Talk:1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
This article is part of WikiProject The KLF, an attempt to improve and expand coverage of The KLF and related topics.

Talk to us. KLF-related Articles in need of attention.


This article is also within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful musical resource on recordings from a variety of genres.

Contents

[edit] All You Need Is Love resources

Maybe All You Need Is Love needs an article, as one of the first sample culture releases and NME single of the week. Maybe it doesn't, because we have an album article. I've not redlinked it anyway.

In the meantime here a few links I've found:

--kingboyk 19:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cats

Somebody came along and took this and WKTJ out of the hip hop category. What do we think? I know it contains rapping and beatboxes, but on the other hand it's not what your average 50 Cent fan is gonna be looking for. --kingboyk 23:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought that it was an odd form of British hip-hop, but I don't know what definitions of that genre are being used when choosing what does and doesn't belong in the category. I'll investigate. --Vinoir 17:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
"an odd form of British hip-hop". Yes indeed! Technically, then, it would belong... perhaps a British hip-hop albums category is called for, if one doesn't exist already. --kingboyk 17:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I've created Category:British hip hop albums. --kingboyk 19:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What the Fuck Is Going On?

This policy of lower case "the"s in album names has to be the most awful thing on Wikipedia to me. Is it just me or does it look downright ugly? As far as I'm concerned, if a word is part of a title it should be capitalised! The "The" is capitalised in the JAMs own press release, and theres was an independent record label not some big conglomerate where the artist has no say about typesetting or press releases. I appreciate I am - to quote Bill Drummond - pissing in the wind here, but I have to rant somewhere. --kingboyk 02:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm waiting for it to happen to "Who Killed The JAMs?". I hope it doesn't, because that "The" is unquestionably upper-case. As far as I can make out, this standardization process can be useful, but it's a bit contrived because along the way it takes things a little further from the truth than is necessary, which is bad. In this particular case, "The" is really the correct format for that word, for the reasons you give above. --Vinoir 08:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
So "WKTJ" was fiddled with (in the template anyway). Good defending. The project's reasoning will lead to "Last Train to Trancentral", and also "It's Grim up North". --Vinoir 08:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed this is stupid. Every Letter Of Titles Should Be Capitalised. --taras 18:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
And another one crawls out of the woodwork... excellent! I merged your changes to Burn The Bastards in the discog into a single entry for reasons stated, I hope you don't mind. We can use the image you uploaded if we decide to document all the singles. The issue is being discussed at Category talk:The KLF - please feel free to have your say on what we should do.
I might be off-wiki for a few days so I'd appreciate holding off on a decision until I'm back Vinoir, not that I actually have any right to ask that nor any means of stopping a rolling train if you decide to press on :-) --kingboyk 18:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
You're definitely due a break man, your edit rate is formidable. I think my own wiki-ing over the next few days will be pretty downtempo as well. The main things I'm doing will be to get song excerpts included, re-read some "featured content" guidelines, polish what we've got. I'll probably make some more "good articles" submissions too. --Vinoir 19:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
If it's for KLF related articles I think hold off until we see how we do. If it's for other subjects go for it! (Although, to be fair, the discography failing wasn't so bad, as the end result was that I made the article better! :)) --kingboyk 11:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Front and back covers

I'm 95% sure that the "JAMs" logo on white is the front cover, and the "1987" on black is the back. Certainly that's the way round my bootleg CD works, and in The Face advert, I think I remember the white sides being displayed. --Vinoir 09:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

That's how I had it originally, but it didn't look right. Perhaps we could leave as it but change the caption? --kingboyk 11:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I've swapped them again - ascertained that this is definitely the right way round. Rationale at Image talk:The JAMS- 1987 (What The Fuck Is Going On?).jpg. --Vinoir 18:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Songs

I think we could usefully expand this by having information and analysis on each song. --kingboyk 14:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitely so. --Vinoir 10:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm beefing up the Context section right now, and will farm out any song-specific info to a Songs section wherein you can do your magic (it may or may not be blank, we'll see). This article was actually a bit lame compared to some of our recent efforts! --kingboyk 11:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm done on expanding the Context. If I say so myself, I think it's looking much better. Probably the conflict with ABBA could do with some beefing up, perhaps a quote or two, otherwise I'm happy with it. Can you dissect the songs? --kingboyk 12:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sampler

Do we know when exactly they bought the Akai sampler? Are we certain it wasn't used on 1987? --kingboyk 12:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've no idea on that one. --Vinoir 15:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
It's OK, sources later revealed that it was the Greengate at this stage. They must have bought the Akai later. --kingboyk 14:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"distinctive plagiarised melodies (such as ABBA's "Dancing Queen") are often played on a high-pitched rasping instrument to accompany the samples". You sure that's not the sampler? They did a lot more than just play back snippets of songs you know (otherwise why not just use a - much cheaper - tape recorder? :)). --kingboyk 15:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, it is the sampler, but the sampler is the rasping instrument. That needs putting across more clearly. --Vinoir 15:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Audio Samples

"Hey Hey We Are Not The Monkees" ("What?! We're not The Monkees, I don't even like The Monkees") or "Don't Take Five", perhaps? I'd like to see something off side A, and that's the multimedia done for this article AFAIC :) --kingboyk 17:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use dictates we can't use "Monkees" again without sacrificing the sample we've already got at J&A. I'll find us a nice bit of "Don't Take Five". Lovely. Then we need a ==Themes== section but I'd really like to keep it short, we can easily get bogged down in 23s and similar gubbins. I'll be chuffed when the early stuff is done, I find it very challenging. A copy of "K Foundation Burn A Million Quid" popped through my letterbox this morning, and there seem to be relevant things quotable from their Q&A tour. For example, there could be a place for this Bill quote somewhere: "When we started making records together there was never an idea that it would end up as a successful money-making operation. We were just doing it because it excited us and we felt driven to do it." --Vinoir 18:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Good stuff. Don't have that book, is it worth buying?
Agreed that it will be nice to get these early ones finished. We've done a great job but I'd like to see some more FA stars and get onto something else! --kingboyk 18:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
It looks like it is worth buying, lots of Q&A transcripts. --Vinoir 19:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review

If you think this one is ready (or, when you do) please nominate it. I have two listed already and don't want to appear greedy for other editors' time :). --kingboyk 18:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Right you are. It's in pretty good shape. That said, I wish we could get our hands on Danny Kelly's negative NME review (funnily enough, it isn't included in the Shag Times sleevenotes), but still, we have negative remarks in there already. The important "themes" will be placed in there somewhere, and the personnel section will be small but necessary. I know about Chike, Cesare and Khiem, but I don't know who the female vocals are. I feel it's probably Cressida and Mo, but I haven't got a source. --Vinoir 19:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Put it into the todo box! Even if it's only you that will act on it! :P Looks more professional that way :) --kingboyk 19:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Oops...Oh yes! Duh! Good idea fella :-) --Vinoir 21:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC) They're a handy idea, those boxes. --Vinoir 21:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I've nominated this article for peer review. At WikiProject The KLF we are grateful for any comments at all you have regarding the quality of this article including any objection you might have were this article nominated for featured status. Please post your comments as Wikipedia:Peer review/1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?). Thanks very much. --Vinoir 14:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Peer review finished. Need to move on to FAC when you're back Vinoir. (If you're coming back?!) --kingboyk 13:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say the opening statement of the article does need citation, or else should be removed. LuciferMorgan 01:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It was removed. I think this one is due it's day in court: it's been 99% ready, as far as we were concerned, since June. Of course it might need improvement but basically now, like any good FAC, it's gone as far as we can take it without getting serious critique from knowledgeable, uninvolved editors. --kingboyk 17:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LP image

I had added an image of the record to show the full song titles (with BPM). (so you know why, because it was just removed from the page)JohnRussell 14:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the reason I removed it is because this will probably be the next KLF-related submission as a featured article candidate. During that process the article will come under very close scrutiny, and that includes our use of "fair use" images. We're probably already pushing it a bit by using the sleeve, the back cover, and the 1987 Edits sleeve. Hopefully I can write fair use rationales for these. I felt that using the record label too was just too much, and it doesn't add enough to the article for me to be able to write a convincing usage rationale. Agree or not? --kingboyk 14:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the image does not need to be in the article, but I think is is a good reference. I just wanted to point out that when I first added it the text track listing in the article did not include the BPM numbers as part of the song titles (the BPM was only listed on "All You Need is Love" because there are different versions of that track). So if in the future they are removed, the image could be reference for the official track names.JohnRussell 15:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, good catch - we can reference it. --kingboyk 16:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
On second thoughts, no, we'll go back to how it was. AYNIL (106 bpm) is so listed because that's how the KLF discography lists them, and we consider that to be the reliable source on KLF recordings. IIRC, the BPM values on JAMs records are inaccurate; they're also not of enyclopedic interest I fear - only to DJs. It's better to go back to the June version, without them. We're trying to write for a broad audience after all, not DJs/fans. --kingboyk 18:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion they should be there. They are of encyclopedic interest because they are relevant information about the track listing (just as the unlisted tracks are relevant and included) and we have an image to reference them to now. JohnRussell 18:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
We wouldn't link to the image, just cite the sleevenotes. The image will likely be deleted as it's not in an article. --kingboyk 18:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

I'm struggling to find a suitable place to mention The KLF in the lead (per the FAC), if at all. I wondered if it might go into the last paragraph, which has left the year 1987 far behind:

"A limited edition release subjected to recall and a destruction order, 1987 became something of a rarity. Driven by the duo's later fame as The KLF, mint condition copies were trading for £60 by the year 2000."

The problem I have is that I'm asserting A (fame as KLF) lead to B (high value for 1987). What I want to say is that in the years after the release of this record The KLF got very famous, and 1987 became a valuable collectible.

Any advice?

The KLF were in Record Collector's most collectable artists poll for a while, but I don't know if they were in 2000 (and I doubt it). --kingboyk 22:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The back cover

[[Image:The JAMS - 1987 (What The Fuck Is Going On?) .jpg|thumb|200px|left|The back cover of 1987, depicting the typeface used throughout Drummond and Cauty's work.]] Starting to look cluttered, and 3 fair use scans of KLF Comms covers is perhaps a bit much. Comments here or at the FAC please. --kingboyk 14:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleted as orphaned fair use image no longer needed. --kingboyk 20:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar mistake

In the "1987: The JAMs 45 Edits" section: "edited highlights of last weeks 'Top of the Pops'". There should be an apostrophe in "weeks", or else a {{sic}} template. ShadowHalo 20:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Probably "sic" but I don't have the time to check right now. --kingboyk 16:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The JAMs

"The JAMs" is an important "official" abbreviation which needs to be in the lead. It is not "the JAMs". Please don't change to lower case "the" or remove from the lead again, thank you. --kingboyk 22:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, got myself a bit mixed up there. My primary reason for removing the abbreviation was because it caused an awkward back-to-back parenthetical between "(The JAMs)" and "(Bill Drummond and Jimmy Cauty)". I've left both of those in there, but used a colon instead — hope that's okay. æ² ✆ 2007‑08‑10t20:05z
No worries, thanks. --kingboyk 21:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parentheses or colon?

The edited version of the album is referred to throughout the article as "1987 (The JAMs 45 Edits)", with the exception of the section on the single itself, which uses "1987: The JAMs 45 Edits". æ² ✆ 2007‑08‑10t20:03z

Good spot, rather alarming nobody noticed before! I don't know offhand which is "correct" but certainly we should be consistent in usage... Anyone? --kingboyk 21:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A couple of edits I'd like opinions on

  1. Bypassing redirects by changing JAMs links to KLF. I'm not usually a fan of bypassing redirects, but having one article on JAMs/KLF has clearly worked and I can't see it changing for a long while, probably never, so personally I approve of this edit.
  2. Cutting out some "extraneous" text. I think he has a good point; "a cappella" already means without instruments, so we probably don't need to be saying "without backing instrumentation, rhythms, or samples of any kind" :) Incidentally, Wikipedia has an article on a cappella but we already linked to it earlier in the article.

--kingboyk 21:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Will this never be put on the main page because of the use of the word "Fuck"?

Just wondering what consensus is here.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably, but it's hard to say for sure without submitting it for consideration. If you wish to, feel free. --kingboyk (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)