Talk:RaVen Quartet

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

classical or rock

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfWarXS-m6E is a typical example of Raven performing classical music, and their CD (the one called Raven) is entirely classical music, so saying they are a 'string quartet that performs arrangements of rock tracks' is misleading, as is describing their genre as 'classical rock'. But perhaps they changed at some point (to make more money?). Can you produce a reliable source for their performing rock music? --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked on their website shortly after the whole egggate fiasco. At the time, they were advertising their classical renditions of Ace of Spades and other assorted rock tracks, so although they may have been solely classical then, they weren't at the time of their retirement. I note that the URL of their website is up for sale though. This says that they cover classical pieces as well as stringed up versions of pop and rock hits.--Laun chba ller 22:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine! Well, here is an article (undated, unfortunately) that can serve as a RS, that suggests there was a time when they only played classical music: 'Whilst many other quartets will follow the trend that Vanessa-Mae and Bond created to infuse their strings with drum machines and techno beats, you will catch Raven doing no such thing. Raven takes their classical music seriously'. That article calls their music 'classical crossover', which according to http://www.allmusic.com/subgenre/classical-crossover-ma0000004504 is 'a genre that hovers between classical and popular music, and is usually targeted at fans of both types of music'. Interesting! I see that according to that web page Pavarotti and Yo Yo Ma are also included in that genre.
I encountered Raven first playing what was clearly classical music before a large audience that had gathered around them in Cambridge market, where they were also selling their CD. But anyway some of this material needs to be included in the article, and there are some RS's as indicated that can be included. Any offers? --Brian Josephson (talk) 07:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a minimal revision now (and removed the ref. to their own web page as it no longer exists!). --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Their youtube channel survives, so I put a link to that to replace the one to their defunct web site. Some bug seems to have messed up the numbering of refs so the list starts 2,1; can someone fix that? --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a bug. The reflist reads references in the order they appear in the editing window, so it's read the reference in the infobox rightly as coming earlier than the ones in the lede.--Laun chba ller 09:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see, though I'm not sure I'd agree that it is right for the references to be listed in this order, as from the point of view of the person reading the page ref. 2 comes before ref. 1 as the article is now. By the way, if you think that the youtube link would be better placed along with the two following refs. instead of where it is now, it would be fine by me for you to move it there. I placed it where it currently is mainly because I hoped that doing this would deal with the ordering anomaly! Would it not be best simply to remove the ref from the infobox, which would have the advantage of dealing with the numbering anomaly? It is unnecessary to put it there as refs to the members are clearly given in the main text, and anyway for consistency there would have to be a ref. in the infobox for Rachel Lander as well. The URL is given elsewhere than in the infobox, so it can be removed from the infobox without losing the reference.

There's another issue in the text in that it says 'Kirsty Mangan was the group's violinist', but they have 2 violinists, so presumably the 'the' should be 'one of' instead. Do you agree? --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a good article, neither the lede nor the infobox has references - they are merely a summary of the article text. Different people have different zoom settings, so it would be unfair to guess. I agree that Kirsty is a violinist, rather than the violinist.--Laun chba ller 07:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I got rid of the ref in the infobox, and adjusted the description of the instruments, including that of Natalie Holt which had not been included in the article. I think unless someone is going to work at extending the article, the refs. are going to need to stay in the lede!

It would be nice if the article mentioned their CD. Their solo CD, Raven, seems to have disappeared from the face of the web -- maybe the publisher has gone bust so it is no longer available! If you're interested in adding a section, I can send you a list of the tracks. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

eggy article

It's a pity that the article makes so much of the egg-throwing incident -- 5 references, for heavens sake! Is that notable in the context of her achievements as a whole, as per WP criteria notabilty and balance? Should this just be deleted -- it is not included in her own w'pedia page? As far as ref. 6 is concerned, she is just a 'mystery woman'. Or just keep ref. 7? --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a look at who wrote the article, you'll see why it doesn't mention it. There was a considerable amount more content on the Natalie Holt section placed there at the time which was removed per WP:RECENT.--Laun chba ller 13:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that WP:RECENT provides a good excuse for getting rid of all that bit. Do you still think it is worth including this episode in the article? --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any reason why not.--Laun chba ller 16:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any justification for providing more than one reference (the basic purpose for refs. in WP in such a context being to verify what is stated in the text). If the article is to supply just one, which do you consider the most appropriate one to use? --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that I think the article should go into a little bit more detail on egggate, I would recommend repeating the information on the Britain's Got Talent article.--Laun chba ller 20:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]