Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Albums (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Harp Magazine[edit]

Hello, just getting discussion going for the addition of Harp (magazine). It was a print magazine in the 2000s. The website is long down, but can be accessed through the archive. information about the magazine can be found here. Since it's been in print for nearly a decade, I think it's ok, but just wanted to create discussion first. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, but yes, I would agree with that assertion. Sergecross73 msg me 14:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
No worries. I figured it'd be a go, but I just wanted to get a conversation first. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
It's been about half a month with no other issues, I'll add it as a reliable source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The Needle Drop[edit]

I've been seeing his reviews show up in the infoboxes lately. From all I gather, he posts videos on youtube. Unless other people can point out something else I've missed, what list should he be added to on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Is Youtube this reviewer's only medium? If so, it'd probably belong in the "don't use" section. I've never heard of this source before though, so anyone feel free to enlighten me there's a lot more to this... Sergecross73 msg me 16:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
From the wiki article on The Needle Drop and this interview, his only output appears to be his own site and several YouTube videos. I think he's be in the non-notable part of the site for now, but I'm was hoping someone here would know more about his work and maybe could find something else. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
@Sergecross73:, in case you are curious, here's an idea of how many articles are linking to him here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I clicked on the first album I recognized, which happened to be Gold Cobra. In the article's review chart, where it usually gives a number or star rating, it lists the album's rating as "hummus". Is...this a value that is given to score releases from this source? :) I couldn't check because it was unsourced. Any idea what his review scale is like? Sergecross73 msg me 19:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
he usually rates on a scale of 10. that said, i don't really think his reviews should be used in articles; as far as i know they are completely self-published through youtube, even if they are well shot and edited. i would equate it to using well written reviews by a prolific IMDb user on film articles. ~ Boomur [] 19:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Boomur. His reviews are usually pretty good, but it's just one guy with a YouTube account and should not be held to the same regard as Rolling Stone. Fezmar9 (talk) 04:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I would say he falls under WP:SELFPUB WP:SPS. Because of the coverage of his reviews by third-party sources, I'd say he's acceptable as long as he doesn't make statements about living people.--¿3family6 contribs 02:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
What sort of third party coverage is it getting? Sergecross73 msg me 03:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Wired, plus briefer mentions (this, this, and this), to start. Also, per WP:MOSALBUM#Critical reception, "Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs)." Fantano has worked as a professional DJ for the NPR station Connecticut Public Radio ([1]). I don't see how he isn't reliable.--¿3family6 contribs 05:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
The Needle Drop was actually started as a radio segment for CPR, and Fantano also started text reviews. His vlog didn't start until 2009. This guy is certainly a professional critic.--¿3family6 contribs 05:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm really impressed with this guy - I hadn't heard of him before, but this is what I got from just a quick g-hits search: The Vine, AUX, Consequence of Sound, Paste.--¿3family6 contribs 05:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I believe you're confusing professional with popular. Allow me to explain using a completely unrelated example. Steve Wilkins is a bigfoot hunter. He has been interviewed countless times (including once by myself) as "a bigfoot expert" and was most prominently featured on the TV show Joe Rogan Questions Everything (more here and here – I'm having trouble finding his appearance on a Washington news morning program and a national radio show on YouTube, though. Perhaps they're under another version of his name like Steven or Stephen or something, I really don't have time right now to look it up.) The problem is, he's not really a researcher, he's just a cool dude who likes to go camping with his friends and take thousands of pictures of trees hoping to capture evidence that bigfoot is real. So why are so many sources using him as a credible source? Because for a time a couple years ago his name was the number one hit on a google search. The more times he would be interviewed, the longer his name and his website (which appears to have since been taken down) would stay as the number one result for bigfoot researchers. Anyone needing a "bigfoot expert" for something would simply see that he was the top result, see that he had been interviewed before, and then simply stop looking. But he was merely popular, not professional.
In most of the sources you've provided, Fantano is clearly only receiving coverage because he's a popular vlogger, not because he's a credible, professional reviewer. The Consequence of Sound one you provided seemed like it was the only one that actually treated Fontano as a credible reviewer. Being on public-access media isn't really the most compelling argument either. CPR merely distributes some previously recorded packages from NPR, and becoming a "DJ" on public radio is as easy as convincing someone you won't be offensive on the airwaves — literally anyone can do it, that's why it's called "public" radio, because it's made by the public. Heck, I've even been on public-access TV a few times, does that make me a professional anything?
Plus, if we're really going to define someone as professional because he has YouTube channel or has been on public access media, it really sets a precedent for future sources and could open a can of worms. Should we also include all YouTube album review channels like AlbumReviewTV and SpinIt or all public access radio DJs including Scott Carney and Shonti Elder? What makes these four examples different from Fantano other than he's more popular in the media? Fezmar9 (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
agree with Fezmar. Fantano has an impressive cv, to say the least, but media coverage of his work doesn't make him a professional reviewer so much as an Internet personality. Most of these sources pretty much sum Fantano up as "guy who is popular on YouTube"—quoting the intro from TheVine, he's "currently sitting at over 318,000 YouTube subscribers, with hundreds of videos which regularly rack up tens to hundreds of thousands of views"; Paste introduces him with "Fantano’s YouTube site contains album reviews, some of which have garnered more than 300,000 views". In other words, Fantano is notable because he is entertaining, popular, and generates a lot of interest in what these other sources are doing, ie writing/consuming album reviews. These sites aren't seeking him out to write reviews for them, or looking over and publishing his reviews. He's getting coverage because he is of interest to the people in the target audience for these media outlets. Obviously this makes him notable, which is why he has a Wikipedia article. However, not every person or institution with a Wikipedia article counts as a reliable source. The only thing left that would qualify him as a professional is his stint on public radio, which, as Fezmar said, doesn't really require much more than a clean mouth and the ability to make a playlist, so i don't think that makes him a professional DJ. If he writes a review for another site and it gets published there, then that's probably fine to cite, but i do not think that his standard, self-published videos should be referenced (a la Mr. Scaruffi). ~ Boomur [] 20:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
First off, I would argue that unless it's been broadcast on radio or published through a third party or had some other type of editorial oversight - such as Fantano's collaboration with Consequence of Sound or feature on Triple J, Fantano's reviews should be treated as reliable self-published statements - they should not make statements about BLPs.
Second, thank you Fezmar9 for explaining some of how NPR works. Having helped produce a show for my father on a local television station, I know what you mean about how anyone can do it.
Last, I agree that not all the sources I gave above talking about Fantano are of the same quality. And my intention was to establish that he has a reputation as an influential critic. I don't know exactly how someone would show he has a reputation "for fact checking and accuracy." The way that I've seen it done in the past on this talk page is to show how other sources, determined to be reliable, rely on content from that critic or source. The Consequence of Sound collab should help with that, as well as the Triple J source I gave above. I also would not compare him to Scaruffi, who reviews music as a hobby, as Fantano reviews music as a full-time profession. In addition to these points there are these two sources that I found: The mentions how Fantano is changing the face of criticism. However, the coverage is quite scant, just a brief intro for the interview. But, Time Out gets more in depth: "We were puzzled when we were sent a press release heralding the imminent arrival in Australia of an American music critic. We’ve got those too, we thought, flicking some lint off our Half a Cow T-shirt. But, you see, Anthony Fantano represents a new era of music critics – none of that archaic writing stuff." My point to all this is not just that he's popular, but he's treated as a legitimate critic. As I said from the start, I would say that his self-published reviews on YouTube, unless vetted by a third party, should be treated as reliable, but self-published.--¿3family6 contribs 04:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I feel more like you make a good case for him being notable than being reliable as a source to be used... Sergecross73 msg me 13:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
If a critic's work has been published in reliable, third-party sources, more than once, couldn't their self-published work also be considered reliable, at least from the point where they were published by a third-party onward?--¿3family6 contribs 15:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I think most of the time, we decide to only use the content that has been published, unless its someone really well known, like Siskel and Ebert, Robert Christgau, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 16:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thank you, that's what I was trying to determine.--¿3family6 contribs 16:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

'Authentic' recording environments[edit]

Hello, I got here by accident, having noted some albums whose infoboxes describe them as 'Studio' albums. Especially in classical music, there are many albums which are not 'live' (ie not an actual performance), nor recorded in a studio nor under studio conditions (multi-tracking, multi-take, extensive mixing, 'patching' etc.). Many of the most notable classical recordings of the last 20/30 years have been 'single take' performances in an acoustically sympathetic 'real space'. Certain companies have even insisted on a single stereo mic. placed at a real listening distance. I can also think of non-classical albums in which the place/method of recording is notable and is not a studio, (this will usually be noted in the article text/later in the infobox, of course). Is there some way of getting the description 'STUDIO album', out of the infobox ? Pincrete (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

i think the general idea is that "live" means that there was an audience present, and for a studio recording there was not, and the artist was in some sort of recording environment besides a venue. this does not imply that multitracking was used, etc. some rock bands have recordings that have been done in one live take, but they are still studio albums because of the setting and context. ~ Boomur [] 22:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I understand the broad distinction, but still feel 'studio', isn't appropriate, in the same way that one wouldn't describe a film made 'on locstion' as studio, just because a filming environment was temporarily created. I'm not suggesting a 'third category', just that losing the word 'studio' would be good, and allowing the text to record what was notable/distinctive about the recording location/techniques. Pincrete (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
If you change the {{Infobox album}} template to say "Type=" instead of "Type=studio" you will accomplish what I think you're talking about, the infobox won't say "studio" any more. However I agree with Boomur that in this context "studio" means "not before a live audience" and so would include the type of recording you are referring to. Mudwater (Talk) 00:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, will try, however (especially with classical or other acoustic recordings that have chosen a location for its acoustics amd have avoided multi-mic, multi-track and mixing etc.), 'studio' seems inappropriate. In many respects this is more authentically 'live' than multi-miced/multi track REAL live performances (but without an audience).
Update, Ive just noticed this on the Live album page "Additionally, several classical artists and ensembles use empty venues to record what would otherwise be termed studio recordings. An example of this is … ", so they seem to be saying an 'empty venue' recording counts as live! Don't know what to do now. Pincrete (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
In my view, empty venue recordings are not live. For purposes of the broad infobox definition I'd consider them studio. That is, they weren't recorded in a traditional recording studio, but they were recorded under controlled conditions and not before a live audience. Mudwater (Talk) 17:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Instinct makes me agree that 'live' should be reserved for REAL public performances, but I still can't see how that makes an 'empty venue recording' into a studio recording, especially when the venue has been chosen for its acoustics and 'purist' recording techniques are used. This is mainly a consideration for classical and other 'wholly acoustic' music, since as soon as an instrument is electric or as soon as a singer/musician is using a mic, to some extent 'studio' values/techniques are operating. Pincrete (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Custom Google Search[edit]

Does anyone have a custom search set up for searching the right sites and excluding the wrong sites at once? (WPVG has a custom search linked at WP:VG/RS, but even a list of operators to copy/paste would be helpful to compile.) Makes it much easier to search for sources. If such a thing exists, it would be worth linking in prominently on this page. czar  20:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

List of Black Wolf Records[edit]

Hey there WikiProject! List of Black Wolf Records artists & songs and Black Wolf Records discography could use some attention mostly because it's setting off my BS detector. I've noticed a chief contributor adding some questionable content to articles, so now I'm scrutinizing some of their other contributions, including at this article. I can tell that the record label exists, but the groups in the article don't match the hits that I'm getting on Google. For instance, "Black Wolf Records" "harry styles" produces no hits, and I'm not getting any reliable connections between Black Wolf Records and Carly Rae Jepsen. And the groups listed here aren't even in the article, so I'm a little suspicious. (And the GG Allin inclusion is highly suspect) I figure you all have better resources than I am aware of, and I'd appreciate some community input since I'm getting a bit of a hoax vibe. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, @Sparklism:! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

New ratings stylisation for PopMatters, NOW, Fact, Kerrang, etc[edit]

I think these recent additions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources#Online and print[2], [3], [4] – call for some discussion here. (Dustblower, I admire your work, but it might be best to run things by other editors first, rather than placing them on the project page straightaway.) Here are my thoughts, and I'd welcome others' …

  • Fact magazine. Those red discs look gigantic, in my opinion, compared to the more subtle-looking star ratings that a good portion of ratings use. Is there some way the discs can be made to look smaller?
  • Fact #2. It's not clear that the white (red-outlined) circle constitutes a half. Only when one holds the cursor over the symbol – 3.5/5 discs – does it become clear that it's a ".5".
  • Kerrang!. Maybe I'm a bit dumb, but I took the grand-looking final K there to signify that the score is 5/5, when in fact it's 4/5. I think the non-applicaple K(s) in an album rating need to look more opaque, but what we have currently is non-applicable Ks given a more significant appearance.
  • Now. First question, should these be in red, to match the colour used in their reviews?
  • Now #2. Similar to the discs for Fact, I really think these need to be reduced in size. I can't help thinking they overwhelm star ratings and numerical scores when applied in articles. (It's worth knocking together a dummy ratings box with a few star ratings, plus the Now Ns and Kerrang! Ks, to get an idea.)
  • Now #3. As with Kerrang!, the non-applicable Ns need to be given a less significant look, imo.

This issue about alternative colours (from the light-orange stars we're used to) raises a few other possibilities. If we are going down this route – a brighter yellow for PopMatters' discs, red for Fact, light blue for Kerrang!, etc – then surely we need to think about the following, for consistency:

  • AllMusic uses blue stars.
  • Rolling Stone uses red stars.
  • Contrary to the comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources#Online_only, No Ripcord appears to use a disc-based system also – all green with the "result" in dark blue. Classic Rock uses little red squares, with non-applicable squares greyed out. I'm sure there's no end to the variations when we consider how many publications and sites are listed at Albums/Sources. (To put it mildly, we could be opening up the proverbial can of worms here.)

I'm thinking all of these examples need to be borne in mind if we are going to adopt the new symbols for PopMatters, Fact and so on. Looking forward to hearing what others make of this … JG66 (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there needs to be a standard, and that the color and scale of some of these ratings systems need to be adjusted. I like the red color for discs, it's easier to see than the gold. I say, red for discs, gold for stars. The K's right now are blue, and I don't see a problem with that. For squares, I'm okay with gold, but I think black squares, such as these, 8/10 squares, are easier to see.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Can't we just pick one for all of them, and stick with it? It conceptually makes no difference whether a review gets 3 out of 4 stars or 3 out of 4 circles or boxes or whatever else. Its not like the color or shape has any bearings on the actual score... Sergecross73 msg me 16:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
My feeling is we should stick with a single colour, regardless of the "units" being used to measure quality. To me, the lighter yellow for PopMatters clashes visually with the gold/orange stars. (In other words, go for gold/orange discs.) On that front, I've never understood why the Christgau stars are rendered in black, and I've never understood either why there's not a blanked-out third star when he rates an album with 2 stars (anyone?). Plus, as I've said, some sources use blue, red or black stars – The Daily Telegraph is another that goes with red stars, btw. I think the alt colouring will lead to all sorts of problems.
I take your point, Sergecross73 – what's relevant is that a reviewer rates an album 4 out of 5 or whatever. I like the idea of an alternative to stars, though, but not to the extent of discs, Ns, Ks and others … I think that's just overly fussy. (MusicHound uses "bones", so there's another option.) My preference would be to use a single colour for all, and allow an alternative to stars – either discs, or the boxes you mention, 3family6 – because we need something generic for when the source doesn't actually rate with stars or numerals. Failing that, we could use the generic option every time, whether the original rating is in stars, discs, Ns, bones … In which case, the boxes appeal to me.
I'll drop a line at Talk:Album style guide and WP Rock to get some input from other editors. JG66 (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
i think, while we should use a consistent style in general, perhaps the Christgau stars should remain black, as they have a different meaning from conventional star rating systems. ie, Christgau's stars don't mean 1/?, but something quite different. if it rendered as one (or two or three) gold star(s), it would be easy to confuse it for a conventional system, representing 1/5 etc. i don't think saying CG "star" ratings are out of 3 makes sense, either, because the stars are more a measure of niche-ness than quality, as i recall, and many albums "exceed" 3 stars by falling into the letter-grade range. 2/3 stars implies the album got a 67% rating and 3/3 implies 100%, which isn't what those CG ratings mean. ~ Boomur [] 07:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I like the idea of giving them all a single, consistent look, in my opinion the stars. Stars are more universal in terms of illustrating ratings of media. People see it and immediately know what it is and how to interpret it. If I'm looking at a list of ratings, it's much easier to instantly compare them if they all have the same look, especially if they are also of the same scale. Branding our ratings based on the source seems out of character for an encyclopedia, in my opinion. We could take it a step further and put the sites' logo next to the rating instead of text. It just seems unnecessary and also makes the templates harder to maintain. — MusikAnimal talk 06:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
i agree with this. the fact that some sources style their ratings differently doesn't change the meaning. readers will just want a visual of each rating, and getting a general sense from the table of how the album performed will be easiest and most natural when the visual isn't confused by different shapes, colors, etc. stars are pretty standard, as are the image and concept of "half stars", so i think it's fine to stick with that. whether the stars were blue has no bearing on how an album was received. ~ Boomur [] 07:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I created this mess in my hastily attempt at accuracy.Dustblower (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, no worries, Dustblower. It's just a case of considering how changes impact elsewhere.
I sort of agree with what Sergecross73, MusikAnimal and Boomur have been saying. But then, shouldn't we make an exception from the standard (stars) when only numerals are used? Obvious examples are Paste (with their use of decimals – 7.8/10) and when a site/publication never uses symbols of any sort, eg scores out of 10 as in NME and Uncut. Having said that, I suddenly find I'm tripping myself up: the likes of Spin magazine used numerals (max 10) in 2002, but those Classic Rock-style squares by 2009 …
Boomur, you've kinda proved my point about the more recent Christgau rating system. It's so esoteric, it's the rock reviewer's equivalent of the Masonic handshake! What I mean is, how's the average reader to know the rationale behind RC's stars? (I've reader other editors saying the same thing, particularly about Christgau's N symbols.)
I put the word out at a couple of Project talk pages; I'll do the same at Temp:Ratings box. It would be good to establish consensus on the issues of possible alt symbols and alt colours, of course, and with as many voices contributing as possible. JG66 (talk) 07:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
of course, i agree that Christgau's ratings are sort of incomprehensible, past the letter-grade scale, to a reader not familiar with the system (which i would guess is most readers). unfortunately, the symbols he uses have very specific meanings, and these are not easily assignable to analogs in other review sources. even the descriptions he gives for letter grades are bit odd. this is not a fully-formed idea, but perhaps it would be preferable, for modern ratings below a B+, if "favorable" or "unfavorable" was written in the review table, and then the CG-specific rating was elaborated upon in prose. the "dud" bomb might be self-explanatory enough for the average reader, but i don't think it's a stretch to replace the character with "unfavorable". then again, a problem arises here, because many of Christgau's prose reviews are too short to actually determine whether an album was, in fact, favorable or unfavorable from his point of view. how do we express something like this as a cell in a table? for the star-ratings, should we bother with the table at all? (sorry if i've done too much statement of the obvious; i know it exists but i'm not totally familiar with all the background on discussion of CG reviews) ~ Boomur [] 07:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't want us going off at too much of a tangent from the main discussion (and this is coming from an editor who's often the king of tangents, I think …) No, my opinion of the usefulness of Christgau's CG reviews is very low, and I think they're way too over-represented in album articles right now. If his Doyen-ness writes a substantial review, as I believe he used to do for publications like Blender, then fine. But add a confusing rating system to scat prose – that John Linnell link being a particularly bad example – I can't see that it offers any encyclopaedic value whatsoever. After all, they're are plenty of reviewers out there who make it abundantly clear what they like or dislike about an album, and why!
Anyway, any thoughts about the stars and numerals issue … Retain numerals when they're the currency in the original review, but for any symbols, use stars as standard? JG66 (talk) 09:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Regarding the icons - I think I prefer stars because readers tend to associate them with being a review score. But I'll support just about whatever, as long as its standardized.
  • Regarding Christgau's review scores - I don't think they add encyclopedic value either. I'm generally against using review scores without any real context (as is WikiProject Video Games, where there's a general consensus not to include review scores if there's not context.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with JG66: use numerals where the source uses them, and change any icons that come in various numbers to stars as in 3/5 stars. De728631 (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
okay, moving away from Christgau for now, my support lies with the above: use symbols when a review uses them, and standardize to stars, and leave numerical ratings as they appear in the source. (i could also get behind moving Christgau's "star" ratings out of review tables and leaving the reviews for prose if there is sufficient content.) ~ Boomur [] 22:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Would this be a bad time to bring up XXL, which uses a rating system based off clothing sizes? The possible ratings, from least to greatest, are S, M, L, XL, and XXL. I usually render the ratings this way - XL (4/5) - so that a reader unfamiliar with the rating system can understand it.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
i like your solution, though maybe listing the conventional rating first (e.g., 4/5 ("XL")) would be better? just for the sake of clarity. though i'm not sure if that's actually more clear. i think since those ratings actually have a meaning that is easily analogous with a numerical system (unlike CG), it's okay to use numbers as a stand-in! but i think it would also be fine to preserve the actual format in which the rating was given (the "size") alongside the number. at least in this case, since it's short and easy to express. i'm not sure if there are other similar situations, though! ~ Boomur [] 04:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I think we ought to uniformly standardize all ratings in numerical form into stars if they are out of ten, such as Clash, Uncut, Spin and PopMatters. Yet, Pitchfork and Paste should be presented in numerical form since they use precise scores.Dustblower (talk) 07:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Ratings should either be all numerical or exactly what the publication uses. I can't defend exceptions for specific publications. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Is Muumuse unreliable?[edit]

Is Muumuse unreliable? (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Although it's a blog it appears to be reliable. Apparently the author is a regular contributor to the TIME magazine [5] which republishes his blog. So if it is available I would always take a link to TIME's website for sourcing to avoid any speculation about the blog. De728631 (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


Why does Sgt Pepper mention the gaps between tracks on albums as "rills" in 'Recording and production' paragraph 6. A quick Google search isn't helping me find more mentions this term. Even The Beatles (album) mentions the gaps but doesn't refer to them as rills. ('Recording' paragraph 4).—TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 03:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)