

Definition

[edit]
  • The premise involved popular music that was created for the intention of listening, not dancing → stats otherwise, also dancing.
  • Full quote on p.187: "Progressive music is no longer functiunal - its audeince goes to listen attentively, not to dance. Most important, unlike all previous popular music, it concerns itself with musical development, and not with the statement or repetition of a theme."--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read on page 199. So the book has two different opinions regarding the same subject?

  • and opposed the influence of managers, agents, or record companies → the closest I find is that Vulliamy and Lee criticized the exploration and profit of it, they don'y state who made "money" with it.
  • "meant for a wide audience but which is intended to have more permanent value than the six weeks in the charts and the 'forget it' music of older pop form" → use your own words as most as you can.
  • I have concerns regarding that sample. See WP:SAMPLE.
See what I posted and read below by the way. Sample needs to be reduced, see the wiki page above.
  • playing with them ironically, disrupting them, or producing shadows of them in new and unexpected forms → examples? Refrence 12 seems to have some.

 Done

History

[edit]

1960s: Origins

[edit]
  • Once again concerns with the sample.
  • Beatles, Cream, Love, the Mothers of Invention, Pink Floyd and Soft Machine, while "Modern", the next category, comprised the Byrds, Donovan and the Small Faces → so wouldn't all of these also be progressive pop?
  • Implicitly yes, explicitly no. Can't call them "progressive pop" unless the source unequivocally says so. "Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. [...] Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources" (WP:STICKTOSOURCE).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

1960s–70s

[edit]
  • "instantly getting labelled as pretentious, and at the same time garbage was being pushed into the charts ... Anybody that was any good ... was more or less becoming insignificant again. ... There was a lot of psychedelic bullshit going on." → use more your own words.
  • "In ten years, its practitioners will probably be called by another name entirely, electric music or something, and they'll relate to pop the way that art movies relate to Hollywood." → same as previous, this quotes shouldn't be so long if you can say them in your own words.
  • "had guessed that progressive pop would shrink to a minority cult and it hasn't. Well, in England, I wasn't entirely wrong ... But, in America, I fluffed completely – the Woodstock nation has kept growing and, for all his seriousness and pretensions to poetry, someone like James Taylor has achieved the same mass appeal as earlier stars." → same as previous.
  • Once again I have concerns regarding the sample of The Logical Song. See above.
  • "pop experimentalism" → I can't find it in the source, can you point it out for me.
  • ""From 1976 onward, orthodox progressive rock waned; that is, the sprawling moody electronic suites that had fueled FM rock radio during the early seventies disappeared, or sold poorly ... Into the void created by prog rock's misfortunes sailed a host of new, milder 'serious' bands, whose humor (Queen), pop smarts (Supertramp), and style (Roxy Music, mach two) would ensure their survival into the eighties. Stylistic descendants of the Beatles, they met the melodic requirements of AM radio while still producing thoughtful, original work. This new, leaner breed of pomp rock deserves a name – let's call it progressive pop." → no comments, same as previous.
  • Could you add a more recognizable part of the "Logical Song"? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

1980s–2000s

[edit]
  • "by the early 1980s, progressive rock was thought to be all but dead as a style, an idea reinforced by the fact that some of the principal progressive groups has developed a more commercial sound. ... What went out of the music of these now ex-progressive groups ... was any significant evocation of art music." → this quotes are too big, use your own words interpolated with the quote.
  • "that art-rock bands such as Yes and Genesis "formerly toyed" with progressive pop, "but rarely brought it to satisfying completion" → same here, could have at least used the quotation marks as you just copied it blend.
  • volved a conscious and brave attempt to bridge the separation between 'progressive' pop and mass/chart pop – a divide which has existed since 1967, and is also, broadly, one between boys and girls, middle-class and working-class." → same as the previous two.
  • "the past few years in progressive pop ... have given rise to a series of popular and acclaimed collectives – uncommonly large bands with a disdain for clearly defined hierarchies" → same here I don't know why you use suspension points if the sentence carries on and you are no omitting any information. Also, use more your own words.

 Done

List of artists

[edit]
  • Source 42 also talks about Supertramp, Kraftwerk and Roxy Music. IF you put two sources for Electric Light Orchestra and XTC should also do the same for others.
  • Reference 43 is already above as 41, please remove it and use the latter since they are the same.
  • Todd Rundgren is also cited in reference 46.
  • Reference 12 also talks about The Beatles.
  • I don't think Supertramp, Kraftwerk, or Roxy Music are ever explicitly called "progressive pop" in Breithaupt. Likewise, Rundgren's Utopia is cited as 'prog-pop', but that doesn't necessarily make him prog-pop (but I do agree that he is).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the source say they re why wouldn't you add? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would if they did.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Notes

[edit]
  • Fine.

References

[edit]
  • Should have access dates of websites.
  • Rename this section as Footnotes. See on Overall GA review why.
  • Unlike Almanac Weekly and Team Rock.

 Done

Bibliography

[edit]
  • Rename this section as Sources. Done
  • Some sources are missing ISBN.
  • Unlike Hewitt, Paolo.  Done
Can't you find the IBSN for this "Work and Leisure: An Interdisciplinary Study in Theory, Education and Planning."? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I looked again and found one here.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 09:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I will give it a second read and then most likely pass it. Sorry for the time it took.

Further reading

[edit]
  • One external link is missing ISBN.

 Done

Overall GA review

[edit]

Samples The lengths of the samples are all under 30 seconds/10% of the original length, so I'm not sure what the concern is? Please explain.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not enough. They have to be according to the length of the song. See on the list its last topic of the page I sent you. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's correct. They're all under 10% of the length.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Read the table. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, I fixed the others, but "Wouldn't It Be Nice" is a hair too long. I'll get on that now.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ilovetopaint: I left you one concern to take care of, its not mandatory but it would be nicer. And you forgot two things (minor issues).
Done--Ilovetopaint (talk) 08:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ilovetopaint: left you another note, final one. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Progressive pop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Progressive_pop&oldid=1211116187"