Talk:Singer-songwriter

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)

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)