Talk:Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Doctor Who WikiProject
Doctor Who Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
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.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Issues

I have some points about the "episodes used in" column that I'd like to check out:

  • When Jackie is on the 'phone in Xmas Invasion (saying "Oh don't come round"), as she hangs up... is the Westminster Bridge theme played on the piano? I can't quite decide.
  • Was the Doctor's theme in The Unquiet Dead? I can't remember. Is it worth mentioning its use on Millingdale's Ice Cream website?
  • Was Rose's Theme really only in those three episodes?
  • Should we mention that Song for Ten is in the Ghostwatch game?
  • Was The Lone Dalek definitely in Doomsday? I don't recall it being there.
  • The CD sleeve mentions that New Adventures was played in TPOTW and several other moments... I can't remember any of these, not even the TPOTW version. It also comments that it contains part of the "rift" music from Boom Town (the rift music was also featured in New Earth); I can't find this.
  • Did Rise of the Cybermen feature any Cybermen themes?

That's just about all; we must get these things right!--Rambutan (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I recall the chanting voices from "The Daleks" in Dalek, where Rose touches the Dalek (it was also mentioned in Confidential). Will (Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?)Merry Christmas! 12:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remember that! I'll add it in now, unless you've already done.--Rambutan (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

And where is the coveted, creepy, lone woman singing, Rose/Bad Wolf tune??? I couldn't find it anywhere on the soundtrack! And that, I know was definitely, one that people wanted (well, that and Doomsday). If I can find that anyplace else, please tell me!--JYHASH 20:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It's track three, The Doctor's Theme, or Doomsday near the end. I'm not sure which you mean.--Rambutan (talk) 07:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I swear to god that it wasn't there the first time I listened to the soundtrack. Yeah, it was track 3, thanks for the help! :-) --JYHASH 21:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Rewatching Dalek, it was actually "The Lone Dalek" that played when Rose touched the Dalek, but I'm pretty certain that "The Daleks" makes an appearance during at least the sprinkler-room scene (26 minutes into the episode, the music has male chanting, not the "ahhhhhhh" sound). Can we get confirmation? Will (Because you're filthy, ooh, and I'm gorgeous) 15:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title

Might the article be best served with the title Doctor Who Original Television Soundtrack? That is how it appears on the album cover. Just a suggestion... Radagast 04:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Quite right. I'm to new to move it, but someone else could.--Rambutan (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reception paragraph

The paragraph about the OG community's reception of the CD is fine: it's not a minority opinion as surely at least 70% of the CDs bought must be by OG members! Also, the publishers can't come after us, because it's true. It has been criticised. They wouldn't go after me if I had some silly fan website saying "It's cr**, it's cr**", and compared to that, this is logical, rational and reasonable.--Rambutan (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that your "70%" figure has any basis in reality: OG is the largest Doctor Who fan forum, but even if every OG forum member bought the soundtrack it wouldn't account for the album's mainstream sales. Furthermore, there's no evidence that the people participating in that particular thread represent the opinions of all OG members, let alone all Doctor Who fans. Finally, fan forums, no matter how large, are not a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. If there's a published review from Doctor Who Magazine or SFX that has these concerns, it would be fine to mention them (with appropriate citation), but a handful of complaints on Outpost Gallifrey's forums aren't sufficient, I'm afraid.
That said, fear of publisher displeasure isn't on its own a sufficient argument for removing criticism. The point is that any criticism needs to be based on a verifiable, reliable source, which the OG forum, for all its virtues, is not. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
On a related note, a paragraph about criticism of the Song For Ten recording used on the CD was blanked today without an edit summary. While I agree that the claim of the criticism itself needs a reliable source (as does the rest of the detail, probably), the info about the differences in the recordings is useful, I think. Anyone want to make a stab at reentering at least the factual aspects of this paragraph in an appropriate section of the article, properly sourced? I'm largely out of touch with current Doctor Who fandom and information resources, or I'd tackle it myself. Thanks! Karen | Talk | contribs 21:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, wait. Most of the info is in the article already. Never mind! Karen | Talk | contribs 21:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

…Whilst the paragraph on the album's reception has ignored the overwhelmingly positive reviews from reputable sources such as: The Stage, Music From the Movies and Soundtrack.Net, it has persistently referenced fan-threads from internet forums.

This practice is discouraged on Wikipedia in general and has been specifically criticized by Josiah Rowe at this page. It is said over and over that if contributors are determined to depart from conventional encyclopedic objectivity, then they must cite reliable sources.

Both negative statements in this paragraph are solely attributable to forum chatter on Outpost Gallifrey and therefore have no place in an Encyclopedia.

In fact, external reviews have been extremely pleased with Neil Hannon's contributions to the Doctor Who soundtrack album. This fact goes unrecorded. Moreover, no external reviews have made any mention of 'abrupt endings' to any of the tracks.

From this stand point, the edits are wholly justified.Mr chuzzlewit 14:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)SILVA SCREEN

Excellent points. Then can we get some press reaction in here in place of the fan stuff? It sounds as though you have some good sources and material to offer. Thanks! Karen | Talk | contribs 04:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

—Okay, here's soundtrack.net's review: http://www.soundtrack.net/soundtracks/database/?id=4547 Music From the Movies: http://www.musicfromthemovies.com/review.asp?ID=6630 Soundtrack Express (perhaps the most effusive of all): http://www.soundtrack-express.com/osts/doctorwho.htm And here is The Stage listing the release among its 'top ten treats': http://www.thestage.co.uk/tvtoday/2006/12/tv_todays_top_ten_treats.php

There are also positive reviews in SFX and DWM. Again, not one of these external reviews makes the points that have been posted here Mr chuzzlewit


I put it to you, Mr Chuzzlewit, that you are focusing on Murray Gold-related articles for a reason, say, that you're his agent or something. You once made a comment about complaints of this criticism from the company; go check out the right to freedom of speech. However, I recognise that that doesn't help the Wikipedia issue. Now, UNIT did have an abrupt ending, and that is a question of fact, not opinion. It was criticized for that on Outpost Gallifrey, and there is no reason that OG's views should not be taken into account - of course, they should be labelled as such.
On Outpost Gallifrey's article, it is very clearly noted that the BBC shows respect to it, and that it is widely accepted as a valid source for information. Can someone please explain to me why a website which the BBC have effectively approved is not a valid source? Now, as for the Soundtrack.net reviews, I never wrote in the article that the CD was rubbish. On the contrary, I think it's brilliant. I also never wrote that everyone complained about UNIT and Song for Ten. I said that they were criticised by members of OG.--Rambutan (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Outpost Gallifrey's news page is accepted as a valid source for information; the forum, although a wonderful fan resource, is not a reliable source, as I noted above. The difference is verifiability: stories posted to OG's news page are mostly sourced to other media outlets, and all are signed by their author. (Full disclosure: I'm one of the news editors of the OG news page, so not really neutral about that.) Mr. Chuzzlewit is correct in saying that the views of notable media sources are more worthy of inclusion than the opinions of a few fans on an internet forum thread; to include the latter, especially in the absence of the former, is to give them undue weight.
Rambutan's concerns about conflict of interest are important — however, all that means is that if Mr. Chuzzlewit has a personal connection to Mr. Gold, he should restrict his editing to the relevant articles' talk pages. And even that has an exception for "contentious material", per WP:BLP — and it could be argued that this constitutes "contentious material". It's not defamatory or anything, but it does reflect on Mr. Gold's professional career, so the material in that section should be cited to reliable sources. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

My conflict of interest concerns not only mean that Chuzzly shouldn't be editing actual articles, but that he should admit that he has/had a COI. He is very thinly masking it at the moment, which I imagine is in violation of policy.

I would also request yet again that he quotes the relevant policies which he references.

As to the actual issues of OG's reliability and MG's Judaism, I'm not actually concerned with their inclusion or non-inclusion: it's not like anyone will ever read the articles except us :-). However, I object to Chuzzly's assertation of the fact that mention of religion is in violation of policy, and to the fact that he refused to participate in discussion by simply reverting the page without an edit summary. I do, however, apologise for nearly 3rring ("Erring"... get it?).--Rambutan (talk) 08:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That's OK, Rambutan: to 3rr is human :). For the record, I think that Mr. Chuzzlewit probably believed himself to be acting within the confines of WP:BLP, in particular the bit which says "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." I don't think that the mention of a subject's religion or ethnicity is generally contentious, but in the case of the Murray Gold article, it apparently is, so we need citations. Now, Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack isn't, strictly speaking, under the purview of WP:BLP, but I think that the principles underlying WP:BLP#Critics still apply.
It's worth remembering that WP:BLP is a policy, while WP:COI is a guideline. Both are important, but when they come into conflict, WP:BLP takes precedence. See specifically WP:BLP#Dealing with edits by the subject of the article, which points out: "The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to the subjects of biographies, especially when those subjects become Wikipedia editors:

For those who either have or might have an article about themselves it is a temptation, especially if plainly wrong, or strongly negative information is included, to become involved in questions regarding their own article. This can open the door to rather immature behavior and loss of dignity. It is a violation of don't bite the newbies to strongly criticize users who fall into this trap rather than seeing this phenomenon as a newbie mistake.
—Arbitration Committee decision (December 18, 2005)"

In that spirit, we can encourage Mr. Chuzzlewit to abide by WP:COI in a way that is less WP:BITEy. OK? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] iTunes

If it was a top seller on iTunes, why isn't it available on iTunes now, only a month later? Was it a limited-time offer, or only available in the UK somehow, or what? 69.248.116.112 01:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It's on the UK iTunes Music Store. On the front page of the iTunes Music Store, scroll down to the bottom of the page: you'll see a menu with different countries. I'm not sure whether you can actually buy songs from other countries, or if there's some IP-checking mechanism, but you can browse other countries' iTunes Stores.
The soundtrack will be available for purchase in North America in February 2007. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guardian reference needs to be replaced

There needs to be another reference posted to replace the link to the Guardian article (the second item in the references list) because that article is only accessible to subscribers. If the article appeared in the print version of the Guardian, then all we need is the issue date and page number, if known. 23skidoo 23:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that that column is in the print edition; however, if we note (as I just did) that registration is required that will fulfill the requirements of WP:CITE. It's a free registration, not a subscription. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Series 3

Would we continue to update this page with uses of each track in the 2007 series episodes? Or will we wait for the release of Soundtrack2 (fingers crossed)? What do people think?--Rambutan (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second album

I removed a couple of rumours about a second volume, which were sourced to an mp3 interview which came out a while ago. I didn't listen the whole way through, but there was no mention in the bit I did. Plus, it would have been all over Wikipedia, OG and the BBC website by now, right?--Rambutan (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I has been confirmed in issue 387 of DWM. It says 'Murray Gold is currently working on a second CD of incidental music from Doctor Who. The release is due later this year.' Can't wait! 88.107.47.182 16:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Due for release 5th November - a date for us to remember, remember!--Porcupine (prickle me!) 06:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move

This article should be at Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack, as that is the title on the album. It should not be moved to the title with the "(Volume 1)" suffix. — Edokter • Talk • 17:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

So should volume 2, as that's the title on the album. Hmm, that's not possible, is it? I know, let's do something sensible and call the first one Volume 1 and the second one Volume 2... How's that sound? --Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the second album is titled Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack - Series 3. Go read Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Disambiguation. — Edokter • Talk • 18:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I intend to move the article to their proper titles and clean up the web of (double) redirects, unless there are any other' people objecting. I'm simply doing my job here, following WP:NAME as a policy. — Edokter • Talk • 23:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Why? It's "one against one", so why does that mean you get your way? Wait for other people to come online and discuss the issue. See here for more information.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 07:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
...
...

As you can see from the image on the right, which forms part of the policy at WP:CON, we've worked our way down the column on the far left. We're currently discussing it on the talkpage, and the next stage is to reach a reasonable compromise, probably with other editors involved. The next stage is not to say that unless anyone else supports the other side, you must be right.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 07:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not even an issue based on centent! It is a move of articles to their proper titles, fully according to the WP:NAME policy. You are now, once again, being disruptive. You are now warned: Stop being disruptive, or you will find yourself blocked! — Edokter • Talk • 08:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not being disruptive. You are refusing to allow community input - please give a good reason on why you won't wait for other people's views. By the way - you can't block me for suggesting that you follow policy, despite the fact that you're a super-duper-cool-special-really-cool-super-duper-appointed-candowhatIwant-cool-admin-person. Actually.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 09:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry??? I am not the one killing community input here... — Edokter • Talk • 15:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Porcupine, do you have any actual objections to the moves themselves? Not everything has to be discussed when it's uncontroversial. Edokter was being bold, and if you object to his move you may revert it and take it to the talk page. See Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss. What is your reason for reverting the move? Removing unnecessary parenthesis is usually considered to be a good thing. Melsaran (talk) 13:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have already given my view. It is: So should volume 2, as that's the title on the album. Hmm, that's not possible, is it? I know, let's do something sensible and call the first one Volume 1 and the second one Volume 2... How's that sound? Edocky has been bold twice, once after a revert - he skipped discuss. That's rather silly of him! Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
To use your words, that sounds stupid... They both already have different titles:
  • Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack
  • Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack - Series 3
Again, the "(Volume 1/2)" is not part of their title, therefor they should be moved. — Edokter • Talk • 16:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I still think it's more than adequate the way they are.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I would have to agree with Edokter - from the covers, the proper names seem to be "Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack" and "Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack - Series 3", so those should be the article names. Don't disambiguate if not necessary. (Oh, and I don't think there's anything wrong with bringing this up on the Project talk page - I wouldn't have noticed otherwise. But the discussion itself should probably take place here.) --Brian Olsen 16:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Project talkpage: my point precisely. The DAB page is because there are several soundtracks, although only two are called Orig. Tele. Sound.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you still object to the moves? — Edokter • Talk • 18:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
<sarcasm>No, I've just suddenly changed my mind about the moves. I think they're a brilliant idea.</sarcasm> Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 19:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Now, very honestly... Would you object is someone else performed the move? — Edokter • Talk • 21:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes. I object to the move. It doesn't suddenly become a good idea because you bribe someone else to do it. Actually.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 07:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The move should be made. Does the fact that this article has been moved and moved back twice already (I think) mean that an administrator needs to do it? I'll be happy to do it otherwise. No bribe required. --Brian Olsen 19:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Normally, no, unless the left-over redirect has been edited (then it needs to be deleted). Anyway, I think there is consenus now, so I'll make another attempt. BTW, it's not the move itself that's time-consuming; it's fixing all the double redirects as a result of the move being undone that makes me cranky. — Edokter • Talk • 19:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Just dropping by to support the idea that the article titles should match the CD titles. According to Amazon.co.uk, that would be Doctor Who Original Music from Series One & Two and Doctor Who Original Music from Series Three, however the CD cover itself says ''Doctor Who Original Television Soundtrack and Doctor Who Original Television Soundtrack Series 3 respectively. I realise this may not help much, but at the very least it should be clear that there're no sources supporting the names ending in Volume 1 or Volume 2. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 21:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Heads up: Move in progress for this and "Volume 2" articles. Expect light link-breakage and weird redirects while I fix them. — Edokter • Talk • 19:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

All done. — Edokter • Talk • 20:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Doomsday" used in "Rose"?

I just watched the entire episode... "Doomsday" is not being played in that episode. How could it when it was composed especially for the Series 2 finale? — Edokter • Talk • 14:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It was played when Rose first got into the TARDIS. I quote from the CD booklet: "The melody bookended the two series. It was first heard when Rose entered the TARDIS in Series 1." Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)