Talk:Tales from Topographic Oceans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

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

Footnote-when I was at school (circa 1975) I scratched "Tales From Topographic Oceans" on my school desk- a day or so later some wag had altered it to "Rages From Geographic Beanos"... quercus robur 10:36, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Tales from topographic oceans

This is a great album, sadly too ambitious and falling from its own defaults. But the way the Yes band remastered Ritual for example, in the yessymphonic tour, shows all the potiential of such a work ! Too many instruments for people who love basic rock, yes, but one of the most positive way to express music and enlightment I've ever seen ! Don't blame them before listening well, please ! :)

Liriell

The article needs an albumbox and bigger cover scan Lee M 04:07, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Is this right?

"Shortly before this he had famously eaten a take-away curry on stage whilst the band were performing the work in order to show his disdain for it. He did, however, rejoin Yes in 1977 for their album Going For The One." I heard this was a planned part of the show, like Jon reading a newspaper during some long solos? --Thomas 12:07, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rick was on Countdown on Channel 4 last week (I think) and he told the tale of the curry incident - he said that he mentioned to a roadie (or somesuch) that he was getting hungry and had a desire to go for a curry after the show, which was misinterpreted as a request and the guy dutifully ordered one and brought it to him. He thought it was shame to let it go to waste, and he was hungry, so he ate it. --195.219.38.177 15:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is wiki, not a Yes fan site

It is the role of this encyclopedia to examine this album within the context of its time, not to praise it from a fan's POV. I was around when the album was released and it was indeed crucial in terms of the backlash it recieved that helped to fuel the punk movement. Personally I really like TFTO and play it often, but also understand the critisisms (sprawling, self indulgent, etc). Therefore it is not appropriate to remove the links to critical websites, particularly the Punk77 website which fairly accurately, and in a humourously healthy POV way represents the punk viewpoint on this album.

Cheers quercus robur 08:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

==Just reverted a huge chunk of POV text from this article- I stated reading it, but got bored, so if anybody can find anything worthwhile in what was added and re-add it in a more restrained and NPOV way please feel free... quercus robur 09:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm somewhat taken aback, Quercusrobur, that you would deign to edit someone's text "because you got bored." With respect, if the new material bored you, I feel you should re-focus your attention upon a topic that actually really interests you. Or why not ask the writer, here, to consider altering their work. This would be much more respectful.I'm assuming you're not a senior Wikipedia editor.

Further, referring to your May post, again respectfully, I would ask you whether you are in a position with the Wikipedia organisation to dictate policy (?). I doubt that you'd be surprised if I went on to say that it is perfectly valid for an encyclopedia to comment critically on art presented in the past. Are you suggesting, for example, that the entry on Picasso should only present opinions on his cubist works contemporaneous with the time of their production? If you are, I would suggest that you would be gravely in error.

I would also like to point out that Yes were one of many bands of the early and mid-70s whose approach to music stimulated the birth of punk rock. This album and Yes themselves were not crucial in giving rise to punk per se. That would be much too large a claim to make on its behalf.

yours, Thos. Nov 6 2005


Assume what you like 'Thos', I DO have Wiki admin status if thats what you mean by a 'senior editor', and have been editing wikipedia since 2002. Apart from this I wasn't aware that there were any 'senior editors', I thought wiki editors were a topless non-hierichical collective, even if the whingers on Indymedia sometimes claim otherwise, and I DO understand wikipedia policy, which is to present useful encyclopedic, nuetral point of view information, not turn entries into waffling opinionated 'critical essays'. Yes, I got bored, your aditions to the article are lengthy and tedious fan point of view meanderings and render it no longer readable or useful, but then that is just my opinion. I can't be arsed to get into a dispute with you and shall forthwith refer this to third parties for intervention. quercus robur 19:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Added to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts page [1] as per above:
Tales From Topographic Oceans- See discussion on Talk:Tales From Topographic Oceans. Anon user (Thos?) has expanded article into a 'critical essay' with lots of personal opinions, etc. Needs third party view/input/severe editing and cleanup, possibly user needs clarification re. NPOV and other Wikipedia policies. 21:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Apologies, this isn't an anon editor but user:thoss, who I assume is the previous anon contributor now signed in. Could still do with a third party look-over though... quercus robur 22:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thos

My comments yesterday were rude and ignorant- I shouldn't have reverted your edits so brutally although they DO need an NPOV edit, preferably from a third party rather than me. I should have flagged this up, or at least pointed you in the direction of wiki policy (which somebody has now put at the top of your talk page) rather than just reverting the whole page. Sorry if I pissed you off, I'm noramlly quite a reasonable person to work with, honest! quercus robur 19:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

This new article has thrown all objectiveness and neutrality out the window, i love TFTO personaly, but this article is just too biased towards the album instead of remaining neutral. Its begging to be re-edited.

BJR


The Myth of Neutrality and its Relative Undesirability

If the article referred to above is "too biased towards the album" for established Wikipedia standards, then fair enough. However, Wikipedia-bods are kidding themselves if they think that neutral positions on encyclopedia entries are always possible. There is an inherent bias in all the entries on Wikipedia, produced by their length, depth and detail, or lack thereof. Thus, the entry on Bob Dylan, in these terms, is obviously far from neutral. So the notion of an existent Wiki neurality is so much pious, pompous nonsense, I'm afraid.

In a different way, the original Tales From Topographic Oceans article that I originally amended was far from neutral - it was this that prompted me to make my own contribution. The article I read reflected a biased position on the album - the one that has been consistently taken since Chris Welch of the Melody Maker and other critics panned it when it was released in late 1973. It wasn't an overt bias, but without question it leaves the impression on the reader that here is a record of negligible value and influence, except to prompt the arrival of punk a few years later. This is a completely unacceptable view of the record for an encyclopedia entry. In fact, those who were alive and following the birth of punk and the new wave will surely be able to testify to the fact that it was the massive success of artists such as Fleetwood Mac, The Eagles, ELO and Supertramp in the singles market of the mid-70s that stimulated punk's assault on this same market. The likes of Floyd, Zeppelin, Queen, Tull, Genesis, Yes and King Crimson were obvious targets of attack for punk spokespeople, it was the titanic icons, Elvis Presley and The Beatles that punk rebels were most keen to verbally attack, and did so. They wanted to completely tear down the received wisdom of rock history, and in terms of reputation and influence, the purveyors of progressive music were secondary targets. To suggest then that TFTO was remotely pivotal in causing the likes of John Lydon and Joe Strummer to get going is far fetched.

So look,I found this 'original' article a lazily misinformed and inaccurate critique of TFTO, and as such, annoying in the extreme, when it is clear that the Wikipedia project is already emerging as an information source of huge importance in the UK. It also offers, as far as I'm concerned, a unique opportunity for a fresh appraisal of, in this case, art. So I couldn't let the original article stand - it needed obliterating, in fact.

Which brings me to a second and wider point. It pains me very much that the Wiki powers extant are striving for neutrality. This, it seems to me, makes for a very bland and dull encyclopedia. As I just stated, the remarkable phenomenon that is Wikipedia should, for me, serve to elevate, inspire and inform. You can do the latter with stone cold fact, but you can't do the first two if all you allow writers to do is attempt to produce sentences that aim to be completely without subjective content. Though many entries are excellent when all you want to do is research a fact, frankly, many of the music articles are dull and boring, excessively so, in fact, and this is so sad.

This said, I won't pretend that my article on TFTO isn't out of place when considering the Wiki pillars. This was my fault for not trying harder to find them before submitting my entry, and I apologize unreservedly for that. But whoever wrote the miserably mediocre fare that I read a few weeks ago ought to set themselves higher standards or not bother placing entries hereabouts at all. The erroneous Rick Wakeman curry story was particularly regrettable. Isn't there something in one of the pillars about verifying facts? I am very sorry to be insulting to this writer, genuinely, but you do need to rethink your attitude and this won't happen through people involved in this discussion being nice. Some tough love is required. If you don't thoroughly know your stuff, you shouldn't deign to edit any of the entries in the whole encyclopedia. And before anyone takes offence at this, surely this is standard thinking for all sensible and balanced editors and would-be editors. I mean, I think Franz Ferdinand's music is complete and utter rubbish (and Nick Cave's almost as bad) but I wouldn't dream of going anywhere near their entries, never mind trying to tone down anything complimentary that may lie there poisoning this whole enterprise.

Naturally, I welcome responses to this note, and hope that they are passionate, but balanced. Not a word has been set down above in anger, or in an attempt to provoke anger or annoyance in others.

Thoss 00:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

--- I'm too lazy to sign in right now since the internet is being REALLY slow, but I wanted to commend the person responsible for the rewrite of this article. It is a fantastic reenvisioning of the completely and laughably biased page that previously stood here, and though it is impossible to get rid of all bias concerning something with which one has a strong opinion of, this is a valiant effort. Kudos.

[edit] Year or Month-Year no day

These dates are always rendered without wikilinking. Fantailfan 23:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

TFTO is fairly straight-forward rock music in only a bit longer packaging. The charges of it being excessive or deserving of shunning are a result of the kind of extreme anti-intellectual thinking about music that simple-minded music nazi's imposed upon the world, presuming that anything called 'rock' had to be from the gut and had to be comprised of tiny, basic chord progressions and regular beats. Yes, Genesis, Henry Cow, Gentle Giant, and many others had demonstrated that rock had only scratched the surface of what was possible and the imagination could only be rewarded by exploring the world of sound. Punk advocates missed the whole point. If TFTO was attempting to explore a complex topic in too abbreviated a manner, the answer was more depth, not less. Perhaps the lesson should have been that this work should have been 300 minutes long, rather than around 80 -- but, of course, not through mindless repetition.

--Trichotymus 01:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tough Love

I agree with Thoss that what is needed is tough love. I think the TFTO page is frankly much better now, as well as more appropriate to what the Wikipedia needs. I often think that the punk-inspired criticism did not stand up to scrutiny.

Many times it is based on extra-musical points; I also question the capacity of many critics to provide a properly informed POV. How many of them are musically trained? The curry story if incorrect needs to be edited further.

Veplaini 19:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's actualy quite beautiful

The album is fantastic. Ritual is perhaps my favorite song ever. Everyone who loves music should listen to Tales from Topographic Oceans.66.201.169.49


[edit] Concept and history rewrite

I've rewritten this section. Please let me know what you think.

Previous version:

The album is the most controversial album in Yes's discography, and possibly in the entire history of progressive rock. The album's concept, a four-piece work of symphonic length and scope (incidentally based on the Shastric scriptures, as found in a footnote within Paramahansa Yogananda's book Autobiography of a Yogi), was their most ambitious to date.
The album was released when "prog" was at the height of its popularity – with bands such as Genesis, King Crimson, Emerson, Lake & Palmer, Pink Floyd, Jethro Tull, and the earlier albums of Yes, but is cited as a key to the genre's subsequent decline in popularity. For critics of progressive rock, the album exemplified everything that they considered wrong with the genre; the popular music magazine Melody Maker summed the album up in one word: "No." A similar reaction in Rolling Stone and others. The abstruse concept and extended execution were the main targets of the album's critics, who argued that too much musical padding had been employed with little in the way of a proper concept or lyrics to back it up. In this way, the album perhaps played a significant role in paving the way for the punk rock bands of the mid 1970s, epitomized by The Ramones and The Sex Pistols, by forfeiting a large chunk of the momentum that had been built up by the group's previous three studio albums.
Conversely, some critics and fans were enthralled by the album's sheer ambition and depth, lending Tales from Topographic Oceans an equal measure of critical approval that has stretched to this day.

I have changed it to:

The album's concept, a two-disc, four-piece work of symphonic length and scope (based on the Shastric scriptures, as found in a footnote within Paramahansa Yogananda's book Autobiography of a Yogi), was their most ambitious to date.
On release it received notably hostile reviews. Gordon Fletcher in his review in Rolling Stone described it as "psychedelic noodling". Chris Welch in Melody Maker described it as "Brilliant in patches, but often taking far too long to make its various points, and curiously lacking in warmth or personal expression".
Despite acquiring a reputation as an example of the worst excesses of "prog rock", Topographic Oceans became the band's fourth gold album.

I think the idea that Joe Strummer and John Lydon listened to the first few bars of Topographic oceans, and were inspired by this to learn how to play guitar and show the world what Rock n roll really means, is interesting, but perhaps overambitious.

Conversely, the final paragraph seems to be representation of opinion as fact.

So I've opted to cite two pretty negative reviews in significant music newspapers of the time, and juxtapose it with the commercial success of the album. --Tony Sidaway 23:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Age?

i'd like these album to have new age as a subgenre, as maybe, this is what caused the album so much trouble, the fact that it was to be considered typical progressive rock, after many listens, i have concluded that maybe this is not prog as was close to the edge a bombastic majestic entertaining piece. maybe this was kinda trying to be more of a grow on. kinda like mike oldfield's work you know. i know this is Original Research but, i just think it should be considered, please reply. FloydNIN (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)