Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:08, 15 December 2017

	Punk music (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Punk music, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Punk musicWikipedia:WikiProject Punk musicTemplate:WikiProject Punk musicPunk music

Albums C‑class

This article 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.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Discrepancy

This page contradicts the main Stooges page's discussion of the album in several ways. It says Pop insisted on the Ashton brothers' involvement; the Stooges page says that the Ashtons were a fallback choice after Pop and Bowie were unable to find British musicians to use. The Stooges page further says that Ashton was rankled by this, and by his demotion to bass. The Stooges page says that David Bowie mixed Raw Power; this page says that Iggy Pop mixed it. It seems that the two pages have radically different sources. I have no way of knowing which is correct, but they should be reconciled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.236.128.9 (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:StoogesRawPower.jpg

Image:StoogesRawPower.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Article focus

Too much of this article is dedicated to the different mixes of the album with lengthy quotes from Bowie, Pop and other band members. While this is a contentious issue among diehard fans, it's over-represented here and could be cut down considerably. Morganfitzp (talk) 03:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

- No, with due respect to you, you are wrong. For years, I was quite sad that this very influential album would go into the future with a new mix - one that no one heard in the days when Punk Rock first started. I was quite heartened at the clear statements in the current page (late 2015) that show that no one involved prefers the new mix, and that only CBS really wanted it. Otherwise, we could have the unwanted mix as the "normal" mix for the next thousand years. It's a big deal, please leave the current page as it stands.

I say this as someone who knew Ron Asheton and Iggy both, from the period shortly after the album.

Also, it is worth pointing out that Chrissie Hynde has described wandering around London in 1973 with a copy of Raw Power under her arm. I don't have a reference (it was in an old paper magazine), so I did not add it to the "Legacy" section. 162.205.217.211 (talk) 05:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

official remix for gimme danger released

This might freak some fans of raw power out but there is a remix of gimme danger that has been officially released. It's first placement was in a promo for the americans season two It's second placement has been in the new game "watch dogs" as far as I know, there has not been any kind of official announcement but, I should know as I (along with matt novack) was the one who did this remix. I'm sorry if my comment has been messy, I've never done this before. If I've missed anything I can be reached at josh@joshmobley.com. Jmobb (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEpffIkw6fM
2. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CDoQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwatchdogs.wikia.com%2Fwiki%2FMusic&ei=xrq4U9ssw6HIBPfhgdgJ&usg=AFQjCNEvJBExbIpUFkfqvGENsRcmS8IbuA&sig2=xVFMIa4pVEPoA4qNaC7FiA&bvm=bv.70138588,d.aWw

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Raw Power/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 09:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 03:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

What was the release date?

According to the article's lead and infobox, Raw Power was released on February 7, 1973. The "Release and reception" section, however, says it was released in the U.S. in May 1973 and the U.K. a month later.

So was it released in February or May-June? Was it released in some foreign territory three months before its U.S. release? Was it released in February and recalled, then released again in May? — MShabazz /_Stalk 02:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Raw Power. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051228203950/http://www.i94bar.com/ints/james1.html to http://www.i94bar.com/ints/james1.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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 14:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Christgau's Consumer Guide

Does anyone else have an issue with calling Christgau's Consumer Guide Christgau's Consumer Guide? Calling the source The Village Voice works as well, but it should be made clear that both od the reviews are by the same guy from the same publication. Esszet (talk) 12:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

They're not from the same publication; one was published in the 1981 book Christgau's Record Guide and the other was published in a 1997 Village Voice column, for which Robert Christgau did not write exclusively ("...the same publication"). What is the reason for clarifying in this template that both reviews were authored by the same critic anyway? Dan56 (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

They are from the same publication: Christgau's Consumer Guide. Go here, and you'll see that both reviews are listed under "Consumer Guide Reviews" (the first one must have been published in there during its Newsday period from 1972-74). The point of clarifying that they're by the same author is to make clear that he has differing opinions of the original mix and the remix. Esszet (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The clarification can be made in the prose, not at the expense of misrepresenting publications/sources and the ratings template, which is meant to be a simplified representation of the reception, not to be complicated by off-topic addendums and misrepresentations; there's already a note clarifying one score is for the remix. And no, it was not necessarily published in the Newsday period simply because it can't be found; perhaps the first appearance was in the 1981 book. And if we could prove it was from the Newsday period, we would credit the "reviewer" in the template as Newsday. "Christgau's Consumer Guide" did not publish the review, The Village Voice did, just as "AllMusic" published the first score/review and Chicago Tribune published Greg Kot's pop-music columns. I'm sure there's some WP guideline on sources encouraging/preferring deference to the "original" source of a column or article or whatever, which would be The Village Voice in this case. Dan56 (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, the column as a whole is called "Christgau's Consumer Guide". Doing that is a lot easier than clarifying it in the prose. And are there even previously unpublished reviews in the book at all? Esszet (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Wait, even if it isn't called "Christgau's Consumer Guide", he did still write both reviews for the same column (see previous link), so there must be some way of indicating that he did. Did the Consumer Guide regularly feature other reviewers, or were they just special guests or something like that? Esszet (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

It does matter, rendering much of your other questions moot, IMO. Christgau's website, an archive of all these columns, should be seen as a convenience link rather than signifying a collective "whole". And yes, there are previously unpublished reviews in the book; there are instances where he admits in the column (ca. 1970s) of not officially reviewing an album (Woodstock, for example), and a capsule-style review of that album appears in the 1981 book (). Dan56 (talk) 05:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, there have been other instances where multiple reviews in a ratings box were authored by the same critic. I appreciate the notoriety of Christgau and his columns, but I don't see either of these factors as enough reason to give prominence to a newspaper/magazine column over the newspaper/magazine in who/what we credit in the ratings box. Dan56 (talk) 05:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Another point: The columns as a whole haven't "existed" exclusively as "Consumer Guide"; Christgau has continued this capsule-style column reviewing as "Expert Witness" at MSN Music () and Vice/Noisey (). Dan56 (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Since they all have the same title, it does signify a collective whole (up until he started publishing reviews in a column with a different name, of course). Even if the same author did publish two different reviews of the same album in two different publications, I would personally have no problem with crediting them both to "Greg Kot" or whomever. There doesn't appear to be a Misplaced Pages policy on this, but I don't see why reviews would necessarily have to be listed by publication or website (I guess the Consumer Guide is actually a column) as opposed to column or author. Esszet (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Up until? Christgau has continued archiving the "Expert Witness" columns as "Consumer Guide(s)" at his website, and they are essentially the same format; they are the same "thing" to me, and if I were to treat "Consumer Guides" as a collective whole, "Expert Witness" would be a part of it. As for why review scores should be credited to the publication (newspaper/magazine/book); since we do this for the other entries in the ratings template, it would be more consistent internally if we credited the publication for each score, rather than having most credit the publication and a few the author/column. Dan56 (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Then maybe Expert Witness should be included, but there have been three large books published under the name of "Consumer Guide", so that must constitute a collective whole of some sort. As for whom (or what) to credit reviews to, I guess it would depend on whether the author or publication is more important; Allmusic is obviously a project much larger than any of its individual authors, but since the Consumer Guide pretty much begins and ends with Christgau (with a few exceptions, apparently), it would be fine to credit it to him instead of the Village Voice or Newsday or whatever. Esszet (talk) 11:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, you're free to create an individual article on this collective whole if you think it has that kind of gestalt, but this break in stylistic consistency you're suggesting does not make practical sense; the general reader will be less familiar with a specific music critic or "column series" than a long-running, nationally circulated newspaper (Village Voice) or popular webzine (Vice), both of which register far more Google hits than "Christgau". Your original intent was to clarify that two of the scores are from reviews by the same person, and misrepresenting the sources as "Christgau's Consumer Guide" would accomplish that only if the general reader is already familiar with Christgau (not likely) and if the reader clicks on the link to the Robert Christgau#Consumer Guide and Expert Witness to understand what "Christgau's Consumer Guide" is (and reads it, which is less likely IMO than the reader actually reading the section in which the clarification is already made). This exercise just strikes me as much ado about nothing. Leave it be. Dan56 (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Dammit, it isn't misrepresenting it; Christgau's own website (and thus not a convenience source) lists it as a Consumer Guide review. Since we're clearly getting nowhere. let's just wait for other people to contribute. Esszet (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

No response to my point about stylistic consistency or reader familiarity? Dan56 (talk) 03:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I already gave you a guideline that would allow for internally consistent use of different types of attributions, and as for reader familiarity, I really don’t think it makes much of a difference in this case, I don’t think most people are familiar with Christgau or the Village Voice. I’d even go further and argue that since accuracy takes precedence over reader familiarity, “Consumer Guide” would be even better since it exists across multiple publications. Let’s just wait for more input at this point, this doesn’t really seem to be getting anywhere. Esszet (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

You didn't give any guideline. "Use of different types..." is the exact opposite of internal consistency. Dan56 (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't "exist across multiple publications". In an abstract sense, sure, I can see it. But the column in which the review sources are listed in the ratings box is titled "Source", and an abstraction is not the origin of this review nor where it was obtained from; the Village Voice is. Dan56 (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your agenda even is anymore. Dan56 (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• C-Class Album articles
• WikiProject Albums articles