Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art Mastering

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. An unusual lack of participation in this AfD considering the number of single-purpose accounts, but Andrew's coherent argument speaks louder than any number of 'delete per nom' votes, and after discounting single-purpose accounts (and their arguments which consist largely of personal attacks and handwaving) I believe we have a consensus for deletion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Art Mastering

Vanity/Non-notability. Article is almost for sure created by the company founder, given the page history and the other contributions of Voy7 (a.k.a. R.Watts) and 66.214.253.155 (inserting links to website). The author claims that the company mastered a hit song/cd and therefore belongs on Wikipedia. A search on Google for "Art mastering" gives the company webpage and a few mentionings on forums and the competing company audioplexus (links to which the author has vigorously replaced by own links in Audio mastering). Han-Kwang 18:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• User Han-Kwang himself removed links pertinent to Audioplexus so it is funny that he lists this as a justification for deletion.R. Watts
• The replaced links were those pertinent to this article and not the author's.R. Watts
• The author of this article is a recording artist not associated with the company.R. Watts
• The Audioplexus was a commercial advert marked for speedy deletion and was removed from wiki, edits pertinent to Audioplexus were justified.
  • R.Watt's preceding 4 bullet points were added on Aug 23, 3:30 UTC.
• Delete As someone who creates music, this article makes very little sense to me. For example, it says that someone doing "artmastering" might change the "order of movements or instrumental parts". Maybe, but if so they're not mastering, they're arranging, which is a whole different step in the recording process. Also, I don't recall ever reading about "artmastering" in any professional musicians' magazine, not even when they have whole articles about the mastering process. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The text states that changing the "..order of movements or instrumental parts.." is done only in some extreme cases. I think you will agree, that changing the order of tracks, or cutting off and fading out a section of a radio mix to fit it into a prescribed time slot, are tasks commonly performed in mastering studios. So I see no issue, if in some extreme cases, the artist wishes to change an order of movements. As far as calling it "arranging", you are right, it definitely goes beyond the regualar mastering, that is probably why they called it "armastering" because it involves artistic decisions. R. Watts

• Keep Do a websearch under "artmastering" see what you will find. "Maniac" and its subsequent remixes were big hits in the US. Another article on one of the leading music sites MusicBizAcademy.com features Art Sayecki and Artmastering and mentions Michael Sembello and "Maniac" http://www.musicbizacademy.com/articles/gman_mastering.htm . I also found a testimonial of Michael Sembello, the author of "Maniac", on www.artmastering.com website. So start listening to music, Hankwang , and start reading about it before you attempt to edit anything associated with Audio Mastering. R. Watts
  • If I do a search for "artmastering" as you suggest, I get 19 unique Google hits, most of which seem to be links to the same site. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Search under "art mastering" (two words). This link comes up www.musicbizacademy.com/articles/gman_mastering.htm dated Jan 2004. It's an editorial article featuring several top mastering studios. Then the same article was re-printed by 8 different music websites for last 3 years.

http://www.allmusicproject.com/GMan/Mastering_GMan.html

http://thabocks.com/music/arcorner/masteringyourmusic.html

http://www.goodnightkiss.com/mastering.html

http://www.indieguitarists.com/gmanarticlemastering.htm

http://www.digidogs.com/shop/product_info.php?products_id=15372

http://electro-music.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4035

http://robertneary.phorumz.com/robertneary-ptopic16.html

http://www.musicbizacademy.com/articles/gman_mastering.htm

This is not a fluke but a well received editorial and deserves to be in wikipedia and artmastering should be in wiki as well. R. Watts

• I don't think these websites meet the notability guidelines in WP:CORP, in particular "published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations". The editorial (with 8 copies) is written by the G-Man Marketing Company, that specicializes in advertising. Quote from the G-Man website: "I once ghostwrote an article for a coalition of companies [...] So I was paid three thousand dollars to state their case." [1] Han-Kwang 21:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• What a cheap shot Hankwang, you took a sentence out of context from an article in which G-man is speaking against advertising industry. Not even mentioning that the article which you try to diminish is an editorial and features several competing studios so there is no question about credibility http://www.musicbizacademy.com/articles/gman_mastering.htm

Also G-man (Scott-G) writes for National Association of Record Industry Professionals, http://www.narip.com/index.php?page=aboutus .

Additionally, the Musicbizacademy which was the first to published this article meets with ease the criteria of WP:CORP . It is one of the most popular and best established online music publications out there. Do a websearch search for: musicbizacademy . Sorry but sounds like you have no clue on the subject of music.

• I apologize for apparently misunderstanding G-Man's intentions. But we are talking about an AfD proposal, not about how much I know about music. Han-Kwang 22:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• No problem, and sorry for my outburst. You are right, the matter should be discussed and you have evry right to question the subject and voice your point of view.R. Watts

• Mild Delete I find Andrew's point above very valid. It would also seem that the article would encourage spam which is not needed. Finally unsigned keep statements make me very suspicious --Nigel ^(Talk) 09:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note I have reverted out two KEEP votes from brand new editors, both editing through broken proxies. --pgk^(talk) 11:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC) (here and here)
  • Clarification: this refers to the restored contributions by MagnusSound and JWilman below. I suspect from the contribution history of users JWilman (talk · contribs), MagnusSound (talk · contribs), and biggyP (talk · contribs) that they might be sock puppets or meatpuppets of Voy7. Han-Kwang 18:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• LOOKS LIKE EVERYBODY WHO HAS A DIFFERENT POINT OF VIEW THAN YOU Han-KwangIS YOUR ENEMY. WHY DO YOU DO THIS, CAN YOU PRESENT YOUR POINT OF VIEW WITHOUT ATTACKING OTHER PEOPLE?--Biggy P 12:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• • The users JWilman (talk · contribs), MagnusSound (talk · contribs), and biggyP (talk · contribs) are not my puppets. I have no association with them. Baseless accusations.R. Watts

• Possible. But it is not likely that they are genuine Wikipedians, given that their accounts were created after this AFD came up, that two of them used a proxy, and that JWilman cannot even spell his own last name consistently. Their votes will not count. Han-Kwang 17:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• I don't care when their accounts were created and if they can spell or not. I'm not associated with them. A request for sockpuppet check was initiated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Outstanding_Requests.

And stop smearing my name Hankwang. R. Watts

• Keep - It is a good article and is supported by references. Should be kept in wikipedia. What is this discrimination against new users I'm a new user too, do you want to ban me as well. Let people speak. This is unamerican. Have those users been banned? I don't think so, otherwise they couldn't post comments. I'm putting their comments back into the discussion.--Biggy P 12:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC) formerly: biggyP

• Keep - The source article from musicbiz academy is legit, The writer (G-Man) is legit, The website that published it is legit. That is already enough. But also there is a testimonial by Michael Sembello on artmastering.com website specifically mentioning thanking for work on "Maniac" and there is a picture of Sembello and Sayecki together in the studio. Most internet articles vanish after 6 months, while this article is kept on many websites for almost 3 years, so it is obviously meaningful and people read it and therefore is Notable. I have no time to browse through way-back-machine but I'm sure that if the article stayed for so lon on so many websites, it was much more popular right after it was published.

I checked Hankwang edit history and it looks like he removed some critical information from compact disk CD article. He removed ABBA, Claudio Arrau, and Chopin and other info! His edit was fortunately reverted but I'm wondering why is he so vigorously atacking articles that seem legit and particularily those related to CD and CD mastering ?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by MagnusSound (talk • contribs)

• Keeper, Definitely. A one of my demo tracks was mastered with artmastering, so I have had a first hand experience with the process. I live in Oxnarxd and visit LA often. I had a limited budget and I couldn't go to back to the recording studio but I was not happy with a guitar part in my song, so we cut it out and changed the pitch of the first bar in the bridge to match the spliced parts. It was fun. Sayecki is well known here in a LA and obviously in the world, after all those articles appeared. I see no problem with the article is a Definite Keeper.--Jonathan Wilman

• Before we continue this discussion any further please look at this: http://www.artmastering.com/p_sembello_sayecki.html

I'd say this is Very Notable R. Watts

• Comment The article is mostly about Art Mastering (the technique), but all arguments for keeping only support Art Mastering (the company). Han-Kwang 20:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep this article. I'm not associated with wikipedia. I'm an artist with three CDs in my discography. Several of my tracks were mastered with artmastering. The process is real and it works great. If you have questions please contact me through my CD-baby website since I don't have wikipedia account. Fran lucci. http://cdbaby.com/cd/lucci3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.105.41.1 (talk • contribs) 25 Aug 17:29 UTC

• Keep. My name is Scott G of G-Man Marketing. I'm also the recording artist known as The G-Man, and write the "Communication Nation" column for the Advertising Industry Newswire. I have written more than 200 articles for Web sites and print publications and I stand behind each of them, including the one referenced here. During an interview conducted with Art Sayecki in Dec 2003, I learned about the process of armastering and heard several examples of it. I chose to have two of my albums, "Sonic Tonic" and "Motion Potion," mastered by Art using his process of artmastering. As far as I can see, the text is correct other than the date of artmastering of "Maniac" (re-release) which I believe took place in early 2003, but this can be easily corrected by simply contacting Michael Sembello or Art himself. If you have any questions about my articles or this comment, just go to http://www.gmanmusic.com and you can reach me via e-mail from there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottgthegman (talk • contribs) 25 Aug 19:37 UTC

• Comment - I don't doubt that Sayecki is running a legitimate business and has happy customers such as Fran Lucci, Scott G, and Sembello. Neither do I doubt that he has an original view of the mastering process. But that doesn't qualify either the company or Sayecki's philosophy as being notable according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Being associated with a notable person is not a valid criterion for notability in itself, just like the staff of the US president is not notable unless there was a lot of publicity around them in the mainstream media. If Sembello ever mentioned in public that he specifically chose the company Art Mastering to master his cds, then that would warrant a paragraph in the article about Sembello and/or the cd in question (provided that these are notable for a Wikipedia article). Han-Kwang 10:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Observation: Please read the article thoroughly. Sembello in fact did mention it in public or for the public. Here is a quotation from the aforesaid article by G-Man: "There can be tremendous loyalty toward mastering engineers on the part of artists and producers. Michel Sembello, composer/performer of songs from hit albums and the huge film "Flashdance," told Art Sayecki "After hearing what you did with 'Maniac,' you are the only person I will let master my stuff." Please notice that G-Man is directly quoting Sembello. I doubt that he would write this if he didn't have supporting evidence. If you scout the web for his articles you will find that they all are supported by an extensive, almost obsessive (no offense intended), research. I think that if an artist such as Sembello makes this kind of public statement then it is definitely notable by wikipedia guidelines. R. Watts

• Additionally, in the entire article about Audio_Mastering, this is the only section Artmastering that actually has some support in the press as well as publically accessible pictures and references. Everything else has been contributed by various members based on their opinion rather than on notable facts or evidence and is placed there without any supporting evidence or references.

If we follow your reasoning, then the entire Audio Mastering section should be deleted as "not notable", which would be a terrible waste!

R. Watts

• Art Mastering article updated - The new references and date correction resulting from this discussion have been added to the Art_Masteringarticle.--R. Watts 06:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.