Talk:Neo soul

Neo soul has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: October 2, 2014. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Neo soul article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Music/Music genres task force

Neo soul is within the scope of the Music genres task force of the Music project, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardize music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the task force guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good article status.Music/Music genres task forceWikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forceTemplate:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forcemusic genre articles

R&B and Soul Music High‑importance

	R&B and Soul Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles 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.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hip hop Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip hopHip hop articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hip hop-soul[edit]

We need to create a Hip Hop-Soul talk page. On the Hip Hop-Soul article the hiephen is in the wrong place_wus up wit dat? My major question is if Neo Soul is 70s Soul elements mixed with Alternative Hip Hop elements, and Hip Hop-Soul is 90s urban contemporary, then what name should be given to the un-named sounds of today's scene? Both Tweet and Jahiem use 1970s elements in their songs. What is you talkin' about bro? ~Jack D. 11:03UTC 8/2/05

Does the music world really need Another Hip Hop discussion page? ( sigh...) Raresoul (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nmae for the "unnamed sounds" is R&B. The hyphen is in the correct place ("hip-hop soul" is the correct spelling, you can't hyphenate a compound word with another compound word). And Jahiem should not be on this list; in reguards to her first album (the album tracks, not the singles), Tweet can remain but, after hearing her second album, I'm thinking that she might have crossed over to pure R&B. --FuriousFreddy 14:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've only really heard it called neo-soul, but that might just be me... --STLEric 22:58, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Me too. Is it called "nu soul" outside of the United States? Over here, it's never been called anything but "neo soul". --b. Touch 09:14, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup[edit]

This article seems preoccupied with discussing how poorly neo-soul records have performed in mainstream pop venues. It needs to be re-written, as mainstream chart success is hardly ever a goal of most of these artists anyways, who find substantial success on the R&B charts. --FuriousFreddy 20:44, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Done. Also, I removed a few artists from the list who are not neo-soul aritsts (Tweet and Jahiem are plain R&B artists). Also, this page needs to be moved to neo soul. --FuriousFreddy 21:20, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can we please rename the heading "Lack of mainstream success"? As mentioned, mainstream success is simply not a goal of most neo-soul artists. It is also inaccurate; Maxwell's three albums have all gone platinum, as well as both of D'Angelo's and Anthony Hamilton's first album. In what sense is that unsuccessful?

Their original goals are never really to become famous, but if the record sounds good then it does, but most underground or even mainstream neo-soul artist DON'T go platinum. Like most things in life some are successful, others not. But neo-soul isn't defined by popularity, its defined by the sound so what does popularity have to do with the genre.--skiguy06880 20:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skiguy06880 (talk • contribs)

NeoSoul Music Genre[edit]

I have an aunt who is very into the church, an chooses to listen to none other than gospel. A christian friend of ours told me that neosoul was more or less "bad." I would like to know if neosoul has anyhting to do with religion.

Personal belief...No, I believe many neo-soul singers have gospel roots but I personally don't believe that it has to do anything with religion. It mostly has to do with emotions and how a person feels (e.g. love)--skiguy06880 21:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Artist Category[edit]

Instead of the list of singers all being packed onto this page, there should be a "List of Neo-Soul Artists" category. FamousBobby 23:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you volunteering for the task, Famous B? Raresoul (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it a powerful demonic music here to take peoples souls and invite them to hell....the main targeted people by this music are peole who are born again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.21.61.116 (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loose Ends was left out of the origins piece. While Prince, Tone, Tony, Toni and others definitely made their contributions, Loose Ends was definitely the most notable and earliest contributor to the genre beginning in 1980. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.210.128 (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant Promotion[edit]

"Other more underground Neo Soul Artists such As Juliette Leon continue to work in the Genre of Neo Soul bringing independent labels into the forefront http://www.myspace.com/julietteleon"

I have removed this attempt at shamless self-promotion.

Dwele[edit]

What about Dwele? Darion Brockington? well at least Dwele belongs mentioned!!!

1999 grammy's[edit]

According to The Envelope (an L.A. Times website), Lauryn Hill was only nominated for two grammys and she did not win any.

Whatever that article is, it is definately wrong as she won 5 Grammy's, which can be considered a sweep. That article is actually for the 2000 Grammy's, despite the fact that it says 1999, you can see all of the awards match up to the 2000 Grammy's.

Name[edit]

Is the genre's name neo soul or neo-soul? Both the hyphenated version and the non-hyphenated version are used in the article. The title itself says neo soul. The article needs uniformity.--NPswimdude500 ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be neo-soul or neosoul as neo is a prefix here. Wikt:neo gives just one arcane and dated definition of neo as a noun, a newcomer-fan to science fiction. But who cares, eh, fans? Rothorpe (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hip-Hop Connection[edit]

Is this genre 100% linked with Hip-Hop/Rap? Not all Neo-Soul acts have hip-hop connections e.g. Jamiroquai. I got a CD Called 'Nu Soul Sessions' today, and I descovered that some of the artists share more of a likeness to 70's Funk-Soul or something along the lines of Stevie Wonder and Marvin Gaye. The general stereotype of the genre is defined with artists like Lauryn Hill and D'Angelo, that do use hip-hop elements in their songs. Have you heard of DJ Spinna? His neo-soul stuff has more in common with House music.

Going Mainstream[edit]

Someone must have been angry when they wrote the 3rd paragraph of this section, it's way to biased. In need of a rewrite. I didn't read the whole thing, just skimmed randomly so I don't know about the rest —Preceding unsigned comment added by SFboy09 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony! Toni! Tone!?!?!?[edit]

Where would anyone get the idea that Tony Toni Tone had any role in the development of this genre?! The music clearly began in Britain in the 1980s. Soul II Soul, Brand New Heavies, Omar, and (arguably) Sade were the artists who broke through from what appears to have been a mid-late 80s underground scene in London. It wasn't until 1995 that Raphael Saadiq produced D'Angelo; Tony x 3 was his mainstream pop-R&B group. How did this info come about, that they were neo-soul? Bricksoul (talk) 03:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Bricksoul.[reply]

The Tony's Always had a 70's element in their music with the use of real Instruments-Guitars, Real drums instead of a drum machine/samplers, the tools most New Jack swing groups of that period made use of in their production. In fact, if you have access to their music you can hear the proliferation of 70's era production & arrangements getting stronger on each Album/CD ..the paragraph only suggests that they were "Progenitors" of the genre, along with Sade & Omar Lye-Fook .Raresoul (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Winehouse[edit]

Amy Winehouse is one of the farthest things from neosoul. She sings about going to rehab and is quite belligerent when she does it. Neo soul has a much smoother sound than what Amy Winehouse has to offer. I think she should be removed from the article because she is not a neosoul singer. skiguy06880 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skiguy06880 (talk • contribs)

The article didn't say she was a Neo soul singer as much as it mentioned she uses 60's soul elements in her songs/sound.Raresoul (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soulquarians[edit]

Shouldn't the Soulquarians be mentioned? They contain many of the most influential neo soul artist in the industry and they are also instrumental in the genre of neo soul--skiguy06880 19:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't...that wasn't a real group, just a stage collab. Raresoul (talk) 00:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External Links Section[edit]

I've noted removal of some links, some I can see why they have been removed as they are blatent advertising. However I have re-instated the link to "Neo Soul Page" as it advertises nothing & is merely a resourse page on the "Neo soul" genre & subject.

If you intend removing this link again, or other links like it - please cite in detail your reasons why it is not legitimate in this wikipedia usage. IE expand, give examples of how it is advertising - as I can see no evidence of this.

Please respect wikipedia users legitimate input & not 'vandalise' this page.

Thank you.

FMN --Forgetmeknots (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The question of whether facebook links are appropriate in external links sections comes up quite often on Wikipedia, and the answer is response is almost always that they are inappropriate. The only way I can imagine a facebook link being appropriate is if it was the official link, and the only one that exists. This is because Facebook requires a user to log on to access it, their links are often transcient and the information contained within them shifts rapidly, and lastly because Facebook links usually do not give a reader an encyclopedic understanding of the subject in a way that cannot be done within the main text of our articles. See specifically WP:ELNO point 10, and generally points 1, 6, and 11. Them From Space 19:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I agree with forgetmeknotts view, however i also take themfromspace 's points also. Regarding the facebook link in question - having read the wikipedia guidlines - this link comforms with it - it does not require registration to view this page - it is viewable without logging into facebook. Regarding info shifting rapidly - the same could be said of wikipedia - we could draw up arguements to remove the whole "Neo soul" page if we followed that line of thought. I have altered the link so it comfortably meets those wiki regs & guidelines. I feel it's a valied link and source of info on Neo soul. As the genre's name implies it is "New" so info will change rapidly as it's still a new area in music history terms.

Thank you --Pepperpause (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Recently - Large parts of this pages info have been removed with no substantiation of the grounds sighted for their removal, as before - the vague reasons given could be applied to the whole page & therefore see the whole pages content be removed, please substantiate the grounds for removal before removing items - please see above for reasons why some items have been re-instated. To remove items because they seem obscure or "less known" can lead to a bias to major companies, record labels magazines etc. of which most of this Genre doesn't have much of a stake in. Ironically that would actually then be commercial use & promotion. The spam arguements have yet to proven. Further unsubstantiated removal may be viewed as vandalism of the page by some.

Thank you --Pepperpause (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reremoved the facebook link. To make it more clear: facebook links are almost never acceptable on Wikipedia, except perhaps for an instance where an article might be about the group itself. I can't imagine any of the thousands of facebook groups in existance being linked to from this article. Also, the material written on the book was done from an angle to promote the book, so I removed that as well. This article should be about the concept of neo soul itself, it shouldn't be used to promote any books about it. Them From Space 05:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have once again removed the link, as did another edit. If Pepperpause persists in adding it against consensus, they should be blocked and the link black-listed. If they feels that there is some special reason it should be exempt to our normal policies on external links, let's here it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I and other Wiki users are aware there is persistant vandalism to this particular "Neo soul" page. The 2 users above appear to think their opinion is a rule. Regarding the facebook link - neither Themfromspace or Cameron Scott have provided any evidence to how the mentioned facebook link breaks wikipedia rules. Merely sighting what rule has been broken is not evidence of how the rule has been broken. I have sighted my reasons as to why I think Themfromspace & Cameron Scott are commiting Vandalism to this Wiki "Neo soul" page. IE: your wikipedia rule break action is: "Vandalism" with reference to your repeated removal of practically any additions to this page. Your actions are disruptive & not in the interests in good faith & wikipedia community spirit. You both have been warned for these actions. Please cease your removals for unsubstantiated reasons & allow this page to grow & progress & others other than yourselves to contribute to it. With Ref. to "Concensus" equally there is consensus for the link to stay. Even if there was Concensus in favour of removal (which there isn't) - that does not disprove your actions to be Vandalism.

Thank you. --Pepperpause (talk) 04:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:ELNO, links to be avoided include:

1) Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.

2) Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints which such sites are presenting.

3) Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists.

4) Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies.)

What about our external links policy are you struggling to understand? Also what are you struggling to understand about consensus? The link has been removed by four (five?) different editors, you are the only person trying to add it back in. The consensus is against you, the EL policy is against you. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addition(s) by various IPs[edit]

A piece of information simply being true does not make it relevant for inclusion in an article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; relevance must be established by independent reliable sources to whichever article it will be included in. This addition is giving undue weight to information that none of the sources cited say why it's relevant here (a description in a music review saying that the album is categorized as "neo soul", and a Billboard news article verifying its first-week sales). This is irrelevant and strays from the focus of the article (Wikipedia:Relevance of content). The 20/20 Experience already covers this information, so there's no reason to fork this content into this article. If you're trying to tie the album's commercial performance to "neo soul", please find a source that makes that connection. Otherwise, you are still engaging in original research. Per WP:NOR, "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article". Dan56 (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Neo soul/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Retrohead (talk · contribs) 15:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before I review the prose, I want to ask if there's a style guide for music genres? I haven't noticed one at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force, but I'm asking in case I'm missing something.--Retrohead (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

Most of the references seem appropriate. What caught my eye was no. 42–the article by Trevor Nelson, which seems to be self-published.

Yes, but he's associated with bbc radio 1, whose listed he republished on his website. per WP:SPS, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" Dan56 (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 56 is dead link, and obviously from unreliable source (ConcertTour.org), even though the journalist is accredited with name.

Fixed. Dan56 (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other dead links: 10 and 21.

10 has a WebCite archive included in the citation, fixed 21. Dan56 (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is inconsistency with the "access date" field from the citation template. The majority of the references contain that parameter, but other ones, such as the Chicago Tribune or Billboard, don't.

Done, I've added retrieval dates manually. Dan56 (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What page from the McIver book is cited? Also, wasn't he a heavy metal writer?

The title of the book actually lol. I think he's written on other styles as well, and this book in particular is referred to in Larkin's Encylcopedia ([1]) Dan56 (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The title on ref 46 has "Original Soundtrack" written twice. While that is how it is displayed at Allmusic, I suggest losing the one in brackets.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Staff" or "columnist" aren't meant to be put in the "author" filed. That is for journalist names only.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article by Ben Ratliff is already cited in the references, so I suggest omitting it from 'Further reading'.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 'See also' section should feature other Wikipedia articles, not categories. If List of neo soul singers existed, then it might have been more appropriate than the category of the same name.

Removed. Dan56 (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Media

The duration of "Something to Hold on To" is 4:06, which means the maximum portion allowed to use is approximately 24 seconds. The fair use rationale would benefit from some formatting.

Reduced. Dan56 (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images are under free use. I should note that incorporating image size is not necessarily needed since pictures appear differently at various computers. Alt text could be useful for screen readers.

Rm. Dan56 (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Why is neo soul placed in quote marks? The opening sentence should contain the bolded name of the article, and the article's title is not in quotes.

Removed. Dan56 (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first citation could be omitted from the lead. I see that the origin of the term is explained in the 'Etymology' section, so the cite there is redundant. Same for the rest of the references in the lead.