Talk:Sir Lucious Left Foot: The Son of Chico Dusty

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sir Lucious Left Foot: The Son of Chico Dusty article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Sir Lucious Left Foot: The Son of Chico Dusty has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 12, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

Albums

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

Hip-hop Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip-hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip-hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip-hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip-hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip-hopHip-hop
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Album name

Well which is it? Sir Luscious or Sir Lucious? Do we know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.20.106 (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Headers

In light of recent edits to change headers on this article, I figure it seems right to open a post here. Now, the "Music" section deals with information about the album's music. Accoriding to wiktionary, "wikt:Composition" has several meanings that are a little dubious to the section's content, or atleast not as efficient as "Music". The term implies what the album's composed of, but the content of the section doesnt say anything like "its composed of sounds or music and lyrics". The section goes into the "music", its musical elements and lyrics, style etc. "Composition" seems like a word used in studying physical aspects or structure of something in biology. For an album article on jazz or classical, or even a song article, it may fit, but with popular music its a given that the music will be composed of sounds/musical elements and lyrics. And since the topic of the article is an album, albums are composed of songs, and its the songs that are composed of musical elements and lyrics. And if the section doesnt focus primarily on songs, its not focusing on its "composition". "Composition" just comes off as a little pretentious and trying to be sophisticated. Dan56 (talk) 10:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the use of "music" is questionable as well, since music is about sound, so how can sound have lyrics? "Composition" is widely used in article and I support its inclusion. Of course, the "background" thing is still being used incorrectly, so we could just wait for the GA reviewer. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 11:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics are rapped and sung on this album, making a sound. The vocal technique makes/affects sound. And it being widely used in GA/FA articles does not make it correct. Albums are composed of songs, and its a song that is actually composed of musical elements and lyrics, not albums. If you are going by definition (how else?), then "composition" is more questionable than "music". I see "composition" being more acurate in a song article than album article, unless the album article has a section in which it primarily discusses the album's songs more than the album's general music, like Ready (Trey Songz album) or Thank Me Later. But thats not the case with this album article. Dan56 (talk) 11:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But when you use the term "composition" you are obviously talking about the musical elements and lyrics of the album. That's like saying a song is comprised of verses, and verses have lyrics, so therefore it's the verses that have lyrics and not the song. Breaking down the album into categories like that doesn't really make sense. The album is a body of work as a whole and it's composed of more than just songs; it's composed of the songs and what they contain too. I don't really understand your logic with this. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 12:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I dont see your issue with "Music". Verses are part of popular songs' structure. Im not trying to say that albums dont feature lyrics, b/c youre right. If they contain songs, they feature the songs' elements. But an album is composed of songs, not of the songs' elements. The term "Music" as a header for the section is more specific, as an album is a physical release, "a collection of related audio or music tracks distributed to the public" (article). So its also composed of a cover, case/sleeve, booklet, whatever its distribution entails. Dan56 (talk) 12:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't have an issue with "music", either is fine by me, but I just happen to prefer "composition". What I disagree with is: "But an album is composed of songs, not of the songs' elements." How is that even possible? If the elements are found in the song, and the song is in the album, then obviously the album has those elements! I can't get my head around this statement. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 12:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An album is just a physical release or collection of those songs. Its tangible. While great artists/musicians have elevated album-making into an artform, the album is still a collection. It doesnt need for songs to have any elements, b/c even with a collection of lets say blank audio recordings, it still is an album, albeit not a very good one. Dan56 (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rm sales

User:Hometown Kid has insisted on removing the album's total sales (as of Sept. 2010) because he feels it is outdated information. I think it's notable enough to keep, since an album's sales stop being reported weekly (by publications like Billboard) when they stop selling significantly. It's a safe assumption that this album's sales at this time are not significantly larger than on Sept. 2010. It's ridiculous to remove information like this just because there isn't something more recent. At some point, most albums' sales will cease to being reportable/significant and the most recent will seem outdated. Aren't first-week sales outdated as well, since total sales are the notable figure? It's more encyclopedic to keep a total sales figure (from the most recent) than have none. Dan56 (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. Quasy Boy 00:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right there with ya. - Easy4me (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should stay per Dan56. Oz ^talk 00:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sales should stay; updated or outdated, it is better to have something that nothing. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]