Talk:Smiley Smile

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.


Contents

[edit] Release date?

Not to quibble, but wasn't this album released on Tuesday 9/5/67 in the US, not Monday 9/11/67? As I recall, street day is usually on a Tuesday. I believe AllMusic may have it wrong. swinterich 2/20/06 11:30 am EST

[edit] Protected

I have temporarily protected this page to deal with the edit warring that has been taking place here. Please discuss your changes on the talk pages rather than reverting. If you have reached agreement or want the page unprotecting, please post a request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection or ask me on my talk page. Thanks. Izehar 21:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

(From the response I gave to another editor who felt my edit was too drastic): Please take a look at the changes more carefully. What you call "the body of the article" is an extended, unsourced/unreferenced/unverifiable personal commentary that violates Wikipedia's core content policies of verifiability, NPOV, and no original research. Some sections of the article were unsalvageable.
Such phrases as "infamous album," "notoriously under-produced," "bizarre quality," "the turn of events were indeed puzzling," "albeit with a lack of ambition never seen before in him," "sticks out like a sore thumb in this over-simplified atmosphere," "Without a doubt the strangest album ever released by a major group," and "its enduring strangeness" are subjective statements, personal opinions at best, that have no place in an encyclopedic article. The extensive, completely unsourced and mostly if not entirely unverifiable about the motivations of Brian Wilson and other musicians are clear violations of Wikipedia content policies.
This is part of a set of running disputes between user:BGC and other editors (e.g., myself, Mel Etitis, Hapsiainen) over various matters related to popular music pages, and BGC has been warned by several admins that his conduct with respect to the articles is unacceptable. He has responded by removing the earnings from his talk page and describing the admins as vandals in his edit summaries.
I recommend taking a look at this page [1], particularly the early section, for some background to this dispute. Monicasdude 20:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I recommend looking at Monicasdude's TWO RfC pages Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Monicasdude and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Monicasdude 2 to get an understanding and background into his character, which is most evident on his editing practices on this page and MANY others. BGC 20:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotecting

I'm unprotecting this article because there has been no discussion in ten days. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Kent

Music journalist Nick Kent described the album as "do it yourself, acid casualty doo-wop music."

Is there a citation available for this? Presumably he didn't say it when the album was released - he'd only have been 14 or 15 then. BTLizard 10:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

On reflection, I think it's probably from the big article he wrote about Brian Wilson in the NME in the mid-1970s; the phraseology would seem to indicate in that direction. A version of the piece later appeared in his book "The Dark Stuff", but I can't confirm because I haven't access to either version. BTLizard 11:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Given that it was not a description contemporary to its release (Kent was not a published journalist till 1971/72 era) - but a comment from a writer long after the release - its significance is far less valuable. It might belong alongside a series of critical references to the album over the years. But it has no merit to the article in the prominent position it holds. Davidpatrick (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opinions vs. Facts

There are several things in this article that seem to be just opinions, not facts. For example:

"Smiley Smile is an infamous album by The Beach Boys, issued in 1967. Released in the place of the much-touted Smile, and notoriously under-produced, the album was received with indifference and confusion upon its unveiling. However, Smiley Smile has managed to grow in stature over the years to become a cult favorite, in spite of its bizarre quality."

"the atmosphere is often perceived as eerie, disturbing or frightening, constrastive to earlier Beach Boys material which is most often experienced as warm and inviting."

This is an encyclopedia article, not a review. So I think those should be removed.

Roope 18:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I toned down some of the NPOV - some of which, by the way, was not written by me. BGC 20:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a source for the "Paul McCartney plays the carrot" idea?

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:SmileySmileCover.jpg

Image:SmileySmileCover.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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other 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 05:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)