Talk:Fear of a Blank Planet/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

What happened to the album cover? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saladbreath (talk • contribs) 06:33, 24 February 2007.

Contents

Article Cleanup (04.19.07)

I've taken the liberty of reorganizing (hopefully streamlining) and cleaning up the article today. I don't believe that I removed much of anything (except for the e-card reference which could and probably should be put in the external links section), but rather I attempted to document the information as it came to us in a more concise manner. C. M. Reed 19:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Fear of a Black Planet

No mention of the reference to Fear of a Black Planet? --72.179.40.212 07:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought that was a bit odd as well, though without anything to properly substantiate it, its omission is correct. -- Charles M. Reed 02:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We could certainly add that the reference is at least suspected. 69.91.104.103 15:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that someone has recently added a supposed statement by Wilson verifying that the title is indeed a homage to the Public Enemy album (which should surprise no one, really), but the citation itself - claiming that Wilson stated as much during an interview on BBC's Radio 1 - wasn't easily verified. Admittedly, I only gave a cursory glance to the website and the schedule, but I didn't turn up anything to support the assertion. Either way, I left the quote itself and just slapped a [citation needed] onto it. C. M. Reed 19:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I wrote it while I wasn't logged in. Steven Wilson mentioned it while introducing Fear of a Blank Planet being performed live on Radio 1. This happens about 1 hour 40 mins through the show, and the only way to hear him say this is to click on the 'listen again' feature and fast forward through to it, and this expires in a few days. So yes, it is hard to verify, but I'm doing regular searches to link him to that statement elsewhere.Mellomeh 18:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Cool. I had an inkling that it was legitimate, which is why I didn't bother to remove it from the page completely. I'll do some scrounging around as well to see if I can turn up a usable citation. I suppose there's also the possibility that it could be mentioned in the liner notes, but I won't be able to check those for a bit. C. M. Reed 05:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Leak

Is it really necessary to list all the leaked tracks in great detail? I don't think that Wikipedia is meant as some kind of hub for music piracy. Kerrow 21:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Track Comments

All of the current stuff written about the new tracks should go, its badly written and is based on opinion.
I agree, it should. For future reference, such exposition violates Wikipedia's no original research policy - officially, this is the reason that the section will continue to be removed from the page. Should valid and citable opinions be contributed to the page, then there would be little that one could do to remove them. Good luck with that though - wikipedians tend to be quite stringent regarding the amount of "cruft" present on pages such as these. C. M. Reed 07:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

Are you sure it is really necessary to list every review of the album ? I think only 3 our 4 reviews should be kept, and the rest shall be removed. Personally from the current ones i'd keep only Classic Rock and Ultimate Guitar and later add Allmusic and Rolling Stone reviews, if they will review the album. Please express your opinions —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Molnart (talk • contribs) 22:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

I completely agree, and you've reminded me to search wikipedia policy on music reviews. I'm quite certain that there is precedent for this sort of event, and I'll be sure to make sure that this article abides by that less the situation get out of hand. - C. M. Reed 22:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Could we truncate it, like they do with long TOC's sometimes? I'm not sure how the whole thing works, but is that an option? Kerrow 02:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


I agree with the comments before and I also say: Please, if you gonna post new reviews, at least follow the alphabetic order as reviews are listed in this article. Chinese lucky strike 18:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

What is your criterion by deleting Ultimate Guitar's review and mark some of them with italic? Chinese lucky strike 19:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

My criterion is WP:ALBUM#Professional reviews and WP:ALBUM#Non-professional, as mentioned in the edit summary and on your talk page. --PEJL 19:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I say to keep only reviews from the most well-known and established reviewers (All Music Guide, Drowned in Sound, musicOMH.com, Pop Matters, and Q Magazine). Jasonn 21:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobody heard you Jasonn, 3 of the 5 reviews you mentioned were deleted without any explanation. (I mean musicOMH, Pop Matters and Q Magazine) Chinese lucky strike 23:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're referencing the reviews I deleted, I was only trying to keep a variety of different takes on the album. Stacking the article with only very positive reviews would obviously violate WP:NPOV. Kerrow 02:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
If an album is universally well-received, isn't it only fair to reflect that? By your logic, a good album should have as many good and bad reviews listed, when that's just plain silly. Jasonn (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't recall saying that every album deserved an equal share of reviews, good and bad. I only was assuming that if there was criticism of an album, perhaps it'd be best to reference and reflect that somehow, to provide a more unbiased viewpoint. Including one or two negative reviews would be fine. Including none? I have some issue with that. Kerrow (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Mastering Quality

Maybe it should be mentioned that the album is mastered exceptionally well in regard to the so called Loudness war. I could gather material to prove that. In Absentia and Deadwing were compressed quite heavily. But this album is like it's coming from the early 90s (CD) or even 80s (DVD LPCM). This info could be quite useful for audiophiles because such quality is really rare these days. Hancoque 17:10, 27 April 2007 (GMT+1)

Versions?

What are the versions of this album? I know at least 3, but I can't figure out which one(s) have the DVD. There's one for ~$15US, one for ~$30US, and for for ~$50US.

The earliest releases did have the DVD-audio packaged with it, but that was a very limited run. I've seen mention that the DVDA release of FOABP will have all four "Nil Recurring" EP songs included. This might explain why the DVDA has been delayed in release. MRuss 12:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

First studio album without an instrumental?

Would it be worth noting that, perhaps under a "Trivia" section, this is the first PT album without a fully instrumental track on it? This is just counting the previous 8 studio albums (On The Sunday Of Life... to Deadwing), and even if you included the left-over-albums (Insignificance, Metanoia, and Recordings), it would still be the only studio album without an instrumental track. MarkyMarc413 05:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Which was the instrumental track on Deadwing ??? --Molnart 16:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, there wasn't one on the regular release, but the special editions that came with the left-over tracks, a couple were instrumentals, originally meant to be part of the album and written during those sessions, and I would think that would count, right? Maybe we can say that FOABP is the first album without any known instrumentals recorded during that albums' sessions, unless "Nil Recurring" is an instrumental... MarkyMarc413 03:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
For the record, "Nil Recurring" is an instrumental. MRuss 12:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)