Talk:Alex Chilton
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
|
|
Alex Chilton is within the scope of the WikiProject New Orleans, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to New Orleans and the Greater New Orleans area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. |
|
Looking to help? Check out the New Orleans To-do List:
|
|
I notice I can't view the photo when on a Macintosh in Internet Explorer. I can view it in Firefox though on a Mac. No problems with Windows browsers and this page. Bebop 04:27, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Big Star was "slick, sterile..."?
Hmmm. Interesting perspective there. In the early 1970s, I'd say the O'Jays were slick, the Carpenters were sterile, and Big Star was neither. But hey, this is wikipedia, not Allmusic.com. I shouldn't be surprised. Chilton evidently has a daughter who was in touch with his fans when Katrina caused many to worry about Chilton's safety. No mention of her here. <--(unsigned comment posted by 24.225.95.58)
- I haven't read the article in a long time other than to glance just now at the first paragraph and see the birthdate was wrong, and I corrected it; I guess I'll look through it again. As to the comment about "slick, sterile", I found the relevant sentence. It was trying to say he was moving toward a different aesthetic he pursued in the late 1970s and beyond as the punk movement started, which seemed to influence his work starting with Cramps and Panther Burns productions at the end of the 1970s, punk having partly been a reaction against multilayered, sometimes heavily overdubbed pop recording standards of the type Chris Bell (whose work I quite like) favored. This was not intended to say "Big Star" or Chilton's post-Big Star solo punky pop in the mid 1970s that included overdubbed atmospherics were sterile and slick -- it was more intended to refer to a change to a rawer "one take" recording aesthetic and experimenting in a new direction with self expression, and since the sentence did not make this clear, I have corrected it. Both styles of recording can result in fine music and good productions; Chilton, a producer himself, is known to be a proponent of good production: he liked the multilayered and overdubbed Beach Boys and early Big Star style as much as he liked the recording styles he later moved to, so it would be inappropriate for me to have implied one style was in some way better than the other with regard to his attitude. Thanks for pointing this out. And people should not be afraid to correct a mistake in the article. Also, the recent Big Star album from last year reflects much in common with his 1980s solo style approach, so thanks for pointing out implications the "slick and sterile" sentence had which needed correcting.
- As for his daughter, Wikipedia articles have a standard of not being primary research reporting gossip and rumors, but are supposed to report what has been documented previously in established media, magazines, newspapers, books. If you want to write a story about his daughter and get it published in the New York Times and later point us to it, we will be glad to mention it here in this story but we can't just go do our own interviews in this particular venue or report what someone claimed in a yahoo group even if it might be true: Chilton needs to go on record himself about it first. As for wikipedia not being allmusic.com, they do not report on his daughter, and he had other family members as well that we haven't listed, including siblings and parents. – Bebop 22:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] About moving "critics" section I created over to Further Reading citations
All artists I know of get pans and raves. Even the best artists do, including national artists from other parts of the U.S. that I've been a fan of for the past 15 years who sometimes have had good albums raved about in some places end up complained about in other sources. There is no reason to summarize Chilton's life in a final paragraph about critics who should have their work pointed out in their own bios instead of their own paragraph here. So I moved these critic references, which I had previously helped add to, over to a Further Reading citations section. I had previously helped create the "critics" section when I added additional research, citations and subheads after someone had pulled out the only disparaging comment in a long, positive liner notes essay and placed it in this article (though that was not the thrust of the Hogg liner notes nor those of the second liner notes writer, Rick Clark, in the same album's notes), along with a sentence by Christgau that was unclear out of context it was from a review praising him and jokingly referred to irrelevant trivia about dishwashing.
It's not NPOV to single an artist out for a redundant section in his bio that is not provided to other artists at wikipedia, all of whom have albums with "divided" opinons by critics. So now there is a Further Reading section, which can have additional citation entries added.
This Wikipedia article does not rave about Chilton, has plenty of criticism mentioned, and there is no reason to end the story as though his life is summed up by randomly chosen, out-of-context statements by critics who all like some, but not all of his work, as with other artists; the article is already a fair overview of his career and not intended to be a review of the critics' careers. There are plenty of critics who think positively of his work as well, just as with any artist; all albums get raves and pans. In fact, a number of critics point to his work producing The Cramps as quite important, but people who focus on Big Star as all he did worth knowing about do not have NPOV on the subject of Chilton. This artist bio is already much more neutral than most and did not need the extra paragraph alluding to four writers when that's what references sections are for. (In the Big Star article I mentioned a couple of source names in passing as proof of something that another editor was confused on; names can be useful for proof but not needed here beyond Further Reading). — Bebop 02:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
- I have restored this. I think it is totally legitimate (by the way, it was not my writing). In general things like this belong in articles about artists. If others lack it, the failing is there, not here. And these are hardly "randmoly chosen" critics: Gordon and Christgau probably come closer to being household words than Chilton himself. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:19, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
-
- I meant randomly chosen quotations, sorry for my awkward phrasing. Please see my detailed comments in this page's History tab entry at 16:36, 14 May 2005 (says 20:36 when I'm not logged in). I have removed the longer explanation for sake of space but it answers your above concerns. Below is a shorter summary. I put a lot of consideration into the edit you are concerned about and did a lot of research and came to the conclusion it was wrong to have it in there; I initiated most of the paragraph at issue as well. I don't like taking up the whole page, so please see the History tab. The article edit was not something I did without care and thought. And I have tried to make sure to incorporate the point someone initially wanted to see conveyed regarding the issue of mixed reviews (though this was mostly already in the article). Certainly I also kept the citations and separated them from others for emphasis in Further Reading. Bebop 20:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Summary -- Examples of where the article already makes it clear he's not universally praised without the additional paragraph being needed:
- "often-criticized album" — Like Flies on Sherbert
- "poorly received" — Live in London
- "not appreciated by those critics who thought his 1980s solo work languid or lounge-like" — 1980s material
- "garnering mixed reviews" — solo albums into the 2000s
The above examples show there are sufficient references in the article to the fact he, like most, has received mixed reviews, actually over-emphasizing it (as I erred on the side of being negative instead of positive) since most of his albums also received positive reviews including by Christgau, just as is the case with every artist, without additionally tacking another paragraph at the end hammering home once more some randomly chosen quotations and falsely implying the writers mentioned are famous for these quotes by setting the section off dramatically. Enough is enough; since we have noted his split of opinion already, citing where to read more in "Further Reading" is sufficient without additionally beginning a "split of opinion" paragraph tacked at the end. Part of editing is knowing what to remove that is excess; that paragraph, largely researched and written by me, was redundant (like my comments here). How many times does the article need to repeat there's a split of opinion, something true of all artist's reviews; the paragraph was merely repetitive of prior info. — Bebop 11:24, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] guitarwork vs. guitar work
"guitar work" is the more commonly used terminology compared to "guitarwork". As evidence, I cite the following: Google search hits: ("guitarwork") = 22,100 hits ("guitar work") = 677,000 hits
Dictionary.com result for "guitarwork" yeilds no result.
This is largely a trivial point since readers will understand either phrasing, but I do think that we should strive to use the more common phrasings where possible. I am reverting this back to the more common usage. Tobycat 19:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
- Oops, I see that the original edit I made was not changed after all. No need to revert.Tobycat 19:42, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
-
- Sorry for the confusion — I wasn't changing your edit at all; I included it and tried to indicate that by saying "added guitar work". I don't change most edits, but I do attend to items related to proper grammar, redundant comments that do not add substance, fact checking, skewed emphasis, fairness, npov concerns, and research citations -- I especially go over sentences I have added or mistakes I have previously made with a fine tooth comb. I usually try to incorporate contributions of others in some way even if it's not something I would have done myself otherwise; when I do change or remove some contribution by another, I will usually still incorporate any genuine contribution somewhere else in a story, such that the story is improved because of the person's contribution. (I had that happen in another story just today; I first thought it was a vandal, then realized it was just a sloppy but mostly genuine contribution, so I incorporated the part of it that was correct. And in the Chilton story, I made sure to keep a Further Reading section and make the mixed reviews aspect clear as a bell due to someone's interest in this aspect.) — Bebop 20:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] mutilated page
why isnt there one of those boxes where it has how old he is, his genres, eye color, finger length? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
