Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/American popular music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] American popular music

I split this off music of the United States because that article was way too big. I worked quite a bit on it after that, also including bits and pieces from various other articles (e.g. disco). Please note that pop music and popular music are different, and that this is not intended to be a historical article (music history of the United States exists), merely an overview of the major fields of American popular music. As such, the content is chronological based on when the top-level heading became a major part of popular music -- for example, country music is placed just after blues, but then the whole spectrum of country is explained before going on to the next field, jazz. The article is long, at 93 kb (72 without refs, images and such), but I don't think anything can be cut without losing important information. Tuf-Kat 21:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Object. The image Image:RayCharles.jpeg is tagged as "public domain", but I can't verify that, as the source website appears to be down. However, as I recall, much of the media on the "Centennial of Flight" page was not in the public domain, despite the page being a ".gov" domain. --Carnildo 22:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
    • That image was uploaded by a respected Wikipedian more than a year ago and has an entirely reasonable claim for being a public domain US government work. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that an image can't be used because the website that supplied its copyright info eventually goes down -- that's why we have an image description page. You can't verify Image:Willie Nelson 1996-05.png either, but luckily the person who uploaded it made a reasonable claim of its copyright status. Tuf-Kat 23:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
      • It is entirely possible for a respected Wikipedian to upload an image and, believing that because it was from a US government web site, in good faith tag it as "public domain", and still be wrong. There are some US government websites, such as NARA and many .mil sites, that contain mostly or exclusively public domain material. There are other web sites, such as the Library of Congress and assorted Library of Congress projects, which contain material that is mostly not public domain. It is often neccessary to visit the web site to tell the difference.

        I can verify Image:Willie Nelson 1996-05.png to my satisfaction by contacting User:Hattrem on Commons and asking him if he took that photograph and licensed it under the terms on the image description page: if he says "yes", I can take him at his word.

        I cannot do the same for Image:RayCharles.jpeg. I could certainly contact the uploader, but what would I ask him? "Did you upload it from 'centennialofflight.gov'?" I know that already, and that wouldn't tell me anything about the image's copyright status. --Carnildo 00:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, I don't think it's proper to assume an individual doesn't know how/didn't check on an image's copyright status. Hephaestos' talk page indicates he had discussed a different pic and said he was aware that not all .gov pics are pd and that he had checked on the image in question. WRT to Hattrem, what's the difference between trusting Hattrem at his word and trusting Hephaestos at his word? Either way, you have no way of knowing aside from trusting an individual you don't know. Tuf-Kat 01:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
          • I have visited the Internet Archive. Most of the images on that site won't display, but it does say Generally, the information contained on the Web site is in the public domain, and permission for its use is not required as long as the Commission is acknowledged as the source of the information. However, there are certain materials on our Web site, such as photographs, images, narratives, movies, web casts, etc., that have source information provided for them. If there is source information provided for these materials, permission for their use should be obtained from their providers. Since Hephaestos said on his talk page that he specifically looks for "an author or a disclaimer on it" and the page in question says that source information is provided for non-pd material, I think it's reasonable to assume he did not see any source information and that it is therefore pd. Tuf-Kat 01:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
            • That's good enough for me. I tried the Internet Archive, but I couldn't get it to load. --Carnildo 06:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
              • I've copied this convo to the image page for future users. Tuf-Kat

Object - As is, the article is a collection of summaries of the genres of American Popular music instead of really being about American popular music (there is a very important difference: read on). Also, the article is huge and thus takes a very long time to read (even w/o refs, notes, and external links, it is well over twice the size when an article may start to be considered too long: See Article size and Summary style). By itself size is not a reason to object since some topics do require more space. However the burden of proof is with a nominator when an article is this size. Here is a run-down of my reasoning:

  • Instead of taking the topic holistically, it breaks it up into summaries of the different genres of American popular music.
  • An article is not supposed to be just a collection of sections of related sub-topics; it needs to be a cohesive whole. Or in Yoda speak, a collection of related sections does not an article make.
  • The current structure is not optimal since each section links to a daughter article that is started by a lead section that is similar in size to the summary section in this article.
  • This reminds me of the nomination of History of science, which was, and still pretty much is, a collection of 'history of ...' summaries of the sub-disciplines. A proper article on that topic would take the reader through the development of science, from the start in pre-historic times, through the development of the scientific method, explain how science was first used by religion and then later how the schism between the two developed, etc.

In short, this article needs to take the reader through the development of popular music in the United States instead of merely summarizing each sub-genre. --mav 01:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

    • I either disagree or don't understand your objection. This article does take the reader through the development of popular music in the United States. It starts at the beginning in the late 19th century and ends with hip hop (actually with the international and social impact, but that's rather separate from the rest of the article and wouldn't make sense until after the rest has been introduced). It is divided into sections by genre, with each genre explaining how it developed, how it's related to other genres and how it changed over time, especially regarding popularity. It is about American popular music, which is made up of various genres -- it's not like "history of science" because a) this is not a history of anything (would you rather see a stricter history focus?), and b) "science" is itself something that can be documented over time (i.e. one can talk about how the process of scientific discovery changed, irrespective of the general development of chemistry or physics) -- "popular music" is "any of a number of musical styles that..." (i.e. one can not talk about popular music except in the context of a specific style). I have three books specifically on "popular music", and all three are divided into chapters based on styles. You said "As is, the article is a collection of summaries of the genres of American Popular music instead of really being about American popular music (there is a very important difference: read on)", but I don't see any explanation of what you think this difference is. I think this is about as cohesive as it can be -- it explains how the different genres are connected with each other, and how they evolved in tandem with each other, providing links to more specific articles on each individual genre. Popular music is a kind or type of music, distinct from folk or classical music; thus, an article on "American popular music" should be primarily about what kinds or types of American music are examples of popular music; more detailed info on how each style developed is better for their respective genre pages or for the music history of the United States. WRT to length, I agree that it is long, as noted above, but don't see what can be removed -- since you feel the whole article (or most of it) should be rewritten, this point is presumably secondary. Tuf-Kat

Tuf-Kat, I have to say that I think there's some substance to Maveric's comments. You might be able to integrate the currently 'lumpy' feel to the structure by adding some statements at strategic points that remind the reader of the historical flow, and point to interrelationships between the genres.

In addition, I'd like to see the sound excerpts more closely embedded in their associated text by referring the reader to specific musical features in the excerpt; this would strengthen the case for fair use, too. In a few cases, you've done this, but perhaps this aspect could become a more robust feature. (I may be of assistance in this respect, although it's not my musical area.)

Can you think of ways of delineating the scope more tightly? Must jazz be included in popular music? Some would disagree that it's that. Can you create a chronological boundary, splitting the article into two: say, pre- and post-World-War-II? That might allow you to fill out information that is a little thin, still; for example, Tin Pan Alley should mention the wave of European immigration (much of it Jewish) that fed into it. At the moment it's too little and too much at the same time.

The prose still needs a good massage, and my time-budget for big jobs is a bit limited over the next few weeks. The opening section is problematic in a number of ways. I think that there are too many external references, whereas Wikipedia should itself be an authority, and shouldn't need to tip its hat to them so early on in an article. Is the quotation necessary, or can we make a general assertion from scratch? I'm not sure that I want to hear about other histories and authors in the second paragraph.

As you know, I'm thoroughly on-side with respect to many aspects of the article; but it needs a big rethink. Tony 06:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


  • Undecided I'm not sure I object to this, but at the moment I'm not sure I really want to support it either. Why isn't there a category for pop music? I mean I know the general definition of pop can sometimes refer to anything popular, but I think there needs to be an article for the pop music genre. Teen pop can be put under pop, along with A/C pop and Pop-Rock which should also be put in there. Can Soul and R&B be brought next to each other? It would help the article to flow better since Soul and R&B are related. I know the two genres jumped back and forth over the years, but maybe soul should be placed first since the R&B article talks about contemporary R&B. Can we also add something about the current music scene with the popularity of the hip-hop colloborations? Also mainstream rock and alternative rock have kind of meshed together in today's music. Can we mention that alternative and mainstream are pretty much equal in a way today? Maybe indie rock could be more emphasized in the alternative rock section. OmegaWikipedia 08:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I have begun working on a reorganized article at American popular music/temp. Opinions are welcome. The section I've written out is about 20k, which is disheartening because it only goes up to the 1920s and I can't think of what to cut, so it's still going to be very long. Tuf-Kat
    • Okay, American popular music/temp is more or less done. It needs a lead, and refs, links et al moved over, and I'm going to fiddle with images and sound samples. It's at 56k at the moment. Tuf-Kat 04:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
      • And it's done. Does this satisfy anyone? It's now at 72k total, and about 55k without all the bells and whistles. Tuf-Kat 17:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I've written a new suggested opening on the discussion page, which is much shorter at just one paragraph long. I really think the last three paras of the existing opening are a problem, and need to go. See what you think. Tony 05:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

  • The section on the 90s/00s seems a bit awkward. I see what you're trying to do, but is it possible for you to to combine your prose on the early 90s with your musical definitions of the early 90s? Like...
Perhaps the most important change in the 1990s in American popular music was the rise of alternative rock and grunge. This was previously an explicitly anti-mainstream grouping of genres that rose to great fame beginning in the early 1990s. At roughly the same time, a kind of hard-edged hip hop called gangsta rap also became very popular among mainstream audiences. Grunge music is an independent-rooted music genre that was inspired by hardcore punk, thrash metal, and alternative rock. Grunge has a "dark, brooding guitar-based sludge" sound [1], drawing on elements of earlier bands like Sonic Youth and their use of "unconventional tunings to bend otherwise standard pop songs completely out of shape" [2]. With the addition of a "melodic, Beatlesque element" to the sound of bands like Nirvana, grunge became wildly popular across the United States [3]. Grunge became commercially successful in the early 1990s, peaking between 1991 and 1994. Bands from cities in the U.S. Pacific Northwest especially Seattle, Washington, were responsible for creating grunge and later made it popular with mainstream audiences. The supposed Generation X, who had just reached adulthood as grunge's popularity peaked, were closely associated with grunge, the sound which helped "define the desperation of (that) generation" [4].
Gangsta rap is a kind of hip hop, most importantly characterized by a lyrical focus on macho sexuality, physicality and a dangerous, criminal image. Though the origins of gangsta rap can be traced back to the mid-1980s raps of Philadelphia's Schoolly D and the West Coast's Ice-T, the style is usually said to have begun in the Los Angeles and Oakland area, where Too $hort, NWA and others found their fame. This West Coast rap scene spawned the early 1990s G-funk sound, which paired gangsta rap lyrics with a thick and hazy tone, often relying on samples from 1970s P-funk; the best-known proponents of this sound were the breakthrough rappers Dr. Dre and Snoop Doggy Dogg.
By the end of the decade and into the early 2000s, however, pop music consisted mostly of a combination of pop-hip hop and R&B-tinged pop, including a number of boy bands and female divas. The predominant sound in 90s country music was pop with only very limited elements of country. This includes many of the best-selling artists of the 1990s, like Clint Black, Shania Twain, Faith Hill and the first of these crossover stars, Garth Brooks [5].

It makes the section flow better imo here. Of course that was just a rough idea, and so the transitions werent smooth, but something along the lines of keeping things in order from when they happened. And also could you talk about more current sounds in today's music? (Like pop rock and the hip-hop collaboration). Thanks OmegaWikipedia 13:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I've put a slightly revised version of those three paragraphs in. I don't really think more info on current music is warranted -- it's not possible to put stuff in its historical context right away. And I'm not sure what you mean by "hip hop collaborations". Collaborations are not unique to modern hip hop, and aren't unique to hip hop at all, and aren't a particularly notable part of hip hop AFAICT. Tuf-Kat 18:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional support, I enjoyed the rewritten version. Two little things, the number of the notes is messed up- there are 80ish inline notes and only 30ish in the notes section, in long articles I have used footnote 3, so that I can specify the number of the note and multiple inline notes can link to the one reference- it keeps the list a managable length for a long and detailed article, however you decide to do it the numbers in the text should have corresponding notes. Why does the same pic of Willie Nelson appear twice?--nixie 23:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Because Willie Nelson RAWKS! Footnote3 looks nice, but complicated. I guess I'll look at an article that uses it and see if I can figure it out. Tuf-Kat 02:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • To be a FA, I think it still needs copy editing by a fresh pair of eyes. Tuf-Kat has really improved the article since it came onto this list, but I'm still uneasy about the depth, authority and cohesion of the text. I wish I had more expertise in this musical area, because I'd love to help on a deep, stylistic level. It involves some very subtle and complex issues that are beyond me. Tony 13:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: there is a real shortage of discussion of the music industry as an industry: the rise and fall of sheet music, the importance of intellectual property rights, the growth of A&R departments, the consolidation of the major record labels, the shifts of power and influence between an industry based in NYC and later in LA and between various regional musics, the rise of popular music criticism, you name it. It's as if all of this music occurred in a vacuum. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Object with great regret. There are some POV and bias issues that need to be worked out in respect to ACTUAL pop music, as bland etc. one may think it be. Maybe you could have something about them being manufactured if you want. However, it should probably split off 1990 into its own section and expand it, and have a careful sifting through for bias and POV, and just in general EXPAND the pop music parts. I also echo all the above comments. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_article_candidates_American_popular_music_391c.html"