Talk:In Rainbows/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 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.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

Untopiced talk

I find ErleGrey's cleanup to be rather subjective. "Up on the Ladder" really isn't a likely candidate for LP7, whereas "Burn the Witch," which he deleted, is very likely. Same thing for "Big Boots." If you don't think these merit their own pages that is fine, but to delete a song like "Burn the Witch" in favor of extremely unlikely ones like "Big Boots" is pretty subjective. Just my two cents. I of course appreciate any effort to make things clear and concise.MDuchek 23:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the third list was more likely than the second list, but still speculative. If I'm not mistaken, stuff like "Reckoner" and "Follow Me Around" are more historic entities. I added back "Burn the Witch"; could you provide some details/sources? –Pomte 23:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the main ones are already there (a link to the pic of the blackboard at Radiohead's blog). I mean we could source this to death but all the sources are basically www.radiohead.com/deadairspace and the singer (Thom) has made various posts with what appear to be lyrical references to songs like "Burn the Witch." I personally don't care enough to get in an edit war with anyone, I just thought fans might like more rather than less information. My opinion is that "Big Boots" deserves an article but is not likely for LP7. MDuchek 23:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any of these songs deserves an article-to do so would be highly speculative-see WP:CRYSTAL BALL. Besides, most of these songs are already listed on this page, and it's not really the job of this page or Wikipedia in general to list every single song that the band has ever worked on or let slip information to the public. Seriously, including songs like Burn the Witch, Payday, or even Ed's Scary Song is not very smart, to say the every least. The only use for the blackboard image would be as a See Also, if anyone has the time or cares enough to dig it out. The focus of the article, at least until further information is known-even then for a short time-is to provide general information on recording, as any extreme detail is much more suitable for Dead Air Space or fansites, neither of which Wikipedia is. ErleGrey 01:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Burn the Witch a) was listed on the songs they're working on in 2005, b) was listed on their tour rehersal list in 2006, and c) Thom has referred to it as recently as February this year (although I admit it doesn't mean it will appear on the album). Big Boots and I promise both have basically not been heard from in over 10 years (except for the stray BB performance in '02). So how you delete the former (Witch) but leave the latter (BB/I Promise)? Yeah something like "Ed's Scary Song" shouldn't be up there cuz who knows what if anything that is, but if you're going to delete everything that's on a recent songs blackboard and leave stuff that is probably abandoned, I just don't think that makes sense. My view is if you carefully say what is what it's not something to fight over, but if we're going to take a really restrictive view you should just delete everything that wasn't played live in 2006. My two cents. MDuchek 03:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There should be an article on videotape because thom released it as a single solo work.—Preceding unsigned comment added by JD5568 (talk • contribs)

I've made a little variation: "Enhanced CD" instead of "Bonus discc". I've simply written the name they used to call it in their official website. The meaning is a little bit different. I've also added 'digital photographs' and 'artwork' 'cause it's what 'enhanced cd' contains (as it's written on the official website). That's it.

Nigel Godrich and Spike Stent

The article says that the initial sessions were with Spike Stent. I thought that the 2005 session were produced by Nigel Godrich.--Merijn2 18:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

They weren't. They were recorded with Stent.

Unreferenced song list

A big list of songs that the band has played recently (or not so recently) isn't a reliable source that they are potentially on the album. If Johnny said "we're recording some of the songs we've been playing on tour," then that's a source. If not, the list violates WP:OR and WP:BALL and we don't need it. Certainly the "considered highly unlikely" list should be out. Staecker 01:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Reinstate the song list

I disagree. Bands always preview new songs before/while/after they record them. The Strokes played many songs from their last two albums before they were released, Muse has done the same, along with Coldplay, the Raconteurs, and many more. It's just common. I think having the list of songs up there is cool and gives the fans an idea of what's going to be on there. I don't think the "violations" really matter here, because you'd have to clean up about every article involving a band who's recording otherwise. Also, his name is JONNY, no H.

The violations do matter- they reflect core values of Wikipedia which should only be discarded with good reason. If other articles contain original research and crystal balling then we should fix them too. But here we're talking about this article, and we should do what we can to make it better. Unreferenced ideas about the future do not make it better. And sorry about Johnny- I should know better. Staecker 00:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I frankly agree with posting songs' list which were played during 2006 tour. It's unknown if they're all going to be released on the forthcoming album, but I think it's an important information though. More important than Yorke's interest to cover Bjork... Anyway, those songs represent a step of LP7 making process either if they won't be released. (Molonovo)

Thank you for placing the songs back up. I remind everyone that bands do this all of the time. And when you think logically, these are "possible" tracks. This isn't the tracklisting. As long as there is a source (them playing them live) and it's not some made up gobblygook these are all "POSSIBLE" tracks for the next album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.184.201 (talk) 08:56, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Well, you guys aren't really responding to my point, so I'll try to clarify. Wikipedia does not allow original research (OR), that is, editors inserting their own deductions or conclusions or analyses of existing information. Please take a look at that policy page. Of course I don't contest that Radiohead has been playing these tracks. But when you start using "when you think logically" to back up the article's claims, this is a classic OR defense. If it's so obvious, then find a verifiable source which states the same information. If there is no verifiable source, then take it out. The claim that it's "important information" is also not helpful- nonverifiable information cannot be included regardless of how "important" it is (or would be if verifiable).
Since I don't expect you to be convinced, and this will all be moot once the tracks are announced (hopefully not too far off now), I'm going to stop arguing. I left the list in the article, but removed the suggestions that these are likely tracks on the album (which is the OR part). Staecker 12:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that's probably the best. I think fans want to come to this page and see what tracks may be up there. These are the songs out of that huge list that are truly probable to show up on the new album so these should be listed as the possible tracks. I don't think there's any OR on that. It's just possible tracks, and these are all possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laynethebangs (talk • contribs) 17:17, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Well it's possible that they'll put a cover of Revolution 9 on there. Why not include that on the list? Because we're only listing as possible the tracks that they've been playing recently, and that is absolutely OR unless it is sourced. What "fans want" shouldn't trump policies. Staecker 20:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's totally possible. We should put it up there. I could seriously see them doing an awesome version of that. But you took what I said of out context, you're so intent on proving this point that you're simplifing what the "pro-song list reinstaters" have said without thinking through them. I respect Wikipedia's policies but having this song list is doing no harm. Above all, it is informing people. Isn't that what Wikipedia is for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laynethebangs (talk • contribs) 07:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand why "All I Need" has been deleted from the unreleased tracklisting. Why? 'Cause it's not included in the citation's article?? That source has not relevance at all. "All I Need" was played live and it's an unreleased track. This is not science fiction. This is a fact. Then, if it will be on the new album or not is another theme of discussion (and I agree with you about that, Staecker). But it's not the actual point, I think. Maybe I've not understood the "wikipedia-posting-method"... Sources are more important than facts? I guess that article was written before "All I Need" had been played.(Molonovo) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Molonovo (talk • contribs) 14:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well guys, there was the famous photograph of the blackboard with song they'd recorded at that time, so if All I Need is on that, that is the source. It's on the Dead-Air-page, and if you can't find it there, on ateaseweb.com as well (need to search a little bit...but well) BTW, it's more likely that a recently played song(as All I Need) is on the LP than a never ever stated song (as Revolution 9)82.210.245.181 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... But the real point is that they played that song and it is unreleased. I think we could change the section's title in "Live 2006" instead of "Potential songs"... Anyway I have to say that this page SUCKS. What about the "Website" section!?!? All about that site is anything less than huge hoax! Nothing official about it 'til now. Its presence on the official wikipedia rh's page is embrassing. And what about record's label!?!? Who said it will be released on Island Records?? Maybe it's in some article full of bullshit... But I've to see that is enough for a correct wikipedia information... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Molonovo (talk • contribs) 09:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The album "In Rainbows" features 10 traks. The other 8 tracks are called under the name of "extra stuff" (it's clearly written on the official website) and they will be released in a bonus disc which contains pictures and artwork too. That enhanced cd is not "In Rainbows". It's something extra. Then I've made a little bit variations. Ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Molonovo (talk • contribs) 13:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're <Personal attack> 96.226.41.152 22:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Do not make personal attacks — Matt Eason (Talk • Contribs) 22:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, person(s) here who said crystal ball this and crystal ball that, well guess what? *Everything* they played on that tour is on this new album/the bonus disc. The fact is, the unique thing about this site is that it lets people who know topic X best to write about it. So maybe the rules should be a bit more flexible or giving reasons for speculation, but as we now see it wasn't speculation, it was fans who knew that based on their experience (i.e., with the 2002 tour) that those songs were likely candidates for the new album. So I think those of us who said that list should be up here were proven right, and yeah there should be a statement of the basis for this kind of speculation, but it really (the track listing) wasn't a big surprise. MDuchek 19:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

<Personal attack>. 71.244.27.100 21:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've also noticed you've done absolutely no work on the article otherwise, <Personal attack>, MDuchek. Stuck between a rock and a hard place, eh? 71.244.27.100 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I won't respond to the unsigned attacks of course, but just wanted to say I didn't mean to attack the rule enforcer(s) here. It is good that there are rules and standards and people who enforce them, but I think the rules are not well-equipped to deal with certain topics. If you were at a concert and heard Thom say something, for instance, is that "personal research?" A lot of stuff dealing with music may be based off of live recordings made by fans, and how do you cite to things like that? On a side note, I also noticed at one point an article was cited that cited Dead Air Space. That's not independent verification, that's just citing something that is citing what was already cited (if that makes sense). Anyway, I know Wikipedia is still an experiment but my point is that for certain topics like this, there is no media or book source that is more accurate than fans who know and love the band and its music. I'd love (constructive) responses on this if anyone has them. Thanks. MDuchek 17:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

We can't do things that way. Wikipedia isn't an "experiment", either; we have well over 2 million articles and a raft of well-established guidelines and policies that are to be used to guide the creation and maintenance of articles. It's made quite clear by those policies that we can't rely solely on the knowledge of individual contributors... anything that's stated needs to be verifiable with a reliable, published source. This includes the band's official blog, and well-known industry sources like HMV, MTV or the BBC, but it precludes opinioneering and claims the go along the lines of, "well, Thom told me that..." from random individuals who could be lying, drunk, or both. This is an encyclopedia, not your personal blog or the At Ease forums or any of the other things stated at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. -/- Warren 22:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the word "bonus"

First of all, it's a cheap word. Second, Radiohead themselves don't use the word to describe the second CD of material. See http://www.inrainbows.com/Store/MoreInfo.html?PID=2 ... <span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;"; -/- Warren 13:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, it's the de facto standard on Wikipedia for noting which tracks or discs are included as extras, often only on some releases. The current working "Enhanced CD" is much less clear. It can easily be interpreted to mean that this is an enhanced version of the standard CD. For these reasons, I think the "bonus" designator should be restored. --PEJL 16:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I dropped the heading and used this instead: "The discbox release of In Rainbows includes a second Enhanced CD, which contains eight additional tracks:" with a reference to the appropriate page on Radiohead's web site. I think this will be more clear about what's going on. Wikipedia's conventions don't really apply here -- if the artist doesn't call it a bonus disc, then we shouldn't either. -/- Warren 17:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
There should be a heading, per WP:ALBUM#Track listing. Why wouldn't Wikipedia's conventions apply? We can call it a bonus disc if it is a bonus disc, even if the artist doesn't call it that. --PEJL 17:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Citations for use

Album artwork

Per this article: http://www.nme.com/news/31645 the album does not yet have artwork. I noticed earlier this morning the image was Image:InRainbows_Cover.jpg and now it is Image:InRainbows-small.jpg - The small appears to reflect at least one of the LP jackets on the inrainbows website. Thoughts? Selcouth 17:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The small one seems right, based on the discbox photo, though I wish that it was higher resolution...all of my album art stored on my computer for iTunes is 250x250. Any clue where the picture came from/if it was scaled down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.97.203 (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Not sure where it came from, but I know for fair use it must be small/low quality. Selcouth 19:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Wait for the artwork that has been talked about to be revealed before adding anything. The smaller cover is one of the cases for the vinyl discs. Due to its position in the photo, it is probably even the second vinyl cover. So it is not good enough to be included as cover art. U-Mos 18:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, leave it blank you think? Selcouth 19:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I give up. They keep changing it back. Selcouth 20:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Just leave it out, if someone decides something that's not necessarily right people will end up whining...I'm sure there will be something more official out there soon. Apolloae 21:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Found a larger one from 'rateyourmusic.com'

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/9680/1052924vo5.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.54.208 (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is a higher resolution one from rateyourmusic.com [1] They have been reliable for early album covers in the past. - kollision 02:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

A couple of points, 1.) I've just read the NME article (linked above) but I can't find the bit that says the album doesn't yet have artwork. Did you mean the 3rd paragraph? If you did then that paragraph could also be saying "the £40 discbox will have artwork", "the £40 discbox will have more artwork", "the second enhanced CD on the £40 discbox will have artwork" and "the second enhanced CD on the £40 discbox will have more artwork" None of those say that the current download album doesn't have artwork. If you didn't mean the 3rd paragraph can you quote which bit you did mean? 2.) It occurs to me that the download album just won't have cover art in some sense of the phrase "cover art" but that there is clearly some art associated with it. Why not step back and have a think about whether it should or shouldn't be added and address the wider problem of what to use for download-only albums. Unless this discussion has already been had somewhere else and something was already decided, I suggest that anyone with a view that some art should or shouldn't be in the article add a comment below with what their reasoning is Replenished entry 13:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You see, in general something download only would come with official art eg, of the top of my head, the Muse singles Stockholm Syndrome and Map of the Problematique. This album doesn't, which leads to the difficulty. Or it would if it wasn't for the fact that we KNOW that Donwood has worked on art for the album, and we have yet to see this artwork. Therefore in this case no art should be added until this "proper" cover is released. U-Mos 15:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You "KNOW that Donwood has worked on art for the album, and we have yet to see this artwork". What are you basing that on? Replenished entry 00:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
He's said as much - he talks about it here. — Matt Eason (Talk • Contribs) 00:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I see what you mean. Is it possible he's talking about all the artwork (the multiple images that will be included, not necessarily the album cover) for the discbox that hasn't been released yet though? The blurb for the discbox on the In Rainbows site [2] says
"A SECOND, ENHANCED CD CONTAINS MORE NEW SONGS, ALONG WITH DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND ARTWORK.THE DISCBOX ALSO INCLUDES ARTWORK"
Is it possible the artwork mentioned is what he's referring to? Replenished entry 00:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing the cover art (this one) because it's clearly not official - the typeface is completely different to that on the official discbox photo we have (here - look at the 'R' in 'RAINBOWS') and there's no space after the very first 'IN' on the offical image ('IN/ RAINBOWS' as opposed to 'IN / RAINBOWS'). — Matt Eason (Talk • Contribs) 00:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've also removed the comment which says that the artwork came from Radiohead's "official fansite". Green Plastic is not official - they even say so in their FAQ: "No, this is an unofficial site and I'm proud of it." — Matt Eason (Talk • Contribs) 00:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As you say, you have a photo [3] and it's of the official discbox. It has what looks like an album cover on it. Would it be an idea to use that? Replenished entry 00:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between a photo of the discbox set and the front cover of the actual album. Fairly good difference bud. Vanishdoom 01:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you explain what the difference is? The front cover of the actual album is a physical object made of material that isn't possible to uploaded on to a web site as it's not in digital form. Given that, for fair use, the album cover art needs to be a "low-resolution image" [4] of the cover and the photo shows an image of what appears to be the album cover (and can easily be converted to low res), can you explain the difference? Replenished entry 02:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
IGN now has that artwork up as In Rainbows' official artwork. This is the artwork, and I'll continue to change it back if you continue to change it back. Multiple sites claim this is the artwork, so guess what? IT IS. tribestros 02:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
No, it's really not. It is different to the only official image we have of the artwork (the discbox cover). The typeface and image are completely different. It's a fan-made image which several sites have used or assumed is the official artwork because it looks similar to the discbox cover. — Matt Eason (Talk • Contribs) 14:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Metacritic now has the artwork up for In Rainbows. That is the artwork. Please don't change it, it will be changed back. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tribestros (talk • contribs) 19:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Funny, that cover doesn't appear anywhere on the discbox photo. It's more or less a screenshot of the In Rainbows website. Stop trusting all these third party sites for this album cover and wait until solid artwork is released. Nobody has proof artwork-wise AT ALL, because the album was JUST released as a DIGITAL DOWNLOAD. Those discboxes aren't being shipped until December, and I wouldn't be surprised if the artwork isn't confirmed until that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanishdoom (talk • contribs) 23:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now the artwork has been put up on Radiohead's MySpace page now as the artwork that has been repeatedly taken down. The artwork is also on Pitchfork. The artwork is official. Even Radiohead has confirmed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tribestros (talk • contribs) 01:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm think the myspace page Tribestros is referring to is http://www.myspace.com/radioheadir There's also another myspace page at http://www.myspace.com/radioheadinrainbow. They both look like official pages (the big banners at the top of the pages) but I'm not an expert on what makes a page a band's official myspace page. The Pitchfork review is http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/46356-in-rainbows Replenished entry 13:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Quit inventing bullshit, would you? Everyone's lazily copying the album art from one web site to the next, but it all is derived from a single unreliable source -- radiohead.com.hk. Radiohead does -not- have an official Myspace page (despite the page's claims to the contrary), and the band & its management has not announced anything regarding album artwork. -/- Warren 14:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Yea, the more I look at the myspace's (early comments of "who are you", where the top banner is served from, only one "testimonial" on the serving site, which offers myspace advertising services) the more they look like just an advert for bryan three o com. Replenished entry 15:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, they're definitely completely unofficial. The /radioheadir one has pinched the banner from the /radioheadinrainbow one and hosted it on Flickr. The banner uses the same typeface as that BryanThree site (which even has a fake testimonial from Radiohead - "I wish we had found out about BryanThree when we first started out promoting our music. We would have saved a lot of time and money." - puh-lease!) — Matt Eason (Talk • Contribs) 15:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I hate Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.156.96 (talk) 22:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Inrainbowsdiscbox.jpg I propose we use this image. It's an official image from the Radiohead site and it shows the cover art of the album. If anyone objects please explain why it shouldn't be used Replenished entry 18:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

6 days and not one objection? So I take it no one objects to Image:Inrainbowsdiscbox.jpg being moved to the album cover?' Replenished entry 16:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
RE, I am sorry I am not of much help here, because I am somewhat ambivalent to your proposal. I could go either way on that. However, despite the fact that nobody has bothered to object to your proposal, here's ten bucks that says if you do it, it will get reverted within two hours ;) Seems to be the way it goes on this article... Best of luck if you do it! --Jaysweet 16:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
No. It's not art, it's a picture. And THE art, the art that Donwood has been mentioning and etc, has still not been seen. U-Mos 15:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hold the phone, this is relevent. Proves we should wait, I think. U-Mos 15:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks very relevant. You've convinced me Replenished entry 14:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The German version of the article

was nominated for deletion, and it was deleted!... wow, that's... incomprehensible. -/- Warren 22:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Good god. I really want to read that translated now. What possible reason could they have?! Phyte 12:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I put it through babelfish. It's still incomprehensible, but now it's incomprehensible in english. mattbuck 14:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The submitter thought the album might turn out to be non-notable.
The admin doing the deletion found the article to be non-perfect ("zu wenig", too little). Articles which are not perfect are obviously verboten by de:WP:MA (the relevant guideline), so it was dutifully removed (vote was 5:3 for keep btw). --193.254.155.48

Protection

Where is the vandalism that made someone protect the page? I went through the history but I can't find anything that the vandalism help page says is vandalism Replenished entry 23:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

People are constantly putting up fake covers for the album. Vanishdoom 23:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
That's no reason to protect it though. They aren't bad faith edits.
It doesn't look like they're deliberately making fake album art and then trying to upload it to try and destroy Wikipedia or damage the article though. separate people that want to contribute to the article are adding what they think is the genuine cover art because they see the article doesn't have any cover art. Or am I misreading it? Are you saying that there's some kind of bad attempt conspiracy or group of people trying to add fake pictures to it? It's silly to shut the article down because of genuine attempts by people to improve it, thats not what the protection page says the protection is for Replenished entry 23:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't my move to protect it, but considering that fake covers have been taken down a dozen times now, it was getting old real fast, especially with no sign of the actual cover art being released yet. Vanishdoom 00:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Glad I saw this discussion... I was about to upload a screenshot of inrainbows.com as an album cover. I guess I agree that leaving it blank is a good idea, but probably many people like me are looking for cover art to use in itunes or Amarok, and come here looking for it. Too bad there is not a better way to let people know its blank for a reasonTgoff 00:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure it was a dozen times? I looked through the older edits when I tried to edit earlier and I couldn't because it was locked because of vandalism and I read them to check the vandalism. I didn't think it had been added a dozen times and I thought it had stopped after someone added a warning. Is there a way to see all the changes in one page easily, or all the image changes? I had an idea - why doesn't someone add something to the article about how there isn't any album art because it's been released on the net - isn't that newsworthy? I would add something myself but I can't edit because it's been locked. Or couldn't you add an image that says "there is no album art for this article because the album art has not been released" or something along those lines. Or make a template for albums that don't have album art and add it, I'm sure there will be more in the future Replenished entry 00:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL - I just looked at the blank cover art template. It invites you to add cover art. That's funny! Why get annoyed and lock a page when well meaning people do something they're invited to do. Change the image to "OMG PLEASE DON'T ADD ANY ALBUM ART FOR GOD'S SAKE BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ANY!!!!!", then complain when people still add it Replenished entry 00:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I am being bold and unprotecting this page. There have been very few (maybe no) bad faith edits- people are adding official Radiohead-produced promotional images to the "album cover" slot in the infobox. That doesn't hurt the article at all- it just violates the general purpose of the infobox. It may be worth reverting (maybe even several times a day), but it isn't worth locking the page down. Staecker 11:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I think there's a wider issue here of what cover art is and how that relates to download albums. I've left a comment above in the "Album artwork" section inviting comment. Replenished entry 13:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The cover is now up on IGN Music. IGN is a legitimate music source. That album artwork. End of discussion. Next person to take it down gets his ass kicked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
IGN got it from the same UNRELIABLE source everyone else did. Just because a lot of people keep saying it's the album cover, doesn't make it true. -/- Warren 14:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

IGN review

The IGN review for In Rainbows has been put and taken down a number of times. I can't agree that just because a site reviews games means it cannot also do 'professional' music reviews. Why not? Because computer game journalists are suddenly 'unprofessional' when they write about music? I haven't read the IGN review myself, but I don't see why this review has been taken down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugh2323 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

See the list of accepted professional review sites at WP:Album#Review_sites Anylayman 04:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Well it is back now (the IGN review). The thing I don't understand about the afformentioned page is that it lists sites that are not acceptable as well. That leads me to think that if something is NOT on the list of banned sites, then it MAY be acceptable. If this is not the case, then why bother to list unacceptable sites? Wouldn't it just say that all other sites not on the list are banned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugh2323 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The best way to be sure would be to create a discussion at the above talk page and see if the moderators agree it's a valid source. Anylayman 08:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:Album#Review sites is not an exclusive list, the sites listed are examples of acceptable review sources. The criteria for acceptable reviews are at WP:ALBUM#Professional reviews. --PEJL 10:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Common sense would dictate that a web site that's generally devoted to computer gaming is not in the same category of professionalism as the other reviews we have listed. Remember that we have a maximum of 10 reviews we can include; we'd be better off choosing reviews from well-known music reviewers and news sources, and if we're smart about it, they'd be from a wider range of sources than the predominantly UK-based ones we have now. -/- Warren 11:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The site is not just for gaming, it's for all sorts of media. In fact, the IGN music reviews section is excellently done, with almost always a track-by-track review taking place. Take into account that most of these reviews are boring newspaper articles. I think IGN is much more deserving. And I wouldn't put All Music Guide's review up yet. There's no true review, just a score. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.204.46 (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The metacritic listing should be up today or tomorrow- perhaps it would be best to choose a representative sample from that? Anylayman 17:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Reception and Criticism

There should be a section for this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.249.74 (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There is - In Rainbows#Critical reception. User:Kollision added it earlier today. — Matt Eason (Talk • Contribs) 15:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
When there is almost universal acclaim (as the paragraph says there is), it doesn't make sense to devote so much space to one single bad review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.7.199 (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
As the person who included the Dusted Magazine review in the section, I've got to say, when I was reading the review I was thinking "this guy doesn't know what he's talking about". Of all the reviews I read (and I've read a lot), his is the only wholely negative one (a couple of others had negative comments). Would it be considered too POV if we removed his comments or would it be considered "making the article more accurate by not using a review by an idiot". Not so much I don't like, more Reliable sources. Tyler Fisher of Sputnikmusic comments are fair enough though and I even agree with him. Maybe someone could find some more negative comments to use instead of Dusted's - kollision 14:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. There are two negative reviews stated in this article, one is by someone who seems to not know what he is talking about and the other is from a website that has fairly low traffic - at least compared to the others referenced (sputnik) and the review isnt negative, but there is a little addition in the final paragraph saying the album doesnt have a standout track. I am going to pull these two comments until someone can find something that is acceptable as a reference. Blueshoc12 02:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's great to have negative opinions, although obviously it is unpleasant to read them for anyone excited about the band and the album. I like the album very much, but it's good that the article tries to show both sides of the reception. I do, however, feel that the paragraph on negative reception should be edited as more articulate negative reviews come out. As is commented upon above, the first reviewer cites that the songs are the products of jamming...this seems a very questionable criticism of a album with zero songs eclipsing the 5 minute mark...how can this reviewer know the band's in-studio compositional process? The album does seem a departure, but, given the lapse between albums and the continually evolving sound of the band, that's to be expected...the suggestion by this same reviewer that the album doesn't maximize the band's strong suits also seems to miss the mark...the band has evolved, obviously, so this criticism doesn't exactly apply to a band like Radiohead. The second negative criticism, that the album lacks a climax or hit single, seems pretty suspect as well...it takes time for consensus on these matters to settle...the album was just released, and released very non-traditionally. For me, the album, with the way songs seem to flow into other songs, almost seems a concept album...that, alone, could account for the "lack of climax" or lack of hit single feeling. I'd love to see negative receptions, but let's find some more intelligent negative reviews. Teethmerit 23:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Song titles

What do "Faust Arp" and "Arpeggi" refer to?--SeizureDog 19:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

(This is not a forum-type post. It is a question that the article does not address and should, and thus on-topic for improving of the article itself.) A user said that "Arpeggi" refers to Arpeggio. Is this the plural form of it or something? It seems that Arpeggi should redirect there instead of here if that's the case. Which leaves "Faust Arp". The Faust part is clear, but I still don't see what an Arp is.--SeizureDog 22:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I found this recording of Louis Spohr's Faust, conducted by a chap called Klaus Arp. Tenuous, I know, but I haven't found any better explanations so far. — Matt Eason (Talk • Contribs) 22:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:OR, people. Relaxing 13:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article for Faust Arp gives an explanation with no citation, so if you are concerned about WP:OR, you might want to remove that as well...
It's painfully obvious that "Arpeggi" refers to Arpeggio, since most of the song is composed of guitar and synth arpeggios layered over each other. But as Relaxing points out, even though it's obvious original research, it's still original research, so please leave it out of the article. --Jaysweet 14:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and as far as I know, "Arpeggi" is not a real word, and definitely not the plural of arpeggio. I think Radiohead just shortened the word (e.g. like "Recknor" instead of "Reckoner". Those wacky Brits!) --Jaysweet 14:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Exactly why I haven't added it to the article — Matt Eason (Talk • Contribs) 17:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Discbox release timeframe

The site (inrainbows.com) states that the discbox will be shipped on or before December 3rd. I have edited the page to reflect this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.112.247.224 (talk • contribs)

The way I see it, since the discbox will be shipped on or before December 3, it is fair to say that no one will recieve it before December 3. As such, when refering to the discbox's release date we should say 'December 3', when refering to when the discbox will be dispatched we should say 'on or before December 3'. kollision 14:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Who's to say it's not getting released tomorrow? That's still before December 3rd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.112.247.224 (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, didn't think about it like that. You're right. - kollision 00:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement not supported by its citation

The statement "Radiohead had stated while recording that they would not make a decision on how to release their new material until it was finished." is supposed to be supported by this citation. I can't find anything in the article to support that. The closest is "They are out of a contract, but they're not actively looking for another one. They're getting on with doing what they do." A proper citation needs to be found, or the sentence removed. kollision 14:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It's ok now, Relaxing has edited the sentence and provided a citation that matches the new information. kollision 13:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Genre

Please do not start an edit war over genre, fellas. It's just not worth it.

Some quick thoughts:

  • Radiohead's genre is unclassifiable since Kid A. Too many influences from too many sources. You can't even say all of their songs are "rock," since rock is defined by an accented backbeat, and while most Radiohead songs have an accented backbeat, not all do (e.g. Pyramid Song)
  • I think Alternative and Art Rock are pretty apt, but Radiohead has actually gone on record saying they don't want to be classified that way. heh, too bad for them, I say! I recognize why they want to disassociate with Art Rock, but let's face it, if you make an electronic-tinged rock song with a 5/4 time signature (15 Step) and nobody blinks, you're Art Rock. Live with it!  ;)
  • Pop is actually not all that left field. Radiohead has gone on record saying that they make pop music (I don't have the source handy, but I can find it). Not so much with In Rainbows, but at least as recently as Hail to the Thief, a good percentage of the songs had a structure that is characteristic of pop (e.g. verse/chorus). So Pop isn't totally ridiculous, though it carries connotations that I think probably don't describe Radiohead very well.
  • Edit warring over genre is stupid, so let's not do it. See the revision history of Underoath. Oy. What a bunch of dumb kids.

So those are my thoughts on genre. I'd say Art Rock is most apt. --Jaysweet 15:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Genres are not proper nouns, and should not be capitalized. See WP:MUSTARD#Capitalization. --PEJL 15:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a verifiable source for the genre, otherwise it's original research. --Madchester 17:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

So are you suggesting we remove the genre classification from the infobox altogether? Cuz I don't see a WP:RS for any genre right now.. --Jaysweet 17:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Allmusic has defined it as "Alternative Pop/Rock" and "Experimental Rock" [5]. -/- Warren 02:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Mixing It

I've removed the following from the article: "In late March 2007, the band posted the words "Mixing it" on Dead Air Space". It was there supposedly to imply that the band was mixing the album in March, although that fact is only based on two words "Mixing It". Misinterpreted? It wouldn't even make sense that the band would be mixing the album in March when they only finished recording in June. If they really were mixing in March, please provide proper evidence. - kollision 16:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You're reading too much into it. It's a factual statement, backed up by a source, about something that really did happen. It doesn't push a POV and it's not saying that the band were mixing it in March, so it doesn't need to provide evidence that they were. Replenished entry 17:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Then what does it say that is relevant to the article? --Richmeistertalk 18:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't know, don't care. I just know it wasn't supposedly implying anything Replenished entry 20:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I think I agree with the Richmeister that this doesn't really add anything. It may have seemed relevant months ago when this was an article full of obscure tidbits about the album's progress, but I don't think that this information has any lasting notability. Staecker 19:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
So it sounds like everyone here is in agreement: The statement was well-sourced and so didn't fail WP:RS or WP:V, but it just doesn't really add anything to the article anymore and is better if removed. --Jaysweet 20:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I concur — Matt Eason (Talk • Contribs) 21:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Top ten tracks in Last.fm

The album got itself the first top ten places in the weekly chart in Last.fm One place for each song... http://www.lastfm.es/music/+charts/?charttype=weekly&subtype=track&range=1191758400-1192363200

--Rodrigopenalba 04:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This was mentioned in the article a few days ago, but was taken out most likely due to irrelevancy. Vanishdoom 04:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe if we open a section for Trivia and diverse facts for this album... it's just a suggestion. --Rodrigopenalba 08:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
No way, we're having a hard enough time getting rid of trivia sections. Read WP:TRIVIA.--SeizureDog 09:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, it seems relevant to me. Is it a slightly random fact? Yes, i suppose so, but it's the best indicator we have of the success of the album. mattbuck 23:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Most notable song?

Which song is the most notable and thus should recieve an 30-second audio clip for illustrating the article? Based on either popularity, reviews, or importance (no "I like 'Videotape' best"-type suggestions).--SeizureDog 09:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The long-awaited Nude. Staecker 11:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Arpeggi seems to be the one getting all the special mentions in reviews, and the band have stated it's something they're especially happy with. A 30 second taster would feel a bit inappropriate in my opinion though as no one song is representative of the sound of the album... Phyte 13:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd go for a section of Bodysnatchers surrounding the "have the lights gone out for you?" bit. UIt was mentioned in some review I read, and seems appropriate. mattbuck 23:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, personal preferences aside (as I love Faust Arp and Jigsaw), tracks 5-9 certainly aren't the most notable of the lot. And nor, I don't think, are Videotape (for sampling usage) or Bodysnatchers (not as anticipated really). Which leaves 15 Step, Nude or Weird Fishes. NOT Arpeggi I say, as I think picking 30 seconds out of it would leave it very hard to get a picture of the song, let alone the album (and also it's the weakest track on the album in my opinion, but that's beside the point). So 15 Step or Nude. Don't really mind which to be honest. Of the couple of reviews I've scanned, I think Nude is mentioned a bit more than 15 Step but it would be harder to get 30 seconds of that to sound right. I think 15 Step is pretty much unanimously liked as well, so maybe that would be the best choice. If it is chosen, the 30 seconds should include one of the sampled "Yeah!"s. U-Mos 15:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Sampled "Nude" since two people suggested it. Would like opinions on if it's a decent cut or not. I frankly don't like the song (only liked "Faust Arp" and "Videotape"), which makes knowing where to cut difficult.--SeizureDog 15:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
A lot of people are talking about All I Need, too. Something like 2:35 - 3:05 of that song might be good. -/- Warren 16:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC
To the last poster: that's actually not too bad, just move it forward in the song a bit to catch a bit of the "slow down" bit. I forgot how good that bid of the song was. I still say 15 Step overall though. Why I care I don't know, as I can't actually play the things. On that note, what are the timings of "Nude" that have been taken in the sample? U-Mos 17:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
If you had checked the file description, you would have noticed that it's from 0:45 to 1:15.--SeizureDog 18:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah. Thanks. Personally, I'd go much nearer the climax, maybe from around the 2:55 mark to get in the vocal driven, acoustic driven and synth bits. And while media player's open, my tip for 15 Step is 2:10 to 2:40 (which gives two "yeah"s, the song title, a change in rhythm and the Fog-esque electronics for a few seconds at the end). U-Mos 18:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm always unsure of how far the fair use for audio can be pushed. I mean, in theory, we could have a sample for each of the ten songs, since each one could justify having a clip for its own article (though many are at the risk of merging atm). This seems especially justifiable since the songs are potentially free, so there's no risk of it hurting Radiohead's business, and the fact that many of the songs are radically different from each other. All ten may be eccessive, but I'm just making a point. How many should we have, or can get away with before a copyright hound starts to balk?--SeizureDog 17:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Well the OK Computer article has four samples, I think 3-4 for this would be adequate. I reckon we should include a sample of "15 Step" because it's the most different from anything the band has done before with its dance beat, handclaps and the cheering children. We should also include a sample one of the "love ballads" ("House of Cards", "All I Need", "Videotape") to exhibit Yorke's more accessible/direct pop lyrics. - kollision 13:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, i mean "Bodysnatchers" is getting awful close to hitting the US Modern Rock Top 40.... Doc Strange 16:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone able to do a better quality snippet of House of Cards? It's pretty poor, really. Nshady16 13:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Here you go :) Emc² • contact me 09:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

AMG

A couple of people are saying that AMG has published a review. I'm not seeing it. The "Review" tab is disabled, and the link that's being proposed only shows a track listing. What's going on here? -/- Warren 13:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

They haven't published a review, just a score - 4.5 out of 5. Apparently they do this quite often, giving the score first, followed up by a review a short time later. But I'm pretty amazed someone hasn't got something ready by now, this being the most talked about release of the year and all... They did do a blog article on it, but even that was laughably late. AMG on the way out...? :( Phyte 13:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
It was up earlier and the page went blank with all the info just recently. Something's up with their site, possible cache problems. It'll sort itself out in due time. Vanishdoom 13:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
It's up for me - http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:0zfuxz8hldde~T1 — Matt Eason (Talk • Contribs) 14:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Strange. When I go to that page, I see nothing at all... the page footer is directly underneath the tabs. Is the review the same as what was posted here in their blog? -/- Warren 14:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's the same one (apart from different links and paragraph breaks). It appears to only be up on some of the mirrors. (It's up here but not here.) --PEJL 14:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

←The AMG review is live now, so I've re-included the link to the review. -- Flyguy649 talk 14:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It's still not working for me, but whatever, it appears to be a temporary technical problem. That said, it's a pretty poor review compared to the other ones. -/- Warren 15:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
What a disappointment. I was hoping for an all-new review Phyte 20:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Replaced Virgin Media with Stylus review

The Stylus review is much more comprehensive and I think most people would feel it has more 'influence' than Virgin Media. Knowing you 12:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)