Talk:OK Computer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article OK Computer has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.

Contents

[edit] Album's influence

I feel that this sentence is misleading: 'Several rock bands which later became popular, ranging from Coldplay, Muse[32] and Bloc Party[33] to TV on the Radio,[34] have said they were formatively influenced by OK Computer'. I haven't looked at the references cited for the other bands, but the one cited for Muse seems to just be a music critic drawing comparison with Muse's sound to OK Computer's. This seems unfair considering the Wiki article claims that Muse have themselves stated the influence the album had on them, which I don't think they ever have done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.182.14 (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] individual album pages

info should be rolled into the Radiohead page and this page should be removed. individual album pages should be EXCEPTION not RULE. i repeat - we're not CDDB. :) --AW

I disagree - I think if every artist page had tracklistings of every album they'd ever made, it would be intolerable. I wouldn't want pages on every single album ever made (much as I'd like to write about The Fall's Dragnet, I think I'll resist), but OK Computer is a very well known album, and merits a page of its own. Of course, it needs more than is here now, but I should think it would be possible to write a pretty sizeable article about it, given what has been written about it in the press and elsewhere. --Camembert
I agree entirely that artist pages shouldn't have tracklistings. There just shouldn't BE tracklistings for most albums, which is why I said we're not CDDB :). When I said "info", I meant the stuff above the tracklisting. If someone can flesh this out into a full entry, maybe...give it a while, see if it happens, I guess. --AW

There's nothing at all wrong with having an article here for every album ever made--I hope we do. What "We aren't CDDB" means is that there shouldn't be any articles that are just tracklists. We're not a database, we're an encyclopedia. Don't create an article for an album unless you actually have something to say about it: how it compares to other albums of the time or other albums of that artist; which tracks were memorable and why; what cultural effects it may have had, what awards it won, etc. And sure, include a tracklist. And maybe a short sound sample or two. See, for example, The Beatles. This particular article is a bit stubby, but otherwise I think it's a fine piece of work. --LDC

hum - I have to disagree. This has been discussed in various places recently. I and a few others seem to agree that for the vast majority of albums there's not enough to *say* to justify a distinct article; it's more graceful and effective to quickly summarise the album on the artist's page. See Tori Amos for how I like to do this, anyway. OKC may be an exception to that, but I certainly don't think it's necessary to have, for instance, a separate entry for every Shania Twain album, or something... --AW

[edit] concept album?

I have a major issue with this assertion:

OK Computer is widely believed to be a concept album, based around the events in George Orwell's book Nineteen Eighty Four. According to the band, this is false, but the tracks retain a continuity by telling the stories of different characters in an Orwellian world.

"Widely believed" appears to refer to a single essay written by Radiohead fan Simon Curd (ext link already given).

The exercise of drawing painfully literal parallels between the book and the album tracks is interesting, but not at all plausible given that the band have talked at length about the meanings of the songs. 1984 simply does not feature, although it is certain they are aware of it and the album may share a similar theme at times.

As the Radiohead Unpackt site (ext link already given) notes, the album "examines the most harrowing aspects inherent in capitalist society: the utter absence of control, safety and meaning."

Jonny Greenwood on an album concept: "The only concept that we had for this album was that we wanted to record it away from the city and that we wanted to record it ourselves."

Jonny Greenwood on continuity: "You could tie two or three of the songs together with computers, but you could equally link others with transport and speed."--Air 13:33, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


I apologize for probably seeming like a brat...but I'm the creator of Radiohead Unpackt, a website that the wikipedia article cites. I keep trying to edit the page to link to my site, but it keeps getting erased. That seems a little odd, considering that the reference to my work is something that whoever moderates the page has chosen to include. Maybe I'm going about editting the page the wrong way...but I'd appreciate it if readers could read about my idea that's cited in a little more detail, since it is apparently an acceptable reference. The address is now www.radioheadunpackt.com. Thanks! Whitewingedship 15:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hitchhiker's

Not sure if this is really worth dwelling on (not a significant feature of the album) but those references in full can be found here. Both of them. Well three at a push. --Air 13:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recording details

This passage:

"Paranoid Android, a reference to the depressed robot companion of Arthur Dent, was an amalgamation of three equally depressing songs. Put it on the dance floor and see who gets up for it. The video for No Surprises features Thom's head in a diving bell slowly filling with water. He then looks into the camera as he holds his breath, which somehow represents Thom Yorke's view of the suffocating nature of existence."

Is largely free of useful information, totally POV and inappropriately sarcastic. I think we could use a section towards the end with recording trivia in bullet points. Will have a go. --Air 21:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit]  ?

why is there a 2nd and 3rd in the infobox? Gflores 18:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Some infoboxes sequentially number the albums released by the artist to make it clear that (in this case) these were their second and third albums. It's not standard, and not part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums, but it is used relatively widely. I've added 4th, but you could remove them altogether. Gram 02:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Climbing Up the Walls

What happened to the Climbing Up the Walls article? Did it get deleted or renamed? Kate Rogers did a cover of the song on her Seconds album and I noticed the link is now red... Gram 02:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] On the Album's Name

Another story on the name "OK Computer" has to do with the fact that Thom Yorke is a big fan of Macintosh computers. There was (is?) a program for Macs that let you control the computer--which you may name--with your voice. So if a dialog box pops up and your computer is named "Harry," you could dismiss the dialog box by saying, "OK, Harry." However, if you name your computer "Computer," you get, "OK, Computer." Robert 01:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I've heard different - that it's the lines before Marvin the Paranoid Android is introduced in the 1979 novel The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (They come actually come a little before that) Doc Strange 13:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recording History and Trivia - Let Down

"A couple of songs – "Exit Music (For a Film)" and "Let Down" – were recorded live."

This seems impossible and/or misleading. Let Down has multiple vocal overdubs making it impossible for the track to have been entirely recorded live. Can this information be confirmed?

Yeah, I have read some different articles on OK Computer and that seemed suspicious especially with Let Down (as they can't even PLAY it live, how could they RECORD it that way??). I put a [citation needed] after it, but it should probably be deleted if someone can't find justification. Btw, they may have meant that the main parts were all recorded in one take, I suppose. This actually is true, I think, for Exit Music. 172.166.129.168 17:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] i think i can settle the album title discussion

The track "palo alto" from the no surprises single and the airbag ep was originally intended to go on OKC but didn't make the tracklisting.

the track's chorus goes "i'm ok, how are you.." and the song was originally intended to be called "ok computer"

so they basically cut the title track from the album and changed its name.

voila!


[edit] teddy bears

Drummer Phil Selway performed the drum track in a room filled with teddy bears. -- Any references to where this came from? Google searches just pull up wikipedia for it and it seems like a strange fact... 69.86.104.47 05:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Acclaim section

Someone deleted the "Acclaim" section. I am restoring it. Why? Because this information is more encyclopedic than most of what's in the article - it's concrete information about awards and lists. It's certainly equally relevant as most if not any of the "trivia" found in various Radiohead articles (not that most of that should be deleted, either). And more important, SOMEONE WILL ALWAYS ADD IT BACK IN. As they should. OK Computer may be a brilliant album or a horrible one, that is not something Wikipedia can consider when deciding which subjects merit articles, but the actual main reason to justify an article on OK Computer in the first place is the enormous press attention this album received, much of it in the form of year-end lists and awards.

To leave most of this information out of an article on OK Computer especially when there is no place for it in the main Radiohead article, kind of negates the point of this article, imo. The album was not only in countless end of year lists, it also appeared AT THE TOP of "best of decade", "best of the past 20 years" and even "all time" (!) lists conducted by Spin magazine, British tv channel 4, Q, Pitchfork Media and various others. It appears on lists in various countries, not just the US and UK. The website Acclaimedmusic.net which compiles statistics on critics' lists, ranks it as second only to Nevermind in terms of most listed album of the '90s, and it's the #14 most "recommended/acclaimed" album overall (any decade). It's not "POV" to list actual awards and lists this album has won, in fact that's common in all album articles I've seen on Wikipedia, for much more obscure "awards" and recognition than this one has received. It doesn't imply that Wikipedia agrees with the opinions expressed by these lists, to mention them!

As for putting in a separate section called "Acclaim", this is something I did a few weeks ago because randomly ordered mentions of various praise OK Computer had received was clogging other parts of the article, and in that case it was POV. But we put it in a separate section, then it's simply documented fact. If someone wants to find many legitimate sources that have criticized OK Computer or put it on "Top 100 Worst" lists, and create a "Criticism" section, of course that would be ok too. I don't think it'd be easy to find that many. :)

btw, OK Computer is not one of my personal favorite albums. 172.166.129.168 17:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Happy Anniversary OK Computer

I took the freedom of adding this Section in order to talk about the upcomming 10th anniversary of the Album. It has been not only one of the most characteristic Albums of the 90's but it is also a reference to most of the actual bands. Not only on the music, the whole concept, videos, commercialization, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.135.233.17 (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2007

[edit] GA Pass

Well done. Very much a good article, references are more or less perfect, prose is good, a neutral point of view is maintained (there isn't a cricitism section but then again that's not necessary as the album is one of the most critically successful of all time), goes into sufficient detail, a few too many quotes perhaps but these make it interesting and give an objective NPOV account of what the band had to say about it... all round, this is very good. Image is fair use, too. I see that it was you, User:ErleGrey, that passed my Out of Reach article, and now I've passed your article (which is doubtless a GA). I currently have King Crimson as a GA nominee; if you'd like to take a look at it that'd be appreciated. How soon can we expect Radiohead to be a featured article?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese kid?

I'm sure the story about the Japanese kid is true, but the obvious fact is that the album's title is taken from the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"; the book the recurring theme of the entire album. Chapter 17:

"- I'd guessed that, - said Zaphod. - OK computer, I want full manual control now."

If you need an external source backing it up look at MTV. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? Lampman 22:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction?

This article states that "The Tourist" was recorded during the early sessions at Canned Applause but the article for "No Surprises" states that "The Tourist" was recorded very late in the sessions. Which is it? Ac@osr 17:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think maybe it was recorded early in the sessions (one of the four songs from Canned Applause in summer 1996) but only seriously considered for inclusion at the very end. Something like that. The interviews I've seen are confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.164.253.105 (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Song Articles?

May I ask why it seems every Radiohead song is deemed worthy of an article? Even "fitter happier"? It's not just the article on OK Computer that is guilty of it. 86.130.75.170 12:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Encyclopedias are informational resources, and I really don't see the problem with a song article, even if it's only a few sentences long. Simply redirecting the article to the album doesn't help much, considering information about the individual songs seems to be lacking in album articles. (71.36.3.103 (talk) 05:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Zero Kilobyte Computer?

Has anyone in the band spoken about the level of intent of the title reflecting a 0K Computer? I think that the theme of memorylessness is prevalent with them (e.g. titling an album Amnesiac) so it seems like the most sensible interpretation of the name as a computer with no memory. Yet in an interview with Yorke when asked point blank about the title's meaning he doesn't bring that up (though he doesn't actually answer the question at all, just kind of says the title isn't that relevant to the musical content). I'd be very suspicious that it wasn't intended as a play on the OK/0K duality—I just can't find it stated explicitly anywhere on the web. HostileFork 17:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)