Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Bourgeois Blues/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2016 [1].

The Bourgeois Blues

[edit]
Nominator(s): Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a protest song that has entered the folk tradition. It has been a GA for a while and is stable. The text is complete after doing a comprehensive search of two college libraries, google scholar, LexisNexis, JSTOR, and EBSCO. The sourcing is standardized and I don't see any MOS violations. I think this is ready for my first ever FA. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reading through; article seems slight, but then again it's on a Lead Belly song, forgiveness granted. Prose v good so far, I was gripped by the lead, which accurately conveys the man's plight in the music industry of the time, although the point is laboured at times. Ceoil (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources all reliable. I don't like the green quote box, it's both garishly ugly and lacking specific context, suggest removal. Ceoil (talk) 14:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the face it seems fine, but again slight. Interesting at times, but not really answering or properly delving into all questions raised. I think you can rob from the bio to give more sociological context, and especially how he was seen by (and saw) white northerners; and the visit to DC is surely better covered. The musicology piece came across as muddled; more work here and I'll rethink. Sorry for being so distracted and imprice this Sunday morning, but I do like the page. These are my edits. Ceoil (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I think the article gives a full picture of where the scholarship about this song is today. Outside of the one public radio piece, I couldn't find anything in the popular press and most of the academic work on the song is part of a biography or an overview of blues. I was excited to find out that there was a fake book sheet about the song (Ledbetter & Lomax 2011) so that I could include something about the underlying music. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good, and see (ec)'d suggestions re soc context and his largely non black audience. Ceoil (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: I can't find any suggestions that I ec'd out or otherwise lift. Can you please give me a diff? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No I meant you need to fill out context, perhaps from the bio. The song wasn't the first of its kind, or written in a vacuum. We ec'd when i was adding that to my original post, is all. Ceoil (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will see what I can do --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 15:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP articles about songs typically use Template:Infobox song or Template:Infobox single. A spot check of 10 of the current 58 song FAs all use infoboxes. One was included in the GA reviewed version of "The Bourgeois Blues".[2] Why is this not included? —Ojorojo (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing this song to traditionally recorded pop music is like comparing chalk and cheese. Unlike most post-1940 music articles, the water is too muddy for an infobox. The first recording of the song was for the Library of Congress who will not let you access it without written permission of the Leadbelly estate. (I tried last week and I have the contact info of the estate.) The next year, the song was recorded for commercial release, but the majority of the sources gloss over it at best. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The ~2:20 1938 LoC/Smithsonian version was released by Smithsonian Folkways on Bourgeois Blues (Lead Belly Legacy Vol. 2) in 1997.[3][4] Also included on Lead Belly: The Smithsonian Folkways Collection in 2005. The FAs "Old Dan Tucker" (1843) and "On the Banks of the Wabash, Far Away" (1897) use infoboxes. GAs, including "Cross Road Blues" (1937) and "Dust My Broom" (1937) have infoboxes. The 1939 commercial release is discussed by Scalera and it's not clear that the other sources only refer to the 1938 recording. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a purely WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Policy does not make anyone use or not use an infobox; it is an editorial decision (2013 FoF). However, in the past I have use infoboxes when I felt that they were helpful, Toil, but not when I felt that they added nothing beyond the first sentence of the lead, Good Old Mountain Dew / Pittsburgh Town. The notes included with the 1997 album claim that the version included comes from a 1944 recording session with Asch. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 15:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am making the point about the infobox because it helps to identify the recordings. This is one of the problems with the article – it is sometimes not clear which version is being discussed. You noted above that "the majority of the sources gloss over it [1939 recording] at best." However, Lawson references the 1939 Musicraft version (p. 43 #33) and Scalera uses it. The Hal Leonard lyrics are for the 1939 version. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lyons writes Bragg "reworked an old Leadbelly song" and there is no indication that it is a remix. Remixing "recombines audio pieces from a recording to create an altered version of the song" and is distinct from a separate recording which uses no previously recorded "audio pieces". Other remixes are not addressed (or referenced) in the body of the article. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to misunderstand the meaning of remix. Also why should the article cite what it chooses not to cover. Ceoil (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remix is defined "verb: mix (something) again. *Produce a different version (of a musical recording) by altering the balance of the separate tracks [or] noun *a different version of a musical recording produced is such a way" (Oxford American Dictionary). "Remix" is included twice in the lead, but is not discussed or referenced in the body of the article. Assertions in the article lead must be referenced at some point (see WP:LEAD). As noted, the reference for the Bragg song does not mention anything about a "remix" and the reference for the Pete Seeger and Hans Theessink versions (a search for the song title in AllMusic) does not mention it. Again from WP Remix: "Remixes should not be confused with edits, which usually involve shortening a final stereo master for marketing or broadcasting purposes. Another distinction should be made between a remix and a cover. A remix song recombines audio pieces from a recording to create an altered version of the song. A cover is a recording of a song that was previously recorded by someone else." —Ojorojo (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the coloqual sense, remix and rework are the same. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 15:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Remix" is a technical term that has a different meaning than the broader "rework". To use the two interchangeably in an encyclopedic article is simply wrong. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Lyrics" section discusses four verses (presumably 12-bar vocal sections). The Hal Leonard reference shows six (with a 1959 copyright date and a key of A). The 1938 LoC recording has five verses and are in a different order.[5] The 1939 Musicraft single has six and is close to the Hal Leonard ref, although it is in B♭.[6]. There is also a much longer version, with Leadbelly telling more of the story.[7] A discussion of the song's development would be of interest (and the switch from 6- to 12- string). —Ojorojo (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lawson (the main source for the "Lyrics" section) does not give a verse-by-verse description of the lyrics – he only touches on #2 and #6 of the 1939 version, which he doesn't number (the 1938 version has a different order). Likewise, Scalera does not number the two he includes (the LyricWikia link only includes 5 of the 6 verses). As noted above, the article discusses "the first [turned down] ... the second [landlord] ... the third [Home of the brave] ... the fourth [boycott] ...". These are not identified in the sources and the numbering doesn't match up with the Hal Leonard reference verses. Where do they come from? If from Leonard, why not mention the fourth verse? (more on this below). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scalera includes the 1939 single, but doesn't mention the lyrics in the fourth verse (1939) that begin "Me and my wife, we went all over town, Ev'rywhere we'd go the colored people would turn us down". The 1938 recording includes "Me and my sweet wife and Miss Barnickle(sp?)", who was presumably white. So the protest extends beyond the "racism of its white population", which Lead Belly expands in the long version: "no colored people would let me in because I was with a white man, and that's a bourgeois place because they're scared to let in colored people with white people". —Ojorojo (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How are your ramblings here actionable. Ceoil (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ramblings? How about Assume good faith? Concerns with the scope and accuracy of the article are being pointed out, which is part of the review process. Problems such as these are indeed actionable. If Featured Articles "exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria", then there should not be such obvious short comings in the article. —Ojorojo (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The note in the "Background" section is insufficient. The statements made in the first paragraph of the "Lyrics" section are not supported by the fourth verse (Leonard). Lead Belly is not just targeting "the racism of its white population" and "by referring to Caucasians as "bourgeois"" . To ignore his indictment of the "colored people" misses a important point in the song—Ojorojo (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MPS1992

  • The article could perhaps be expanded slightly in a few areas to give a little more background explanation. For example, as someone not very knowledgeable about the era, I would associate Jim Crow laws with the south (where LB came from) and might not expect such segregation to be as widespread and intense in D.C. - some more background detail on this would probably help.
  • The role of Lomax is a really interesting aspect of the whole situation. The reader is left wondering why, in a city rife with racism and riven by segregation -- all apparently government-supported -- there is this man with government funding who is inviting (and subsidising?) LB's visit to the capital to record his work for its importance to a government program. The Wikipedia article Alan Lomax has a lot more detail on this, including that the government's support for Lomax was removed only a few years later. A little more about Lomax's work could be added to the "Background and creation" section. And also very slightly more detail about Lomax's role should filter back into the lead; because at present, for the naive like myself, the first assumption on reading the lead is that Lomax was a music executive or producer, and DC just happened to be where musicians from Louisiana went to get their commercial music recordings done.
  • In the lead: "and the conditions of contemporary African Americans in the southern United States". I still feel that DC does not really count as being "southern", so this wording is confusing. The song is apparently almost entirely about events in DC, not in Louisiana which would unquestionably be "southern".
  • Ojorojo's mention above of "Ev'rywhere we'd go the colored people would turn us down" is significant, and it needs mentioning in "Background and creation" that the staff who were unwilling to serve the mixed-race group (but offered to serve LB if he came back without the white people) were themselves African American.
  • "several other incidents of segregation that are believed to have contributed to the impetus of the song" - is the part I have put in italics perhaps an overly weak claim, given that these incidents are directly referenced in the song?
  • It is possibly worth briefly mentioning somewhere that Lead Belly is not the artist's legal name?
  • I think you will have to compromise over using "remix".

I have made these largely trivial edits. MPS1992 (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Not much progress is occurring on this nomination and there are substantive concerns best addressed outside of FAC. Therefore, I will be archiving the nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Bourgeois_Blues/archive1&oldid=1138472967"