Jump to content

Talk:David Bowie Narrates Prokofiev's Peter and the Wolf

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by TangoTizerWolfstone (talk | contribs) at 15:49, 1 September 2024 (+ wikiproject). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

David Bowie studio album?

[edit]

I wouldn't describe this as a David Bowie studio album. His only contribution is the part of the narrator on side one only. I would describe this primarily as a Eugene Ormandy / Philadelphia Orchestra album for which Bowie provide guest narration. It certainly isn't listed as Bowie studio album in the likes of Pegg's The Complete David Bowie, Illustrated db Discography or Teenage Wildlife. --JD554 (talk) 07:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good that we've got an article on this now, but I also wouldn't call it a David Bowie studio album - as you say, it's just him narrating and it's been recorded many times with many famous voices narrating. As someone who also has an interest in classical music, I'd say this should be categorised like any classical piece. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for opening a discussion on this. I will be on wikibreak for a couple of days – I will be back next week and explain my rationale for considering it a studio album. In the mean time, I would be interested to know (1) do you think it belongs in the David Bowie discography at all? (2) If yes, in which category? Cheers. – IbLeo (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can easily agree that this album is of type "studio". I don't see which other album type in Template:Infobox Album would fit. Furthermore, "David Bowie" is written on the cover with much larger characters than Eugene Ormandy / Philadelphia Orchestra, and it's got his face all over it. This goes for all versions of the cover art that I have seen. Hence I concluded that this is a David Bowie studio album, and honestly, I didn't expect it to be controversial. JD554, I respect your reference to Pegg, however your two other references are fan sites and I don't think they should influence our choices here on Wikipedia. On the other hand, I am not going to insist if you disagree with me. I would however like this album added to the navbox and the discography, preferably in a consistent manner, so if it shouldn't go into the list of studio albums, then where should it go?? – IbLeo (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it should be in Bowie's discography as an album on which he makes a guest appearance, but it shouldn't appear in the navbox or be called a Bowie album. Strange Fascination: David Bowie the definitive Story by David Buckley (ISBN 978-0-7535-1002-5) is another source which doesn't list the album as a Bowie studio album. --JD554 (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see why it shouldn't be called a Bowie album. Although it is not one of his major works, in my opinion it is as much a Bowie studio album as Songs from the Labyrinth is a Sting studio album. Or am I missing something? – IbLeo (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a reliable source that credits the album to Bowie? The MusicBrainz entry credits the album to various artists and the Allmusic entry credits it to the Philadelphia Orchestra. I don't know much about Sting, but the MusicBrainz entry and the Allmusic entry for Songs from the Labyrinth both credit the album to Sting and Edin Karamazov. --JD554 (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. It is mentioned in a recent Bowie biography that I read last month: Poulsen, Jan (2007) [2006]. David Bowie - Station til station (in Danish) (2nd Edition ed.). Gyldendal. ISBN 978-87-02-06313-4. Retrieved 2009-02-16. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help) It contains a detailed discography section, and it stroke me as odd that it was the only item in its list of Bowie albums that didn't yet have its own article here on Wikipedia. Hence I decided to create one. Furthermore, there is another (more detailed) Allmusic entry who credits it to Bowie and which is listed in his main album discography. The Discog entries co-credits it to Bowie and the Philadelphia Orchestra. – IbLeo (talk) 12:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←Discogs is hardly a reliable source (especially as you've discounted the fan sites I mentioned above). I haven't come across the biography you mention, so I will have to accept it says what you say it does. Although you have found one page on allmusic which calls it a Bowie album, I have already given one which doesn't and the main biography page at allmusic for Bowie also describes it as "Eugene Ormandy's version of Peter and the Wolf"[1]. Rolling Stone also describe the album as by various artists[2] and list it in Bowie's discography as a guest appearance[3].
It seems we aren't going to convince each other of our stances regarding this, so I'm going to invite members of WP:ALBUMS and WP:CLASSICAL for their thoughts in an effort to gain consensus one way or the other. --JD554 (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In WP:CLASSICAL, we create articles for compositions and the relevant article here is Peter and the Wolf. We don't create articles for "albums" or recordings. There's 58 recordings of this composition available at arkivmusic.com and we're certainly not creating articles for all of them. So, if it turns out that this article does not get classified as a "David Bowie album", then we'd probably nominate the article for deletion.DavidRF (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. If noone else puts this up for AFD, I will later. It's certainly no different than the ones where Patrick Stewart, Sting, or Bill Clinton read the narration. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I disagree with the album being described as a David Bowie studio album, I believe the article meets the general notability guidelines in that it has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". --JD554 (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing other people in on this – even though getting the article nominated for AFD is not exactly what we are trying to achieve :-). Hopefully someone from WP:ALBUM will comment on this as well. I am confident we will find a solution to everyones satisfaction. – IbLeo (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My only comment with AFD is that David Bowie fans would need to take ownership of the article because WP:CM has no use for an article like this.DavidRF (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But that's just it. It IS a classical album. It's a recording of Peter and the Wolf and Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra. There must be 30 different CDs one can buy with those two pieces on them. Why is this different just because it's Bowie? Or to put it a different way, why should THIS album have its own page any more than the 1000s of classical CDs that have gotten reviewed and praised by multiple publications? What makes this one special? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I can't comment on articles that don't exist :-) but, as far as I'm aware, if an article meets the general notability guidelines it is considered notable. The article as it stands has at least three citations from notable publications which discuss the topic in depth and there are more listed on this talk page that can be added if needs be. This article certainly has the potential to expand way beyond the stub it is at the moment. --JD554 (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But do they discuss THIS album, or Peter and the Wolf in general? As it stands now, there's absolutely no content in the album beyond "David Bowie recorded Peter. It was released on LP and later CD with Young Person's." Again, what makes this album special that it deserves its own article? How it it notable as an album on its own? The sources seem to be two general disography refs (which don't make it notable) and an Allmusic review, not really noting Bowie's involment as anything particularly noteworthy. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What Melodia is pointing out is that classical compositions are recorded scores of times. As I said before, 58 recordings of Peter in the Wolf.[4] That's not really that many compared to other works. There's 247 for Beethoven's Fifth [5], 267 for Bach's Toccata and Fugue [6], 274 for Pachelbel's Canon [7]... and that's just in print from one vendor. These recordings aren't usually considered "albums" in that what other pieces they are coupled with are changed frequently upon re-issue. So, from a classical music point of view, this particular "album" is most certainly NOT notable. But, if David Bowie fans want to claim ownership and keep the parenthetical "David Bowie album" in the article title, I'll look the other way.  :-) We may not link to it though from the main Peter and the Wolf article because we don't want to invite scores of copycat articles. DavidRF (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This album is not the only example of a rock musician involved in a recording of a piece of classical music. Besides the already mentioned Songs from the Labyrinth, also Ecce Cor Meum and The Orchestral Tubular Bells comes to my mind as albums of this kind with their own articles. Quoting from WP:NALBUMS: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia.". In my eyes this justifies perfectly the existence of these articles, and I believe WP:ALBUM has no problem governing them. By the way, I would be curious to know where the guideline stating that there should not be separate articles for classical albums is written down (although I perfectly understand the practical reasons behind it). – IbLeo (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdented both our comments) Only the first one of those could count. Ecce Cor Meum was written by McCartney himself, so it's both about the music and album. Orchestral Tubular Bells isn't even classical, it's just an orchestral version of non-classical music. But the difference with the Sting album is both that the album has an actual title, and the whole thing is his project as it were, rather than being "just another". ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←How about this for a compromise: We keep the article per notability reasons mentioned above by myself and JD554, but we don't link it from Peter and the Wolf as suggested by DavidRF. Then, inspired by the Paul McCartney discography, we put it in a "classical albums" section in the David Bowie discography so it's separated from the "regular" Bowie studio albums. Thoughts? – IbLeo (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel it isn't a Bowie album and should only be included in his discography undeer a "Guest appearances" section. --JD554 (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this is a guest appearance by Bowie on an album recorded by the Philly Orchestra. It therefore doesn't belong in Bowie's discography, unless we add a section for guest appearances and collaborations. The album charted, and it certainly deserves a mention in the Recordings section of Peter and the Wolf, as well as someplace in the Bowie article. Unfortunately for IbLeo's effort, I don't feel that the album deserves its own article. Even in popular music, songs have only a single article each, and the various versions are all mentioned there, sometimes with multiple infoboxes, for charting singles. As I said, I don't think this qualifies as a Bowie album, and as such, doesn't qualify for its own article. -Freekee (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can go along with classifying it in a section for guest appearances, no problem. And well, if somebody puts the article up for AfD and there is consensus to delete it, then be it. Freekee, I agree in principle with your statement that we should only have one article per song in popular music, and it would be great if it was the reality. Nevertheless, it seems like not all editors agree to this, and I can easily come up with some blatant counterexamples, like Alabama Song vs. Alabama Song (David Bowie song), or Space Oddity vs. Ragazzo Solo, Ragazza Sola. Cheers. – IbLeo (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To reflect the consensus reached so far, I have moved the reference to this album into a new section "Guest appearances" in the David Bowie discography. I hope it stays there ;-) – IbLeo (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Release Issue?

[edit]

I don't have a source for this yet, but I am checking. This Wikipedia entry cites 1978 as a release for this particular album. I believe David Bowie did this recording far earlier than that because I remember listening to it as a child. I was born in 1963. I know I was listening to this long before 1978. I would put the year closer to 1968 or maybe even earlier than that. I believe the original work may have stemmed from Walt Disney productions, but I don't have any sources and I could be mistaken. However, I can tell you that I do remember listening to this as a child, on my personal record player, sitting in the corner of a room. It was one of my most cherished albums as a young child. I played it over and over and over again. Billbird2111 (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)billbird2111Billbird2111 (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: It appears I was listening to the Sterling Holloway audio rendition of Peter and the Wolf, not David Bowie. My mistake. Billbird2111 (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:David Bowie Narrates Prokofiev's Peter and the Wolf/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Blueskiesdry (talk · contribs) 17:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will probably review this in the next few days.

some cursory thoughts

[edit]
  • Could the album title be shortened some in body? It’s a bit unwieldy with the full eight word title every time it’s mentioned. One of the reviews quoted in Reception shortens it to Peter and the Wolf, so perhaps that’s a viable alternative.
  • Fixed
  • Leonard Cohen had previously narrated a version… narrated probably shouldn’t be linked.
  • Fixed
  • Later issues were pressed in standard black vinyl. Is there a source for this or is it cited in the previous citations in the paragraph?
  • Removed
  • In sources: Should "David Bowie All the Songs" have a colon after "Bowie"?
  • That's how it's titled in the book itself (without a colon)

That’s all I can see on first glance, will check against criteria in the next couple days. (If I don’t get around to it by then please ping me with a strongly worded demand, as there is a 90% chance I’m procrastinating.)

Hi. I just wanted to check in on the progress of these points. I see you’ve shortened the name, but nothing else seems to be done. Do you want me to just start the criteria checking? blueskiesdry… (cloudy contribs…) 00:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's my bad I forgot to add this to my watchlist. Doing now. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See replies above. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
👍. I will start crit-checking soon. Blueskiesdry (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the actual review

[edit]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. all looks good here, maybe replace "LPs" with something different in the lede per WP:MTAU but it’s not bad enough that it needs neutral or fail
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. no sign of any problems here
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). what makes Classic FM reliable?
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. philadelphia inquirer has a 37.1% similarity (I’m assuming it’s just quotes but I want to make sure), but it’s under a paywall so unfortunately I can’t check it.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. reissue cover has a notice telling you to add a more detailed non free use rationale, so I’m a little bit concerned by that. Everything else seems fine though.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Pending

Blueskiesdry (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zmbro I’ve put this article on hold so you can satisfy the minor concerns I have. I’m not sure if the bot notifies you of this on your talk page, but if it does I’m sorry for pinging you twice. Blueskiesdry (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a heads up the full Inquirer article is archived here so you can check it there. For future reference, if you come across a paywalled article (Rolling Stone, NYT, Wall Street Journal, etc.), archive the page using https://archive.is/. That always un-paywalls the articles I find compared to https://archive.org/web/ :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Paraphrased a little. How's the Inquirer look now? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The FU rationale is fine for the reissue cover as everything is already filled out. That notice always appears as a reminder. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found this post by Bowie's website describing a reissue by RCA/Music On Vinyl in 2014 so I replaced Classic FM with that. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good now. I’ll change the remaining parameters of the template and then I’ll pass it. Blueskiesdry (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron talk 03:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Zmbro (talk). Self-nominated at 17:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/David Bowie Narrates Prokofiev's Peter and the Wolf; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: No issues at all here. Happy to pass. However, although cited and I think it's interesting, I suggest putting in an ALT1 with another fact about this album. The fact it exists is interesting in itself but good to include something else. Also needs QPQ. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Arcahaeoindris, how about a simple rephrase, "...that as a gift for his son Duncan, who was seven at the time, David Bowie narrated a version etc..." The gift for the son is the hook, no? Wait: that is ALT1, yours I suppose--OK, I agree with that, as a matter of interest, though fronting the gift and the son might generate more interest. I also think sticking in the son's age is a nice touch; it makes us think of Bowie as the father of a young child. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Bowie_Narrates_Prokofiev%27s_Peter_and_the_Wolf&oldid=1243457815"