# Talk:Audrey's Dance

This review is transcluded from Talk:Audrey's Dance/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: MarioSoulTruthFan (talk · contribs) 13:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


### Infobox
dream pop, ambient → not on the body of the article or reference
I'll track down a source on these shortly.
Unfortunately, not many sources describe the genre of "Audrey's Dance", other than commenting on its stylistic elements that differ from the soundtrack in general (like the cool jazz influence and instrumentation). However, plenty of sources comment on the genre of the soundtrack as a whole. For example, from The Guardian: "Badalamenti's love of contrast extended to the instrumentation, using an unusual combination of 80s sounds (dream-pop, ambient, synthesised soap opera soundtracks) and 50s genres (teen-pop, cool jazz) to suggest timelessness." Or this French-language source, Carbone (I'm not familiar with the source, but I found it through Google News—for what that's worth, take it with a grain of salt of course—and the article seems to be high-quality, in-depth analysis): "A poisonous score in the form of a flow of consciousness that owes as much to jazz as to dream pop and to ambient, with fifties teen rock echoes."
In short: dream pop and ambient predominate across the entire soundtrack, and can be used to characterize any song on the soundtrack, while some individual songs (like "Audrey's Dance") incorporate other influences like 50s pop and jazz. Let me know if you think this suffices. —BLZ · talk 20:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
You know you can't use that as its that's the soundtrack genre which can and differs from song genres. So that's not good if you can't find it, just remove it. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
label → same as previous
The back cover of the CD edition of the album bears the Warner Bros. logo. AllMusic also indicates that the soundtrack was released on Warner Bros.
length → is there a difference from the album version to this one...source?
This is identical to the album version—there is no non-album version, as this song was never released as a single. This page from the CD booklet confirms a length of 5:15.
September 11, 1990 → same as the previous
AllMusic confirms the soundtrack release date. —BLZ · talk 21:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
You don't need to add them to the body of the article, but I need a source that backs it up
 Done


### Lead
Twin Peaks → in between brackets year it began and ended
It's a little complicated; it could say Twin Peaks ran (1990–1991), which can already be found in the section title "Seasons one and two (1990–91)", or (1990–1991, 2017), which is a little unwieldy. The lead already pegs the significant dates 1990 and 2017, and information about the years Twin Peaks ran can be found elsewhere, including articles that would likely be encountered before getting to this one (such as the Twin Peaks article itself.)
I can see your point, leave it as it is.  MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
"Audrey's Dance" is famous for its cool jazz style → Where else in the article it states is famous for that?
Good point, reworded.
Something regarding the Reception and Samples and cover versions could be added to the lead
At this stage, I don't think there's much that is noteworthy enough to include from these sections in the lead. For example, I wouldn't say that there is a summarizable critical consensus, because not enough reviews mention this song in particular, and summarizing these few critical responses would likely place undue emphasis on them. Same for the sample and cover version—worth noting, but not noteworthy enough in their own right for the lead. —BLZ · talk 21:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I would add, but I can see you make a good point. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 Done


### Composition
The first time you use Badalamenti/Lynch refere to them in their full names, Angelo Badalamenti and David Lynch. Try to do it in each section.
The first time Lynch's name appears in the body, it is within a quotation: "a major facet of Lynch's vision". However, his name was missing from the lead, so I've added a sentence to ensure the full name "David Lynch" appears. Further, Badalamenti is the credited artist—it's hard to imagine a reader would miss this info. Given that the article is fairly short at the moment (and the practical reality that most of the readers would be familiar with the show and with Lynch), I feel that it's appropriate to omit their first names on recurring mentions.
"'Audrey's Dance' creates a kind of nacht swing style that simultaneously captures the good old days the town would like to live in and the queasy angst of the modern period it is stuck with — i.e., 'Audrey's Dance' is a perfect musical translation of a major facet of Lynch's vision → use your own words more often
Reworded; I've retained the portions that are too specific to be paraphrasable, but omitted some of the connecting words that don't need to be quoted precisely.
 Done


#### Related compositions and variations
Fine


### Seasons one and two (1990–91)
Fine


### Twin Peaks: The Return (2017)
when Audrey dances to the song at the Roadhouse → when Audrey started to dance to the song at the Roadhouse
Not seeing a meaningful distinction here. The dance is interrupted, but all the same she does dance.
The meaning, is she dancing to the song? Because that's strange...or she is dancing along with the song? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the phrasing is unusual—see, e.g., Sly and the Family Stone's 1968 hit single "Dance to the Music", from the album of the same name. I'm still not sure I see a consequential difference in meaning between "dance to" and "dance along with". The phrase "dances to" even appears elsewhere in this same article. —BLZ · talk 19:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
You can't use the name of a song as an argument, perhaps because I miss it, otherwise I would have told you. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Audrey's Dance' from the original series was this kinda hypnotic thing where she's almost overtaken and goes into a trance dancing to the song. So the same thing happens here ... Something's going on with her—you know, it's anyone's guess what it is—but that music cue is somehow pivotal to the whole thing. And I mean, I can't even speak to it because I don't know what's going on. But something's going on. And I think that something is defined in David's head and why he wanted to do, specifically, this 'Audrey's Dance' reprise and work that into her storyline. → use your own words more often
I've reworded to minimize extensive quoting. However, I have also blockquoted the portion that I cannot meaningfully paraphrase. I think the progression of that portion—which was spoken aloud in an interview, not written/edited—conveys the elusive "meaning" of the song, and Hurley's limited understanding of the meaning, in a way that paraphrasing alone would not convey. —BLZ · talk 21:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 Done


### Samples and cover versions
The rendition was praised in Pitchfork, whose Daniel Dylan Wray → The rendition was praised by Pitchfork, in which Daniel Dylan Wray
Nope. Pitchfork is a publication and a corporate entity/property. In both capacities, Pitchfork lacks human characteristics like agency or preferences and, as such, cannot praise things. Things can be praised within its published pieces, and writers can praise things in articles published by Pitchfork. But unless Pitchfork (or one its parents like Condé Nast, Advance Publications, or Condé Nast Digital) publishes a press release indicating its institutional support for something, Pitchfork itself does not praise things.
However, your comment did prompt me to reword it to "whose contributor Daniel Dylan Wray". Using the possessive and Wray's name suggests that Wray is a staffer/permanent employee at Pitchfork, but he is not on the site's masthead and is more likely a freelancer. Wray is labeled on the site as a "contributor", so I have reworded to indicate this, which puts the proper distance between himself and Pitchfork.
[t]here's something really satisfying about hearing the vibraphone theme to 'Audrey's Dance' suddenly pop up over a scratchy, subterranean bedrock of electronic drums and synth squiggles,"..."a pretty perfect marriage of styles, and when guitar squawls, skitter percussion and random beeps complicate the mix, it sounds jazzy but never like a cacophony, because those Badalamenti vibraphone and piano motifs guide us through → use your own words more often.
I should put this out there: I think Wikipedians often over-paraphrase at the expense of writer's precise language. I am attributing an opinion to a person, which has been expressed in a particular form. I think it's acceptable to paraphrase to rearrange the structure of a thought and reduce the use of words that are not essential to the thought. In some cases, when attributing a general opinion to a writer, it's possible to summarize. But every time I paraphrase something that is part of the writer's actual opinion, I am either choosing a more general expression or, worse, a different specific expression. Even worse—and I see this sometimes when reviewing other's work—"paraphrasing" amounts to swiping a few words verbatim, but omitting quotation marks. That is plagiarism!
I've reworded some of the quotations you cited earlier in the review because, in those cases, it was possible to minimize the use of unnecessary words—for instance, it's not necessary to quote the writer saying the title of the song. But in this case, I don't think it's necessary or advisable to use "my own words" become it would come at the expense of the very precise expression of how the elements of the song interact and what effect the writer believes is achieved. —BLZ · talk 22:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 Done Thanks for the explanation, I believe it its a general expression you can use your own words if it's more specific sure just add the quotation marks. Nevertheless, you should always try to use your own words as much as possible. If we are talking about swiping words, such as connections sure I agree with you 100%, but not the structure of the phrase. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you in general about minimizing use of quotes where possible, and you were definitely correct about the need to trim some of the quotes in this article. I'm hoping to expand this article, as well as some of the other articles about the music of Twin Peaks, in the near future. That process will involve finding some offline sources (books, newspaper articles from the early 1990s) that I hope will allow me to expand this article without much additional direct quotation. —BLZ · talk 20:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


### Reception
slinking bass-line, jarring woodwinds, brushed percussion, finger-clicks and vibraphone: equal parts suggestive and sinister, its woozy lounge sway implies proposition and deceit in unison, each off-kilter stab symbolising the unpredictability of the show's high-school femme fatale Audrey Horne → use your own words more often
to contemplate nostalgia, aging, the folly of youth, the regrets of adulthood, the nature of reality, music, magic, and whether the mistakes of the past can ever truly be put right — Twin Peaks: The Return in musical form. No other cue this year was more complex, more resonant, or more intriguing → same as the previous
See my comment above. —BLZ · talk 22:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 Done. As per above explained by the nominator. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


### References
Fine


### Overall
You can now adress the changes. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@Brandt Luke Zorn: You are just missing removing the genres not supported by any sources. After that it will be GA. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@MarioSoulTruthFan: Done. I may return to this point after working on the Soundtrack article, but only after finding more sources. —BLZ · talk 22:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
As long as you have the sources to back it up its fine by me. Remember it has to talk about "Audrey's Dance", not just about the soundtrack in general. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

"Audrey's Dance" was described in this article (until my edits a short while ago) as a "song". This is incorrect. It is a piece of instrumental or incidental music, but not a "song" strictly speaking. According to The New Grove, a song is "a piece of music for voice or voices, whether accompanied or unaccompanied". Merriam-Webster defines the same term as "a short musical composition of words and music". "Audrey's Dance" does not qualify under either of these definitions. The New Oxford American Dictionary offers a little more flexibility. Among its definitions is "a musical composition suggestive of a song". But, again, "Audrey's Dance" is not a "song" even according to this definition. The piece comprises of motifs developed over a walking bass, occasionally interrupted by fragments of other motifs.
Calling every piece of music a "song", no matter its genre or type, is like calling every piece of written text—whether a novel, legal document, prayer, etc.—a "poem". If anybody feels they want to revert me, I won't contest it. It seems like a small thing and I apologize for stepping on anybody's toes, but precise nomenclature is important. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)