Talk:Steve Albini

pro poker player

Shouldn't his career as a pro poker player be mentioned? See for example https://www.wsop.com/players/profile/?playerid=97925 2601:14D:8A00:9E10:2DAE:5BA7:41C1:FBCD (talk) 05:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Wasn't a "pro poker player" but made some significant money at it. Definitely worth a mention as more than a trivial hobby. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Lead is far too big

The lead (or "lede" as some insist on calling it) is far to big. Per MOS:LEAD, it should be a brief summary of the subject matter that follows. Most of it should be either moved to an appropriate section or omitted from the lead altogether. Consider that many people read only the lead of an article. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The lead needs an overhaul imo, but I'm planning to get to it last after sorting through the rest of the article, which also needs an overhaul. Popcornfud (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Much as I agree that it's in a transitional state for reading, so is the rest of the article. None of us have really figured out the highlights yet so we're gonna have to wait. The lede is usually the last thing I focus on after editing because it relies on the body, which is unfinished. Carlinal (talk) 01:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Yep, plus one to that. Popcornfud (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

As the person who expanded the lead from stupid shit to a broad, but perhaps "rudimentary reading level for snobs" overview the day after his death, my advice for the "skilled editors" taking this on is to approach it in summary style...early life, the 3 bands and production....treat each section as if were a lead. But ffs get on with it rather than bitching about it. There are vast sources. Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

PS Max, I disagree with your premis that if the article body is weak then the lead should be corrispondingly short...if thats all people read, then should the lead not be the main focus. Ceoil (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah so I finished revising the lede. Size seems good enough as is, considering such an accomplished punk rocker. Anything else? Carlinal (talk) 00:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Emphasis on albums at expense of EPs and singles

It is (or was in the pre-internet days) very common for indy bands to release several EP's and singles. Arguably singles and EPs rather than albums are the mainstay of the punk/hardcore/indy scene. For example while it is true in the literal sense that Big Black released only 2 albums, their EPs, singles and appearances on compilations make up a significant part of their work. When describing or summarizing an indy band's output, EPs, singles and possibly compiliation appearances should be included. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

That's fine for articles on the band's themselves, but per summary style let's establish the context first before we go down the listy route. IMO whats most lacking here is describing Shellac's sound and why it became so influential on post-hardcore. The big danger is that editors pad it out with add a bunch of quoted accolades; which is sooo typical of wiki.Ceoil (talk) 05:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The point is that mentioning only albums and omitting mention of their other recordings gives a distorted view of the extent of their output. Big Black's four EPs in particular are significant releases. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

SOFIXIT. But it would be better if you put Big Black in the context of Albini's career first.[1] Drum machine, etc. It puzzels me why you needed to open a section on talk to complain. Ceoil (talk) 05:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Um, it's called discussing potential improvements to the article. I think that's what talk pages are for? I'm a bit reluctant to jump in when we've already got 3 or 4 editors currently making extensive changes to the article. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Your wasting my time. Ceoil (talk) 07:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

What's with the WP:BATTLEGROUND? It is totally normal practice to raise content issues on a talk page. Stop making it personal. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Max, it looks like I was the asshole here; the article is very underdeveloped compared to his output both as an artist and engineer, and didn't want the lead to lose focus, but shouldn't have been so closed and cutting. Open to revisiting. Ceoil (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Transgressive character

Does this section need to exist? Much of it deals with his journalistic exploits which belong in the section dedicated to his music journalism, and the whole third and forth paragraphs disregard neutrality altogether in both the content and volume of material defending his character. Leave those posthumous debates to his fans and the media. 2600:8801:7116:4400:59F3:AC:E3A8:7135 (talk) 07:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I argue it does, because Albini the offender is far removed from Albini the music critic and analyst. His provocativeness in particular does not solely deal with journalism, but in his acts as a musician, particularly with his lyricism and promotional material in the 1980s, along with his harsh, almost elitist punk attitude in treating fellow musicians such as those in Chicago. As for the latter half of the section...I'm not sure what you mean by disregarding neutrality, because the entire section was built mostly out of his interviews with MEL and The Guardian, and those are the most informative reliable sources about his past character that I can think of. Oh yeah, and Albini died after those sources were published.

As a sidenote, Ceoil once removed the entire fourth paragraph since the section's a little too large, but I reverted it because a trim would be more preferable. I do not know when I will enact that trimming, however. Carlinal (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that the "Transgressive character" section is unduly long (I mean, it significantly exceeds the section on his performing career!) and could use some significant trimming. Also agreeing that the section does need to be in the article, if in a trimmed version. It constituted a significant part of his public persona, and was surely talked about along with his performing and producing career. Some of it could maybe be moved to other sections where items are specifically germane, but the "transgressive character" was relevant to much of his work in various fields/endeavors. CAVincent| (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree with both Carlinal and CAVincent. The section needs to be cut down drastically, as atm its giving bothsiderism to a confusing degree. We just need to agree here on what is in or to give a succinct overview that does wander too much. He was fairly consistent in his views of the music industry over the years, just softened in his articulation of them from c 2005 onwards. But lets focus on the views rather than journalists comments on the harshness of articulation. Ceoil (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd cut the reactions to the language, give a para or two summarising the "The Problem with Music", and leave it at that. IOW agree with OP. Ceoil (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)