Teflon Peter Christ (talk | contribs) |
Sojambi Pinola (talk | contribs) →Please stop messing up the chronology navigation: others.. other editors, to be clear. |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
: Thank you for suggesting I may be a troll. Unfortunately, the fields you have revised are inconsistent with what you intend for them to mean. As [[Template:Infobox album]] explains, "released" is intended to hold {{xt|"Original album release date"}}, and "chronology" intends to {{xt|"establish a timeline of an artist's ''releases''"}}, not a timeline of an artist's ''recording sessions''. And, as is explained in the article on [[Discography]]: {{xt|"[A discography] is distinct from a sessionography, which is a catalogue of recording sessions, rather than a catalogue of the records, in whatever medium, that are made from those recordings."}} So, it seems ''you'' are the one with a particular agenda ([[Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot]]). However, I will agree old jazz discographies are not as clear-cut as their antecedents. But we must still keep in mind the purpose of this infobox and not manipulate it in a way that is inconsistent with the intentions of its design ([[WP:INFOBOX]]), or confound the average reader with a specialist style of grouping distinct from virtually every other music-release article ([[WP:AUDIENCE]]). In order to fulfill what appears to be ''your'' vision, I suggest you create an additional "chronology" template labeled "Thelonious Monk sessionography". Although, you do have to wonder what recording date you'd pick to order by -- seeing as how albums like ''this'' one have multiple from different years -- and you'd have to wonder about the neutrality and objectivity and logic of picking one date over another... [[User:Dan56|Dan56]] ([[User talk:Dan56|talk]]) 21:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC) |
: Thank you for suggesting I may be a troll. Unfortunately, the fields you have revised are inconsistent with what you intend for them to mean. As [[Template:Infobox album]] explains, "released" is intended to hold {{xt|"Original album release date"}}, and "chronology" intends to {{xt|"establish a timeline of an artist's ''releases''"}}, not a timeline of an artist's ''recording sessions''. And, as is explained in the article on [[Discography]]: {{xt|"[A discography] is distinct from a sessionography, which is a catalogue of recording sessions, rather than a catalogue of the records, in whatever medium, that are made from those recordings."}} So, it seems ''you'' are the one with a particular agenda ([[Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot]]). However, I will agree old jazz discographies are not as clear-cut as their antecedents. But we must still keep in mind the purpose of this infobox and not manipulate it in a way that is inconsistent with the intentions of its design ([[WP:INFOBOX]]), or confound the average reader with a specialist style of grouping distinct from virtually every other music-release article ([[WP:AUDIENCE]]). In order to fulfill what appears to be ''your'' vision, I suggest you create an additional "chronology" template labeled "Thelonious Monk sessionography". Although, you do have to wonder what recording date you'd pick to order by -- seeing as how albums like ''this'' one have multiple from different years -- and you'd have to wonder about the neutrality and objectivity and logic of picking one date over another... [[User:Dan56|Dan56]] ([[User talk:Dan56|talk]]) 21:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC) |
||
:::First of all--If you and I can agree that a sessionography might be a valid way out of this stalemate (I'd call it "albums by session" or some sort), and if you will let me proceed with that for these Monk albums, I will do that when I have a little more time. If you are going to reverse this suggestion and put all my efforts into an arbitrary tangle, I am not going to waste my time. I used the word "revamped" (or some form of it) to appease you on one of these pages, because _you_ suggested it, and then you had a problem with that word. |
|||
:::Now, to address your specific current edits: |
|||
:::Look at these serial numbers: |
|||
:::*Prestige 7027-- Thelonious Monk Trio (compilation released 1956) |
|||
:::*Prestige 7053-- Monk (compilation released 1956) |
|||
:::*Prestige 7075--Thelonious Monk and Sonny Rollins (compilation released 1956) |
|||
:::Prestige's serial numbers were issued in sequential order. This little list is a sequential order. There were other Prestige releases (by other artist on that label) inbetween these albums, but this is the order they released these Monk compilations--all in 1956, probably within an extremely short span of time, given the number of releases that label put out in that year. So having "...Trio" go straight to the third in this series makes no sense. |
|||
:::In response to your sessionography query -- Usually, when there is this sort of session confusion and compilations are released in short order, I group them together either by the final session date of a given album, or, when we have the hints of album serial numbers, by serial number date; whichever will cause the least confusion to someone trying to access the information. |
|||
:::I think we need some other editors to break our stalemate. But I ask you: Who are you trying to educate with the edits you are making? If I wanted to learn about Monk, I would want to have some idea of the progression of his music, and I would do what I always do in Wikipedia as a "learner": I'd use the convenient linking feature of the infoboxes to surf what I would hope would be an unbroken, uncircular navigation; whether or not YOU use that feature is besides the point. That's what it's there for, hence the links. We had it pretty close there. I'm not the first Wikipedia user who has butted heads with you on this....Some guy was trying three years ago. (I don't know him; not me.) Looks like he gave up and even deleted his account, but every comment I've seen from him looks reasonable and scholarly, which is more than I can say for your rationalizations, frequently accompanied by policeman-like "don't do it again" threats. [[User:Sojambi Pinola|Sojambi Pinola]] ([[User talk:Sojambi Pinola|talk]]) 03:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:26, 25 October 2019
Albums Start‑class | |||||||
|
Jazz Start‑class | ||||||||||
|
Original version?
the article is currently describing the 12" version of the album ... there should be content about the original 1952 10" Thelonious, scroll down to PRLP142 at Jazzdisco.com, or here at Discogs,
PRLP 142 Thelonious Monk Trio
Thelonious Monk (piano) Gerry Mapp (bass) Art Blakey (drums)
NYC, October 15, 1952
- 367 Little Rootie Tootie
- 368 Sweet And Lovely
- 369 Bye-Ya
- 370 Monk's Dream
Thelonious Monk (piano) Gerry Mapp (bass) Max Roach (drums)
NYC, December 18, 1952
- 399 Trinkle, Tinkle
- 400 These Foolish Things
- 401 Bemsha Swing
- 402 Reflections
tracks 7 & 8 on the 12", from 1954, were added from a PRLP 189 Thelonious Monk Plays
J Edward Malone (talk) 12:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- According to what reliable source is that 10" record an original version of this article's record? Dan56 (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- hello Dan, thanks for responding ... I see you've put a fair bit of work into this article, including previously deleting the exact info I was planning to add (I was even going to upload artwork and add an infobox for the 10")
- I'm presuming your issue is that Discogs and Jazzdisco are not reliable sources, rather than denying the 10"lps came first then were repackaged, correct? I have no better reliable sources, but info on the 10"LPs can be found all over the web...
- release dates are always a problem with these early jazz LPs, and I've found the 12" repackagings themselves do not acknowledge they are reissues of old material, so they're no help, and latterday reviews may be done by people like us who don't remember such a shortlived format ever existed, so the reviews don't usually help either
- Birkajazz is a store, thus I never use it for a citation, but it does have a very nice gallery of Prestige album covers and shows us more of the history than more database driven sites ... they have PRLP142 dated as 1952 (other sites show it as 1953), and PRLP7027 as 1956, after the 10"LP format was discontinued (coinciding with all the similar repackagings of Miles Davis' earliest albums)
- here is another page I would not use as a citation (someone's blog?), but the last paragraph is a good summary of the release history of Monk's Prestige material, and it itself cites someone called Robin D.G. Kelley, who turns out to be Monk's biographer ... this book might be worth seeking out, then, and I believe I will look for it myself ... the author does have his own site, scroll down to the 2nd & 3rd session on that page
- EDIT: here's a couple of published sources, viewable online:
- Goldmine Standard Discography, zoom in, it even lists the release dates
- Brilliant Corners: A Bio-discography of Thelonious Monk, by Chris Sheridan 2001, see pgs 38-40
- J Edward Malone (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
"1954" and "Monk's Moods" are unsourced
One of the great ironies, here, Dan56, is that the inaccurate date of 1954 and the mention of Monk's Moods were added by you, in 2013, and they have always been unsourced and lacking citations. Shall we remove them now, or will you work with me to beef up your own claim? Would you accept the Goldmine record guide as a source? Sojambi Pinola (talk) 03:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- "1954" and "Monk's Moods" are not unsourced. Gzus, *eye roll* Dan56 (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- I am just going by what reliable sources cited in the article verify about the album, which you pretend as if they don't exist: Sputnikmusic verifies the entire "Background" section, which lends the information also in the lead (as you should know by now as a 14-year-plus Wikipedian); All About Jazz says "1954" ([1]), too. Your arrogant tone and verbosity personalizing the issue throughout all these talks have been exhausting my patience and bludgeoning the process, which you are, by Wikipedia's definition, doing so: "Bludgeoning the process is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. This can happen on a talk page, deletion discussion or in any discussion at Wikipedia. It is undesirable. If pushed too far, it may be considered a form of disruptive editing. Like, where do you find the time and energy?? Shm. Your verbal behavior feels very manipulative, too. Dan56 (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
i just wanted to make sure you'd accept it as a source before wasting a chunk of time using it and having you again revert the edits.
Please forgive my not creating a new section on this but I'm on a train-- making personnel a separate section is fine. the only functional problem is that it is now unclear which version of the album it refers to, when specific tracks are referred to. with your blessing, i will move the alternate track listing _under_ the personnel listing, to clear up that confusion.
Whether or not several websites place the album's release in 1954 or not:. they are incorrect, for reasons that were explained in the paragraph that you deemed too esoteric for the layperson. No Jazz labels were creating 12", 40 minute albums until later -- 1955- 1956. if I'm blungeoning (a term i don't think is appropriate given your wholesale and compulsive edit-reverts), it's only because you are insisting on a disprovable and irritating untruth, for reasons i can't comprehend. Sojambi Pinola (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- thank you for finally adding citations to those claims. they are still wrong. i have several copies of this album from the 1950's. it always opens with "blue Monk."
- i challenge you to find a 1950a record label with "Little RootieTootie" on side A. now, wikipedia favors sites that happen to let these these goofs slip through, because very few people at All Music actually listen to records pressed prior to the digital era. i recognize that this makes the task of overcoming this ignorance am uphill battle. thank you for dramatizing this in such sharp relief. Sojambi Pinola (talk) 05:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, there are better sources for LP and record releases than AllMusic. LP catalogues and published jazz writers are better, for instance. Dan56 (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
(Dan56), you are unilaterally moving albums around in an inconsistent manner, and messing up the navigation. It's pointless, and it's not common sense. The 12" Blue Note albums are from later in the decade, too. I don't think your narrow agenda is widely shared. It verges on trolling by interpreting the "rules" in the narrowest manner possible. Sojambi Pinola (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for suggesting I may be a troll. Unfortunately, the fields you have revised are inconsistent with what you intend for them to mean. As Template:Infobox album explains, "released" is intended to hold "Original album release date", and "chronology" intends to "establish a timeline of an artist's releases", not a timeline of an artist's recording sessions. And, as is explained in the article on Discography: "[A discography] is distinct from a sessionography, which is a catalogue of recording sessions, rather than a catalogue of the records, in whatever medium, that are made from those recordings." So, it seems you are the one with a particular agenda (Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot). However, I will agree old jazz discographies are not as clear-cut as their antecedents. But we must still keep in mind the purpose of this infobox and not manipulate it in a way that is inconsistent with the intentions of its design (WP:INFOBOX), or confound the average reader with a specialist style of grouping distinct from virtually every other music-release article (WP:AUDIENCE). In order to fulfill what appears to be your vision, I suggest you create an additional "chronology" template labeled "Thelonious Monk sessionography". Although, you do have to wonder what recording date you'd pick to order by -- seeing as how albums like this one have multiple from different years -- and you'd have to wonder about the neutrality and objectivity and logic of picking one date over another... Dan56 (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- First of all--If you and I can agree that a sessionography might be a valid way out of this stalemate (I'd call it "albums by session" or some sort), and if you will let me proceed with that for these Monk albums, I will do that when I have a little more time. If you are going to reverse this suggestion and put all my efforts into an arbitrary tangle, I am not going to waste my time. I used the word "revamped" (or some form of it) to appease you on one of these pages, because _you_ suggested it, and then you had a problem with that word.
- Now, to address your specific current edits:
- Look at these serial numbers:
- Prestige 7027-- Thelonious Monk Trio (compilation released 1956)
- Prestige 7053-- Monk (compilation released 1956)
- Prestige 7075--Thelonious Monk and Sonny Rollins (compilation released 1956)
- Prestige's serial numbers were issued in sequential order. This little list is a sequential order. There were other Prestige releases (by other artist on that label) inbetween these albums, but this is the order they released these Monk compilations--all in 1956, probably within an extremely short span of time, given the number of releases that label put out in that year. So having "...Trio" go straight to the third in this series makes no sense.
- In response to your sessionography query -- Usually, when there is this sort of session confusion and compilations are released in short order, I group them together either by the final session date of a given album, or, when we have the hints of album serial numbers, by serial number date; whichever will cause the least confusion to someone trying to access the information.
- I think we need some other editors to break our stalemate. But I ask you: Who are you trying to educate with the edits you are making? If I wanted to learn about Monk, I would want to have some idea of the progression of his music, and I would do what I always do in Wikipedia as a "learner": I'd use the convenient linking feature of the infoboxes to surf what I would hope would be an unbroken, uncircular navigation; whether or not YOU use that feature is besides the point. That's what it's there for, hence the links. We had it pretty close there. I'm not the first Wikipedia user who has butted heads with you on this....Some guy was trying three years ago. (I don't know him; not me.) Looks like he gave up and even deleted his account, but every comment I've seen from him looks reasonable and scholarly, which is more than I can say for your rationalizations, frequently accompanied by policeman-like "don't do it again" threats. Sojambi Pinola (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)