Talk:Laborintus II (album)

Laborintus II (album) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones Date Process Result January 8, 2013 Good article nominee Listed February 12, 2013 Peer review Reviewed April 13, 2014 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 30, 2020 Featured article candidate Not promoted November 29, 2021 Featured article candidate Promoted A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 23, 2012. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Laborintus II, a collaboration between Mike Patton and Ictus Ensemble, is only the third recording of the titular piece since its composition in 1965? Current status: Featured article

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

Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by Tenryuu, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 17 October 2021.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles Previous copyedits: /  This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist on March 12, 2020. Albums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles Classical music 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

I have a problem with this article. Laborintus II is not an album produced by whoever and whatever singers and who-cares-who cellist. It's a composition by Luciano Berio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.236.133.48 (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is an extremely weird, backwards article. If anything, the main article should be referring to the composition with the different recordings as subsections...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.51.190 (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No article on the composition exists as of yet, so there is no need for disambiguation at this point. If and when that situation changes, articles can be retitled, but it's always preferable to keep the cleanest title necessary at a given time. This is currently the only article on a subject with the name Laborintus II, so there's no need to append "(album)" or anything to it as yet. GRAPPLE X 16:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grapple X, here are some notes on the reception section; I hope these are useful. This is how I go about doing a reception section; I thought it would be easier to show than tell. The steps are basically to harvest what looks worth including from the reviews; then identify themes or commonalities that could be used for organization; then draft paragraphs on that basis. WP:RECEPTION has a more detailed example.

I'm not suggesting that you should use the paragraphs at the end of this section, or anything based on them; I'm just using this to show the difference in approach. I think some form of organization is necessary to avoid reception sections just being lists of opinions.

Some more comments at the bottom.

Here are some phrases from the reviews that look to me worth quoting and/or highlighting.

AVClub

• Challenging, uncompromising, bordering on inaccessible
• Some truly eerie and gripping passages...haunting arrangements
• Fractured blasts of instrumental noise etc.
• Hidden payoffs after a few listens
• Boundless, difficult creativity

SputnikMusic

• Formless collection of unconventional sounds
• Does not exist within the confines of most recognizable music
• Cacophony can at times be somber, beautiful, and ominous, but always affecting

AllMusic

• Comments on the nature of the vocals -- Patton, female vocalists, choir
• Ictus Ensemble shines: it takes on this mad music with bracing freshness and mischievous glee...truly stunning
• ...percussion and electronics in this work are also important. In their respective ways, they help erect musical and textural architectures, then disassemble them quickly; they create space as well as dynamic
• a very nearly dazzling endeavor that rewards patience mightily

PopMatters

• It’s essentially a mad piece of musical theatre
• immensely challenging (and exhausting and, well, fun) thing to listen to. In fact, it could well be the most unsettling thing you listen to all year
• It’s a weird musical argument that constantly emphasises its own unpredictability, its own weird instability. One instrument is always interrupting another
• Patton still reels off some seriously creeptacular incantations
• Then again, the whole thing is totally nuts, and it really is a lot to take in
• Laborintus II engages our brains as well as our ears, forcing us into asking some pretty big questions on a political front as well as on an aesthetic front. It tries to get us to completely rethink the categories we use to talk about music, and about using that music as a critique of social domination

ConsequenceOfSound

• a very abstract work that runs the gauntlet from quiet, jazzy atmospherics to brazen, unsettling primal noise
• those that stick with it and let it soak will be rewarded
• The jazzy breaks and sonic freak-outs of the 15-minute centerpiece “Part Two” are especially satisfying
• It may be unlike anything else you’ve ever heard

Spin

• Luciano Berio’s 1965 orchestra/tape collision crisper, creepier, narrated by a rock star prone to screaming.

Q (via Metacritic)

• an album that's--unusually--both disorienting and immensely tedious.

Magnet (via Metacritic)

• Admittedly, it's hard not to respect Patton's creative adventurousness, but sweet Jesus, the gulf between admiration and enjoyment of one of his projects has never been so wide.

Wire

• It should still be appreciated for its sonic density, its sustained mood of dread and the universality of its themes, at least one of which--the condemnation of usurers--is painfully relevant today.

At a first look, I'd group the opinions thematically like this:

• Weird, unusual, unconventional -- Sputnik, PopMatters, CoS
• Creative, fresh, unlike anything you've heard , mad -- Magnet, CoS, AVClub, AllMusic, PopMatters

• Challenging, difficult -- AVC, PopMatters
• Rewards effort and patience -- AllMusic, CoS

• Beautiful, affecting, gripping -- AVC, Sputnik
• Specific comments re instrumentalists and vocals -- AllMusic (Ictus), PopMatters (Patton)

• Negative comments - Q, Magnet

On that basis here's a rough draft of a couple of paragraphs about the reception.

SputnikMusic considered the work as a "formless collection of unconventional sounds" and suggested that Patton's recording "does not exist within the confines of most recognizable music". Similar descriptions from other reviewers included "unlike anything you've ever heard", and "a weird musical argument that constantly emphasises its own unpredictability". The difficulty of the piece for listeners drew comments -- it was described as "immensely challenging (and exhausting...)" -- but several reviewers considered that the piece rewarded repeated listening. For the AV Club there were "hidden payoffs after a few listens", and others commented that it "rewards patience mightily" and "those that stick with it and let it soak will be rewarded".

The Ictus Ensemble was picked out for particular praise in the AllMusic review, which described their "bracing freshness and mischievous glee" as "truly stunning". Others mentioned Patton's "seriously creeptacular incantations", and some "truly eerie and gripping passages": the SputnikMusic review described the overall effect as "at times somber, beautiful, and ominous, but always affecting", and the ConsequenceOfSound review picked out Part Two as "especially satisfying". Not all the reviews were positive: Q described the work as "an album that's -- unusually -- both disorienting and immensely tedious", and for the Magnet review, it was "hard not to respect Patton's creative adventurousness, but sweet Jesus, the gulf between admiration and enjoyment of one of his projects has never been so wide".

A couple of final comments. I would leave the Metacritic comments to the table at the side; a reader can see it in the table and there's no interest in repeating it. I've left out citations for readability but obviously they have to be re-added. I don't think inline attributions to the journals themselves are needed in this format; it's in the citation if a reader is interested in the source, but here I'm trying to tell a story about what the reviews say, without being interrupted by uninteresting details about who said it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'm not a tremendous fan of leaving information in a table which isn't in some way reflected in prose; as such I would still want to work the Metacritc summation in there somewhere. I would also have liked to retain the Miles Davis comparison which I think carries weight. But if you feel it would be best to start from the ground up again like this I can take some time over the weekend and put it together. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 14:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't exclude the Miles Davis comparison because I felt it was inappropriate -- I am not as familiar as you are with the material and didn't know what was best to include. The paras above are just to explain what I'm trying to get at. And yes, include Metacritic if you like; that's a personal preference on my part. The only thing I'm really asking for is that the reception section be constructed so that the quotes illustrate a narrative. If you feel any of what is done is usable, that's fine. I don't think you necessarily have to start from the ground up either -- any way you get there works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie I've made another attempt at trying to lash this into a more narrative thread while still retaining some attribution directly; I've split it along the line of "acquired taste" versus "needlessly impenetrable" and finished with some notes on individual performances. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 15:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The album received mixed reviews from critics. Review aggregation website Metacritic awarded it an average score of 58 out of 100, based on eight reviews; this indicates "mixed or average reviews" by their metric.^[1] Reviews have largely considered the album to be challenging and difficult, with some believing it to be an acquired taste on repeated listens and others deeming it impenetrable. Among proponents of the former viewpoint are The A.V. Club, who considered the recording to be "challenging, uncompromising, and bordering on inaccessible", but credited it with "hidden payoffs" to reward repeated hearings, including "haunting" and "wraithlike" arrangements.^[2] Sputnik Music echoed this view, describing the album as "fascinating if not unwieldy", and the composition itself as "somber, beautiful, and ominous, but always affecting"; they felt that Laborintus II was perhaps Patton's most ambitious album to date, but noted that the musician has previously produced similarly avant-garde records in the past.^[3] AllMusic—while highlighting that Laborintus II was difficult to grasp at first, by virtue of being a recording of theatrical music—described the recording as "a very nearly dazzling endeavor that rewards patience mightily",^[4] while Consequence of Sound's called it "unlike anything else you’ve ever heard".^[5] This review noted that the music might need more than one hearing to appreciate it, adding that it "runs the gauntlet from quiet, jazzy atmospherics to brazen, unsettling primal noise".^[5]

A review for PopMatters stressed the "challenging" and "exhausting" nature of Berio's composition, adding that the music "constantly emphasises its own unpredictability"; however, it did draw comparison to the 1970 Miles Davis free jazz album Bitches Brew.^[6] Spin magazine's review described it as being "narrated by a rock star prone to screaming",^[7] while a reviewer for Q magazine called it "both disorienting and immensely tedious".^[8] The complex nature of the piece was summed up by Magnet magazine, who felt that it was "hard not to respect Patton's creative adventurousness, but sweet Jesus, the gulf between admiration and enjoyment of one of his projects has never been so wide".^[8]

The performance of Ictus Ensemble was singled out for praise by AllMusic, writing of their "bracing freshness and mischievous glee".^[4] Likewise Patton's voice was frequently picked out by critics, variously described as "grim, medieval, almost priestly",^[6] "alternately authoritative and declarative, reflective, romantic, priestly, and nearly apocalyptic",^[4] and "a unique tool that he can shape into whatever he needs it to be".^[5]

Sorry about the delay replying; I've now supported at the FAC -- the revised reception version looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And can I suggest you paste in the paragraph from your subpage, rather than transclude it? Otherwise if you ever re-use that sandbox this page won't reflect the discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. I've changed the transclusion to a subst. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 11:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Grapple X. After completing my preliminary copyedit I always ask questions about the article to ensure that my edit reflects the intended meaning and is clear in doing so. Please reply to each point by indenting below each one like you would a conversation; items will be struck out once they have been answered. Please ping me with {{U}}, {{ping}}, or {{re}} as I have a lot of items on my watchlist. My copyediting process can be found here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Of the form, Berio wrote [...] Does "form" correlate to the "main structure" mentioned earlier in the paragraph? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, both mentions are referring to Berio's description of his composition. I found that source tricky to parse without paraphrasing it too closely. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Done. I moved the sentence so that it describes the structure. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• They are accompanied by three female vocalists whose voices range from soprano singing to "cooing" and "howling". Wikilink removed. It might sound better as a standard list (i.e., not using "from" and "to") without using the word voices. Is what is written non-exhaustive? Do they do more than just sing soprano, coo, and howl in the choral parts? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't say it's exhaustive, there are some varied vocal sounds going on, but any other descriptions of their voices would be OR from me; what's there represents just what I've taken from the sources. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Tentatively done. I got rid of what the vocalists are doing and just said they accompany Patton according to this source. How does it look?
   Done. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to your responses. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time looking at this. I've responded above and am happy to offer anything else you're curious about. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Grapple X: I think that's everything on my end. Good luck with the nomination! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts with this one, much appreciated. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]