Talk:Soft Heap (band)
(Redirected from Talk:Soft Heap)
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
External links modified[edit]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Soft Heap. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://musart.co.uk/heap.htm
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://musart.co.uk/stories/lostlin.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060131051356/http://www.macgraphic.co.jp/ich/soft_heap/index.html to http://www.macgraphic.co.jp/ich/soft_heap/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Jazz?[edit]
I would like to open a discussion on why this band is considered a jazz band and why bands like Soft Machine from "the Canterbury scene" are considered jazz bands on Wikipedia.
–Vmavanti (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would be more helpful to have that discussion at the Jazz WikiProject? Bondegezou (talk) 06:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- No, this is the appropriate place. I have discussed this subject before, many times, and the problem is that many British people don't know the difference between jazz and progressive rock and they don't want to learn, perhaps because calling something "jazz" is like giving it a gold star. It's a form of seriousness and importance, like calling someone "a musical artist" rather than "musician" as though there were something low and inferior about being a musician. "Jazz artist" suggests some kind of secular clerisy, when it's really just a form of music, a way to pass the time. The Canterbury Scene was as much about psychedelics as it was jazz—more Woodstock than Blue Note. Have you read many books about jazz? Have you read the autobiography by Andy Summers of The Police? He worked with Robert Wyatt and Soft Machine. But he also taught classical guitar and made jazz fusion albums. You reverted my edit with the reason "RS does" meaning RS thinks Soft Heap is a jazz band. I'm not a fan of acronyms. I prefer clear, two-by-four American prose. I don't know who RS is. If you mean Rolling Stone magazine, I hope you are not suggesting that because Rolling Stone says something it is therefore true. I used to read Rolling Stone—when I was a kid. That was a long time ago. I grew up and I learned.
–Vmavanti (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)- RS = reliable sources, as in WP:RS. Sorry, I've been editing Wikipedia for a long time and I forget to spell things out sometimes for those less familiar with how Wikipedia works.
- What WikiProject Jazz should cover is, I think, a discussion for all of WikiProject Jazz. Your own theories of what constitutes jazz and how people use and misuse the term are, I'm sure, of much interest to you, but Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and consensus. Bondegezou (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, and those sources have opinions, and you have opinions about how they will be used, and you give your opinions about various matters on Talk pages every day. There's no avoiding human judgment as long as humans are involved. So this defense ("sources versus opinions") is really a false dichotomy and straw man. I get accused of injecting opinion, but I don't do it any more than anyone else. I do it much less. Nevertheless, if you can find reliable jazz sources which demonstrate that this is a notable jazz band—really jazz and not jazzy, jazz hybrid, jazz related, jazz influenced, or jazz connected—then I will look at those sources and consider their arguments. But if sources say the world is flat, I'm not going to go along with it "just because". As a practical matter, the only way to have a jazz project where work actually gets done is to draw lines and establish definitions. The project is already defined v. broadly. According to the most recent Cleanup Listing, the project contains over 26,000 articles and over 5000 of them need serious work. That's of the articles that have been tagged. So there's more. Changes occur nearly every day, with articles added (rarely deleted, because some people have religious objections to deleting articles). To my knowledge, there are only a few regulars working on the project, and I'm doing most of the work. To my knowledge, there is no one in the project that has my background as a musician, disc jockey, editor, writer, and a comparable shelf of books. I'm not bragging. I'm trying to persuade you that I might know what I'm doing. Sure, we can disagree, and I will talk to anyone who will talk to me sensibly about sensible matters, but this particular subject is one I encounter fairly often. Certain people loathe when I draw lines and establish definitions and when I say "That's not jazz". They would rather the project be open-ended and infinitely expansive, with their own definitions the criteria. When I say "there are limits" they often get outraged, insult me, threaten me, and so on. That's a normal day for me on Wikipedia. I hope this explains my occasional lack of patience.
–Vmavanti (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)- As I said, I think this is a matter better resolved at WikiProject Jazz. That you say you "encounter fairly often" this subject does suggest it is not specific to Soft Heap. Looking there, it's already apparent that your approach is not always supported by the broader editing community, e.g. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Jazz/Archives/2018_1#Who_decides?. Perhaps you could focus on edits that are less contentious? It may also be valuable for you to remind yourself of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EXPERT might all be useful for starters. Bondegezou (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- Well, you have to chosen to avoid answering my questions, so we are off to bad start already. If you think you are going to encounter a group of people at the project page, you are mistaken. Regardless, I would say the things there that I would say here, so what's the point? The matter at hand is my removal of the jazz template from the Soft Heap article and your reversion of that edit. The proper place for discussion is here on the Soft Heap Talk page. The debate you referred to was about Frank Zappa. You turned the opinions of one Frank Zappa fan who disagreed with me, and who did a poor job of arguing, into alleging "your approach is not always supported by the broader editing community"—obviously that is false. Have you contacted every member of the "editing community"? Thank you for the advice to avoid edits which are not contentious. Even better would be the existence of open-minded human beings willing to learn and capable of being persuaded. Change is hard. Which edits are not contentious? On Wikipedia, they are all contentious. You are contesting one right now. Your best bet is to provide some proof that Soft Heap is a jazz band, otherwise you are stalling and wasting time.
–Vmavanti (talk) 02:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Well, you have to chosen to avoid answering my questions, so we are off to bad start already. If you think you are going to encounter a group of people at the project page, you are mistaken. Regardless, I would say the things there that I would say here, so what's the point? The matter at hand is my removal of the jazz template from the Soft Heap article and your reversion of that edit. The proper place for discussion is here on the Soft Heap Talk page. The debate you referred to was about Frank Zappa. You turned the opinions of one Frank Zappa fan who disagreed with me, and who did a poor job of arguing, into alleging "your approach is not always supported by the broader editing community"—obviously that is false. Have you contacted every member of the "editing community"? Thank you for the advice to avoid edits which are not contentious. Even better would be the existence of open-minded human beings willing to learn and capable of being persuaded. Change is hard. Which edits are not contentious? On Wikipedia, they are all contentious. You are contesting one right now. Your best bet is to provide some proof that Soft Heap is a jazz band, otherwise you are stalling and wasting time.
- As I said, I think this is a matter better resolved at WikiProject Jazz. That you say you "encounter fairly often" this subject does suggest it is not specific to Soft Heap. Looking there, it's already apparent that your approach is not always supported by the broader editing community, e.g. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Jazz/Archives/2018_1#Who_decides?. Perhaps you could focus on edits that are less contentious? It may also be valuable for you to remind yourself of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EXPERT might all be useful for starters. Bondegezou (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, and those sources have opinions, and you have opinions about how they will be used, and you give your opinions about various matters on Talk pages every day. There's no avoiding human judgment as long as humans are involved. So this defense ("sources versus opinions") is really a false dichotomy and straw man. I get accused of injecting opinion, but I don't do it any more than anyone else. I do it much less. Nevertheless, if you can find reliable jazz sources which demonstrate that this is a notable jazz band—really jazz and not jazzy, jazz hybrid, jazz related, jazz influenced, or jazz connected—then I will look at those sources and consider their arguments. But if sources say the world is flat, I'm not going to go along with it "just because". As a practical matter, the only way to have a jazz project where work actually gets done is to draw lines and establish definitions. The project is already defined v. broadly. According to the most recent Cleanup Listing, the project contains over 26,000 articles and over 5000 of them need serious work. That's of the articles that have been tagged. So there's more. Changes occur nearly every day, with articles added (rarely deleted, because some people have religious objections to deleting articles). To my knowledge, there are only a few regulars working on the project, and I'm doing most of the work. To my knowledge, there is no one in the project that has my background as a musician, disc jockey, editor, writer, and a comparable shelf of books. I'm not bragging. I'm trying to persuade you that I might know what I'm doing. Sure, we can disagree, and I will talk to anyone who will talk to me sensibly about sensible matters, but this particular subject is one I encounter fairly often. Certain people loathe when I draw lines and establish definitions and when I say "That's not jazz". They would rather the project be open-ended and infinitely expansive, with their own definitions the criteria. When I say "there are limits" they often get outraged, insult me, threaten me, and so on. That's a normal day for me on Wikipedia. I hope this explains my occasional lack of patience.
- No, this is the appropriate place. I have discussed this subject before, many times, and the problem is that many British people don't know the difference between jazz and progressive rock and they don't want to learn, perhaps because calling something "jazz" is like giving it a gold star. It's a form of seriousness and importance, like calling someone "a musical artist" rather than "musician" as though there were something low and inferior about being a musician. "Jazz artist" suggests some kind of secular clerisy, when it's really just a form of music, a way to pass the time. The Canterbury Scene was as much about psychedelics as it was jazz—more Woodstock than Blue Note. Have you read many books about jazz? Have you read the autobiography by Andy Summers of The Police? He worked with Robert Wyatt and Soft Machine. But he also taught classical guitar and made jazz fusion albums. You reverted my edit with the reason "RS does" meaning RS thinks Soft Heap is a jazz band. I'm not a fan of acronyms. I prefer clear, two-by-four American prose. I don't know who RS is. If you mean Rolling Stone magazine, I hope you are not suggesting that because Rolling Stone says something it is therefore true. I used to read Rolling Stone—when I was a kid. That was a long time ago. I grew up and I learned.
What do reliable sources say about Soft Heap? Allmusic, a source you have cited in another "is it jazz" debate, calls them "jazz" and "avant-garde": [1]. We have one of their albums reviewed by All About Jazz: [2]. Record Collector refers to them as "intense jazzology" and as "Stylistically picking up the torch where Soft Machine’s more overtly jazz-driven statements" Jazz Music Archives describes one of their albums as "mixing psychedelic rock/pop with jazz improvs" and "experimental electric jazz album". Bondegezou (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- I think I recall a previous discussion regarding the British jazz-rock bands centred on members of Soft Machine & Nucleus. Without retrieving and reheating that discussion (wherever it was), I'll just observe that the present subject, Soft Heap, recorded a session for Charles Fox's BBC Radio 3 "Jazz in Britain" programme, broadcast on 25 July 1983.[3]. AllyD (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)