Talk:Naima

Jazz Mid‑importance

	Jazz portal 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 articles
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 articles

Untitled

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]

Lead Sheet

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]

RfC at WT:JAZZ

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]

Naima

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]