Talk:In Rainbows/Archive 2

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 Archive 3 →

Contents

Inclusion of chart data

I just wanted to drop a little note here to explain why I've re-included the available chart data in the article. The original edit was reverted as “irrelevant.” I had thought the relevance would be obvious but it seems not, so I’ll explain here.

The popularity of an album is an interesting thing for a reader. Imagine a user is browsing Wikipedia 20 years from now. Looking back on music in the early 21st century, wouldn’t you want to know how popular an album was? Was an album which is critically acclaimed also well-received by the public? Who will know if we never say anything about its popularity?

So, of course, I looked for other album articles to see whether they include such data. Bridge over Troubled Water does. The Dark Side of the Moon does. OK Computer does. And those are just the first three I checked. Why should this article not?

The other thing is that this album is somewhat unique as being released in a slightly unorthodox manner. The album was widely publicised before release since it was being released over the internet without the aid of a record company and using the tip jar approach. So, for this album more than most, it is interesting to look at the popularity so we have some idea of whether or not the novel release method really worked.

So, I would ask whoever keeps deleting this section to either stop deleting it or to provide some good rationale as to why it doesn't belong here.Thebrid 14:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be included with the article. Last.fm is a notable source due to how many users access it, and considering the substantial effect it had on the charts, it's definitely noteworthy. The naysayers should see it as an encyclopedic fun fact, rather than "filler info". Vanishdoom 05:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
What about official charts? The song "Bodysnatchers" is currently #35 on the Billboard Modern Rock chart ([1])....should this even be debated? Doc Strange 17:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
We probably shouldn't need to debate it. But, I see someone just reverted those edits again, without discussion, so I guess we do need to. Although, if they don't even check the talk page before reverting, perhaps it's a waste of time anyway :-(
As for official chart data, that sounds like it'd be a useful addition. One of my motivations for adding the Last.fm charts was because the album is ineligible for the UK charts. If there are US charts, that would be interesting to see.Thebrid 01:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Pay what you want, figures

Here are some figures on the amounts that people were willing to pay for the "in Rainbows" record. Reliable enough for inclusion? //Knuckles 08:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If we include some of the information from specified, be sure to leave the following statement out: "...this shows pretty conclusively that the majority of music consumers feel that digital recorded music should be free and is not worth paying for." I think this is not a very solid conclusion, there could be many other factors involved as to why most people downloaded it for free. //Narcolepticpathos 03:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
From a statement released by the band: "the figures quoted by the company comScore Inc are wholly inaccurate and in no way reflect definitive market intelligence or, indeed, the true success of the project." ComScore: "based on data obtained from comScore’s worldwide database of 2 million people" Andrew Lipsman, Senior analyst for ComScore: "observed the activity of nearly one thousand people who visited the "In Rainbows" site", "observed several hundred paid transactions" If ComScore actually only used less than 1000 people, then Record of the Day's survey (of 5000 people) would still be the most accurate. - kollision 10:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Chronology Lacking?

Why is 'Hail to the Thief' the only other listed album in the band's chronology. It should be fleshed out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.212.202 (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The "Chronology" field in the infobox at the top of the page only lists the previous and subsequent albums (try clicking on Hail to the Thief and you will see that it links to only Amnesiac and In Rainbows). The full chronology appears at the Radiohead template at the bottom of the page. There just simply isn't room in the infobox to have practical list of the full chronology.
This is the standard way of doing album infoboxes. I think it is no problem. Thanks for the comments though! --Jaysweet 17:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn GA nomination

I've withdrawn this article from Good Article nomination as I think it's still too early. In particular, the article doesn't meet the 'broad in its coverage' criteria especially in the music and commercial reception sections. As the commercial success of the album won't be seen till January at least, I don't think this article should be renominated till then (at least). I'll add a To do list with a list of things we can improve on later today. - kollision 06:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Haven't you read the footnote to that criteria? "This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics to be listed." The "broad in coverage" criteria only states that the article must "addresses the major aspects of the topic". Now if the article lacked a music or commerical reception completely, then it wouldn't be addressing the major aspects, but that's not the case.--SeizureDog 09:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I still don't think this article is good enough. Things such as track durations for the second disc, authors for songs, a personnel list are actually required for Start and B class articles. We probably won't know these things until the discbox comes out. The album also came out just over a month ago, it's just too current to become a Good Article. It hasn't had time to sell, chart, be nominated for awards etc. These are major aspects of the topic. - kollision 10:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Not of this is a fault of the article itself. Lacking information that doesn't exist yet doesn't make the article not good. Besides, none of these issues will entail sweeping changes to the article. Most of the current prose will likely be the same months from now.--SeizureDog 11:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Guess that where we disagree. I think lacking information that doesn't exist yet but will be soon does make the article not good, especially important information such as the commercial reception. Future/current albums do not pass GA nominations. Here are a few examples, [2] [3] [4] - kollision 21:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Reckoner vs. "Recknor"

Most media outlets, as well as the Wikipedia article, seem to be reporting the name of the track as "Reckoner," i.e. spelled properly. However, my download of the In Rainbows zip file from Radiohead's website has the MP3 listing the track's title as "Recknor." I guess since I can't find any media outlets that spell it properly, listing it as "Recknor" would be original research... but this sort of bugs me. Does anybody know what gives? Has the entire music world just collectively decided to correct Radiohead's spelling?! If so, shouldn't track 1 of Amnesiac be "Packed Like Sardines in a Crushed Tin Box," instead of "Packt Like Sardines in a Crushd Tin Box"? heh... --Jaysweet 14:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, if people got this right, this would clear up confusion over the apparently-abandoned live song "Reckoner (Feeling Pulled Apart By Horses)" vs. the entirely unrelated In Rainbows song "Recknor". But what do I know... ---Jaysweet 14:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
07 - Radiohead - Reckoner.MP3 - direct from the download. mattbuck 14:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Weird. I just double- and triple-checked my copy, which is also direct from the InRainbows.com download. Filename is "07 Recknor.mp3" and the "Title" field of the MP3 info struct clearly says "Recknor."
What day did you download it? I think I downloaded it roundabout the 12th or so (it was a couple or three days after the release).
(My apologies if these comments come off as a little forum-y, but I kindof want to get this cleared up) --Jaysweet 14:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I got my copy on day 1 and it was titled "Reckoner", both in the filename and ID3 tag. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 14:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I've done some Googling, and the number of hits for "Recknor" is very small ("radiohead recknor" turns up only 245 hits; searching for "radiohead recknor reckoner", in the hopes of finding someone discussing this problem, turns up only 10 hits, none of which have to do with my quandary here).
But, I did notice something... A large number of hits for "radiohead recknor" are people's Last.fm pages showing the most recent song they listened to... So, although nobody seems to be discussing it, it seems I am not the only person who got it labeled as "Recknor."
I guess, with the lack of any sort of reliable source, there's nothing we can do for the Wikipedia article, so I will let this go for now to avoid turning this into a forum. I'm just very confused... --Jaysweet 14:54, 14 November 2007 (UTCExc
Just to confirm, I downloaded the album not 10 minutes ago from the official site, and the filename and ID3 info both agree: Reckoner, not Recknor. I paid for it, maybe they leave out a letter if people opt not to pay ;) 71.61.64.113 (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, is the photo of the album cover with the track names on it not considered a reliable source? Or the fact that anybody can go to the official site right now and see for themselves by downloading the album that it is spelled "Reckoner"? I think somewhere in there, the idea that it's spelled "Recknor" is the one lacking validation, and I don't think there's any problem in affirming the spelling on the album cover :) 71.61.64.113 (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Need a reliable source for musical similarity (or lack thereof) between the two Reckoners

The other day I fixed up the sentence referring to the earlier "Reckoner" (hereafter known as "Pulled Apart by Horses") to say that it was an entirely different song, despite some in the media anticipating it would be a studio recording of the earlier live song. Note that I did have a citation for the latter statement (Pitchfork's guide to "In Rainbows" prior to its release contained a YouTube video of "Pulled Apart by Horses" in the section about "Reckoner"). However, I went on to assert that "the lyrics are different" and there is "no musical similarity" between the two. I recognized this was technically original research, but I thought I'd get away with it, since in my mind it was clear there was no similarity.

However, an anon IP had disputed this characterization, saying there is "little" musical similarity. Now, I frankly don't see it -- I see no commonalities whether they be melodic, harmonic, rhythmic, or lyrical. But regardless, we can't be doing original research either way (and in fact, if someone pointed out a shared theme to me, it would still be OR to say so in the article). So... in the spirit of verifiability, does anyone remember reading a review in a major publication or something that asserted whether or not "Pulled Apart by Horses" and "Reckoner" have any musical similarity or not? --Jaysweet 14:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how you'd cite it, but check out http://www.ateaseweb.com/2007/11/19/ed-obrien-thom-yorke-at-bbc-6music/ —

'Thom: “Beause it’s not the same song. There was a song called Reckoner. I wrote a second part to it and then Jonny wrote another part to it and the song as it was left the building”.' — mæstrosync talk&contribs, 08:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I added in the above source, trying not to explicitly say how much similarity there is. Staecker (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Good job. It at least confirms that, according to Thom Yorke, they are "not the same song." It's also a really cool interview! heh...
Incidentally, I did go back and one could almost make a case that the rhythm of the backing guitar part in "Reckoner" bears a passing similarity to the overall rhythm in the chorus of the original "Pulled Apart By Horses". In my mind, the resemblance is entirely superficial and nothing more than a coincidence, but it's enough to make me comfortable with the "little or no" phraseology, together with the cite of Thom Yorke saying it's "not the same song." If some people want to see a "little" similarity, that's not Wikipedia's business. (heh, and I suppose they both do have a strong backbeat! Did you know that all rock songs are called "Reckoner"? hehehe) --21:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism / edit war of this article

I've reverted edits to this article by User talk:207.244.169.105 twice now, and I'm about to revert them again for the second time today -- these edits are vandalism. My reverts have been reverted by User talk:Hereherehere twice now, so I should probably justify my edits.

Some of the edits by 207.244.169.105 don't match up with the cited sources -- in at least one situation, words are being inserted in the middle of a quote, where the sources don't mention eliding anything. Also, at least one edit is completely ungrammatical ("Several reviewers attributed the album's quality to the band's performance in the studio" is changed to "Several reviewers attributed the album's quality of the sounds in the studio") and another doesn't make sense in the context (talking about not releasing the album on the Internet because some people couldn't afford it, vs. some people not being able to download it).

There are a few changes by 207.244.169.105 that are arguably legitimate -- changing "songs" to "sounds" comes to mind (I'm not a Radiohead fan myself, and that seems about accurate *ducks*) but given the context of malicious edits, I've been inclined to revert these questionable edits by this anon user with the others.

This is pretty pernicious vandalism -- it's plausible, and likely to persist if allowed to remain. Please, look at the diffs, check the cited sources, and help me keep this trash out of this article. jhf (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The "songs" to "sounds" edit isn't legitimate because it's directly quoting The Guardian. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 08:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


Life

Wasn't 'All I Need' featured at the end of the last episode of the NBC Life?--24.58.159.152 (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Evidently it was. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Bangers + Mash

Is this the official title ie. printed on the discbox? Not owning it, I wouldn't know. U-Mos 16:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's Bangers + Mash, but I'm more curious as to what the official title is for Last Flowers. —Vanishdoom (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The correct track listing is Last Flowers and Bangers + Mash, based on the CD scan here: http://incoherent.net/musicbrainz/rainbows_bonus_cd.jpg —Vanishdoom (talk) 06:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Discbox - better image?

Would it be possible for somebody to put up a fuller, bigger image of the discbox up? The current one doesn't really do it justice as it's not very detailed, and plus everyone's seen that picture from Radiohead official - it would be better if we had one that showed the other details of the box. Thanks, Sebrat (talk) 11:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sell figures

For the discbox there is about 70000 to 80000 out there. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/omm/story/0,,2221299,00.html Chandrasonic (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Pitchfork

Why claim they gave it a 9.3 when they didn't rate it at all? I know metacritic also ranks it as 9.3, but I assumed they made up the score subjectively based on the qualitative part of the review. Rm999 (talk) 04:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Because on the Pitchfork review, if you click the question mark, and then click it again, it says "NO REALLY, IT'S 9.3" - kollision (talk) 08:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Good source to add

Wired article where David Byrne interviews Yorke about In Rainbows. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Why...

..is "All I Need" the only track from the original album lacking its own separate article? This song is as notable as any other on the album, being mentioned in many reviews I've read and selected by Pitchfork as one of the top tracks of 2007 (the only Radiohead track to be selected, if I may add). Either it should have its own article or some of the other tracks should be de-article-ized (err, merged). -albrozdude (talk) 00:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Because nobody has yet written an article. Click the red link and start typing! Staecker (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, they have, which is what my concern was. Some redirect-happy person chose to redirect just the All I Need article, which I contend was a misjudged action, thus my comment here. -albrozdude (talk) 18:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

New York Times Ranking

Has anyone included this? The NY Times ranked the album #1. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/arts/music/23pare.html?_r=1&oref=slogin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.90.158.89 (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Release date for the United Kingdom

The article gives release dates for Japan, Australia and North America, stating that it will be released "elsewhere" 31st December. Presumably this includes the United Kingdom, too, but I was in HMV earlier today (30th December) and it was already out. Am I missing something, or does anybody know when it came out? The Baroness of Morden (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the official release date for the UK is 31 December, although according to some people at the ateaseweb.com forums, some stores have starting selling it early. - kollision (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)