Talk:Get Happy!! (Elvis Costello album)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Re: Dramatic[edit]

Can anyone verify that this album is a "dramatic break in tone" from previous albums? I mean, I think it is, but can we prove it? Nervousbreakdance 04:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no proof only opinion, however, check out the Rolling Stone review for an accepted opinion. Quote and cite in /* Reception */ to support the conclusion in the lead. -- J. Wong (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Love For Tender (Incomplete Demo) - Rykodisc and Demon?[edit]

I assume it's on both as Ryko did the work. I will check my Rykodisc release. --Fantailfan 16:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely on the Rykodisc release -- I have it and I can verify. howcheng {chat} 17:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Love for Tender [Demo, Ends Abruptly, Accidentally Left on Master] (Costello)" in my database. Kind of like "Her Majesty" (The Beatles) but not as annoying. I'll update the entry.Fantailfan 19:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have finally seen used versions of the Demon "My Aim Is True" and "Get Happy!!" at my local Newbury Comics. No difference (perhaps) except that there is no green Ryko jewel case.
I have always assumed Ryko did the remastering and Demon just GBR-labeled them. Is this correct? Fantailfan 19:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stone Review (by Tom Carson) Truncated[edit]

The Tom Carson review of the album posted on the rollingstone.com website is truncated (in error) from the original. If you want the full text, see the archive version of its original url cited in the reference.

-- J. Wong (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Length, not "songs"[edit]

I should remove it, but I won't (yet). But the number of songs has nothing to do with the cutting of an LP record. The length of the recording does. And even with 20 songs, this album was only 48 minutes long, well under the point where one would get into danger (as it were) territory as far as cutting is concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.104.195.40 (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The liner notes say, "Special care had to be taken with the cutting and pressing process, but now thanks to the wonders of technology we are able to present the new, improved, "Get Happy" containing, count them, THIRTY TRACKS!!!" Not even sure if that's supposed to refer to the vinyl pressing or the CD reissue.Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's entirely possible that statement was made tongue-in-cheek. —howcheng {chat} 15:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was. Does the changing of the 20 to 30 (for the CD) not sort of give that away? And I'll say it again - the tracks have nothing to do with it. The timing does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.104.195.40 (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Get Happy!! (Elvis Costello album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Get Happy!! (Elvis Costello album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 20:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

I'm not resisting the Temptation for the Opportunity to take Possession of the review. Don't want to be Beaten to the Punch. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • Appropriate for the article. FUR for the album cover is OK. Others are CC or PD. Captions and positioning are fine. Alt text could be added for the infobox image.
  • Done

Copyvio check

  • Reviewed all matches over 10% found on Earwig's Copyvio Dectector. No concerns.

Background

  • "racist-filled exchange" - doesn't quite read correctly.
  • "a drunken exchange with Stephen Stills, where he insulted various American musical artists, including James Brown and Ray Charles, using racial slurs." better? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the exchange was leaked to the public" - maybe "details of the exchange were ..."? (as it presumably was never leaked in its entirety)
  • Changed
  • "and received additional backlash" - I think add "he" between and & received
  • Done
  • "Although he was not dropped by Columbia Records, he did not tour" - reword "was not dropped" to something like "remained on the roster of"
  • Eh don't like roster. Changed to 'remained with' – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tracked demos" doesn't look like the right phrase, but it might be.
  • Changed to taped
  • " yielding versions of " - maybe add after the list that versions of these appeared on Get Happy!!
  • I clarify that this demo of "New Amsterdam" is what appears on the final album in recording so there's no point to do it here – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "author Graeme Thomson" - optionally, could change to "his biographer Graeme Thomson"
  • Done

Recording

  • Could use WP:CITEBUNDLE to make "[1][2][4][9]" look neater. (If it works with sfn).
  • Grouped
  • Seems fine.

Music and lyrics

  • " into public ones ... and personal ones" might benefit from a bit of explanation about what this distinction is.
  • How's that look? Hope it's not derivative – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a misquote of a song" - probably add "deliberate" before "misquote"; I think it would be better to show "Love Me Tender" rather than "the song" in the text.
  • Done
  • "immediately addresses the soul influence" maybe "immediately demonstrates the soul influence"?
  • Done
  • " its opening line also quotes a song by them" - which song?
  • Clarified, it's a specific song title
  • "contain wordplay that referenced" - "contain wordplay that references", I think
  • Done
  • "the music mimic the disintegration of his mind" - "the music mimics the disintegration of the narrator's mind", I think
  • Yep done
  • "heavy musical comparisons" could be rephrased
  • I originally had his entire quote which names the entire band but I thought I'd simplify. Fixed

Packaging and artwork

  • "the effect was abstained from other editions" - rephrase e.g. "the effect was omittedfrom other editions"
  • Done
  • 'Analysing the inner sleeve, Hinton states "humankind is reduced to four diagrams, colour coded."' - hmmm. Too bad he has no more to say about this. For me it might be better to omit this rather than leave it without further description.
  • Agreed, done

Release and promotion

  • "Costello's newfound appreciation" - earlier it's said that it was more of a rediscoved appreciation (of soul tunes) rather than a newfound one.
  • Changed to renewed
  • Costello's discography is huge, with all the different releases, and I wouldn't suggest trying to list all international and variant singles, but I do wonder if it's worth mentioning that "New Amsterdam" was also issued as a picture disc? (I've not checked to see if this is mentioned in sources; perhaps it isn't. Probably my own bias of wanting it for a few years before finally buying one.)
  • I've personally never bothered with those and none of the bios mention them. Not even Geoff Parky. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

  • "received generally positive reviews from music critics on release, albeit not as high as its three predecessors" - phrasing doesn't quite work
  • What about "While not receiving the acclaim of its three predecessors,"? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "her mixed review" - should be "his mixed review" (based on [1])

Legacy

  • "being the first step away from the angry persona that had embodied up to that point" - looks like there's a missing word, or a tweak needed.
  • Corrected
  • "would inhabit this new form of thinking" - not sure about this phrase? Is it like "reflect this new form of thinking"?
  • Yep, changed the word

Reissues

  • Looks OK.

Track listing

  • No citation(s)?

Personnel

  • Looks OK.

Charts

  • Looks OK.

Sources

  • What makes chartheaven.9.forumer.com a reliable source? It really doesn't look like one to me.
  • I'm somewhat on the fence about whether the audiophilereview.com source is a reliable source. What makes it suitable?
  • I agree, even said that in my edit when I added it. Unfortunately it's literally the only thing I found that mentioned the 2015 re-release that looked reliable. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks

  • Thomson
  • The retirement did not last long, as the band were back on the road throughout Europe in mid-April, although a car accident resulted in Nieve being temporarily replaced by the Rumour's guitarist Martin Belmont. Nieve's absence led to poor shows, while the setlists were amended and featured almost no tracks from Get Happy!!, save for recent single "High Fidelity" -supported by pages 143-144, 157-158. No issues.
  • However, it sold less copies than its predecessor Armed Forces and was thus viewed as a commercial disappointment. Béchirian recalled: "Jake [Riviera] actually laughed about having a Get Happy!! house in his garden made with all the unsold records." -supported by pages 157-158. No issues.
  • [10] (Galluci) In 2015, Gallucci wrote that the album contains some of the artist's best songs from the period. He continued that despite being dismissed as a novelty during discussions of Costello's works from the 1980s, Get Happy!! "may be his most jubilant LP ever", with all 20 tracks packing "more muscle, hooks, heart and, yes, soul than many of his more acclaimed records that followed." - OK, "best songs from the period" is also a direct quote, but common enough a phrase that I dn't think identifying it as suh is strictly necessary. (Not sure this really says much when the preiod is not defined; other than a few notable Dylan omissions, it's pretty normal for artists to include their best songs on their albums, I imagine.)
  • Gouldstone
  • the former is addressed to a woman, seemingly putting her down and casually references violence towards her. The latter, while not as brutal, describes an unsatisfactory affair taking place in a motel room-supported by pages 64, no issues.
  • The final track, "Riot Act", reflects on a past relationship with "abject desolation" rather than disdain -supported by pages 65-66, no issues.
  • [20] Hilburn Commenting on the number of tracks, he argued that "by including 20 tunes in the LP, [Costello] demonstrated his disregard for critics and businessmen". Deeming Get Happy!! "a vibrant work by someone who both understands rock 'n' roll's history and aggressively seeks to shape its future", Hilburn felt it was not as "powerfully framed" as Armed Forces, but "still bristle[d] with the independence that has characterized the British rocker's brief but provocative career. - no issues.
  • [45] Fitzpatrick Squeeze guitarist Chris Difford named the album as an inspiration in 2019, stating, "Get Happy!! was a big album for me. I just loved the lyrics. I loved the performances on that record. It's brilliant." Costello would produce Squeeze's 1981 album East Side Story. - "inspiration in 2019" could be reworded to avoid suggestion that it was an active influence in 2018, given that the quote is "was a big album", not "is a big album"

Infobox and Lead

  • What't the support for "48:08"?
  • Since when does that need a source? AllMusic has 48:09... – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wondered why the Elvis Costello wiki, which whilst not a reliable souce, isn't a bad place for a sense-check had 48:21 for the original release and slightly different timings for the 1994 release tracks to the original. 48:08 is OK per WP:INFOBOXREF as the track lengths are no cited, and "the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere or if the information is obvious". BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on 15 February 1980 through F-Beat Records in the United Kingdom and Columbia Records in the United States." - The Los Angeles Times, 12 Feb 1980, p.77 says the album was due for release "the week of 25 Feb", and review publication dates seem to be consistent with a late Feb release date, so, unless there's a source confirming this as the US release date, reword. (I think what's in the body is OK)
  • I actually found a similar statement in my research for Trust, oddly. I'll make the adjustment. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments above, Zmbro. Nothing major. Thanks for your work on the article. I've listened to the album many, many times, but tried my best to review from a NPOV! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk)

  • Following the amendments, I'm satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria, so am passing it. Thanks! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Get_Happy!!_(Elvis_Costello_album)&oldid=1207407208"