Talk:Singer-songwriter

From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Talk
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Catalogs [?]
 
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist. To update this checklist edit the metadata template.
 Definition Performers who write the lyrics and compose the music for the majority of the songs they perform, often as soloists. [d] [e]

Joannie Phonie

I'd have to research it (I have all her first 10 albums or so), but I don't *think* she did much songwriting until later in her career -- when, to my ears, she became unlistenable to. Almost *all* of her early stuff was either genuine Anglo-folk, Appal. mountain, or old-time Carter Family-type country. Plus, around 1970, real Nashville country, which she did *beautifully*. If it weren't for her politics, she could have been another Dolly Parton.... I know there was a book a couple of years ago about her romance with B.D. -- is there evidence in there about her early song-writing? Hayford Peirce 13:31, 29 February 2008 (CST)

That was a brainpuncture on my part. Of course she was the early Dylan songbook. Out she comes immediately (blushing) - Ro Thorpe 13:39, 29 February 2008 (CST)

Suggestions

I started tweaking this. I'm afraid you'll never get me to agree that the term applies more to females than to males--it doesn't for my generation, those who got 'into' popular folk singers in the early 80's--notwithstanding that they were older than we were--and the article text doesn't support the statement.

Someone like Carole King--popular in the seventies--doesn't belong in with oldies like Hank Williams, but I couldn't think of a good rewrite on the spur of the mo.

Before we end up with an internal list (oh, I hate that!) can we decide whether lists of singer-songwriters should be in Related Articles or Catalogues?

Aleta Curry 22:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

In a catalog(ue), as per the http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/French_words_in_English/Catalogs that Rheaux and I have been doing. At least if you (or others) start adding a *lot* more names. I think the article as it stands right now, mentioning a dozen or so, is fine. I don't think we want catalogs for trivial numbers of items. Hayford Peirce 22:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I ask because Dr S is forever telling me that there is a diff between true catalogs--oh, all right--sans 'ue' if you must--and related articles, which is what a list is.
Oh, I agree, in relation to how things stand now. My WP experience is that when people read articles with a couple of examples, they almost invariably add a few more, next thing the 'article' is really 'stub with long list'.
My own hit parade would include several names not mentioned. "Singer-songwriter" to me means James Taylor and Harry Chapin and *how* do you leave out a mention of the great Stevie Wonder or Paul Simon (or Paul Stookey for that matter or Peter Yarrow)--see what I mean?
Aleta Curry 01:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
There would surely be enough for a catalog, though I really fail to see the difference between that and a list of related articles - that's what a catalog is, isn't it? Except that it has its own existence independently, and is not just an appendage, I suppose that's it. Wikipedia has an example of what, I think, we are trying to avoid, an article which has a list trying to burst out of it. Good source of names, though! And it also raises the language distinction: I would happily lump Carole King and Hank Williams together, but not with Georges Brassens. Ro Thorpe 01:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, there is difference between Catalogs and Related Articles. Catalogs are for lists that aim to be comprehensive or complete, while Related Articles should give good advice what to read next. --Peter Schmitt 23:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Peter, you're right, but also, the catalogue is mean to be more than just a list. It should be a list with explanation. If memory serves, we were starting with definitions in catalogues. Aleta Curry 00:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Daniel has brought in definitions on the r-template - beginning to see how it works... Ro Thorpe 00:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Very cool, Daniel, thanks! Aleta Curry 01:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Anent Georges Brassens: the *French* WP says he is: "un poète auteur-compositeur-interprète français." I guess that covers it.... Hayford Peirce 17:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

To {r} is human

Sure, commented lists are better than lists, but many lists start without comments :-)

I am not so sure that the r-template is a good idea for Catalogs. It is intended for \Related Articles. Remember, that definitions are subject to change without regard to the list (probably, whoever changes it will not even know about the catalog, or not care. To have a good, uniformly formatted list, it is better (and safer) to insert just the information wanted in the precise form wanted. See Crime fiction/Catalogs, French cuisine/Catalogs or Nobel Prize in Physics/Catalogs for examples

Moreover, while a definition should in most cases mention "singer-songwriter" this would be a useless repetition in the list.

--Peter Schmitt 01:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and the case of John Stewart is unfortunate - unless Hayford intends to write an article about him alone, which I somehow doubt. Ro Thorpe 01:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Blast! two edit conflicts in a row!
Okay, re the {r: Yes, maybe, but was that calculated or is it just that Hayford would pull his hair out if faced with {:r}? Seriously, though, I've had a quick squizzy through some old clusters and it's true, lots don't use the template, but I think it's because it hadn't yet been developed. (Remember that we're making this up as we go along--literally)
Still, I won't argue--what do you all think is best?
Aleta Curry 02:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. Wikipedia has a sizeable article about Mr Stewart. Hmm. Ro Thorpe 02:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, to me Jon Stewart is a talk show host, or a certain Scottish tv sportscaster from my youth. He also wrote Daydream Believer? Who knew? Aleta Curry 02:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Since all of you are invoking my name, yes, I *could* write a 50-word stub about Steward if that would straighten out our situation. But, overall, I think that linking these people to Definitions is NOT the way to do it. There are *always* going to be conflicts and problems. Best just to write a single sentence after each entry in order to give some sense of who he/she is/was. Hayford Peirce 03:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Changing the formatting to {{r}} was just a suggestion. If you prefer the list to be formatted differently, feel free to reformat, or tell me whether I should do it. As an aside, I like the title of this thread. --Daniel Mietchen 20:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

What "Catalogs" are, or can be

I'm pretty sure that Larry did NOT think of "Catalogs" as being mere *lists*.

When I first joined CZ in May of '07 I started making lists of tennis players and No. 1 World Players. Larry immediately jumped in and suggested, told, ordered, that they be converted to "Catalogs". He, and a bunch of other people, Chris Day, I think, and Robert King, were very hands on and came up with what, to me, were very elaborate "Catalogs". Take a look at the Famous Players one at:

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Tennis/Catalogs/Famous_players -- there's a whole ton of information in there that you wouldn't initially think would be in a mere "Catalog".

the other one, at http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Tennis/Catalogs/World_No._1_male_players, is more or less what I had originated at WP a couple of years earlier, around '05, I think, but it gives an idea of what can be done with "Catalogs".

So all of the present Catalogs we're working on at CZ, the Singer-songwriters, the Crime Fiction famous detectives and books and writers can ALL be greatly expanded and/or modified in terms of both looks and information that they contain. Or at least so Larry thought a couple of years ago. And I see no reason to disagree with him about this. Hayford Peirce 17:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite right to all of this, Hayford. I also seem to remember threads about what form(s) the catalogues would take, and I also remember trying to write CZ catalog policy, whereever that is located, I forget now.
I think some of the science articles also contained interesting catalogues; can't quite remember which one(s), but I'm thinking Biology? Life? I'll go have a look. Also, wasn't Roger doing something interest in social sciences? I'll see if I can find some examples.
In my opinion we should allow flexibility and creativity. Sure, it's nice to have uniformity, but the cluster system does that. The style/layout/whatever of the catalogue should fit the feel of the article and the ingenuity of the creators.
Aleta Curry 22:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's what Larry was after. And, like you, I do vaguely recall that other people were working on various other formats of catalogs. Hayford Peirce 22:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Edit conflict, again! Wow, does that actually mean that the project is getting active again? How exiting!
One more thing, we also need to remember the issue of ‘crossover’ catalogues, i.e. catalogues which will be part of more than one cluster, thus eliminating duplication and wasted effort. Here’s an example: United States of America/Catalogs/U.S. voluntary organizations; this lives at both United States of America/Catalogs and at Civil society/Catalogs
For variety, see also the catalogues at: Civil society/Catalogs/Researchers and theorists, Civil society/Catalogs/Organization Types and compare with a plain list at Civil society/Catalogs/Organizations
My little grey cells are still percolating; have a look at: Biology/Catalogs
Having said this much, I think this conversation is rapidly approaching or indeed has passed the point where we should be having it at the catalogs policy page, 'cause this often happens: we have a discussion, come to a consensus, then can't find the discussion six months later!
Aleta Curry 23:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Each catalogue should have its one format since it will depend on the contents. Some may be only a list (and stay so), some will start as a "brainstorm" list and develop, some will be planned as a complex structure in advance (but then stay undeveloped?). I think there even may be (sometimes) catalogues on the same (or almost the same) topic, but with a different purpose, and quite differently arranged. (Take the 3 crime fiction Catalogs -- they could be merged to a single one. (I do not recommend this!). Sometimes one will have to rearrange everything. Don't start with policy - let things happen! --Peter Schmitt 23:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)