Talk:Brian Wilson is a genius

not encyclopedic

As the title is (supposedly) a quotation, it ought to be set off by appropriate punctuation, rather than left as if some bizarre claim to fact. Far more famous is "Clapton is God!!"… which fetches right up (appropriately) to Eric Clapton.

It's an essay, or a term paper for Media Criticism 2-01, or filler for some pop-music publication, or a framework for someone's book. It's not a credible encyclopedia article, therefore not qualified for its recent Good Article nomination.

It's certainly a pet project:

• launched by ilovetopaint (16 June 2017)
• nominated for GA by ilovetopaint (06 July 2017)
• edited almost entirely by ilovetopaint

Not a Wikipedia article, therefore ought not even be considered for GA status. At best, should be rolled into Brian Wilson.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Weeb Dingle: You've failed to cite any part of WP:NOT that would apply to this article. There is "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought", but none of the article is original research. Even the "Background" preamble in the beginning comes straight from an essay about Wilson. I could find at least three published works 100% devoted to the subject:

• Hoskyns, Barney (September 1, 1995). ""Brian Wilson is a Genius": The Birth of a Pop Cult". The Independent.
• Wilson, Carl (June 9, 2015). "The Beach Boys' Brian Wilson: America's Mozart?". BBC.
• Curnutt, Kirk (2012). Brian Wilson (Icons of Pop Music). Equinox Publishing. ISBN 978-1-908049-91-9. (not a biography, entire book is about "genius")

This is combined with the many articles and books that discuss the phrase or its associated campaign. Outside of those examples, you can extrapolate from other sources the tangential aspects associated with Wilson's praises, particularly when "genius" is invoked like so:

• Gallucci, Michael (June 2, 2015). "Brian Wilson and His Mad-Genius Influence on Pop Music". Ultimate Classic Rock.
• Thomas, Tracy (January 28, 1967). "Beach Boy a Day: Brian—Loved or Loathed Genius". NME.
• Robbins, Ira (April 10, 2001). "Brian Wilson, card-carrying genius". Salon.
• Williamson, Victoria (January 21, 2016). "Was musical memory the secret to Brian Wilson's genius?". The Guardian.

A comparable pop group, the Beatles, has many similar articles for ostensibly "unencyclopedic" subjects, namely:

• More popular than Jesus
• Paul is dead
• Break-up of the Beatles
• Beatles and Rolling Stones rivalry (potentially)

Also, there is no comparison between Wilson's "genius" rhetoric and the "Clapton Is God!" graffiti. It's certainly more notable, but as far as I know, nobody has written a piece regarding Clapton as a religious deity.

Maybe the page should be moved to Brian Wilson Is a Genius, but I don't feel that would be proper. The only reason I didn't go with that typeset was because it's more of a colloquialism than it was an advertising slogan. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• I share the OP's concern. Yes, there are sources mentioning that the idea of BW being a genius is a meme or trope or whathaveyou, but an awful lot of other stuff has been woven around that in this "article". I'll be interested to hear what other editors think. EEng 06:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I reviewed the article at GA and I think it's a coherent topic. The phrase is not merely a meme or trope, but was a marketing slogan that took on distinct historical notability in pop music discourse. I think any apparent "weaving" is actually done in the sources, not by Ilovetopaint (or any other editor). That is, pop music historians have identified this biographical/cultural theme and its import, not a Wikipedian. —BLZ · talk 19:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I still can't shake the feeling that there's a lot wrong here. For example, today we have [1] Wilson is considered to have originated the trope of the "reclusive genius" later to be adopted by many other popular musicians but what the source says is this: Nevertheless, Wilson patented a type that lives on to this day— that of the reclusive genius whose instrument is the entire studio. There's no way this should come out as "is considered" (as if many sources have offered this common idea) instead of as an attributed opinion. There's a lot of such stuff in this article which, if the sources were consulted, I fear would turn out to be similarly hollow. So even if the concept is notable (and escapes WP:NOPAGE, BTW) I think there's likely to be TONE, UNDUE, and SYNTH problems. EEng 04:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@EEng: I anticipated that the validity of this article would be met with skepticism from people who aren't familiar with Wilson or certain memes of pop music criticism. I tried to provide some background as to how the "Brian Wilson is a genius" narrative came about, why it was a highly unusual promotional tactic in 1966, and what its implications were on the cultural perception of the Beach Boys and other acts that critics often compare to Wilson (i.e. "Brian Wilson is a genius" — after we understand where that phrase came from, the next questions are "What constitutes a 'genius'?", "Why did he fit that characterization?", "What were the long-term consequences of this promotion?", and so on). I've also tried to focus the article specifically to Wilson's "genius", not as a general analysis of Wilson's "lore", which goes way beyond that slogan.

As for The Atlantic source, I don't see why that claim begs for an attribution. There is more than enough content in the article that proves it's beyond opinion. If you still need to be convinced of the prevalence of Wilson's "crazy genius" mythology, check out these sources that confront it directly: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] --Ilovetopaint (talk) 07:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'm quite familiar with Wilson and (though no doubt not as intimately as you) the memes of pop criticism. In fact, I was familiar with them well before they were even "memes".
• Your response, in all honestly, only reinforces the feeling that this is more of an essay than an encyclopedia article.
• Only one or two of the links you provide seem to contain the strings recluse or reclusive, and none of them (unless I missed something) the string reclusive genius, so that reinforces the feeling that there's SYNTH going on here. Except in your response just above, you've switched to crazy genius -- which is it? Are those supposed to be the same? If so, can you source that?
• I lack the interest in this topic to pursue this with the energy it deserves, but I know just the man for the job: Martinevans123. Martin, get off your ass and take this in hand, will you?

EEng 08:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

From The Atlantic: "Wilson" [8] --Ilovetopaint (talk) 08:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify, by the way, when I said "I've also tried to focus the article," I meant with respect to WP:DETAIL. And if one source says "Brian Wilson stopped producing records because of his high reputation" and another source says "Brian Wilson's high reputation was a result of Derek Taylor's 'genius' campaign," it's not SYNTH to juxtapose those two statements together. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 09:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

You just quoted back to me the same bit from The Atlantic that I myself quoted above, which supports a statement that "According to Jason Guriel, Wilson 'patented a type that lives on to this day— that of the reclusive genius whose instrument is the entire studio'"; it does not support a WP:WEASELly statement that Wilson "is considered" to be something, because Guriel isn't a historian of music criticism in a position to summarize and characterize longstanding and generally held established opinion on Wilson. Do you see the difference? EEng 15:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@EEng: 1) You said that none of the links contain the string "reclusive genius", which is what I was correcting. 2) The phrase "considered to be" is not necessarily WP:WEASEL when it appears in the lead (it doesn't anymore). --Ilovetopaint (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• I share the same concerns and have done since the post here on 1 January. Although, given the coverage the subject has continued to receive, I don't think it fails to merit an article, but I'm in full agreement that the overall feel, the handling of the subject, renders it "an essay, or a term paper for Media Criticism 2-01 ... It's not a credible encyclopaedia article." It's hard to know where to start – the abundance of text, especially long quoted portions – there seems to be a lot of hot air. I'm sure it's not the most helpful or erudite statement, but this article makes me feel uncomfortable as a reader and as an editor. (Almost anywhere but Wikipedia, that wouldn't be the case.) There are Wikipedia articles on "Don't fuck with the formula", Musicianship of Brian Wilson, Collapse of Smile, all of which explore to varying degrees the subject of Wilson as "genius" or tortured artist. Overall, here and in other Beach Boys articles, I come away with the sense that this has been written less with a view to imparting information than to emphasise something along the lines of: "Look at all this text – it must be important." If the problem's not in the tone, then it's in the approach to how the subject is handled, the lack of discernment. It reads as if it were written by a Wilson biographer (Dominic Priore comes to mind), many of whom are famously hagiographic in their treatment of Wilson, and the contrast between this reverence and the scrutiny measured out to, say, Presley, the Beatles or Dylan by their biographers is just astonishing.
• I tried to read through the article. By the time I got to Aftermath#Effect on Wilson's decline, I just blurred out (and this is coming from someone with an unusually high tolerance for reading about rock/pop, particularly from the 1965–67 era). I put that down to the "term paper" quality that Weeb Dingle identified – its coverage is so over the top, it reads like an academic study with relatively little genuine encyclopaedic information offered.
• I'm also familiar with Wilson and particularly with pop culture memes. But to compare "Brian Wilson is a genius" (or "Don't fuck with the formula") with the likes of More popular than Jesus and Break-up of the Beatles is, well, desperate. Lennon's "more popular than …" comment led to outrage in the media, dedicated press conferences, demonstrations, death threats, radio bans, condemnation from religious leaders internationally, shares in the Beatles' publishing company plummeting on the stock exchange. Those are all notable events and actions, not ruminations on what could've been. The Beatles' break-up was similarly front-page news around the world; each day of the subsequent proceedings in the London High Court was recounted in detail by the media; for ten years after the event, no member of the band could escape the continued speculation about when the would reunite. Come on … JG66 (talk) 08:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@JG66: I'm not against dumping a quarter of the article out, since that much is built on preamble and blockquotes, I just don't see how this article differs from others like More popular than Jesus and Breakup of the Beatles. It's handled in identical fashion, albeit a little more detailed and with more "opinions" from people close to the subject.

I noticed a theme on this talk page: everybody has a feeling that it's "wrong" to have an article this detailed, but when it comes to what should be removed, nobody can name anything specific. What do we want to remove here? The section explaining how and when Taylor met Wilson? The two/three-paragraph section that gives highly relevant context as to the state of popular music criticism and marketing in the mid 1960s? The section that enumerates the extent of Wilson's press between 1966–1967? The "Criticism" section about Wilson's hyperbolic praises and romanticized portrayals that is discussed in every critical piece ever written about the Beach Boys? The section explaining how various parties reacted to him being branded a "genius"? --Ilovetopaint (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, you might think it's "handled in identical fashion", but the question is whether it deserves the level of treatment afforded the other articles. I think this and "Don't fuck with the formula" should be combined into one piece, always have. My point above was that part of my objection to "Brian Wilson is a genius" relates to the extent the message has been spread across the encyclopaedia, with a similar lack of discernment, imo – and I haven't even mentioned the articles on Wilson, the band, relevant albums, or the Beach Boys' cultural impact.

I'm not surprised you've noticed a theme on this talk page. As mentioned, from my point of view anyway, it's difficult to know where to begin with regard to specifics – it's just a case of "Whoa, too darn much …" So the overall effect, which is what the first editor here seemed to pick up on, is its entire credibility as an encyclopaedic article is under question.

I get it that you're a big admirer of Wilson and the Beach Boys. But it's the extent to which you end up hyping up their achievements and legacy that's a concern. I'm talking also about what, over a period of years, you've added or wanted to see added to music articles that have nothing directly to do with the Beach Boys – several on the Beatles, including Cultural impact of the Beatles, numerous genre articles, Recording studio as musical instrument. In almost all of those examples, I've seen you add details and fairly grand statements that recognise Wilson/the Beach Boys' supremacy. Fine if it's relevant. But when I look at the same sources you've used, many times I find that they qualify a statement with a comparison to the Beatles, which you've deemed unnecessary to include. So I can't help viewing this particular article, combined with "Don't fuck …", as yet another attempt to hype Brian Wilson to the max. JG66 (talk) 11:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the articles could be subsumed into a broader meta-article covering the band's historical/cultural reception. That's a big subject to tackle though - and I'm really tired of reading/writing about the Beach Boys - which is why I took the approach of covering these smaller topics, which I feel are the most interesting (and frequently-discussed-yet-never-deeply-examined) aspects of the band's mythology. I don't have anything else to say about the "Beach Boys supremacy" thing except that I appreciate you correcting parts where I may have misread a source. When I was copying and pasting material for the studio-instrument article, I didn't bother checking the sources I used for the BBs to see if there was anything said about the Beatles in them. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ilovetopaint: @JG66: @EEng: I feel like this conversation has productively steered toward a consensus that the existence of the article (at least in some form, maybe not this form) is more or less appropriate, and that there are also identifiable, discrete issues with sourcing or phrasing that can be addressed on a mostly piecemeal basis. I think Ilovetopaint has shown a willingness to work collaboratively and constructively to address specific issues that are raised. Also, I think the editors who are skeptical about the article are making thoughtful, productive, forceful critiques. It's worthwhile to hit the pause button at the moment to praise everyone here for thinking about this article and articulating our thoughts, even where there are serious disagreements, in good faith. Beyond the sentence-level issues, I think we should ask "what now" regarding the big-picture concerns. It seems like we're out of the territory of asking whether the article should be deleted entirely (but give a heads-up if you disagree or feel that misrepresents your position). Instead, it seems like the question is now "what is the most appropriate form for this article to take?" Should it stand as its own topic? Should it be moved/renamed? Should it be merged somewhere else?

I'm gonna fire off some thoughts about the article's notability, mainly to make the case that the article in its present form is an appropriate WP:SPINOUT of Brian Wilson:

Why we should keep "Brian Wilson is a genius"

I'm sympathetic to the idea of a "meta-article" that fuses this and "Don't fuck with the formula, but it does raise the question of what that meta-article would be named. "Mythology of the Beach Boys"? "The Beach Boys and fame"? I'm a little wary of that. Something I like about this article that I noted in the GA review is that it manages to encapsulate a key "theme" of the Beach Boys' history—the effect that "hype" had on Brian's career, mental health, reputation, etc—under the umbrella of a single "thing," i.e. the marketing catchphrase. That is, it takes ideas that are notable, yet might be considered wishy-washy for lack of a clear title, and tethers them into something concrete.

I can understand the skepticism from other users about the subject, and I've had a thought that maybe puts a finger on what feels "off" about it. If an article about the marketing catchphrase "Brian Wilson is a genius" were a one- or two-sentence stub, there's almost no question that the subject would not qualify as independently notable. The subject is not self-evidently notable in its own right. However, a comprehensive article that explains the full context, impact, and notability of the marketing effort justifies its notability. I'm not saying here that article content determines notability, but rather, that an article's notability will sometimes only be evident with an in-depth treatment that demonstrates its independent notability that would not otherwise be evident to an unfamiliar reader.

If the "tethering" of the bigger "Mythology of Beach Boys" themes to a discrete, but not self-evidently notable "thing" like the marketing catchphrase seems like "smuggling" content, I would agree except for the actual, independent notability of the topic in the context of the Beach Boys. What do I mean by this? The problem of a meta-article (I'll still call it "Mythology of the Beach Boys" for want of a better suggestion) is that it would seem to open the door for similar treatments for other musicians, even those whose "genius" hype or relationship with fame/reputation are not as conceptually distinct in secondary sources. Note the lack of an "Clapton is God" article, which might be a famous phrase but is not one that takes on independent notability (as far as I know; maybe there are reams of secondary sources furrowing their brows about the complicated legacy of that phrase, but I kinda doubt it).

The problem of searching for existing comparisons is that B. Wilson's story is a bit sui generis—indeed, as this article notes, Brian Wilson became a sort of archetypal example of a particular model of "eccentric/reclusive genius" in rock music. Off the top of my head, the best cases for equivalent articles elsewhere would be, say, "Bob Dylan and fame," "Kurt Cobain and fame," "Marilyn Monroe and fame"—at least these figures are both toweringly influential and their "troubled relationship" with fame/hype has been picked up as a discrete theme in their life. Yet in each of those cases, whatever "theme" exists can (arguably) be more readily folded into their main biography than it can for Brian Wilson. Someone might make the case for such articles in the future, but they'd have to make the case independently. B. Wilson is a sort of unique case in this regard, but the uniqueness of this aspect of his life and the lack of clear parallels don't detract from the argument for notability; I'd say they bolster it. This article is notable in large part because Brian Wilson's relationship with hype has taken on a more clearly independent notability than is the case with other artists.

We've mentioned a few other articles above that cover some aspect of a musicians' life that is notable but perhaps marginal or otherwise difficult to adequately flesh out within another article. I'd say that this "type" of article is something which at first glance is an apparent "synthesis" of a distinct theme of an artist's biography, but which only becomes notable through synthesis that was actually done by secondary sources, not by the Wikipedian. To that list, I'd add Lennon–McCartney, which I think is much closer to what's happening with this article than, say, More popular than Jesus (a phrase which is more self-evidently notable as a distinct "event"). "Lennon–McCartney" uses the fact of Lennon and McCartney's method of crediting their songwriting to unpack some "broader" themes about the partnership between the two. (If "Lennon–McCartney" were closer to GA or FA quality, I think it would go even further in-depth.) Looking beyond popular music, I'd add articles like Mozart and scatology and Posthumous fame of Vincent van Gogh to the list of this type of article (If a Wikipedian decided, "hey, don't we think it's interesting that Mozart had a thing for scat?" that would be non-notable/WP:SYNTH/WP:OR, but plenty of other sources have already done that legwork).

Finally, I want to make an appeal to WP:NOTFINISHED. It's clearly true that Ilovetopaint is an avid Beach Boys fan. His level of commitment to the topic could conceivably carry the Beach Boys or at least Smile to a featured topic at some point in the future, which would have seemed to me like an impossibly Herculean task if I'd been asked if that could be done three years ago (before his contributions). And his affinity for the Beach Boys spills over into related topics. Maybe he's overzealous or overly general at times, and where that happens it can (and should) be remedied through the critique and editing of others. But in general, I only wish that we had users as devoted to other influential artists as Ilovetopaint is to the Beach Boys. We'd benefit from having more editors, armed with comprehensive knowledge of individual artists and their respective biographies and commentaries, who are willing to advocate for the mention of these artists where appropriate. In that spirit, I'm soon going to add to Recording studio as musical instrument because it struck me that Stevie Wonder isn't mentioned and it seems like an obvious omission.

So those are my thoughts on why I'd recommend keeping the article as is, but with critiques of any problems at the level of a sentence or the use of a source. At this juncture, we should be asking what specific recommendations we have for the future "big picture" direction of the article. So for instance, if someone thinks the article should be moved or merged, we should get a sense of what you think the new title should be, whether other articles should be merged and how we could appropriately blend topics without getting too long or too confusing, etc. We can go on forever critiquing the current form, but if we can't get consensus that a clearly described alternative would be an improvement then I'm not sure we'd still be making progress. On the smaller-picture front, other editors should continue vetting the contents of the article and identifying sentence-level issues that they think should be corrected. I thought the article was good enough for the GA criteria after doing some copyediting of my own, but fresh sets of eyes are always good. We should turn any queasy, vague feelings that it's "too much" into actionable recommendations for improvement. —BLZ · talk 21:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree the material belongs somewhere on WP. I'm not positive that "somewhere" is a standalone article -- Musicianship of Brian Wilson might make for a more integrated presentation. (Remember WP:NOPAGE: sometimes even if a topic is notable on its own, it might still be best treated in a combined article with another topic.) But I don't this it's critical, and the question can be deferred until content on this page has had a thorough housecleaning.

But look, I'm not really interested in this topic sufficiently to pursue this. I'll watch a bit longer but will probably drop out. EEng 02:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Brandt Luke Zorn, thank you for your detailed post. You've given us plenty of food for thought, with some sound reasoning. I'll need to give all the relevant articles a thorough read, and there are a few. The idea of merging "… genius" and "… formula" seems the most logical, although, even as I say that (and have said it above), I also find myself partly agreeing with EEng's point that Musicianship of Brian Wilson might be an appropriate home.

I welcome Ilovetopaint's recent attempts to trim the article, it's much appreciated. Your point, BLZ, about how you "only wish that we had users as devoted to other influential artists as Ilovetopaint is to the Beach Boys" – well, that scenario is the very thing I've found slightly frightening, with regard to ensuring due weight in genre or general music articles. It shouldn't be; I pretty much work only on articles about the Beatles, but I don't misinterpret a source to elevate their standing or omit mention of another artist, and I've never seen anyone else here do these things and do them so regularly. I look forward to turning a corner on this issue because, yes, in theory, I welcome his level of commitment, and I'd love to see a similar level of dedication applied to the Rolling Stones and other artists from this era.

I've been thinking of possible parallels across Wikipedia as well. The "Clapton is God" slogan's interesting: in fact, if we had a dedicated Clapton editor/expert here, that could well warrant an article. The "God" moniker bothered Clapton immensely, and his guitar-god status became a millstone from 1968 as he sought to focus on songs rather than on pieces built around extended guitar improvisation, and to "disappear" or blend into a band. The initial reception afforded his work with Delaney & Bonnie, then with Derek and the Dominos, and then as a solo artist at various times in the 1970s (his forays into country, reggae, pop; delegating solos to a guitarist in his backing band), is often cited as a hangover from "Clapton is God", and it's not unusual to see the slogan referred to in contemporary reviews. John Lennon's "Genius is pain" is another, at least potentially. Harrison's "I'm not a Beatle anymore" from 1966, perhaps. I recently wrote Lennon Remembers, which I'd say covers "Genius is pain" adequately – but the point is, even though I'd be surprised if any of these have the legs of "Brian Wilson is a genius", if an editor is intent on elevating these catch-cries on Wikipedia, it could easily happen. Perhaps that's not a problem – I've just noticed there's an article on Elvis has left the building. JG66 (talk) 08:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@JG66: @Ilovetopaint: That's interesting about "Clapton is God"—I really didn't know much about how the phrase had impacted Clapton himself, but that does sound plausibly ripe for an article, from someone who had the time and know-how for it. Incidentally, "Thank You Based God" strikes me as a contemporary example of a phrase/motto said by/about a musician that has independent notability... I might file that idea away for later...

I'm still wary about merging into Musicianship of Brian Wilson, since that article is already quite long (~100k bytes, ~10,000 words in the main article text and footnotes, an estimated 35 minute reading time) and focused on Brian's musical development. By contrast, BWIAG and DFWTF are more about the "image" of Wilson and the band, the discourse and critical commentary around the band, how it impacted the band in a feedback loop, and how some critics came to reassess the value of these statements. There's topical overlap, but the latter two articles have a unified focus that is different than the contents of "Musicianship of". Even putting aside the slight topical mismatch, there's still the problem that "Musicianship of" might become so long that WP:LENGTH would be a concern. EEng notes the policy considerations of WP:NOPAGE, which is a more than fair point, but those considerations have to be balanced with the recommendations found in WP:SPINOUT to split overly long articles into sub-articles where necessary or useful.

A merger of BWIAG and DFWTF could be called "The Beach Boys in rock criticism," but that also has the "can of worms" problem of inviting endless generic copies ("Nirvana in rock criticism," "Radiohead in rock criticism," etc) that lack a "hook." Other "in rock criticism" articles would mostly lack BWIAG/DFWTF's unique justification, on the grounds of the narrative/discursive significance of these phrases within rock criticism. You could imagine a lot of attempted copycats that are aggregates of "Reception" sections from album articles. Maybe "Marketing of the Beach Boys"—BWIAG as a phrase is explicitly about marketing, whereas DFWTF is about the commercial direction of the band's music—but that might tend to downplay the role of "organic" press in the history. At the least, I could imagine fruitful parallels of "Marketing of" articles; "Marketing of Kiss" comes to mind as plausible. "Image of the Beach Boys" or "Reputation of the Beach Boys" came to mind but strike me as imprecise (and also cans of worms.) I think that's what I like about BWIAG and DFWTF: there's a kernel of encyclopedic value, certainly, but it's very difficult to think of a proper and precise encyclopedic title for a merged article. That's why, imho, using these phrases as titles is an elegant solution. —BLZ · talk 21:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly - DFWTF and BWIAG were meant to be sibling articles that, when taken together, provide the equivalent of a sort of "Beach Boys in rock criticism" article. The Gene Sculatti quote about the band being "hailed as genius incarnate and derided as the archetypal pop music cop-outs" captures the idea to a T. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Brandt Luke Zorn: Perhaps any merger should be between Genius and Formula. But that's not to say that, aside from the apparent neat fit between those two rock criticism-based articles, the concerns about length at Musicianship of Brian Wilson might not be because there's too much there. Too many quotes that could be cut down or paraphrased, too many end notes that are tangential and unnecessary, too many justifications beside genuine encyclopaedic facts, etc. It's supposition on my part right now, to some extent. But a) I've just been working on Genius in a sandbox, and those statements certainly apply there; and b) it's also based on how so much on Wikipedia that's Beach Boys related leaves me thinking, as a reader: "Okay, okay, I get it – stop labouring the point, stop shouting." The impression I have of Wikipedia's coverage of Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys is that it's more akin to a high-quality fan site rather than an encyclopaedia. The coverage is so utterly thorough, and I'd say, evangelical with regard to its devotion to the subject, but there's a feeling that readers are being hustled. The hat notes, extensive "see also"s, they all add to this, as do the frequent end notes, especially – in some sections, each sentence of main text is followed by a note containing two or three sentences (which is symptomatic of a poor construction of ideas, certainly for an encyclopaedia, even if it's not for an academic paper). In regard to what we've been talking about here, it amounts to serious problems of overlap.

So in the sandbox, I've cut down the article to what I believe is truly encyclopaedic in scope. I've made a point of writing comments as if the piece is the mainspace version, which I hope are helpful, but at the same time I'd say it's not worth focusing on what appears to have been lost. (Firstly, because I can't help thinking it most likely appears somewhere else – Smile, Pet Sounds, Collapse of Smile, Musicianship of BW, Don't fuck, etc. Secondly, because so what if it doesn't?) I approached this exercise with the idea that I'm fairly knowledgeable on the subject, I'm certainly interested, and I don't want to get hitched on someone else's ride. The first major thing to go was the third para in the lead: just left me confused, and wondering why Carlin and Brian appeared to be coming to the rescue. Then, "Background and historical context": it seemed to be begging the reader's indulgence (hitched on someone else's ride ...), signalling that there's a wide load to come – and indeed, it did seem to serve as the excuse for the article to branch way out into general myth/legend territory. At this and later points, I was mindful of EEng's remarks about the possibility of topics being "woven" into the pertinent discussion, and especially Weeb Dingle on the term-paper aspect; I saw exactly what they meant. (Barney Hoskyns often has interesting things to say and I wouldn't normally choose to remove his comments. Anything from him could easily sit in the section related to the legacy of the Genius campaign.) I confess I blanked out a bit (again) in the "hyperbole" and "tragic genius" subsections. Perhaps Goldstein's quote (insightful as it is) should go too.

Big thing that came to mind for me was, in line with my "high-quality fan site" comment (and please note, Paint: I emphasise high quality), is that this article as it appeared a couple of days ago would be just the kind of piece that, here on Wikipedia, one would expect to see used as a source or listed as an external link – as long as it wasn't published on a fan site, of course – in terms of its detail, coverage and apparent target readership. It just wasn't, and still isn't today, the type of article I think one would ever expect to see in Wikipedia mainspace at all.

Btw, I'd intended the sandbox and accompanying comments to replace the need for another lengthy post from me here. That obviously hasn't worked out as planned. If anyone want to hide this post or part of it, as BLZ did above with his, I quite understand. JG66 (talk) 12:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I've trimmed the article closer to that sandbox model. I don't agree that we should throw out the entirety of the beginning preamble. The connotations of "genius" and how it compares to Wilson and other historic figures is significant to the topic..--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for making those cuts. I don't agree at all that any of the third paragraph of preamble is useful. It reads like an academic discourse, rather than encyclopaedic text. It's also so confused.

Hoskyns is clearly approaching pop's usage of "genius" from a mid-1990s perspective – he writes: "'Genius' is actually a rare commodity in pop music; it’s not a word bandied about idly. We don’t call Hendrix a genius, or even Dylan." Maybe not in September 1995, but Dylan most certainly was described as a genius in the mid '60s, as were Lennon & McCartney, Spector, Stevie Wonder and others, to various degrees. Hoskyns' perspective is a full generation later – a lifetime in late-20th century pop culture. And the inclusion of this statement as part of the preamble just confuses readers. It's also misrepresented in the text – Barney Hoskyns noted that the word "genius" had been "actually a rare commodity in pop music" reserved for artists who espouse "the element of tragedy and failed promise". "Had been" implies that it's referring to the mid 1960s, but the source doesn't say that. I seem to remember writing a comment with one of the edits I made in the sandbox, saying that this observation from Hoskyns belongs as a legacy-related point. It doesn't establish anything useful in which the reader should then view the rest of the article; it's just a comment on how one can view "Brian Wilson is a genius" in retrospect, with the subsequent 30 years of history.

The relevance of the point sourced to Lambert, regarding the role of Crawdaddy!, Rolling Stone and Creem in furthering recognition of music as art, is also out of context and misleading. His discussion leads into mention of Siegel's "Goodbye Surfing, Hello God!", published in October 1967; and his dating these publications to the mid '60s is a little wide of the mark: Crawdaddy! was active from early 1966, yes, but only as a fanzine; Rolling Stone's first issue was dated November 1967; Creem didn't launch until early 1969. In other words, it's shooting way ahead in terms of the (rapid) development of rock criticism and music journalism relative to what one would expect to be reading in this preamble – which is the situation before or during the release of Pet Sounds in May 1966. The true situation at that time was that pretty much nothing existed in the way of serious commentary on pop. Rare pieces I've come across are by the likes of William Mann in The Times, in late 1963, and from about mid/late 1965 onwards, by writers in Time and Life magazines – all of which were in acknowledgement of the Beatles and/or Lennon & McCartney. Richard Goldstein was then hired as a columnist by The Village Voice in June 1966; his first album review, said to be the first serious album review in a US newspaper or high-culture magazine [Gendron p 192], was of the Beatles' Revolver, in October. Christgau then began writing for Esquire in early or mid 1967. As this Slate piece says (as does Gendron on p 193), the start of widespread recognition of rock's ascendancy to art, or just from out of its pigeonholing as teenybopper entertainment, ramped up from Goldstein's appointment through early 1967. The initial reception from UK critics (or, more accurately, pop reviewers/pundits) to the Beatles' Rubber Soul, for instance, was symptomatic of writers' inability to envisage that a pop act would look to reinvent their sound or "mature". (The same for US reviewers' indifference towards Pet Sounds at first, I'm sure.) As I think it's Steve Turner that says, pop journos didn't possess the vocabulary or the imagination to comprehend that musicians might be striving to progress and develop their work; in Britain, in mid/late '66, it was jazz and classical writers who led the way in recognising what these acts were trying to do. So, Taylor's campaign began in the face of mostly banal pop coverage – certainly nothing to do with Rolling Stone and Cream. As with the music released by the Beatles, Dylan, the Beach Boys, etc, it could be said that Taylor helped accelerate the advent of serious rock journalism from its beginnings with Goldstein, and Williams at Crawdaddy!

With the final sentences in the third paragraph, I simply don't understand what purpose they serve other than to try to inflate the importance of the subject. The point about "personality-centric discourse on celebrities was long established in the realms of media and entertainment … for establishing public images as a marketable commodity" just seems pompous, not to mention obvious. The last two sentences, referring to "genius" in the classical era, are scholarly waffle. Where is the relevance to Taylor's intentions and the campaign? Yes, he went on to compare Wilson with Beethoven, Mozart and others, but was this Romantic notion of "genius" and any associated "extravagant bizarreness" and "uncontrolled imagination" in Taylor's agenda? It seems to be seeking to build a myth upon a myth. And it's so bloody "term paper", like someone's out to impress their tutor. Readers shouldn't have to put up with this – it's meant to be an encyclopaedic article. JG66 (talk) 10:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ilovetopaint: I tend to agree with JG66's recommendation above to cut that paragraph. He's done a lot of work to closely read the sources and identify issues with how those sources are presented, and the more I reread that paragraph and mull it over, it really undermines that paragraph in its current state. The Hoskyns quote could be used later in the article, but the way it's used has to change completely, because JG66's right: the switch from "is" to "had been" totally distorts and misrepresents the meaning. That quote is useful to show the state of retrospective critical discourse on Brian as of the 90s, and the long-term effects of Taylor's campaign and the organic Brian hype of the 60s, but it's deeply misleading to represent it as a historical assessment of how the term "genius" was used at the time. It could go somewhere else, but it can't be at the beginning of the article.

I think the sentence about rock journalists aspiring to elevate rock music as high art could be preserved or reworked in some form. That one's not unfaithful to the source, but as JG66 has pointed out, it may tend to oversimplify the broader context. Obviously we don't want to stop mid-article for a protracted breakdown of the state of genesis of rock journalism in that section—the music journalism article's the place for that—but I feel like there's merit in reminding readers reared on Pitchfork that back then, there was no rock criticism as we understand it today. JG66's indicated that the sentence might be slightly out of joint with (the rapidly changing) time, which may give the false impression that all this critical development was already well underway. Ironically, I think the sentence actually means to convey the same idea JG66 explained, which is that rock journalism didn't really exist at a "serious" or institutional level just prior to the period covered by the article, but it was starting to take shape. I think the main problem is that "Mid-1960s" is way too broad, and could be misunderstood by a reader to include the years 63, 64, 65, and 66. It is the phrase Lambert used, but we don't really know what he was thinking when he wrote it; it's an overly inclusive choice of words, and if I had to guess it was probably picked as an easy way to gesture vaguely at the "1966-ish" time period without committing to any precise time or event. Either way, it can easily be misunderstood to mean "from 1963 onward," so we should find a way to rephrase that at a minimum.

The key idea is that rock journalism was in a nascent state around the time Taylor and the Beach Boys connected, and I think that is an idea worth including somehow, if we can. JG66 says "Taylor's campaign began in the face of mostly banal pop coverage – certainly nothing to do with Rolling Stone and Cream." I think that's right, and the current sentence is unintentionally open to that misreading. We need a way to properly convey that the rising tide of "serious" rock criticism was a roughly concurrent development to Taylor's campaign, not the existing state of affairs that Taylor was operating under. We may need another source. Lambert, at least at pp. 7–8, only talks about the emergent state of rock journalism, not what existed before. The obvious implication is that something which has only just "emerged" didn't exist prior to emerging, but he doesn't describe what existed before ("banal pop coverage" hits the nail on the head).

The remaining bits—"personality-centric" and the classical music sentences—are too attenuated and should go. That's not to say there isn't insight there, but whatever kernels are in that paragraph don't quite add up, given the constraints of encyclopedic writing. These dots could be connected in a longer academic work, but not in a single paragraph in an encyclopedic article. —BLZ · talk 20:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Afterthought: one way or another, we're about to reach the tipping point where the article is shorter than the talk page. lol. —BLZ · talk 20:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

All good points - "I feel like there's merit in reminding readers reared on Pitchfork that back then, there was no rock criticism as we understand it today. ... We need a way to properly convey that the rising tide of "serious" rock criticism was a roughly concurrent development to Taylor's campaign, not the existing state of affairs that Taylor was operating under. " - bingo. I'd appreciate if anyone could add anything like that to the article (my attempt seems to have failed). --Ilovetopaint (talk) 09:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Chiming in, I also share the concern that this article is unencyclopedic. It seems like a WP:COATRACK that could easily be trimmed to fit into Musicianship of Brian Wilson. Lizard (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard: I hadn't seen the specific policy of WP:COATRACK before, in this context or another, but I understand these concerns. I know this article may seem to veer into uncharted territory, and I continue to encourage productive edits that prevent it from veering. But as someone familiar with the topic but not deeply involved in writing this article—other than reviewing it at GA and weighing into the ongoing discussion here—I will continue to insist that the article topic is independently notable. WP:COATRACK is a policy against articles that are hijacked by irrelevant or undue material, but that's not the case here. All of the material on this page is sensibly linked to the campaign and its effects, and specific material that veers off course has been trimmed per the suggestions of other users here. The article would be hijacked in a WP:COATRACK sense if, say, Ilovetopaint had set out to actually prove (or disprove) that Brian Wilson is a genius by making the article about general reception to Brian Wilson's music and works as a whole, rather than about the (extensive) commentary about the marketing campaign, the resultant hype, its long-term effects, etc. If it seems undue, at least part of that is because the topic itself is sui generis in the context of popular music history.

Ironically, the topic is literally undue in the sense that, yes, this was a marketing campaign that many have argued overstated the extent of Brian Wilson's talents, put too much pressure on him, and had catastrophic effects for his personal life and professional output. The whole project of proclaiming Brian Wilson as a genius to the press was literally undue. But the reasons that the campaign itself was literally undue as a historical matter are in fact reasons that the topic and coverage of the campaign is not undue within the meaning of Wikipedia policy. —BLZ · talk 21:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

COATRACK probably isn't the best thing I could've cited. Mainly I feel that this article is one that was sort of forced into existence. It's bloated and rambling, and its contents could be trimmed down to a few paragraphs and included in another article. To echo EEng, citing WP:NOPAGE, "sometimes even if a topic is notable on its own, it might still be best treated in a combined article with another topic." Lizard (talk) 13:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard: That's true, and it's another idea I'm sympathetic to, I just don't know what would be an appropriate way to merge the article. I'm still not convinced "Musicianship of Brian Wilson" is the appropriate umbrella. At first glance it's a compelling option—because Brian "is a genius," if at all, because of his musicianship, right?—but the epiphenomenon of hype around Brian are cultural-historical aspects of the band that have very little relation with what chords Brian was using. This is an oversimplification, but it would be somewhat analogous to merging Albert Einstein in popular culture (people think this guy's a genius!) into Mass–energy equivalence (this is a technical explanation of the underlying reason people think this guy's a genius!). See also something else I said above: "Even putting aside the slight topical mismatch, there's still the problem that 'Musicianship of' might become so long that WP:LENGTH would be a concern. EEng notes the policy considerations of WP:NOPAGE, which is a more than fair point, but those considerations have to be balanced with the recommendations found in WP:SPINOUT to split overly long articles into sub-articles where necessary or useful."

I've scratched my head thinking of possible ways to rename or merge the article, as have many of us on the talk page, and I don't think any of the brainstormed alternate titles so far have been more appropriate or satisfying than "Brian Wilson is a genius". Some alt titles, like "the Beach Boys in rock criticism," would be so broadly titled that they'd likely encourage copycat articles that lack the same "hook". It's fair to continue expressing general concern about the article, but at this stage of the conversation I think concrete recommendations are what's needed. Otherwise, we'll continue relitigating the justifications for the article's existence forever, without making material consensus-based improvements to the article itself. If you think the article's overly long, we should talk about what you think should be cut—JG66 created a trimmed version of the article in a sandbox, and many (but certainly not all) of his edits from that sandbox version have been adopted. If you think it should be renamed or merged, we should talk about what that would look like specifically. —BLZ · talk 18:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Given how this issue just won't go away, I think the best solution is to post on relevant noticeboards and seek a consensus for whether this article merits a place on the encyclopaedia, and/or start an RfC. It has to be said that, so far, the chances of retaining the article look slim. Most people who have weighed in here do not support keeping it. I did a bit of work to cut down the text but it's clearly not enough; or rather, the changes were pretty cosmetic, whereas the real problem's something much deeper.

Back in February, I was tempted to cite WP:COATRACK also, but I noticed that the policy doesn't actually address the issue that one might think would be meant by the term "Coatrack". I'd say, though, that this article was most definitely "hijacked by irrelevant or undue material" before I took it into my sandbox – just not necessarily in the way that WP:COATRACK seeks to address.

Even after the version I came up with, which I think is fairly close to what appears now on the page (I could be wrong), I was still uncomfortable with the article – I think I said I just zoned out when it came to the Hyberbole and Tragic genius sections. I've since written a new Beach Boys tour article. When adding that to t:The Beach Boys main, I couldn't help thinking that the treatment afforded myth- or critique-related topics is excessive, plain and simple. As Lizard the Wizard says, perhaps Musicianship of Brian Wilson is the true home for a (greatly trimmed-down) version of this article's text. From my experience here, having a dedicated "Musicianship of" article for a performer is already very generous coverage. I feel that "Don't fuck with the formula" is similarly excessive and unnecessary – that one could be absorbed into Collapse of Smile, for instance, or perhaps most of it belongs in Mike Love.

I'm seeing the wisdom in WP:NOPAGE, which a couple of editors have cited: "sometimes even if a topic is notable on its own, it might still be best treated in a combined article with another topic." If anyone knows which noticeboards or projects are the right ones, or has some experience in this sort of issue, then please go ahead and get the ball rolling. What's at stake – or rather, what's of particular interest to me, as someone who's written a good few articles from scratch – is whether this "Genius" piece really constitutes an encyclopaedic article, and therefore whether we want to encourage this type of writing and article scope on Wikipedia. JG66 (talk) 07:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think merging DFWTF to Mike Love is a bad idea. I'm definitely against merging Genius into Musicianship for the same reason BLZ said (it's as misguided as merging "Albert Einstein in popular culture" into "Mass–energy equivalence").

I think merging Genius into Brian Wilson and The Beach Boys might work. Those articles just need a big dose of WP:TNT first. I think their pisspoor state is a much more pressing issue than the existence of a GA article that covers a well-documented promotional campaign. ---Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I've done another pass at trimming the article, and now I'm more confident that BWIAG works best as its own page. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I strongly believe "Genius" works as its own page, its a well known meme or strategy, and was one of the more fascinating articles I've read on wiki in quite a while. The writing is superb also. Ceoil (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)