Talk:Nickel Creek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Nickel Creek has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.

A request has been made for this article to be copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. The progress of its reviewers is recorded below. The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping.
Add comments
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
StrawberryFields! (talk ยทcontrib)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[edit] Bluegrass?

Nickel Creek does not play bluegrass (Chris Thile has gone so far as to say this), although Chris and Sean have recorded some bluegrass apart from the band (i.e. Chris' solo albums). The "About" section of the Official Nickel Creek website acknowledges this (Sara says, " I think of us as a sort of high-energy chamber band."). Cmadler 15:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't mean they are not bluegrass. For example, AMG says their eponymous album is "decidedly a bluegrass record." ([1]) Hyacinth 18:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Have you listened to that album? Have you listened to much bluegrass? In this case, AMG is decidedly wrong. Although there is bluegrass influence in their music, it probably shows an equally strong celtic influence (particularly through Sara's fiddling style). Perhaps three or four of the dozen songs on that album approach what might be called "progressive bluegrass", but they only approach it, and the other 3/4 of the album is in another realm entirely. To further support the argument that Nickel Creek does not generally play bluegrass (I will not say they never have): 1. It is generally accepted that bluegrass music requires the presence of a banjo player (playing banjo on some songs, though not necessarily all; the gospel songs performed by Flatt and Scruggs come to mind); 2. Bluegrass is usually played with each melody instrument switching off, playing the melody in turn while the others revert to backing, in Nickel Creek's music there is commonly no melody v. backing per se but rather a true trio (hence Sara's comments about chamber music). Nickel Creek does make use of instruments which are also used in bluegrass, but these instruments were common in chamber music for many centuries before bluegrass. Although they have played bluegrass individually (so did Jerry Garcia and The Byrds guitarist Clarence White) and severally, and do have connections to bluegrass (so does Leon Russell), which both should be noted in the article, there is really nothing that defines the overall body of their music as bluegrass, and it is a gross mischaracterization to call it that. Cmadler 14:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
It is not unreasonable to refer to them as progressive bluegrass, although this is only one aspect of the group's music, and like many great acts they really are hard to classify. Regarding the above, (1) The banjo is an important element yes, (in fact many would trace the point of origin of bluegrass to the moment Earl Scruggs joined Bill Monroe's band,) but it has not always been essential. Jim and Jesse McReynolds were hugely influential in the early years of bluegrass and usually played without a banjo (due in part to Jesse's crosspicking wizardry on the mandolin). (2) Many modern bluegrass musicians don't stick to the format. If you listen to Sam Bush for example you will hear everything from jazz to reggae to ...(?). The lead of the current article seems to strike a pretty good balance between making their influences clear and not pigeonholing them. -MrFizyx 15:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Birth information

Our article on Sara Watkins says she was born in 1977, not 1981. I don't know which is correct. If people can figure it out, I suggest that the correct date go only in her bio article; individual birth dates aren't needed in the article on the band. JamesMLane 11:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

It looks like this issue has been taken care of. Nubby 18:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Solo albums

Is it really appropriate to list all the solo albums on the page for the group, given that individual pages exist for the bandmembers? If it was mentioned that the entire group contributed to the albums (if that is in fact the case), it might make some sense. Cmadler 20:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Since no argument has been made in favor of keeping the solo albums on this article, I am deleting those sections. Cmadler 14:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Full discography

They released at least two cassettes, recorded on their own equipment at home, which they sold fairly widely at their early live performances. Should these be included in the discography? They are almost impossible to come by, these days. I only remember the name of one: "A Nickel's Worth." Any other information out there? --Gilrain 18:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

my thought is if we can come up with the other title they should both then be listed but as a seperate sub-section from the main releases. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 09:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

How can the 2000 release "Nickel Creek" be considered Platinum for 900,000 units sold? Platinum is clearly defined as a million. It's close, but I don't believe it has been certified. It doesn't show as being certified in the RIAA database.(192.45.72.28 00:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Band Members

Is the bass player really a member of Nickel Creek? I believe they have always been a trio, performing with a bassist that is not technically a member of the band, but rather an accompanist. Refer to their biograph on CMT's website, stating "The three members of Nickel Creek..." (http://www.cmt.com/artists/az/creek_nickel/bio.jhtml)

Whether you consider the bass an "accompaniment" instrument in their music seems to me a moot point; you could just as well say that Ringo Starr was an accompanist for the Beatles (or that Flatt & Scruggs were a duo with a bunch of accompanists!); he soloed about as much as Nickel Creek's bass players. The fact is, Nickel Creek have always performed and recorded with a bassist, and except for a brief period after Scott Thile's retirement this role has been consistently filled first by Scott and currently by Mark Schatz. To me the salient point is that they are four musicians on stage performing roughly as equals; this is by definition a quartet. Cmadler 00:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Good point. I suggest therefore that in the chart that "and sometimes" be removed before Mark Schatz's name, considering he is a current band member.
Done. Cmadler 12:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

A discussion doesn't make it fact - a band is as much a legal entity as a performing act. Their webite claims them as a trio not withstanding their constant recording and performing with another. About the band on their website :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 12:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I could call myself Napoleon, or the President of the US, but my saying it doesn't make it so. I don't want to get into a revert war, but I'm sticking with my previous statement that four musicians is - by definition - a quartet and not a trio. Perhaps the article could say something like "From a musical standpoint, they are a quartet, but Mark Schatz is not considered part of the band for legal reasons." (You implied some legal issue; I don't know if it's true.) Cmadler 12:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I hear what you are saying but I have never heard of this type of exception before, George Martin was a frequent and regular recording part of the Beatles (esp. early) but is not part of the band. The Monkees were musically (instruments!) only part of the band after the first albums. All of the band's (nickel creek) own material state them to be a trio. This isn't something to fight about. But I would prefer to say "Band xxxx is a trio." and then "It should be noted that in most recent recordings and live perfomances the band has a regular fourth contributer, acting more like a quartet." How's that. Don't get me wrong I do see the problem, and perhaps the band will formalise the arrangement in some way. Oh yes CSN&Y had two extra players some of the time, can't quite remember the names. The difference is between de facto and de jure. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 15:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

I'm failing this article for GA. The article is underreferenced. It contains original research as far as musical styles, and there are unsourced sales figures. ShadowHalo 05:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 3, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: There are some wording choices that I question, for example "Nickel Creek's musical style seems to have shifted away from.." brings up the question of original research; do a thorough check to make sure you don't introduce terms like this or if they are needed, provide a citation. Make sure that album titles are italiced while song titles are "quoted". There's a few long quotes from the band that should be made into blockquotes.
2. Factually accurate?: The article is lacking references to key factual data, for example, sales data for albums. Critical reviews should be cited even if you give credit to the obvious source. Your sources need to be formatted either via Harvard referencing or WP's citation templates as in WP:CITE. The article's information itself seems fairly accurate.
3. Broad in coverage?: You may want to check other bands that have made WP:GA status; a style generally common to these is a "musical style", which you have described somewhat in the lead, but could be moved here. I would also say the same for providing some brief, appropriately rationaled song samples (see images). Outside of these, the rest of the article seems to cover the band well.
4. Neutral point of view?: No apparent problems
5. Article stability? Seems to be stable
6. Images?: Could use a non-free disk image cover (with appropriate fair use rationale) in the body, and if possible another (free) band picture, but not really required otherwise. For a band article, one would expect at least one song sample, and given the history, I would expect two (reflecting their change from bluegrass to progressive acoustic.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. --MASEM 15:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm checking in to see if there's any progress towards these corrections, and still see some of this issues exist. I'll check again in a few more days, and if these aren't by then, I'm going to fail the article presently as a GA, but please don't take that the wrong way, we have a backlog presently and can't keep articles open forever. Please feel free to resubmit the article back as a GA candidate once you have completed these changes should this be necessary. --MASEM 22:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Failed this article as a GA, as the hold has expired. CloudNine 09:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    The writing needs work
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Needs more references in places
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Well, the writing needs some work. It just doesn't flow very well. Also, some areas need more references. Until then, I've put the article On-hold. Thank you for your work so far in improving this article, and good luck improving the article to GA status. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 13:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: I added references in areas that needed them. --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 08:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I have also edited the writing and another user has copyedited it. --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

It has greatly improved since my first review, and it passes GA. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 13:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Grats! --Efe (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)