# Talk:Guitar Solos

This review is transcluded from Talk:Guitar Solos/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Very well written and sourced article so I've only got two suggestions.

"In 1974, while still a member of Henry Cow, Virgin Records (Henry Cow's record label) approached Frith and suggested that he make an album of guitar solos." Although the lead mentions that Frith was in Henry Cow this sentence feels a little odd coming after a paragraph on his time at school/Cambridge - perhaps you could add to the Cambridge section by saying he formed the band there?
I've added the formation of Henry Cow to this section. --Bruce1eetalk 09:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Guitar Solos 2 and 3 - I'm not convinced by the treatment of these two albums at the end of the article. Discussing them in the 'Reception and influence' section is great but I would have thought they deserved their own articles really. If you have a particular reason for keeping them here I think tracklistings and some brief info on each is essential. (I'm also confused as to why the albums don't seem to appear at Fred Frith discography or in the 'Fred Firth' infobox but that's another story)
Following your suggestion, I've split off Guitar Solos 2 & 3 and created separate articles for each of them. I've also added them to the Fred Frith discography (for some reason they were omitted), but not to the Fred Frith infobox as that only lists his solo albums. --Bruce1eetalk 09:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Let me know when you've addressed my concerns. Cavie78 (talk) 13:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Guitar Solos/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
Does the numbering of side two really begin at 5?  Every record I've seen starts at 1...
 I've adjusted the numbers to start from 1. --Bruce1eetalk 10:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The "CD re-issues" and "Release history" sections need to be combined into a prose section.  I know WP:ALBUM outlines a "Release history" section, but the table is only applicable to albums with many notable released versions, where the information is impractical to convey by prose.  Here, all that's necessary is a prose summary that details the original vinyl album and the two CD reissues.  Was there anything special about the 1981 Japanese version?  If not, there's no need to mention it, as Wikipedia is not a directory.
 I've combined the 2 sections. --Bruce1eetalk 10:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
Your assertion that the album "was considered a landmark" is based on one reviewer's calling the album "landmark".  That's misleading; you need to show that numerous other reviewers agreed before you can say that.  And the additional clause "When Guitar Solos was first released" makes the statement wholly unsubstantiated, as the Allmusic review was not written before 1991.
 I've corrected the use of these statements. --Bruce1eetalk 10:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
You have an external link (the interview) that easily could be incorporated into the article...and should be, per WP:EL.
 Deleted - it only made a passing reference to this album. --Bruce1eetalk 10:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Really?  I listened to some of the interview and I think there are some relevant quotes there...
The other external link is already being used as a reference...no need to list it again.
 Removed. --Bruce1eetalk 10:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
What makes that discography site reliable in the first place?  At any rate, all that information is self-referential to the releases, so it doesn't need to be cited.  Same with the "Personnel" section.
 I've removed the redundant citations. --Bruce1eetalk 10:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Major aspects: see end of this review
 There's not much more I can do here to enhance the "reader's experience". The problem is that this an experimental album and not a main-stream release, and there just isn't that much written about it that can be backed up with reliable sources. But please see the original reviewer's response below to this point. --Bruce1eetalk 10:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Did you search print sources?  I searched a few databases through my university library and found that relevant articles are out there...didn't have online access to most of them, however.
The only print source I have is the January 1983 issue of Down Beat, which I have referenced. I'll scratch around and see if I can find some more, but my access to library databases is limited. --Bruce1eetalk 08:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 I've expanded three of the sections, which hopefully will enhance the "reader's experience". --Bruce1eetalk 08:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Focused: The Fred Records chronology is unnecessary; we don't do chronologies for record labels...probably because they offer no insight.
 Removed. --Bruce1eetalk 10:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
There's a bot working on removing unnecessary alternate album covers.  The CD cover in this article qualifies, and will be removed automatically if you don't do it yourself.
 Removed. --Bruce1eetalk 10:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The fair use rationale and caption of the music sample need to be beefed up.  See WP:SAMPLE for the guidelines, and Lions (album) for some examples of how I did it in a featured article.
 I've adjusted the FUR and caption of the music sample. --Bruce1eetalk 10:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

The biggest problem with the article is that I just didn't learn a lot about the album by reading it.  Check the "Reader's experience" column on this page; which one best describes this article?  Right now, I'd have to say "C".  Best of luck in addressing these issues; I'd be happy to see this remain a good article. —Zeagler (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see my responses and actions above. --Bruce1eetalk 10:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for putting some more work into this.  We'll keep the GA status.  Couple things to check when you get around to it:
I reformatted the album notes reference with Template:Cite album-notes and you'll want to make sure I made the correct interpretation with respect to 'format' and 'publisherid'.
"The only sounds not produced by guitar..." – isn't the guitar needed to produce sound through a fuzzbox or an echo delay? —Zeagler (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
And thank you for the tidying up you've been doing, and for keeping the GA status. The 'format' and 'publisherid' in the 'Cite album-notes' template are correct. I've rechecked the sleeve notes and it says "... not produced 'naturally' by guitar ..." I've added the missing "naturally" to that statement in the article. --Bruce1eetalk 08:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


### Comments from original reviewer
Apologies to the editor for missing some bits and pieces in my original review which seems to have caused this reassessement. Zeagler's comment about the description of the album as a "landmark" release is, of course, right and I really should have noticed. That said I could not disagree more about the assertion that the reader would not learn a lot from this atricle - I had never heard of Fred Firth or Guitar Solos when I did the original review and would personally rate the article 'A' as a non-expert in the subject matter. Cavie78 (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That you hadn't heard of Frith might make you the "casual reader" mentioned in the C-class standard.  I'm a little bit more familiar with Frith, and I found this article does "not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study".  For me, it raised a lot of questions.  Examples:
"In 1974...Virgin Records (Henry Cow's record label) approached Frith and suggested that he make an album of guitar solos." Why?
"Frith obliged...." Why?  Why these kind of guitar solos?  Is that what Virgin had in mind?
The "Recording" section describes how Frith prepared his guitars.  I'd like to read more about the creative process.  Did he try things that didn't work?  How did he decide whether or not his experiments were successful?  All this creativity demands quotations from the artist in order to get inside his head.
What does this album sound like?  Right now, the only description we have (other than the music sample) is "haunting".  More descriptions from critics would be helpful.
—Zeagler (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm a musician and guitarist so I think "non-expert" is about right. These questions are interesting but I think you're being very harsh on the article. This isn't FA lite and the article seems to me to be more than adequate for GA. Cavie78 (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This article says that Frith played a modified Gibson K-11, but I can't find any reference to such a guitar ever existing.  Doing a google search only brings up this page (and the page for Prepared guitar).  Apparently the Kay company made an ES-345 copy called a K-11, so that's probably what the author is referring to, but I've always read that Frith played the actual Gibson model.  Anyone want to try to dig up a source for this?  74.130.253.223 (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Part of this article was sourced from a January 1983 Down Beat magazine article on Fred Frith. I have this issue and it says that Frith used a modified 1936 Gibson K-11 on the album. But whether this was a special or limited edition guitar, I don't know. --Bruce1eetalk 06:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.chriscomerradio.com/fred_frith/frith9-30-01.htm
Triggered by \bchriscomerradio\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 18:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done.  No further action is necessary.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Guitar Solos/CommentsTalk:Guitar Solos/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Last edited at 15:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC).
Substituted at 16:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)