Talk:Space Guitar

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Space Guitar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ErnestKrause (talk · contribs) 19:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks like a new article. This may take a few days to do. Here are some items to get things started:

Thanks for taking this on. I usually work a little at a time, so there is no time pressure. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

(1) There are several images available on a Google Images search for finding a label for the original release. It might be nice to download one of these to the Wikimedia library and then include it in the Infobox by fair use.

Added DJ copy which shows duration (consumer issue doesn't). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

(2) There is a tenor sax solo which come it about half way in which might deserve at least some comment in the article. He plays back up to the guitar for most of the song, though he does get a short solo. Worth 1-2 sentences in the article I think.

None of the refs mention the sax, but I've added a bit, using AV media as the source. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

(3) It might be nice to move your quoted material and references currently in the lead section into the main sections. Then include summaries in the lead section of that material once its fully in the main sections.

Done. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

(4) Closing section titles might include a Legacy section because of the significant number of re-issues. There is one album out there called "Jimi Hendrix Jukebox" which also includes a re-issue of this song. Also, Release section might look better as "Release and reception", with retrospective reception comments going into a new Legacy section.

Renamed and reorganized. Many newer Watson compilations are gray market/unauthorized (his recordings are still copyright protected in the US, but maybe not elsewhere). I've added a couple of Charly compilations that are mentioned by AllMusic, although Charly was forced out of business because of copyright problems. The Hendrix Jukebox cover indicates "not authorized". —Ojorojo (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

That should get things started. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Initiate Review

(1) This is such a straightforward article that I will list my edit concerns in this list format, if its ok with you, like the above comments.

OK, so far so good. —Ojorojo (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

(2) A bot have flagged your Wikimedia addition for the record label, and you might want to look at it.

Added "public domain US–no notice" on commons page. Hopefully that will take care of it. —Ojorojo (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

(3) There is a pretty good book about him which has some good quotes about the sound and music he makes. See 'The Gangster of Love: Johnny "Guitar" Watson: Performer, Preacher, Pimp ...', By Vincent Bakker, for some of the quotes. It should come up on google books and if you do a keyword search on the song title, then there will be several good quotes from the composer himself. He also clears up the title of the song, with "spacey" as describing the new use of heavy reverb.

It looks interesting, but the book can't be used because it's self-published and Bakker doesn't appear to meet the recognized expert exception (WP:SPS). I purposely didn't read it so as not to be influenced. I've seen some other quotes from Watson, where he got the reverb mixed up. —Ojorojo (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

(4) New section of Legacy looks good. Need to review this one more time to see if I have more review thoughts, and see if you could do the items above. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Typos

(1) Your phrase "before the accompaniment resumes,", needs a period at the end, not a comma.

Fixed. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

(2) Your phrase "common technique technique" has too much 'technique'.

Fixed. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

(3) Your phrase "He also uses exaggerated" should be in past tense for consistency, "also used...".

Fixed. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

(4) Could there be some emphasis that reverb was still relatively new when the song was recorded; it was not in heavy use in the mid-50s.

See below. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

(5) The Bill Dahl article from 1994 for the Chicago Tribune is the article that gives the quote about Watson mentioning where the title of the song came from, which was the 'spacy' sound he associated with the heavy reverb he was using on his Fender. I think its worth including.

This is one of the problems I was alluding to earlier: contrary to Watson's claim, Fender amps did not have reverb until the early 1960s. Also, I doubt he was the first to record a solo with reverb. Reverb was used in recordings as early as the 1930s; Les Paul was experimenting a lot in the 1940s and some pre-1954 John Lee Hooker records have effects, so it's likely that somebody did it before Watson. Watson's comment about sustain is plausible (Ross puts in in Goldmine in 1996), so I included it. But the rest seems fanciful. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

(6) Regarding the SPS issue you bring up, that happens from time to time. The way other editors deal with it is to follow up on the citations in the book to see if they are real. If they are real, then you get to use his quoted materials in the book by citing the original sources which he identifies at the end of his book. Good point you make about SPS, but some of the quotes he gives of Watson are word-for-word accurate and hard to find elsewhere.

The google book preview is missing many pages, including those with Bakker's citations, so I can't verify the quotes. I read through what I could: Bakker mentions feedback a couple of times, once citing "Website Songfacts" which is user-generated, and "Some say Watson used a voice or talk box technique on 'Space Guitar' (1954). On that song new electronic techniques like reverb were applied for the first time.[no citation]" This makes me doubt that Bakker knows much about the technical details or where to find them. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

(7) Is it worth listing the Personnel in a separate Personnel section. The time stamp on the tenor sax solo is just right. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The only source mentioning the personnel is the Rhino liner notes. I think creating a separate section to repeat the players would be placing too much emphasis on a point not addressed by other sources (WP:PROPORTION, MOS:OVERSECTION). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Copy edits

(1) Previous Lead version with 2 paragraphs looks better I think.

Agree, changed back. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

(2) By a Personnel section, I only had in mind to list Watson along with the backing musicians: Devonia Willams on piano, Bill Gaither on tenor sax, Mario Delagarde on bass, and Charles Pendergraft on drums. Make a final decision on if you will include the short personnel listing as a separate section. I don't think that listeners think of this song as a solo piece by Watson without accompaniment, so decide on which approach you prefer.

I think it would be duplicative, but some people like to see one, so added. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

(3) Your comment on the reverb and the accuracy of Watson's quotes are interesting. If Fender was not in the reverb business in the mid-50s then what was the equipment set-up being used in the studio to give him that heavy reverb. Its possible that this information is not available in reliable sources, though your comment that Watson only "thought" that it was a Fender revert is worth a short comment. Its possible that he just plugged into the studio set-up and just made a mistake about "thinking" that it was a Fender, especially if he was plugging into someone else's equipment.

Studios had various methods for adding reverb, but a specific one is not mentioned in the sources. Watson appears to contradict himself: first, he seems to be saying that he used a Fender amp with built-in reverb, then he says that the studio engineer was dialing it in on his mixing board (are these from the same Dahl interview?) Watson also says he "just used it in each of those breaks", but the reverb is also used sometimes after the accompaniment resumes and on part of the sax solo. With these lapses in memory, I don't think we should be quoting him or trying to explain what he might have meant on the reverb issue (but see below). —18:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

(4) Try to make a final decision if you can use the Chicago Tribune article I cited above by Dahl to comment that Watson is the one that wrote the title to the song, and that he titled it because of the 'spacey' sound he was using and experimenting with on the heavy reverb equipment he was using, whether it was Fender or not. For example something like, "Watson's title for the song was influenced by his own description of the heavy reverb he used in his equipment sounding 'spacey' to his own appreciation of it", or whatever wording you think may work on this.

That might work. Would you provide the missing citation details: Dahl, Bill (month, date, 1994). "Title of article". Chicago Tribune, p. ??. ISSN 1085-6706. I'll work on it, thanks. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

This might be of use: Dahl [1]. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I tried a search awhile ago and now with your link, it still doesn't work. What does Bakker show for his page 76 refs #131 and 132? —Ojorojo (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I found a snippet that shows: December 23, 1994, "Album persuades 'Guitar' Watson to end self-imposed exile", page 120. However, it appears to only include the quotes in Bakker's paragraph at the bottom of page 75/top of page 76 (his ref #131). Are the quotes in the following paragraph (his ref #132) also in Dahl's article? I was thinking of adding something like: "According to Watson, the title "Space Guitar" was inspired by a remark by the recording engineer, "I don't know what you're trying to do, man, but Jesus, man, what is it? Are you some kind of spaceman?" —Ojorojo (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

That works pretty good and I think you can go with it. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Added. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

(5) It looks like all the typos are taken care of. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Summary of assessment: Article is fairly straightforward and gets the basic material together in an organized and well written format. The images issue seems to be worked out at Wikimedia now, and the article is now passed in this assessment. Optionally, Amazon has picked up the republication of the Bakker book on Watson and it is no longer an SPS, and Amazon also gives a fairly large preview of the book in its 'Preview' mode if you might like some more quotes. Article is passed for promotion. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, corrections, and suggestions. According to his "About the Author" blurb at Amazon, Bakker seems like an interesting character. I'll keep my eyes open for newer editions; my Amazon link still shows the one published by CreateSpace, which is its self-publishing service. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)