Talk:The Dark Side of the Moon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Dark Side of the Moon is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
October 30, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
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.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)

Article requirements:
YesY All the start class criteria
YesY A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details
YesY At least one section of prose (excluding the lead section)
YesY A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs
YesY A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians
YesY Categorisation at least by artist and year
YesY A casual reader should learn something about the album.Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
This Pink Floyd-related article is within the scope of WikiProject Pink Floyd, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Pink Floyd, their members, associates, albums and songs. You can help! Visit the project page, discuss an article at the project talk-page, or even join us!
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. See comments
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] older comments

Ok, is the the Goos-Hanchen effect I see on the 20th anniversary cover??? ______ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.174.115 (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2004

The link on the right that says it goes to VH-1 actually goes to Digital Dream Door


The discussion of the success of this album is very USA-centric. It should be made more neutral, and we could do with the UK statistics - it was a UK album and had a similar level of success there.

And in other parts of the world as well. I am told that it was very popular with the rock community of the USSR, for example.
In Soviet Russia, any colour likes YOU!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.143.185.201 (talk) 09:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Is there a good reason for "Pink Floyd" to be listed as a producer in the Personnel section? That doesn't seem to make sense. Yath 03:07, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just like 'Founder member' dœoesn't, but it is the correct way.

Pink Floyd is listed as producer because the whole band didn't do each song, and each song thus has its own credit. As a whole, however, Pink Floyd did produce the album. - Fizscy46 18:16, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't the next album in the chronology be Wish You Were Here? I don't think compilations and re-issues should count. --Auximines 08:29, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wizard of Oz

Questioning the information on Dark Side and Wizard of Oz. According to most accounts I know, the opening cash register sound of Money is supposed to come exactly at the moment the movie goes into color (i.e. when Dorothy steps out of the house into Oz). --Chinasaur 07:15, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've just watched my copy to check this. You're both right: Dorothy steps out of the house onto the yellow brick road as the first sounds of Money are heard. POV comment: You should watch it if you get the chance. The synchronisation of Great Gig with the tornado makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up every time! Another good synchronisation is Echoes with the psychedelic scene at the end of 2001 A Space Odyssey. --Auximines 17:47, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Further questioning the Wizard of Oz theory. The runtime of Wizard of Oz is 101 minutes, whereas the album is 43 minutes long. While I have more important things to do with my time than actually try this, it mathematically cannot be the case that Dorothy wakes up in Kansas anytime during the album unless it is played twice. This should be clarified or removed. DiceDiceBaby 21:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
From the website link:
Set your CD player to Continuous Replay. The CD will play about two and a quarter times through the entire length of the movie.
Also note that the best effect is with an original OZ movie and an original DSOTM CD, copies just don't have the same sync effect. --Gbeeker 17:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I read somewhere in internet (and it was quoted as coming from an interview) that one of the members had deny any relation between both as it was impossible to view the movie on a projector set or videotape on the studio. Someone has a link? --Pajarico 22:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


This section doesn't say which of DSotM to use for the sync, although there is a chart giving different run times for three different versions. Which version to use on the sync? 03:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Pink Floyd says that it is not synchronized at all (David Gilmour says it was actually based on the Sound of Music), but after a study between my guitar instructor and his class, there are some very strange syncs in it. The story goes that you play the tape and, at the third MGM lion roar, start the cd. You can tell that it is in sync if at the producer's name, the scream begins.

It could not have been intentional, as Pink Floyd would have no way of viewing the movie. Dark Side came out long after The Wizard of Oz, but before VHS, DVD or other ways of viewing movies at home. Josh a z 03:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
24 frames per second film timing. Before the introduction of video cassettes, it was possible to buy or hire film prints of movies, and to watch a movie by setting up a projector and a screen. The crucial point to remember, though, is that films run at 24 frames per second whereas the transfer to videotape is done at 25 frames per second. This has the effect of making movies run 4% faster on video than in the cinema. Now, does anyone want to tell me that DSotM synchronises with a videotape of The Wizard of Oz, when the only reference for timing that the band would have had was a 24fps film print and we know how exacting they were when it came to timing (cf the sound effects of Money)? Of course, there is a different point of view on this to be found at Talk:Dark_Side_of_the_Rainbow#Runtimes and I may test it ... but I may not. Darcyj 10:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely if you play ANY album with ANY film, there will be weird little coincidences where they will seem to perfectly match. I play albums when I'm watching silent movies (because I usually hate the accompaniment provided) and it happens every time. Cardinal Wurzel 20:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Cardinal Wurzel is absolutely right. This is a well-documented psychological phenomenon. Picking this example out and flatly reporting it in wikipedia is just continuing an internet meme instead of reporting on it. It's like reporting that falling is a special quality of mountain rocks because there are signs in the mountains that say "falling rock." If people do that, saying that they do it is factual, but just picking up on what they say and reporting it as fact is highly questionable.

While it may have been an absolute fluke that the album and movie seem to sync up doesn't change the fact that there are dozens of cues that match. Some may not be in exact sync they are very close. Just a few examples; 'The great Gig in the Sky' starts as the twister picks up the house, 'Brain Damage' starts in the same scene Scarecrow is introduced, and just one more example of many, Dorathy runs away from home and passes a wagon with 'past present and future' painted on the side and 'Time' is playing. Even when the album is repeated 2 and a half times until the end of the movie there are many matching scenes and cues. I am still not saying that it was done on purpose but it seems there are to many matching events to simply call them 'wierd little coincidences'. Charaters even dance in time with some of the music!

And did you try it with other examples to see if the phenomenon was different? It's a human pattern-seeking function at work. Nothing more, nothing unique. Not even unusual.24.33.28.52 00:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not it is some fluke of the brain looking for patters (which I don't think it is), it does happen and it is famous because it happens. For that reason alone it is important. A similar note would be how people thought that certain Beatles albums played backwards said "Paul is dead," and had an impact on the culture. Now, besides the point that I think this is fare less dubious than the "Paul is dead" thing, both of them were and are still important.140.232.154.111 22:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"On the Run" plays as Dorothy runs away from home. "The Great Gig in the Sky" plays for the tornado. "Time" plays as she visits the fortune teller. "Any Colour You Like" plays as she is shown the red, blue, and yellow brick roads. "Brain Damage" plays for the scarecrow. Some of the other track titles can be interpreted similary (like "Us and Them" as the munchkins explain everything with the witch) but those above are blatantly obvious. The synch between Oz and Dark Side is absolutely intentional, and it's boggling that anyone who has seen it would argue otherwise. Part of the proof should lie in the fact that putting the cd on continuous play does not synch well at all with the rest of the movie, some people just like to stretch the idea but in doing so are really hurting their cause. The only indication that the album should be started over is that "Speak to Me" begins with the same heartbeat that ends the album, and the title itself is a little ironic since Dorothy is oiling the tin man's mouth as it starts again. The synch between music and movie, however, just isn't there beyond this scene, as it would have been nearly impossible to synch music to 2 different scenes at once. The moods and timing between album tracks and movie scenes are what is in synch. Aside from a few obvious moments, do not expect every drum beat to match every motion of the characters, this is where most skeptics seem to err; it is more about mood, though with numerous clever phrases and dialogue thrown in to match. Pink Floyd was first and foremost creating a musical album, after all. They simply molded the music and track lengths to be more like a soundtrack would be. It is not hard at all to imagine that they were able to play the movie in a studio and played right along with it once they had charted everything out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.164.97 (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting story

According to a mid-1980s interview with Alan Parsons in Keyboard magazine, one of the reasons this album is very sucessful is because Pink Floyd played the songs on this album live for well over a year before recording the album, giving the band a chance to get live feedback on all of the songs.

The first live performance of Dark Side of the Moon was in Brighton, UK on 20th January 1972, 14 months before the album was released. It's interesting to compare recordings of the early concerts with the studio album: some tracks have barely changed, while other are unrecognisable. Some tracks originate from even earlier ideas, e.g. "Breathe" is similar to a track of the same name on the Waters/Geesin album "Music From the Body", and "Us and Them" originates in the "Violent Sequence" track from "Zabriskie Point". One day, when I have more time and energy, I'll add something to the main article about the development of each track. It's very much a case of things evolving over many months. --Auximines 07:40, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"To this day, DSotM is a reference standard that audiophiles use to test the fidelity of audio equipment."

(Overview > second para. > last sentence)

This seems to mean that audiophiles use the album as a tool to gauge sound quality. Is this correct? Surely that role would be fulfilled by a machine of some sort. I'm not an expert, but I suggest that this sentence be clarified by someone who knows.

Cos when you're testing the hardware it's important to know the samples well. That does also mean that DSOTM is one of the most listened albums by them =) --GolerGkA 23:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The other likely meaning of this sentence which makes sense to me is that DSotM is used a basis for comparison.

If you knew any audiophiles, you would know they would never let a machine judge audio quality 137.148.100.20 23:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly I would think the that the previous statment is a bit of a generalization, but makes the point the DSotM is a good standard to use because it has a large range from bass to treble and more importantly it has many subtle sounds and notes that other albums just don't have.

[edit] Torrent link in Oz section?

Why is there a torrent link in the Wizard of Oz section? I wouldn't think that Wiki'd approve of such a thing...thoughts?

It appears that there is no torrent link now. --Gbeeker 18:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia section, maybe?

I think that we should create a new Trivia section and move the Oz section in there. Why? Because there's some other stuff that could go under Trivia, such as if you turn up the album really loud at the end of Eclipse, you hear one of them saying "There is no dark side of the moon, really. It's all dark." →mathx314(talk)(email) 19:26, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note: This quote appears to be already in the article, but I like the idea of having a section for trivial DSotM knowledge, for example, the way the change clinking sound effect was made in the studio for the 'Money' intro... --16:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Too much about the Wizard of Oz?

I don't think the connection merits as much discussion as it recieves here.

[edit] Dark Side of Nemo?

The article says that Finding Nemo and Darkside of the Moon can be synchronized. Does anybody know at what point the two need to be synchronized or some parts that show a correlation between the two?

No. There is no sychronization. In fact, all of the alleged "synch" rumors (aside from the coincidental Dark Side of the Rainbow and "2001/Echoes") synchs are all false. I believe it was Waters who said sarcastically that "if you synch Dambusters up with the Wall album, you'll realize that won't synch either" (i'm paraphrasing) Doc Strange 17:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sales Contradictions

The opening paragraph states that DSotM is the 8th best selling album in the U.S. while the section entitled "Commercial Success" or says that it is the 21st best selling album in the U.S.A. I think that the sales stats should all be moved to one section, and the contradiction needs to be sorted out. Also, does anyone have Brittish sales figures, and other nations sales figures? -- CoolMike 16:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Restore Wizard of Oz?

I disagree with pigsonthewing's decision to banish the Wizard of Oz stuff to a separate page and propose moving it back. Here's why: The DSOTM page is already a footnote/trivia page, for the repository of extra information about this one particular album that would clutter up the main Pink Floyd article. Giving a footnote/trivia page its own footnote/trivia page seems silly and inefficient. The better plan is to compile all the extraneous information about DSOTM which is unworthy of inclusion in Pink Floyd into this one article, so any reader who wants to know more about what people say about this album can access it with one-stop shopping. Archaic, Nov. 3, 2005

That simply isn't how WP works. A spearate page allows direct links from multiple articles for instance (such as the article about the film). Andy Mabbett 11:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
That's not really an answer since the film article could just as easily link to the album article, while avoiding an undesireable fracturing. This isn't a huge deal either way, but since many users have contributed to making a few paragraphs about the DSOTM/Oz synchronicity experience a part of the album's article, I would be interested in whether there is consensus to sever it. What do other DSOTM watchlisters think about this? Archaic 15:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Restore as part of DSOTM article, it is the 1st place you would look to find out about the synchronicity. AllanHainey 16:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I came here from the RfC. My opinion is that the information is distinct enough for its own article, but the main DSotM article should have more than just a link to it: perhaps a sentence or two like "When played simultaneously with the 1939 film The Wizard of Oz, parts of the film and the album correspond with each other. Band members have denied that this was intentional. See Dark Side of the Moon - Wizard of Oz coincidences. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Also: To put the synch on the DSotM page tends to imply that it is something PF INTENDED to do. No Parking 22:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I also came for the RfC. I agree with Josiah Rowe. I believe the cultural phenomenon of the Dark Side/Oz syncrhonicity has outgrown the album itself and deserves its own separate page. Kit 21:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Also RfC. I would compromise a bit here: mention (very briefly) that some have found a link between Oz and DSotM but it has been denied bythe band. Then link to the article as is. IronDuke 04:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

A further thought - does the album "synchronise" with the US or UK DVD/ film? They run at different speeds! Andy Mabbett 17:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It should "work" with either version since it's something you can do with any movie and any album. Try it with Scritti Politti's "Cupid and Psyche '85" and "After the Thin Man"!

Ministry's The Mind is a Terrible Thing to Taste works very well with Murnau's Nosferatu. Let's make a page about it! --195.173.83.21 13:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Usage

This article refers, throughout, to at least three titles - (The) Dark Side of the Moon, Dark Side and DSotM. Abbreviation is necessary, to avoid repetition, but we should standardise on one. Which? Andy Mabbett 17:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Second Best Selling Album of all Time

TDSOTM was not the second best selling of all time; it was the seventh best, as shown by the link provided in the article.

[edit] The definite article

Pedantic, I know, but Dark Side Of The Moon is an album by Medicine Head whereas, The Dark Side Of The Moon is an album by Pink Floyd which came out second. Discussions at EMI/Harvest debated the addition of the definite article dependent on sales of the Medicine Head album. Sales were average to poor, however, the definite article appears on the Vinyl label and the promotional stickers for the cover (as no title is shown). CD transcription copies originally dropped the definite article although it has reappeared on succeeeding remastered and anniversary copies.

Why was it changed back to no "The" all over the article? And why is the Medicine Head reference gone? BotleySmith 02:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested Move

Dark Side of the Moon → The Dark Side of the Moon – correct title of album, I think I've fixed all the potential double-redirects — PhilHibbs | talk 15:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Add *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''' followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support as initiator — PhilHibbs | talk 16:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Olessi 17:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Many more versions of the album have been released without the definite article. A Google search is useless to determine which one is more popular, but a search for "The Dark Side of the Moon" at Amazon.com brings you to a disambiguation page with a list of "Dark Side of the Moon" albums. There are also early instances of Pink Floyd being referred to as "The Pink Floyd", but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the right name for the article. Kafziel 17:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I voted support based on phrasing at [1]. Olessi 21:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I was initially against this choice of naming conventions, however, after doing a Google Images search on this album, it seems that the original vinyl sleeves were stamped with Pink Floyd The Dark Side of the Moon. See this image.Ljlego 19:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
My apologies, but my origianl post is incorrect. What was meant was that, though I have no proof that this is an original sleeve, it is one of the only ones with a title printed on it. It seems, in fact, that any image you will find with a title says The Dark Side of the Moon. The above link leads to a Google Images search for Dark Side of the Moon (note that I omitted the initial "The").Ljlego 19:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Pink Floyd doesn't have final say over the names of the albums, though; the production company that owns them (EMI) does.
I won't lose sleep if the article gets moved, but for technical accuracy I think it should stay where it is. Kafziel 21:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support 132.205.45.148 17:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Support I support, also based on phrasing. Without the article, it almost sounds slang. TommyBoy76 18:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76
Support This is an encyclopedia and only one title can be correct.

Adw uk 11:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments
The official web page consistently includes "The" — PhilHibbs | talk 16:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Link to Amazon search
EMI Records lists the album without the "The". Kafziel 18:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
An image of an original vinyl sleeve.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] 1, 500 weeks

Someone might wanna add a bit about how it recently broke the 1500 weeks on the top 200 billboard mark. Damn impressive. DarkSideOfTheSpoon 02:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Not on the top 200, the rules got changed nearly two decades ago so it no longer qualifies. That's the top 200 and the pop catalog chart combined. Its record run on the top 200 itself is already in the article, but a sentence mentioning this new milestone would not be out of place; just make sure it's accurate, as the above description of it is not. PurplePlatypus 02:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. It actually spent a little over 15 years on the Billboard Hot 100. The rules to make an album inelligible for the BH100 is that is has to have dropped out twice. DSOTM did once, returned for i think about five weeks and then dropped off. It's been in the Cataloge Top 20 even since. Doc Strange 17:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

Can we please use Commonwealth (British) spelling in the article. Call me a fuddy duddy, but this is a UK band. Even though I'm British, I'm considerate enough to use American spelling when editing American-centric articles. hedpeguyuk 11:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


No. Changing the spelling doesnt make the information any more factual.

First of all, it wasn't a "change" of spelling as UK English was used from the very beginning, it was edits from the last few months that started using US English. Secondly, UK English SHOULD be used (Wikipedia style guidelines specify this - for any UK article UK spelling should be used, US article then US spelling). Also, if I'm being pedantic, there are some expressions that mean different things in US and UK English. I can't be bothered to go into the at the moment, but if used could produce confusion and undermine factual accuracy of an article. Finally, please sign your comments. hedpeguyuk 12 July 2006 20:38 (UTC)

Then sure, if it'll make you happy. Use your favourite spelling. Josh 12 July 2006 5:09 PM (EST)

Thank you although it's got nothing to do with making me happy, it's to do with doing things correctly and consistantly (as UK spelling was originally used). I don't mean to cause a war, and I (generally) like Americans, but I've seen what the reaction can be like when UK English is used in some American articles. hedpeguyuk 12 July 2006 21:20 {UTC}

[edit] 1 in 14 people own the album?

I just added a citation for this statistic, but I don't think it holds any more merit than if this article were to claim it. If someone else knows of a more reliable source, please post it. I also discovered on Google that at least one trivia website is citing this article about the statistic, so please have the sources to back up information. I'm sure it's not a hard stat to figure out if you take some time and do the math, but that would be original research.--Undertow87 11:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't post that statistic, but i do remember a USA Today article mentioning that statistic. If it's true i wouldn't be suprised. Doc Strange 17:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I discovered where this came from: the 1996 book Another Brick in the Wall: The Story Behind Every Pink Floyd song, which i believe was an official book considering the interviews with the members in it. Then again, it also mentions that "Money" hit the Top 10 (it hit #13 for the record)...so IDK Doc Strange 17:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for cite

About the track being second generation - this site (stereosociety.com) notes that the drums were mixed on the second generation 16 track tape, I may have time to scour it thoroughly later, unless someone has time now. --Alf melmac 12:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

About the needed citation for audiophiles using TDSOTM as a reference album -- I don't know of any sources that state this fact directly. However, if you look through stereo equipment magazines such as The Absolute Sound or others, or do online searches for equipment reviews, you will find TDSOTM, especially the 30th anniversary SACD version, being used for some of those reviews. For example, I have an issue of The Absolute Sound from June/July 2004 that uses the SACD version as one of several albums for reviewing several components in one article.--Undertow87 03:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My last edit summary

My last edit summary was truncated for some reason, it should have read "This can't possibly be true, since Money was never #1 in Billboard". PurplePlatypus 20:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The 20th anniversery cover is switched with the original cover!

[edit] Roger Waters

Did he really have so much control to the point where he was the ONLY guy writing lyrics? A lot of these songs were from their old days brought together into this beautiful album. I think that Roger Waters, while he is cool and my favorite Pink Floyd member, gets too much credit in this article. The762x51 03:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Read the album liner credits. It says right there in boldface type: "Lyrics by Roger Waters / Music by Pink Floyd" BotleySmith 15:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Starting with this record, Waters wrote all the lyrics for the band Doc Strange 19:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Synchronicity

The section here should be small, a sentence or two describing what it is. The examples and the "proof" should go into the main article (and for the most part seem to be already there). --*Spark* 12:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd actually argue for taking out ALL specific examples of synchronicity, as they are by their very nature unverifiable. You can't say with certainty what is supposed to happen, because it's a totally subjective phenomenon. Until someone publishes it in some psychological journal, that is. BotleySmith 15:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Fahl: From the Dark Side of the Moon (2007)

I just posted a new article for Mary Fahl, the former lead singer of the October Project, who now has a solo career. It turns out that her second solo album will be a complete re-invention of The Dark Side of the Moon, song by song. According to Mark Doyle's website, it will be coming out next year. This may be worth mentioning in this article if there is a good place to work it in. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 05:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Very *original* idea she had!!! Wish her good luck!
Well that's only been done like a zillion times. (The Dub Side of the Moon, Phish at Halloween). Doc Strange 22:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Useless miscellania

WTF is this supposed to mean?

  • Dark Side of the Moon was the first Pink Floyd album to have a custom picture label depicting a blue prism with black background with the credits in gray lettering (the US edition's lettering was in white).

Corky842 01:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Far side of the Moon

I'm correcting the name of this article to the above title, "Far side of the Moon", as surely the Astronomy ignorant Pynk Floid members or producers wanted to refer to the side of the moon permanently invisible from Earth. Any thoughts? Thanks.

Wow. not only is the spelling fractures, but also a perfect example of the rare beast of unsigned, unfunny jokes on Wikipedia talk pages. Doc Strange 19:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TDSOTM

Can't we have a redirect from a page called 'TDSOTM'? --81.105.251.160 02:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Parsons/Quad

Hi,

I've added a note about Alan Parsons being the engineer on the recording sessions and provided a citation about his quad mix.

Regards, Adw uk 11:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean`up

This article used to be good, but now reads like a "C" grade essay. Phrases like "These themes are not just delivered by words but are suggested with the sounds of the album" and "The lyrics ... flippantly endorse greed for ironic effect" are too informal and express uncited opinions. Andy Mabbett 09:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject: Pink Floyd

I apologize for possibly lowering the quality of the article. It is my goal to make "DSOTM" a featured article someday, as I am part of WikiProject Pink Floyd. While I'm obviously a newcomer here at Wikipedia, I want to ensure the quality of our articles.

In the meantime, I'll look for things I can do to improve the article. Have any more suggestions?Connell66 21:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

In the Voices' section, the reference to the Irish doorman at Abbey Road names'Gerry Driscoll'. In the 'Classic Albums: The Making of Dark Side of the Moon', Gerry is referenced as 'Gerry O'Driscoll'. I don't have a definitive reference to cite here, but it has been my experience that an " O' " is something that gets dropped, rather than added accidentally. Anyway, YMMV.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:DSODMposter2.jpg

Image:DSODMposter2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:DSODMposter1.jpg

Image:DSODMposter1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:DSODMgatefold.jpg

Image:DSODMgatefold.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reissues and remastering

this article needs a reissues and remastering part


[edit] Question about the original album cover

I've seen in some places this cover (as a digital image) showing a small banner enclosed in a circle, that says "PINK FLOYD / THE DARK SIDE OF THE MOON", located near the top right of the cover. Is this just a sticker? Why some images have this banner and some don't? It would be good if the article had accurate information about the different artwork issues of the releases, just like the one I mention above. Alfredo J. Herrera Lago 02:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I have a DSOTM CD with that circle, and no, it's not a label. I can't find the date of release anywhere but I know it was bought before 1987. --Targeman 17:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 741 Weeks

Hi all. I understand that the 741 weeks in the Billboard 200 is the total. Is there any information on the total numbers of consecutive weeks? I'm pretty sure it must have dropped out and reentered at some stage. 85.22.24.200 18:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It certanly did, the late 80's, returned for i believe a month, and then dropped off for good. Which is still impressive any way you look at it. Doc Strange 17:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This phrase brought to you by the department of redundancy department

"The Dark Side of the Moon is widely hailed by many critics and fans as Pink Floyd's magnum opus, and is generally considered their definitive album"

perhaps this could be rewritten? Even if the two terms aren't synonymous, there's a large degree of overlap

Not to mention it sounds like a load of pretentious twaddle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.26.197 (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dream Theater?

Just wondering if someone could add something in about their tribute to this album, in the main article. Seeing as how DT did do a cover, it seems like a nice thing to do. Mattz1010 21:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Dark Side of the Spectrum

Someone has added a section with this name in the article, but when I was googling "Dark Side of the Spectrum" and "Pink Floyd" Wikipedia and a user page on My Space was the only hits I got. Is there any references to this, or is it original research? Floyd(Norway) 02:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No. the original title was Dark Side of the Moon, but then the band Medicene Head was going to release and album with that same name, so the Floyd changed the name to Eclipse: A Peice for Assorted Lunatics. When the Medicene Head album tanked, the Floyd changed the name back. Doc Strange 18:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Of course. I know. You misunderstood my post completely. I was thinking about this edit. [2]. Floyd(Norway) 03:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems it's an original research only. Very interesting one though. --83.30.108.191 18:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skewered reference?

It says in the header that "In 1990, Australian radio listeners voted it the best album to make love to,[7]" But, when I examined the reference, it turns out that that web page is citing this article for that making love factoid. I'm confuzed. Delta 22:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

From my patchy memory, it was a kind of poll/vote sort of thing on Triple J for songs to make love to. So it wasn't the album, but the awful, awful "Great Gig in Sky" that was inexplicably voted for.

[edit] DSOTM on BBC

Have been reading about a BBC recoding of one or more performances of DSOTM from EP Wembley 1974 and how there was controversy about swearing.

Also, I think this was re-broadcast on the 30th anniversay on BBC 6 Music by Janice Long. This superb broadcast was therefore only aired twice (there is no official recording for sale) and they cocked it up - on the 'Dream Ticket' show they must have cued it up late and it over-ran the midnight changeover so the last few moments of the recording are overlayed with the pips etc FCS! Despite this mistake AFAIK it has never been replayed and they changed the format of Dream Ticket not long after for shame.

Royzee (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Quad version

I could not see reference to the vinyl issue of a quadrophonic version which I think came out in the 70s sometime. 8-track too?

Royzee (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dub Side of the Moog

There is an excellent rendition of the full album in a commercial release of "A Dub Side of the Moon" by the Easy Star All-Stars.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00008A7U9


I think there is a series of tribute albums called 'Dark Side of the Moog" by Klaus Schulze, Pete Namlook http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Moog-5/dp/B000003SXP

http://music.hyperreal.org/labels/fax/info/evolution-dsotm-aw.html

Not really faithful to the original like 'Dub Side' however. Available on EMusic too I think or it was.

There is also a trance remix version lurking around the web as part of the anonymous series. http://www.torrentreactor.net/view.php?id=965088

see also Dark Side of the Spoon. (!) http://www.junodownload.com/products/1224664-02.htm

Royzee (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikality alert!

"In 1990, Australian radio listeners voted it the best album to make love to" cites the source [3]. However, on that page, it says "Here's some interesting DSOTM trivia cribbed from Wikipedia" preceding the first quote. 130.126.216.127 (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] release history

[edit] Release history

Country Date Label Format
United States March 17, 1973 Harvest Records?
Stereo LP ?
United Kingdom March 24, 1973 Capitol Records?
Stereo LP ?
United States? 1979 Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab Remastered Stereo LP ?
US, UK November 24, 1992 EMI, Columbia Remastered Stereo CD
US? 1993  ? Remastered Stereo CD ?
US, UK? 2003  ? Remastered 5.1 CD
US, UK? 2003  ? Remastered Stereo LP

I think we should include a release history wikitable, but we need more infomation. 24.163.117.231 (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Parsons doesn't belong in the opening sentence!

The opening sentence of this article, currently:

Engineered by Alan Parsons, The Dark Side of the Moon (titled in the 1993 CD release as Dark Side of the Moon) is a concept album by the British progressive rock band Pink Floyd.

He's notable, but he's not that notable. His engineering work is examined in detail later on in the article. He is quoted and generally receives the attention he deserves. But Alan Parsons is surely not the first thing people need to be told about this highly notable album, this legendary work of art.
--63.25.6.216 (talk) 10:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I could almost suspect parts of this article to be written by Alan Parsons himself or at least by his biggest fan. Of course he is important, but the section about the recording seems to be more about Parsons than the actual recording. Some of the sentences lacks NPOV. There isn't a word about Chris Thomas' contributions which was quite important as well. Floyd(Norway) (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Pink Floyd articles tend to be plagued by pro-Gilmour and pro-Waters fans who want to edit-war over who did vocals on certain songs, and who played bass guitar; and then there is the occasional Parsons booster trying to name-drop him wherever possible. There are also guys who keep wanting to change chart and sales statistics, and even change the number of stars in the "professional reviews" to what they think the review should say, or used to say years ago, or change an "unfavourable" rating to "favourable" where the review doesn't actually say either. Maintaining PF articles to keep out the fluff is almost a project in itself. I think we should refer to it as (wait for it...) the Al*n P*rs*ns Project --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Musique Concrète

Why is it those with the least musical talent are the most pretentious? I can just see Richard, Nick, Dave, and Roger sitting around over a cuppa and saying 'hey you know lads we should use some musique concrète on our next revolver'. Somebody probably warned them that 25 years later there would be a twit who described the music as such but it seems they didn't believe him. How unfortunate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.50.41.42 (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Trolling is unfortunate too, and your post doesn't make much sense. You're saying that they deliberately intended to do something as musique concrète, and then you're saying they didn't. All you're really saying is you're not impressed by an album that's one of the biggest sellers of all time. So what? I never cared for the Saturday Night Fever soundtrack. Happy now?
Speaking of trolling, I also removed the other comment you inserted where you personally attacked others who post on this page.
Also: Please add new sections to the bottom of the page, not the top, and remember to sign your entries. If SineBot signs it for you, do not go back in and remove the signature, unless it's to put in the signature you should have the first time. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)