Talk:Christine McVie (album)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fair use rationale for Image:Cdcover mcview.jpg

Image:Cdcover mcview.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Laserdisc, documentary and questions

"The Smile I Live For" and documentary questions

Clapton's work on the album

Release date

Stephen Bruton on the backing band

Track listing writers column

Christine McVie newspaper articles

GA review

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.


This review is transcluded from Talk:Christine McVie (album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Dobbyelf62 (talk · contribs) 22:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: LastJabberwocky (talk · contribs) 16:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I performed relatively minor edits, which we can discuss here if needed. I reordered paragraphs chronologically separating them into "thinking about the album" section; writing; recording/ producing plans; choosing backing band. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 16:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for not responding. The day you sent your reply, my GA nomination was picked up, and I got overwhelmed :). Slowly but surely I will compete this review. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 06:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
I have no further suggestions, thank for your and thank you for bearing with me! Closing my review —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 08:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

All green checkY

All images are relevant, well categorized, and have nice captions. checkY

Background

McVie informed him that her solo album was a contractual obligation and asked for his help in co-writing the material and assembling a backing band. Is "contractual obligation" relevant to her collaboration with Sharp? Pending

Thanks for reviewing this article. The contractual obligation is partially related to Sharp in the sense that McVie was looking for collaborators to help with her solo album, which prompted her to contact Sharp to generate some material. However, in the June 1984 High Fidelityarticle, she said that she had "no particular objective" when she began writing with sharp in the "late fall of '82." As such, it would be reasonable to reassess this. What would you advise in this situation? Is there anything necessarily wrong with having these two clauses in the same sentence. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
As I understand, there wasn't contractual as such (i.e. make an album for her label on a deadline). If so, I would remove the mention of the contractual obligation and merged this sentence with the previous one. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 06:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Well, the source for it being a contractual obligation is Todd himself, as he says in this interview (36:16): "She said, 'I have to make a solo record. It's a contractual thing. I don't really wanna make a solo record'..." Juand.1974 (talk) 06:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Do we have any instances of McVie calling this obligation from around the time the album was recorded and released? I would feel more confident retaining this information if we had her confirmation. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
As far I can remember I don't think we do. The only one who made that claim was Sharp. The other sources never state if it was a contractual obligation or not, it's never mentioned. Unless we find another important source which corroborates what Sharp said, it might be a good idea to remove that statement Juand.1974 (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
I still we should remove "contractual obligation" bit of information; it is indeed sourced, but I think we lack details to justify its inclusion. What are nature of this contractual obligation? Why McVie needed to highlight this to Sharp? Etc. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 06:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

McVie had expressed interest in recording some of Sharp's demos Is it relevant? The demos and their recording don't seem to be connected to our page, and she only expressed interest in recording.  Done

Given that McVie did indeed re-record Sharp's demo "I'm the One", I believe that this section does have some relevance. You can find more information on the composition of "I'm the One" in the composition section, which is further down in the article. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Fair enough! I'll figure this out when I'll get further down the article. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 06:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
I now read through the article and realise that the demoes are for her album not for an unrelated Sharp's project. I'll add at the end: "that would be included on her self-titled release." —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 06:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Despite previously producing one of Robbie Patton's albums, McVie still felt unprepared to take on production duties herself and hired producer Russ Titelman. I cannot access the link (newspaper.com is regionally blocked for me), can you drop me a quote that verifies this sentence? I want to double check it just in case.  Done

Here's the quote from the Los Angeles Times: "Considering that McVie has producing experience - working with English singer Robbie Patton - it's surprising that she didn't produce her album. Instead, she hired Russ Titelman. 'It was too much responsibility for me to do the producing,' she explained.'I didn't trust my skills to that degree. I felt I needed some to lean on.'"
There are several instances of Newspapers.com being invoked in this article, so let me know if you have any other issues. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
This sentence sounds slightly presumptuous by assuming that McVie chose to hire a producer because she felt unprepared to produce herself. I suggest to remove the "despite previously part" and "still unprepared" part, and merge the remaining with the next sentence. Something like this: McVie decided to hire Russ Titelman to produce the record, explaining that she "really [liked] him as a person" and trusted "his decision-making process".LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 19:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

McVie did not expect the recording sessions to begin until June 1983, as Titelman was busy working on Paul Simon's Hearts and Bones. She had no interest in finding a different producer, so she waited until he was available. These two sentences feel a touch repetitive saying two times that McVie put the record on hold until Titelman was available.

I can partially see it that way, but both sentences provide unique information that express McVie's willingness to delay the album so that work could proceed with Titelman. The Record Mirror reference was from February 1983, which was several months before the recording sessions began with Titelman. The High Fidelity reference was published in June 1984, which was several months after the release of the album. McVie provided this information about the delay in recording: "Then I met with Russ Titelman. I knew I needed a producer I could trust and who could get the best performance out of me, the best feeling. We got on really well, but he was committed to "Hearts and Bones" with Paul Simon. I didn't want another producer, so I waited."
Based on this information, do you have any suggestions on how to make this less repetitive? Given that @Juand.1974: contributed considerably to this article, I'm going to notify them about the process so that they can provide some further feedback. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Hey! I agree with Dobby about the importance of both phrases, which help explain why McVie the timing of the recording and why McVie did not look for another producer. However, we could perhaps do without the second one. I dont think its too important.
On another note, bit ahead of time, I do think we should remove the "and on 3 February 1984 in the United Kingdom[1]" part from Release and promotion, since the source does not allow us to make that claim. Page 21 (issue link) gives a list of albums released between January 30th and February 3rd, but does not specify a date for each release.
I have been quite busy, but I'll be sure to keep an eye out and pitch in whenever I can :) Juand.1974 (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
My suggestion would be something like this: Although, at the time, Titelman was busy working on Paul Simon's Hearts and Bones, she waited until he was available and postponed her recording sessions until June 1983, because she had no interest in finding a different producer.LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 19:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
I just saw this suggestion, which must have slipped through the cracks on my watchlist. While I appreciate the suggestion, the two sentences that are included reflect the source material included in the accompanying reference moreso than the proposed replacement. The Record Mirror reference was published in February 1983, with the invoked passage reading as follows: "I've got to wait until June to go into the studio because my producer is working with Paul Simon at the moment." These two references acknowledge the first clause, which is that McVie wanted to wait until June. The second sentence provides new information in that McVie did not want to begin the recording process any earlier and was willing to wait until Titelman was available. The proposed replacement infers that the recording sessions began in June, which is not what the references are actually saying (she said that she planned on beginning the sessions in June). As such, I would prefer to retain this passage as is. I hope that you can find this agreeable. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Dobbyelf62, This was a kind of suggestion to see how do you feel about it, but I'm not insisting it's best. I think it's concise, clear enough for a GA article. Also, tell me if some of the edits implemented by me are controversial; we can discuss them.LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 10:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I have monitoring your edits and have found most of them to be agreeable. The article has been further refined and polished thanks to your help. I will continue to provide feedback, answer questions, and make further adjustments to the article as I see fit. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Recording

Mountain Recording Studio was a multi-purpose building that contained, among other things, a casino and a coffee shop. As we have a page for the Mountain Studios, this sentence doesn't seem necessary.  Done

Taken care of. I also trimmed some duplicative information and moved a portion of an existing sentence earlier in the section.Dobbyelf62 (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Release and promotion

Christine McVie was released on 27 January 1984 in the United States and on 3 February 1984 in the United Kingdom[44] on LP, CD and cassette formats. Finally got to the "release" section. I second Juand's concern—the sources doesn't include the UK release date. I searched Google Books, Google News, and EBSCO database, and couldn't find a reference to confirm the date. There is the February edition of the Radio History says the album "aired nationally Saturday (1-28) when Westwood One tied in with MTV for a satellite simulcast". This fact can be mentioned in addition to the physical release. However, the source doesn't mention "3 February 1984" release. checkYLastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 13:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

We extensively discussed the release date for the album in the article's talk page. The 3 February 1984 release date in the UK is based on the general practice (albeit not a universal one) for labels to release music on Fridays, which changed to Mondays the following year. There should be a Music Week reference on World Radio History that lists the release date range from 30 January to 3 February. Seeing that the late January release in the US is more definitive, should we say that the UK release occurred a few days later rather than explicitly listing the 3 February release date? Here is the link in question. The information can be found on the left side of page 21.
I think you right with the date; and it cannot be after 11 February when it entered UK charts. BUT the ref that you linked doesn't seem to mention UK release. Page 21 shows "(McVIE, Christine CHRISTINE McVIE Warner Brothers K925959-1IK925059 4 G40 (Wl)". —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 17:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
I double checked all the platforms I use to find sources and they don't have anything related to UK release of McVie's album. Even discogs don't mention UK release; they have Europe release, which presumably includes UK. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr)
At the bottom of page 21 in a red rectangular box, it says "Album Releases Mon 30 Jan-Fri, 3 Feb 1984". I hope that this helps. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Dobbyelf62, Now I see! Albums in US release on Thursday (30 January in our case) and on Mondays in UK (3 February). However, the page still doesn't mention UK in relation to the 3 Feb, so I think we should add a note explaining this tradition of Thursday-Monday releases.LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 05:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Music Week is published in the UK and relates to music news within that country. You'll find that the publication includes airplay information within the UK, chart performances within the UK, and releases within the UK. I just noticed that the Music Week reference was doing the heavy lifting for the release date even though it only provides information on the UK release. As such, I have moved a few references around to verify the release dates. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 12:41, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Ok, you're right :) Now, knowing that Music Weekly is a UK publication it's all works. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 17:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Reception

We're almost at the finish line! In regards to the reception, I was thinking we could structure it in a way where every paragraph focuses on one theme ("comparisons to Fleetwood Mac", "McVie vocals, expressiveness/blandness", etc). But what I have drafted, in best case scenario, is only marginally better, so I don't feel it's worth the effort. Writing this give you a meal for thoughts. No obligation to do something with this idea. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 06:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

As of now, the Reception section is organized in chronological order, which I find to be a reasonable method. It starts with February reviews, works though some later reviews in February, and then includes a few contemporary reviews as well. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 12:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
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.
  1. "New Albums". Music Week. 28 January 1984. p. 21.

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI