This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Classical music

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Discussing the critical reception[edit]

I've been trying to expand the Reception section, to dilute the RedLetterMedia reference -- IMHO it's fine to keep it, but think it's a bad look for the page on a female composer's work to have two cited reviews, one of which is mocking. Two issues I'm wondering about:

There are reviews of the album, reviews of "Turtle Dreams" the specific track, and reviews of the original performances (like the NYT review). These aren't all quite the same thing, of course! The piece could have its own Wikipedia article, but then both articles would basically be stubs. How could this be organized better? (Maybe I should just go for chronological order: first original performance reviews, then reviews of the composition, and finally album reviews.)

The reception section leans pretty heavily on quotations. I could paraphrase sources, but that seems only a marginal improvement: e.g. "“Turtle Dreams (waltz)” is the only one that really grabs my attention" -> "the author calls 'Turtle Dreams' the most attention-grabbing track", but the original writing seems more vivid. I don't think it would be easy to summarize the various reactions in a paragraph, like "Critics called "Turtle Dreams" "attention-grabbing" (cite 1), "rich, enigmatic and compelling" (cite 2), ...". Is it worth trying to paraphrase or rewrite, or should I just stick with quoting a summary or thesis sentence?

Andrew Kuchling (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-added the other reviews which were deleted. I think the RLM review is inappropriate unless the page attempts to provide a broader consensus of critical opinion. HaileJones (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RedLetterMedia Response[edit]

Having watched that episode of BOTW, I don't agree that the group "panned it". In fact, it more or less won that segment of Best of the Worst, where the group found it the most entertaining out of their four options. A repeated quote was that "it means something to somebody", and Mike Stoklasa even offered a theory that the film was addressing the historical crimes against Native Americans.

And it goes without saying that that it should be stated that their review is from the perspective of a general audience unfamiliar with the genre of interpretive dance/music.

I still support including RedLetterMedia because their review gave renewed exposure to the film, but I think I would re-word what is written currently. FrequencyComb (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A more balanced rewording sounds like a decent middle-ground solution. Rolo Tony, would you care to weigh in here on whether there's an alternative version of the RedLetterMedia coverage that you'd find acceptable? -- Fyrael (talk) 04:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This should be deleted, as it's clearly not a review. The RLM BOTW videos are entertainment, not critique. 91.163.112.205 (talk) 10:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've rephrased the paragraph in a way I think summarises the review best. Whether you see YouTube as mere entertainment rather than critique (which is a silly attitude to take I think), it's indisputable that RLM's coverage has reignited a not-insignificant amount of interest in the album. That is worthy of note, even if the commentary is supposed to be taken in jest. 2A00:23C6:8281:A501:C018:3B26:F6F:C63 (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to suggest that the BOTW episode should be mentioned on this page, as it has, in fact, brought the (video) piece to the attention of a later generation of people who could look it up, watch it, and appreciate it on their own terms, myself included.

However, RLM's cultural contribution doesn't fit the category of "critical reception", not because they're not culturally significant (they are) or because they are not worthy critics (they absolutely are), but because on BOTW they make no presumption of reviewing anything. While a critique expresses opinions meant to influence its audience, opinions in BOTW are one element in a whole sort of "gamified" format of a unique social interaction involving mysterious, mostly context-less tapes. By the same token I would argue that a term like "pan", generally associated with reviewing, doesn't truly capture the reactions of any of the participants of this episode to the piece. RLM essentially uses these random tapes as raw material for their own stand-alone creation, a BOTW episode.

In that sense, noting RLM's contribution to the renewed interest in Turtle Dreams under Critical Reception is too reductive of their work, and can be confusing in the context of actual critical reviews. A heading such as "Influence", e.g. as used here, might provide a better context for both RLM's "sampling" of this piece in their own creation, as well as their being the source of the recent renewed interest in it.