Talk:Naima

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Jazz Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of jazz on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JazzWikipedia:WikiProject JazzTemplate:WikiProject JazzJazz Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Songs This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong

Many sources give Naima's name as Grubbs, not Grubb. Those that give Grubb mostly seem to be copied from Wikipedia. Perhaps this should be changed.121.1.178.241 (talk) 09:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete the chord changes.

• They are sanctioned content as evidenced by MOS:MUSIC
• They contribute significant value for this article
• They do not infringe on the composers copyright - since they do not include the melody a significant aspect of bop history.
• They allow jazz players to practice the changes.
• Without these illustration it is very difficult for readers to understand information on the harmony and song form.

BO; talk 10:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand chord changes are of value. However, I have significant objections against including chord changes and scale associations on Wikipedia pages.

• They are not verifiable since there there may not exist a source confirming the author used these scores.
• Scale associations are a personal interpretation of the person writing the associations, and in Jazz subject to change every improvisation.
• It looks like original research in this case. At least provide a source.
• I could not find any statements regarding this on MOS:MUSIC. I could find WP:NOT#LYRICS and WP:NOTMANUAL.

If you wish to illustrate the fact that the song has a complicated chord progression, give a (preferably sourced) example, instead of including the complete changes. Lennartack (talk) 11:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My goal is to improve this article - your objected have been noted but how are they improving the article's quality.

• If the composition has been copyrighted as you pointed out, than it's chord changes must be a matter of public record and can be verified for example they can be found in printed material such as an Aebersold booklet in a college library you can see evidence on List_of_songs_in_Aebersold's_"Play-A-Long"_series and may add the citation if you wish.
• The scale association are the standard analysis and again are based on based on a jazz theory. A jazz player can do as he pleases but this would be called reharmonization.

Arguing from NOT is rather weak when The MOS:MUSIC clearly instructs how changes should be added to Wikipedia - and the changes are in full complience - also there are many other articles with full chord progressions. WP:NOT#LYRICS refers to lyrics - AFAIK there are no lyrics in this article. WP:NOTMANUAL has many clauses - none of which strike me as relevent

OrenBochman (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know the WP guidelines do not explicitly say whether this is allowed or not, but it seems to me they tend to disallow it. MOS:MUSIC does not say it is okay to include full changes of songs. That argument is weaker than mine. Also, reharmonization is exactly the opposite of what I was saying. On a given chord a jazz player can choose to play several scales and arpeggios (if not all), and that does not change the harmonics of the song (they remain the same). I suggest we continue this discussion on the jazz group talk page, since you mentioned this is done in other articles as well. 213.46.49.234 (talk) 09:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have complied with your requests - incuding adding citations to adress the aspect of verifiability. It comes down to a request to narrow the scope of articles - this is not something I agree with and is a very slipery slope leading WP:Censorship and ruining Wikipedia. Unless you have a a specific grivence rooted in policy I have nothing more to add and will view further discussion as WP:Pointy and WP:Griefing. Feel free to chat with others elsewhere — I could have written 3 new articles on the time I spent on this discussion and so could you. About the scales - if you have a source with other information - please add it. OrenBochman (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These chord changes are contradicted in other sources. For example: http://www.onlinesheetmusic.com/naima-p403843.aspx -- removing them seems justifiable since there is no clear primary authoritative source. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 07:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at WT:JAZZ#Including changes and scale associations in song articles. Gyrofrog (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you type in "Naima", you are directed to this page, which is about a song. That's not right because the relevant topic should be "Naima" as a given name.--2.245.154.6 (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Some better rationale than your declaration of what "should be" is needed. Jeh (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]