Talk:Björk/Archive 3

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

Desperately in need of copy-editing

This article is desperately in need of a good copy edit, so I will come back and get started on it in the next few days. Some of it reads as though written by someone who was not an English-speaker, so a good deal of the work will just consist of untangling pretzel sentences and making it a more elegant read. I don't intend to deal with content, just the prose. I'm letting people know so the rewrite doesn't come as a shock. Any suggestions are welcome, either before or after.--TEHodson 07:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

An "octogenarian" jazz group?

Under "The Sugarcubes", is there a reason why Trio Guðmundar Ingólfssonar is described as "an octogenarian jazz group"? There's no way that group has been around for eighty years. dz7 (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

GAN: Insufficient citations

This article was removed from Good Article status because it failed to adequately cite its sources. That problem has not been resolved. The section on the Sugarcubes, for instance, cites no sources at all. I'd suggest the nominator quickly review the article and redress the issue. Otherwise the nomination risks being quick-failed. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The Sugarcubes - indeed - I find the bit about international 'stardom' a bit hard to swallow - they had a certain notoriety, but were hardly selling out concert halls worldwide, and their album was little more than a curiosity in the States. HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Artistry

Please note I have overhauled her music and voice section and renamed it Artistry to reflect the majority of singer-songwriters who have said sections on their pages. I also deleted all the unsourced data in regards to her voice and added quite a significant amount of data in replacement. If possible could we keep the section named as artistry? I hope to expand the data on her compositions and add an influences section too at a later date, Many thanks. BrotherDarksoul Blether 03:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Too genres are missing in the main page

Björk during her career has experimented a lot, she embraced different genres of all types. Since her first group until the last album you can hear any kind of influence in her music. Electronic in every form, so much classical almost everywhere, canonical jazz in the album Gling-Gló with the Tríó Guðmundar Ingólfssonar, where she probably showed her most extraordinary vocal abilities, alternative rock (Sugarcubes), post-rock, avant-garde (Drawing Restraint 9, Medùlla), industrial (Volta), trip-hop, folk, an incredible a capella (Medúlla is almost entirely done with the human voice), ambient and ethereal wave (Vespertine), and of course, post-punk in her early groups like KUKL and Tappi Tikarrass, that's also a critic point in her life. So I think that many genres are missing in her main page and something have to be added. Alternative rock, electronica, trip-hop and experimental are ok, but SO generic, really it's important to mention something more for praising her 'experimental' nature.

If avant-garde is supposed to mean anything like "ahead of time", you should listen to the work of Meredith Monk, e.g. the album Dolmen Music from 1979, where she does much more with the human voice than Björk on Medùlla and with less studio trickery. While Björk may be a much more accomplished singer than let's say Britney Spears, still her voice has its limitations. I would rather call it pop avant-garde which usually means stealing from composers that are dead already for hundred years. - 84.159.75.199 (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I know well Meredith Monk and her vocal stuff, and she has her own limits too with her way of expression. Every singers and musicians have limitations, so there's no point. And I think calling something pop avant-garde it's a countersense, or it's pop, or avant-garde. What you call stealing is actually taking ispiration, Bjork got the influence of Monk but she did not steal anything from no one. They also collaborated togheter in recent times, and maybe Monk will collaborate on the new album. Bjork is no pop, she is avant-garde in her way of making music and melting everything with her voice, and I'm not just talking about the genre itself, but the whole thing since the beginning of her musical career until now. Furthermore you should listen to "Drawing Restraint 9", the most experimental, and actually 'avant-garde' work by her, or her vocal performances on the John Tavener's composition "Prayer of the Heart".

More up-to-date photo

Now she is 48. I found a more recent photo here but I was unable to updated the photo on this article.--Charrua85 (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't see that photo but I wouldn't think it is necessary. There is already one from last year contained in the article. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  20:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
You must be kidding us. The photo you mentioned [1] is blurred. Can't even see who's she on the photo.--Charrua85 (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
If you can find a better biophilia era picture feel free to upload it to the commons (as long as it meets the rules) and the biophilia tour one in the article can be replaced.FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  17:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Monomynous?

Aren't all Icelandic people monomynous? Or, how is Björk different from other Icelanders, aren't all referred to by their first names, listed in the phone book by first name and so on? Totorotroll (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Icelanders are required by law to have at least one first name and an "identifying name", which can be a patronym, matronym or an inherited surname (Laws on People Names, article 8[2]). It's true that everyone refers to each other primarily by their first name, but everyone knows her full name is Björk Guðmundsdóttir. Genkobar (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Patronymic should be Matronymic

Believe so, as dottir ending means daughter of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.227.215 (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Any woman is the biological daughter of two parents, it depends whose name comes before Dottie.Sceptic1954 (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. Her surname means "daughter of Guðmundur." Guðmundur Gunnarsson is her father. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Personal life

The article really needs a Personal Life section. I would like to know who she has dated in the past and whether she is single or involved right now. An article in Pitchfork says that the new album Vulnicura is a "heartbreak album", but neither this article nor the one on the album states who she broke up with. --Viennese Waltz 19:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

This information appears on Matthew Barney's page, but not here. I imagine there is some good reason for that. . . . Iconofiler (talk) 02:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, there's at least one reliable source now [3] --Viennese Waltz 08:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Viennese Waltz, page needs a personal section. I've just created a short one. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Errors in the genres section.

I've often noticed several errors in the genres section, it's the part of this wiki that is most of the time edited. The main reason behind these errors is that the sources always change and Bjork is credited with different genres through the times. I've listened to Björk for a long time and I believe I know well what are the genres which she has done in her career. According only by internet sources and reviews is not always the right thing to do, since critics may have a very personal view of music in general. This can create misunderstanding and not a real vision of an artist.

Anarcho punk: KUKL was not an anarcho punk band. They were under the Crass Label (which was made by the actual anarcho band Crass) but they were not politically active in any of those thematics. Post-punk is the right genre when it comes down the early career of Björk.

Dance: Another wrong and very inaccurate tag, dance is a way too generic musical style for Björk. She has been always credited as alternative dance in order to her very peculiar style and precise approach, especially for her albums Debut and Post.

Experimental pop: Since "experimental pop" is not a real musical genre, but only a subtle ramification, I believe they should be separated in two things. Björk's music is experimental and contains elements of many genres, including baroque pop, that is the type of pop that often is recognized in her music. (Biophilia, Vulnicura)

Alternative rock genre is missing. Björk was the leader and female vocalist of The Sugarcubes, a well known alternative rock band in Iceland.

Trip-hop genre is missing. Almost all Björk's albums are recognized in containing this musical style, since her first album Debut until the last Vulnicura.

Also I've added the tag techno with a reliable source, but it's been deleted for unknown reasons. Björk has a strong techno influence during the Homogenic period, furthermore she has often been called "The Queen of Techno" in the late 90s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.77.101.147 (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi @151.77.101.147:. Genre, generally speaking, can be a subjective experience and you will never find unanimous agreement in these discussions, especially not when discussing eclectic artists. Wikipedia always favors reliable sources over our personal opinions, feelings and beliefs, and it's worth mentioning that verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion. Currently there are 8 genres listed, which is too many. The template instructions tell us to use 2-4 examples of genre, not an ever-growing litany of genre, and to focus on generality, so I don't know if baroque pop is the right pitch. The further we go into subgenre and microgenre, the more discord we are likely to cause. What I think might be helpful is if you proposed 4 overall genre that you could live with, and see what other editors have to say about them. It's sort of a "if you had to live on a desert island, what four genre would you pick for Björk" kind of thing. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The actual genres in the infobox are quite accurate, the only thing that should be edited is the house music tag. House is seriously a generic term for a huge musical genre, Björk done some house songs only in her first album Debut, but seriously I don't think it should be included between her main genres. Techno would be more appropriate, since she strongly incorporates this style (Post, Homogenic), and also the I.D.M. style, in her way of making electronic music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerlenceLosid (talk • contribs) 17:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
PerlenceLosid You seem to be missing the use 2-4 examples aspect of my comment. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
In fact I have not said to add another genre, but just to replace the House tag with Techno tag. (User talk:PerlenceLosid) 2:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
PerlenceLosid I didn't say you were adding a genre. The issue is that there are already too many genres. If you do nothing, there are still too many genres. If you add a genre, there are still too many genres. If you remove a genre, there are still too many genres. Adding one character by swapping House with Techno technically makes the article longer by 1 character. That's not an improvement. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I think sometimes the Wikipedia instructions are way too limitative, especially now, when you're dealing with a complex and multifaceted artist like Björk. Keeping an inappropriate genre (House) in the info, that doesn't represent the artist at all, just to stay at the instructions, is something I cannot understand. At least, delete it. (User talk:PerlenceLosid) 15:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, she didn't any house music since those 1-2 songs on Debut. I guess you're right, it's anti-informative keeping that tag in the main info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.77.230.30 (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
They will never let you make this change. They know they're obviously wrong, but for a reason that still I cannot fully understand, they prefer to keep the House tag in the main info instead of another more appropriate. (User talk:PerlenceLosid) 15:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Infobox person

Hey all, is there a reason why we are using {{Infobox person}} instead of {{Infobox musical artist}}? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Image

In the last week, the image in the infobox has changed several times in the span of a few days. IP editor 81.178.231.139 changed it to this version. IP 94.2.138.42 changed it to this version. I don't have a particular preference for either image, however, what is troublesome, is that one user in the 151.77.* IP range (Geolocates to Naples, Italy; ISP: WIND) keeps changing it back to this version [4][5] without explanation. Numerous other changes from this IP range have been reverted for lack of adequate explanation or discussion. Since the IP editor does not have ownership of this article, the matter of which image to use should be discussed by them, rather than simply asserting their personal preference through edit-warring. This is a community project, after all. For this reason, I am arbitrarily picking one of the two other images and adding it to the infobox. The IP editor needs to achieve consensus before changing again. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

--151.77.109.20 (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Hello, I am the same user who discussed about the genres (above) and added adequate sources to them in the section. The image should be updated with a newer one, that's simply why it's more appropriate using the latest picture we have of the artist. The image you keep choosing is from the Volta Tour of 2007, the newer one is from the Biophilia Tour, shoot in 2013. I don't understand why representing the artist with an older picture instead of newer, more actual one.
Thank you for discussing. I don't think the newer photo does much to illustrate what Bjork looks like, which is the purpose of an infobox image. It's grainy, for instance. So I don't know that it's more appropriate than an older one simply because it's newer. Maybe someone on Flickr has a newer image that is of a better quality and that we can use per Creative Commons licensing? Additionally, please discuss when you notice changes to your preference. Continuously changing things back without discussion is disruptive. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree with 151.77.109.20, this actual image is a bit old, but most important, it doesn't show almost nothing of Björk's face. I've seen the other picture from the Biophilia Tour, and it seems quite appropriate, and it's from a frontal angle, I definitely would choose that!
Okay. I'll yield. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed—I wondered how this current one of her in the yellow dress, with half of her face hidden by makeup and a mic, could be the best available. – AndyFielding (talk) 08:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Suicide stalker

In this edit I restored content that was pruned in good faith a little too far by NicoScribe in this edit. While I agree that we don't need a lengthy memorial for someone who tried to hurt someone before blowing his brains out, the matter received international exposure, and seemed to have impacted how Bjork did business from that point forward. (Although better references would be appreciated). I've restored some of the content, restored the cut reference, and streamlined a little bit. If you view this diff, I think the improvements are easier to spot. I certainly don't think we care about "his thoughts on love and other subjects, including racist remarks against Björk's then-boyfriend Goldie." And while I first disagreed with NicoScribe's assertion that two sentences was enough, my version includes most of the salient details in three sentences with one sentence about Bjork's reaction. I think this is a reasonable expense of article space to the matter. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Cyphoidbomb and Happy New Year 2016.
I have no problem with Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED (mentioned in your edit summary). I have said "Two sentences about the stalker are enough here: his article is complete" only because, on December 23, I have checked (and tried to improve) the stalker's article.
Your third diff shows clear improvements but I still think that the readers interested by the details (about the homicidal plan) can easily reach them, thanks to the link to the stalker's article... Do you agree with the following suggestions?
  • in the first sentence: removal of "with the intention of severely scarring the singer's face and torso" (the goal of an acid-spraying letter bomb seems obvious)
  • in the third sentence: change "an 18 hour video" into "22 hours of videotape"
  • in the third sentence: change "culminated with López shaving his head, applying face paint, and committing suicide" into "ended with López committing suicide" (details are useless here)
  • about the sources:
    • the 3 sentences can be sourced by [6]
    • sentences n°2 and n°3 are also sourced by the Meloy/Sheridan/Hoffmann book (a great source, used many times in the stalker's article)
    • the source from Salon.com becomes useless. --NicoScribe (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Happy new year to you as well, Nico. I'm okay with the changes you've proposed. We can drop the bolded text as redundant from "...ended with López committing suicide on camera". We already say that it's been taped. I probably wouldn't remove any references unless they are completely useless. I just noticed that the Salon link 404d, but I have updated it. If the issue was redundancy, that's better than lack, IMO. Regards. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
OK Cyphoidbomb, I have:
  • made my suggested changes
  • removed "on camera"
  • merged my reference "salon20010501" with your SalonMay2001 because, after your last edits, the source appeared twice. If you look at this diff, you will see that, on Decembre 23, I had already noticed that the Salon link 404d (and corrected it)(and used it for the Bangkok incident).
but:
  1. the Salon link was OK for my first sentences "pruned in good faith a little too far", but is too vague to source correctly the new sentences n°1 and n°3, so I have used it only for the sentence n°2
  2. about the third sentence: you did not mention the part "by shooting himself" at the end, so I don't know whether you want to keep it (for me: that is a detail)
  3. about the third sentence: "López recorded 22 hours of videotape of himself that described..." could become "López recorded 22 hours of videotape that described...". --NicoScribe (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I think it's worth mentioning that he shot himself. No problems with the other stuff. Take care! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, "by shooting himself" and "of himself" can stay. Thanks, take care --NicoScribe (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Too many genres in lead section and infobox?

Stopping the genre warring is particularly difficult in this article, because Björk's music defies categorization. But I am convinced that the strategy initiated by GentleCollapse16 in the edit of 20 January 2016 is good, because the lead section and infobox should just be summaries: they should not need sources (for music genres) in addition to the ones in the content of the article. These last days, I have tried to continue this strategy: now the sources about music genres are in a "style" section and each genre in the lead section and infobox is accompanied by a comment "sources are in the "style" section". The "style" section is certainly not perfect, but now every honest editor who wants to change a music genre in the lead section or infobox will see the comment, and then this editor should add new sources to the "style" section, or use a very clear edit summary, or open a discussion in the talk page.
What is your take on the following topics?

  1. About the strategy. I think the current strategy is a good one.
  2. About the infobox. At the moment, we clearly have too many genres here. Template:Infobox musical artist recommends "Aim for generality (e.g. Hip hop rather than East Coast hip hop) and preferably use 2-4." After looking at the current "style" section and the guideline (and the previous discussions), I think the infobox could list these 4 genres: experimental + electronic + pop + avant-garde.
  3. About the lead section. I think we have more latitude here, I would have no problem if all the genres mentioned by the "style" section were listed in the sentence beginning with "Over her three-decade career, she has developed an eclectic musical style that draws on a wide range of influences and genres spanning [...]".

Regards --NicoScribe (talk) 12:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello GentleCollapse16: I have seen your last edit: yes, "classical crossover" has been added by 151.77.108.125 on 28 March. In my edits on 29 & 30 March, I have been focused only on the clarification of the "style" section, without modification of the genres in the infobox, because I was hoping that this discussion would lead to some reactions. What is your take on the three topics? --NicoScribe (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the infobox should not be made to carry more than four genres. To select the most applicable genres, we should look at a broad sample of reliable sources describing Björk herself rather than the bands she has been in, or the albums and songs she is best known for. Binksternet (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Apologies NicoScribe, should have checked here first. I'm pretty okay with your broad suggestion for the infobox, although my edit basically bears out what Binksternet suggested above. I'm really fine with either approach, as long as totally ancillary genres aren't ridiculously shoved in there as before. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@Binksternet and GentleCollapse16: Thank you for these answers, I agree. The current "style" section is certainly not perfect, but this is the best synthesis we have of the "broad sample of reliable sources..."
I think we should stick to 4 genres in the infobox, not because I am narrow-minded on the count recommended by the guideline, but because this is one of our arguments against the genre warriors. If we choose 5 genres today (one above the guideline's count), we can be sure that another contributor will add a sixth genre in a few days, arguing "sticking to the guideline is not that important, WP:IAR, WP:BOLD..." and then we will be back in an unstable situation where the important genres should be chosen again.
The guideline says "Aim for generality" and the reasons have been described by Cyphoidbomb in a previous discussion in this page: "The further we go into subgenre and microgenre, the more discord we are likely to cause." In my understanding, pop music encompasses art-pop, progressive pop, avant-pop, electronic pop (all mentioned by the "style" section - even if the lead section says "the best non-pop female vocalist"). So my proposal is still: experimental + electronic + pop + avant-garde. --NicoScribe (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
For me art-pop, progressive pop, avant-pop is basically the same and art-pop covers them all imho. I really think we should use "art-pop" instead of pop... Shimenawa (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I think electronic, experimental, trip-hop, avant-garde and alternative dance are her main genres of identity. Also attention, labeling Bjork just as "pop" is a huge error, her music is too much variegated and experimentally multifaceted to be labeled in that simple generic way. At least art pop is more precise, and also it has been used to define her different music.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.77.191.47 (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2016
It seems that all my arguments have failed to convince you: you are mentioning 6 genres instead of 4, and art pop is a subgenre... Well, if my initial proposal is considered incorrect, I could agree with many other solutions, such as experimental + electronic + art pop + avant-garde. --NicoScribe (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Think that last suggestion is perfect NicoScribe, only owing to the fact that the several sources cited that use "art pop" use it to describe her whole body of work or sensibility generally rather than a particular style or era of her work. With that in mind, "pop" might be a bit more general than we need to settle for. But otherwise, I'm all for that 4-genre suggestion. Re: above, "alternative dance" as a phrase doesn't seem to be used by anyone straight out, and trip hop seems primarily tied to her 90s stuff. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
For 4 genres only, "experimental + electronic + art pop + avant-garde" is perfect. Please no "pop". If to use 5-6 genres i would add "classical crossover" or "modern classical". And maybe also "alternative dance". But no trip-hop please, most of what you think as "trip-hop" is IDM in fact. Shimenawa (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm a big fan of checking with the best quality sources, such as music industry magazines, scholarly analysis, and Mark Pylik's 2003 biography Björk: Wow and Flutter. In these, I am not seeing Björk described as a trip-hop artist, though it's true she has made some trip hop music. "Avant rock" (which we call experimental rock), "avant pop" and "avant-garde" are definitely used in the literature to describe her style. I also see "electronic" as a descriptor. Mostly, though, she is called avant-garde. Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@Binksternet: yes, but then what genres should be present in the infobox? I have 3 small remarks. 1: I suppose that we (all the contributors of this discussion) agree that these genres should only cover Björk's solo career. 2: perhaps we should begin the list of genres by the text "(as a solo artist)": it will clarify the choice of genres, for the readers, and slow down some genre warriors. 3: the biography by Mark Pytlik, from 2003, can not analyze Medúlla, Volta, Biophilia and Vulnicura... --NicoScribe (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I feel like this biography should represent Björk as described in the literature. If sources consistently described her as lead singer of the Sugarcubes (for instance) then we would represent that to the reader. So it's not really about Björk as a solo artist vs Björk as a collaborator in larger groups. It's about how Björk is positioned by critics and the media. Binksternet (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@Binksternet: well, perhaps we should drop "experimental" (too close to avant-garde?) and replace it with a genre for the Sugarcubes era. I am also open to radical solutions for this infobox, such as "genre = in bands: <4 genres>, as a solo artist: <4 genres>" (we give up on selecting only 4 genres for the whole career) or "genre = see the 'style' section" (we give up on everything - but genre warriors might fill this void). I don't know what is the best solution. --NicoScribe (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Art-pop and avant-garde cover her Sugarcubes and Kukl eras imo. And I would not drop experimental. experimental + electronic + art pop + avant-garde is the best imo. although, personally, i would love to see also a subgenre of classical. Shimenawa (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I have already voiced my opinion; I am open to many solutions for this infobox, as long as the mentioned genres are correctly sourced by the "Style" section (because this section -and this talk- are our arguments against the genre warriors). @Bleff: yesterday, you have improved the Style section (even if I would have kept the "Collaborative work" sub-section - it deserved expansion and it structured the "Style" section) so, what is your opinion about this discussion? --NicoScribe (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think art pop should definitely appear in the infobox as Björk is one of the greatest representatives of the genre. Electronic is also a good descriptor that ecompasses her trip-hop, IDM, house and techno work; although mentioning dance as well would be a good idea. Should her band work be acknowledged? This is Björk as a soloist. I think jazz should appear because of Gling-Gló and the incorporation of it in Debut and Post. Progressive pop or experimental pop may also be suitable for her style. I wouldn't list both "experimental" and "avant-garde", maybe just experimental?. --Bleff (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
"avant-garde" is probably stronger and clearer, "experimental" has degraded a bit - it is used too often for music not that much experimental. Shimenawa (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
How about this? Avant-garde, art pop, electronic, dance. I think pop is covered by art pop, experimental and avant garde are closely related, so we only need one, and I think it's essential to convey that her music includes a great deal of electronic and dance genre. Binksternet (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
@Binksternet: is it dance or dance or dance (only the latter is heavily sourced in the "style" section)? --NicoScribe (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Dance music covers both alternative dance and EDM. But Björk is not EDM, and not just alternative dance since she has also made techno and house music. I think just dance is okay.--Bleff (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I have checked the sources and updated the "style" section: Dance music clearly appears now, so we can use the text [[Dance music|dance]]<!--sources are in the "style" section--> in the infobox without ambiguity. I am okay with Binksternet and Bleff for the proposal avant-garde + electronic + art pop + dance. @GentleCollapse16, Shimenawa, and 151.77.191.47: do you agree with this conclusion? --NicoScribe (talk) 10:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
imo "dance" in general sense is as wrong as "pop", because it is usually associated with easy simple music, so may be confusing. such styles as techno or house are already covered by "electronic" so the dance is needed only for a very few tracks and i really think "alternative dance" would be better here, think about it as a descriptive term. it is also sad we can't use 5 genres, because i still think modern classical is a big omission, unlike with the dance she has the whole albums in this area: vulnicura strings, vulnicura, homogenic.. Shimenawa (talk) 12:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
But is Björk herself described as a modern classical artist in the literature? I haven't seen that, despite her modern classical output. I would support changing dance to alternative dance, if nobody has a convincing argument against. Binksternet (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah her music is very rarely directly described as something like avant-classical or crossover, although many recognize her as composer.Shimenawa (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I think this last change works fine, 'dance' means dance not 'easy, simple music' let's not get snooty about terms. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Agree with GentleCollapse16 on the 'dance' tag, although I'm okay with using "alternative dance" instead. Also, Shimenawa, Vulnicura, Homogenic and Vespertine are not modern classical music. The incorporation of symphonic and complex elements is covered by the "art-pop" genre. --Bleff (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree the symphonic elements are covered by the "art-pop"... for now. But if she releases more albums like Vulnicura Strings the situation may change. Shimenawa (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Let's put it in other words: dance as a general term is generally associated with conventional dance hits and may be misleading for people not familiar with björk. "alternative dance" is more precise term and gives a better clue what her "dance" is about. just like "pop" vs "art-pop". Shimenawa (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Tentatively threw in "experimental" there as well, as I'm not sure it's quite synonymous with avant-garde (one can experiment with different styles and elements without it being "avant-garde" progressive-minded, etc), plus the four seemed to be lacking something to round it out. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Personally i would still prefer "experimental" to be included, but I'm okay with using "alternative dance" instead, even if i think electronic covers it. Sad we can't use both. But if to use 4 genres, "avant-garde + electronic + art pop" and "experimental" or "alternative dance" for the last slot... Shimenawa (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I would go for art-pop + electronic + experimental + alternative dance. --Bleff (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, no avant-garde ? I'm Ok with either choice, but curious why experimental may be better than avant-garde ? It seems most think only one of these genres should be used, but some prefer avant-garde and some experimental. It would be great to know why. Shimenawa (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, avant-garde music refers more to the modernist composers of the 20th century. And also art movements that have a more of a political edge, for example against Capitalism (usually). She's more avant-garde pop than avant-garde, I think.--Bleff (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
It's a strict understanding of the term. If you take a strict definition of experimental, her music does not really apply as well. However we use broader loose understandings of these, like reviewers of her music use them and in that sense both terms are good. I feel avant-garde is a bit stronger and possibly a better synonim of "innovative". Just imho though Shimenawa (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
When I was hunting through sources I saw more avant-something than I did experimental to describe Björk's body of work. Binksternet (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
"Dance" is way too generic and vague, Bjork does not make dance music, but in her music she has strong IDM and techno (and other types of electronica) influence pretty in all of her albums. The dance tag is wrong, take care about this. Also the trip-hop tag is missing and it should be there, I think this is another huge error: first three albums of Bjork are labeled to have influent trip-hop music in it, see Post and Homogenic for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.77.249.247 (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I doubt Bjork has any techno or a lot of trip-hop tracks. In any case IDM, trip-hop, techno are all specific styles and are already covered by electronic. We try to find only 4 wide definitions here. Shimenawa (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I see that the article has been updated, with the removal of my comments "sources are in the "style" section", the stabilization of the infobox with 5 genres, and the stabilization of this discussion. Well, it is an alternative solution to my initial suggestions. This discussion has been interesting, I thank you all for your answers. --NicoScribe (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't the genres match the genres listed on her albums' Wiki pages? They're sourced. The infobox is simply accruing what genres she has tinkered with.Partyclams (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Björk. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 11:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Björk. 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) 19:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Björk. 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) 05:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


"Irish".

@Sebastian James: Why do you keep deleting vital info? Even if the Irish claim is true, that doesn't make her any more Irish than the general Icelander population. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

How do you know that? "a journalist claimed Hildur told her one of her Viking age ancestors was Irish." is not accurately true. The article says that her distant ancestor was an Irish girl enslaved by Vikings. I mean, yes, Vikings are correlated with Viking Age, but the article doesn't claim anything about the ancestor in Viking Age. Sebastian James (talk) 08:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
This stuff is 100% irrelevant and shouldn't even be in the article. Who cares if there was an irish person among her ancestors 1000 years ago. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
@Sebastian James:@Maunus: Sorry, when is the last time Scandinavians could enslave an Irish girl and bring her to Iceland? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. Whether someone had an irish slave as one of their thousands of ancestors is not encyclopedic information.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the issue is that it's irrelevant information, I think it's more that it's WP:UNDUE. It's much more concise (and simpler) to say "Hildur has distant Irish ancestry", when talking about Bjork's ancestry. --Aleccat 12:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Inadequate lead section

Readers might not be able to extract enough general information about her. I think that a short summary about her career beginnings up to her artistic shift in Homogenic would improve it. Everything else however, seems like it could be elaborated a bit further, as well as possibly giving it additional key points otherwise not mentioned.100cellsman (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Personal life (again)

User:Deathlibrarian had a good go at starting a Personal Life section, but User:MapReader has removed it straight away, which is unfortunate. Articles on people should have Personal Life sections. It is usually the most interesting part of the article and certainly the one I look for first. I disagree with the idea that stuff on personal relationships and marriages should be incorporated into the main biographical part of the article, it is much better if it is split off into its own section. If the Personal Life section of this article duplicates stuff already in the main sections then the answer is not to remove the Personal Life section but to take relationship stuff out of the main sections and put them in the Personal Life section. --Viennese Waltz 09:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I removed it because, as well as being badly written with multiple spelling mistakes, it covers ground already included within the article, and consisted almost entirely of repetition. I agree there's a case for pulling the personal stuff out of the set of career-related sub-sections and introducing a separate section, but this is a major editing job that requires substantial revisions to the body of the article. The previous editor made no attempt at the task, and having left the article in a worse state than s/he found it was a clear case for deletion. MapReader (talk) 09:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Viennese Waltz I agree, and thank you for the support. I agree, we do need a personal section. I'm happy to reinsert it, and if need be we can consolidate the personal information into a new personal section. If MapReader, you'd like to assist, I'm all for it. I can see nothing has been done here in 5 years, so at least I am making an effort to progress it. The personal information is hard to find for the user, being spread amongst her musical career sections. It needs to change.Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Ok I've rebuilt the personal section and reinserted it now. I've moved duplicated content into it from the main article. As per Viennese Waltz's comments, this should make it a lot easier for people to find personal information, rather than have to dig it out of the various sections dealing with her albums. I found it odd that the article had smatterings of her personal life here and there, amongst her making an album or a tour. In respect of WP:BIO I didn't detail the negative/gossip aspects of her breakup with Matthew Barney, which is not appropriate on wikipedia. Please if anyone spots any information in the main article that should be in the personal section, feel free to move it across. Thanks! Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
It still has the same issues. As another editor pointed out, "work on it in sandbox and edit the published article when you are done". ภץאคгöร 13:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
What are the "issues" you have with it specifically? If you let me know what problems you have with it, I can fix them - thanks.Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
The section has been removed, I've worked on it in my sandbox, removed all bare URLs and now reinserted it. ภץאคгöร If you have specific issues with the section, either fix them yourself, or please advise and I will be happy to. But if you are simply going to keep removing it without any explanation, that would appear to me to be disruptive editing. Thanks Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Are you serious? You still haven't even realized your mistakes and wrote the same stuff again. Other editors did the job. Maybe check out what edit warring and disruptive editing means, after you are done with how to write a/an (biography) article. ภץאคгöร 19:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I've asked you about 3 times to point out what your specific issues are. You just keep removing the section without providing an explanation. The other editors seem ok with it. Its you that need to check out disruptive editing, because you are removing a section and not providing an explanation for your edits, despite my repeated requests. As for the other editors, they made minor corrections not "did the job", check out the edit history. Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Just wanted to drive by here, I don't think the personal life section needs where or when she was born or her very early career work. (they're more appropriate in the early life and career beginning section as is.) It should just cover topics regarding her relationships and her stalker.웃OO 22:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback,웃OO 22:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC) yeah I was wondering about that when I put it in, I agree, it's duplicative. I'll take it out - thanks. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I'd agree with 100c; the "personal life" section is used for people notable principally for their career or achievements, to contain strictly non-career but pertinent and key personal information, such as marriages, children, etc. It shouldn't contain details that form part of the time-line of her musical or dramatic career, nor be filled with personal trivia that aren't facts notable to be included in the article in the first place. MapReader (talk) 07:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Its all good, I've already removed the early life/early career info from the personal section.Thanks for the feedback, cheers Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Björk/Archive_3&oldid=1142379607"