The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
This wikiproject oversees all active music projects: see Music Projects and WikiProject Council for a table and a list. Posts about specific topics (e.g. albums, composers, jazz, rock or whatever) should be made to the relevant project - not here! For notices, please see the Music Noticeboard.
Can we illustrate the music genre articles with tracks we have generated using Udio? In other words, is the licence for the tracks generated on the Udio platform allows to share, modify and sell the tracks? I have read the terms of service but it's not clear. Ftiercel (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My immediate instinct is to say no given the potential copyright hell that AI generation represents and just how cautious Wikipedia is about use of copyrighted/non-free material. I'm sure there have been larger discussions on this matter elsewhere on the site which could give more insight, but I imagine at least some part of the conclusion there would be that it's not worth the risk of COPYVIO. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with QuietHere – if neither of you are certain about the legal implications, and presumably very few people are right now, then it's best to steer clear of all this. In addition, I can imagine that it would result in the same kind of genre wars that we already have on Wikipedia... someone deciding that somebody else's creation is not an accurate representation of a genre, and editors competing to upload the most "authentic" version of a genre. Richard3120 (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much my thoughts too. Beyond the WP:COPYVIO concerns, there's the classic "just because we could doesn't mean we should" argument Richard touches on - I scrolled through the first 50-100 images and didn't see anything remotely useful for image illustration on Wikipedia beyond something you'd use an example on the AI article itself. It's mostly bizarre and flawed images. Sergecross73msg me 18:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Udio is not an image generator (except incidentally); it is a music generator. The question is about using it to generate samples of music. BD2412T 20:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I saw "illustrate" in their comment, clicked on the link, and saw a ton of images, and apparently jumped to the wrong conclusion. Thanks for clarifying. I still largely agree with Richard and QuietHere though. Sergecross73msg me 20:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did understand that the original question was about music samples, and that's why my statement stands – it basically depends on an editor's subjective view of what a genre sounds like, and is subject to argument from other editors... quite apart from the legal ramifications, it just sounds like OR to me. Richard3120 (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After digesting WP:AI and WP:RSP I'd say absolutely not. Jon (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answers, it's clear for Wikipedia. Now for my personal information and use, is Udio licence CC-SA-BY compatible? Ftiercel (talk) 04:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone! I don't know if this is the right page, but I just wanted to let you know that I've created a draft for Rachel Chinouriri's debut album, which is set to be released next Friday.
Whether you want to make corrections or add some more information, any kind of help is appreciated! Oltrepier (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is already ready for mainspace. I would fill in or remove the empty sections first (probably easier to remove since other than personnel, most of that info probably isn't available yet), but otherwise I think notability is shown clearly here. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@QuietHere: Thank you for giving this a double-check! Actually, what if we just hid those sections, so they'll be ready to get filled up once the reviews and the rest of the data are live? Oltrepier (talk) 08:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm still pretty bad at uploading images, so I'll be very grateful to anyone who can upload the cover art... : D Oltrepier (talk) 08:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd definitely say it's ready, and clearly notable. Maybe gone a bit overboard with repeated citations, but that's not a major issue, those can be cleared up over time. Richard3120 (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just another one chiming in to say it's ready to be published whenever. It's looking pretty good, especially for an artists debut album, when coverage can be harder to come by. Sergecross73msg me 15:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it to mainspace since we have three editors agreeing that it's ready. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@QuietHere, Richard3120, and Sergecross73: Oh, I actually wanted to take some more time with this draft, but since you all deemed it as mainspace-ready, I feel more confident now. Thank you for promoting it, by the way!
Yes, usually up-coming artists don't get a lot of coverage, but I suppose Chinouriri can count both on her recent success and the UK's rich music-centered media landscape... Oltrepier (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should Classic soul be redirected or merged somewhere? It seems to be a WP:NEO started in 2011 by one editor and not maintained, as it's been tagged for sources and notability since. There doesn't seem to be anything worth keeping. Tagging @Back ache:, @QuietHere:, @Ss112:, and other invested editors. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think deletion would be appropriate. From my searching, I couldn't find any sources referring to a specific radio format or anything more specific than just regular soul music from decades past, hence "classic". The whole article reads as both OR and not particularly distinct from what I imagine is a fairly standard soul/R&B radio format, "classic" or otherwise. Nothing is sourced so I don't see why any of it would be mergeable. If a redirect is preferred then I won't oppose one (probably to soul music), though I'm not sure I see the point given the low pageviews and what I don't imagine is the likeliest search term. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There's nothing worth keeping here. Not even a single citation, just an external link of a network that has the term in its name. I would think "classic" soul is just soul music. Redirecting seems fine. Ss112 23:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but given that Bandcamp is not considered a reliable source, and the use of the word "classic" in that article is as an adjective rather than part of a compound noun, can you point us to any reliable sources that actually define "classic soul"? Richard3120 (talk) 09:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard3120: somewhat off-topic, but I do think there's a distinction between Bandcamp and Bandcamp Daily, and that the latter should be considered reliable despite its affiliation with the latter. At the very least, I think it's worth a larger discussion (it has been brought up before here and referenced here and here with implication of reliability given the quality of writers they bring on). In this case, however, I do agree that this article lacks a definition of "classic soul" that would differentiate it as a genre/format, so the source isn't useful for our purposes here. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@QuietHere: that's fair enough, and I'll take back that part. Anyway, I think we're all agreed that we need some better definition of what would be considered classic soul, beyond the three obvious record labels – Al Green would probably be labelled one of the greatest "classic soul singers" of all time, but he didn't record for any of those three labels. Richard3120 (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article "the" in song and album leads
I've noticed that in most (if not all) Taylor Swift-related articles, the subject is referred to as "the American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift" (see Red (Taylor's Version), Midnights, Love Story (Taylor Swift song), or any of the articles in Template:Taylor Swift) but in many other artists' articles, this article is omitted, for example: "the seventh studio album by American singer and songwriter Beyoncé" (from the Renaissance (Beyoncé album) article), "the seventh studio album by American singer Ariana Grande" (from the Eternal Sunshine (album) article), "the second studio album by American singer-songwriter Olivia Rodrigo" (from the Guts (Olivia Rodrigo album) article). I was going to post this in the WikiProject Pop music, but I figured this would have wider implications, as I also found inconsistencies with other music-related articles: "the eighth studio album by the English rock band Pink Floyd" (from The Dark Side of the Moon article) and "the debut studio album by American singer Frank Sinatra" (from The Voice of Frank Sinatra article). Any insight or suggestions would be appreciated! Dylx 16:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AstonishingTunesAdmirer is correct... the only reason that "the" does not appear in all articles is because there are tens of thousands of them that have been written in this incorrect manner, and it takes time to fix them all. Richard3120 (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's incorrect per se (per Wikipedia guidelines at least, since that's an essay). It seems to be one of those things the community will never agree over. Maybe in the future we'll be able to change this, citation style, date style, etc. locally, so each user will see their own. Until then, it'll remain inconsistent mess, varying per article. AstonishingTunesAdmirer連絡 17:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone! I just wanted to let you know that I've created a draft for Alfie Templeman's next album, which is set to be released in a few weeks; given the artist's profile, I think we'll get enough media coverage on it to meet WP:GNG comfortably. Whether you want to make corrections or add some more information, any kind of help is appreciated! Oltrepier (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if its really "ready" to be published if you've got 4 blank sections and almost no content written for it outside of a few sentence intro. I'd wait until you can write a bit more about it first before publishing. Drafts like this are likely to just get redirected. Sergecross73msg me 17:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: I know, don't worry: I purposefully added those blank section templates to remind myself of working on the draft once I retrieve enough material! : ) Oltrepier (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Sorry, sometimes editors post similar questions that are basically "Look at my work, is it ready"? I see now that your comment wasn't quite worded like that. Sorry for kind of answering a question that you weren't really asking. The sourcing at the bottom does look good, so I do think it'll be ready once more content has been written. Sergecross73msg me 19:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: No worries at all! And truth be told: before last time, I didn't even know that album articles could be posted to the mainspace way earlier than their release date... Oltrepier (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there's no question that this will pass WP:NALBUM once it's released – it will certainly chart in the UK, and his last album had plenty of noteworthy reviews. Richard3120 (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone with a Billboard subscription please verify something for me?
Hello! I'm currently writing an article about R.eal1ze, an album released on January 9, 2017 by Ravi. I'm trying to verify the accuracy of the charting positions of the album. Ravi's main article says that it reached number 8 on the US World Albums chart (Billboard), but I can't verify the source because I don't have a Billboard subscription. I'm extra concerned about the accuracy of the information because the citation on Ravi's main page actually is an archived link from BEFORE the album was released, which means it would be impossible for R.eal1ze to have been on that page because it hadn't been released yet. Can someone with a Billboard subscription please verify or correct this information for me? The link to the chart is [1]https://www.billboard.com/charts/world-albums/ . Thanks! Gottagotospace (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
