![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
Is there any proof that this actually exists? As beloved as Godspeed is (and considering how obsessive some of their fans can be), if there was a copy of this, it most likely would've been ripped and be circulating the internet. Or is it already? I suspect that it's some sort of band in-joke, but as it's listed as an official release by several authorities, there has to be a copy out there somewhere. Chris Berry 04:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
.... Efrim never said he doesn't want it released. He said he doesn't care enough to go out of his way to release it. He even said he's looked on the internet to see if someone's posted it because it would be interesting. 68.84.235.198 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
It was self-released so maybe they just had one master tape,dubbed 33 copies and then the master was worn out and at the time no one cared about,because they didnt thought this band/project would last so long.And as far as i know Constellation and the Godspeed collective is most likely the same people or at least close friends.They are not doing it to make money.So just because people want to hear and buy it,doesnt mean they made it up,just to make them look more interesting,if in fact the band just doesnt want it to be released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.137.6.108 ( talk) 00:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, this page lists Mike Moya as a member on this release, but the Constellation page doesn't. -- Vans74 18:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
not suitable for wikipedia obviously, but CST have confirmed by emails posted on afterthepostrock.com that they have a copy of the cassette and that nobody's allowed to hear it. Obviously they could be lieing but they have made claims this specific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.214.63 ( talk) 14:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
How the hell do you know its post-rock if you've never heard it.apparantly the genre of the album was more like funk jazz,and that they hadn't experimented with post rock yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirvanarox55 ( talk • contribs) 19:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
There's some drama going on right now surrounding a tape that surfaced on reddit. Side A was ripped before the person with the tape backed out and deleted his post. That's the cause of the recent vandalism.
It might be noteworthy to post that a physical copy is known to exist out side of constellation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.151.167 ( talk) 21:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
The track here sounds like Efrim singing: http://www.tinymixtapes.com/news/godspeed-you-black-emperors-long-lost-debut-cassette-all-lights-fucked-on-the-hairy-amp-droolin
I'm just making the case for including a mention of the rumor or possible hoax. The argument that the supporting footnotes aren't "notable" enough doesn't hold water unless one were to also argue for the deletion of the entire article.
The article itself is supported almost entirely by references to sources that are as "non notable" as the ones I used to support mentioning the supposed surfacing of the tape on reddit.com, with exception of the label Website. However, I don't think one single reliable (albeit arguably NOT neutral third party) source isn't enough to justify the existence of the article. I do think that the other references indicate it should be included, I'm only making this point to support keeping my edit mentioning the Reddit.com incident/rumor. If it turns out to be a hoax (or not), the page can then be edited to reflect that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roomsmoody1924 ( talk • contribs) 18:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Roomsmoody1924 ( talk) 01:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The problem with including references to the hoax is not the notability of the sources, but the content of the information - unverified, sketchy, and reported on as such. Including the information muddies the (verified) information concerning an already enigmatic article. There have been numerous attempts at faking this record over the years, also reported as gossip on low-level blogs, and this one's no different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.122.112 ( talk) 23:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
All Lights Fucked on the Hairy Amp Drooling. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on All Lights Fucked on the Hairy Amp Drooling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
This page for some time had a supposed track list for this phenomenon, which I removed. I wanted to start a thread for discussion with the person who's been re-posting that list. As I noted in the edit summary, we need something third-party to substantiate the tracklist per WP:V. A (virtually unreadable) single, primary source isn't sufficient to demonstrate that this is a genuine release; we have no documentation of the contents of this release from a reliable third-party source and no ability to compare it to the (alleged) original release itself. If it were an ordinary published work, like most bands' releases, none of this would be necessary, but this is a special case and requires reliable, exceptional sourcing. Chubbles ( talk) 20:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Information about the recent potential leak on 4chan's /mu/ board is trying to be deleted on the grounds of being irrelevant. Most of this article is about the tape's obscurity and people's interest in finding it. This is the first potential leak in almost a decade so yes it's absolutely relevant, even if it turns out (probably) fake like the Reddit debacle. If you want to ignore this development then might as well delete the paragraph about the Reddit hoax too, or just nuke the whole article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:710F:6C00:B00C:F068:12AC:6D03 ( talk) 00:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
A member of the group, its label, and several reliable sources have acknowledged its release. 66.30.12.132 ( talk) 19:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Should the article's opening album description change from "is claimed to be the earliest release" [emphasis added] to "is the earliest release"? 18:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
A brief discussion arose today at the List of 2022 albums talk page about whether the original 1994 release should be considered "official" or not, given its limited scope and the apparent attempts to bury the album's existence prior to the recent leak/new release. A number of sources (e.g. The Line of Best Fit, Exclaim!, and Pitchfork) are calling this new release "official" which prompted me to add the album to the 2022 list, but the concern is that the original release should perhaps take precedent in this case, meaning the album gets listed in 1994 instead. Before making any edits in this regard, I'd like to see a consensus around this question: Do we consider the original 1994 release to be "official" despite the aforementioned factors, or do we follow the sources claiming the 2022 release is "official" and leave it as is? QuietHere ( talk) 21:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Why would the first release not be official? It was not a bootleg. I have tons of records and tapes than were issued in 50 copies. 33 was probably too many. I don’t know what drives Wikipedians so crazy about this poor article… Tothebarricades ( talk) 05:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I added a hidden note to the genre section which was rolled back so I'd like to provide an explanation here as to why the hidden text is valuable and meets guidelines. The text is:
<!-- Do not add genres without sourcing. -->
I added this following the third time I removed various unsourced genres from the article. [1], [2], [3], [4]. Genres were removed in accordance with WP:UNSOURCED (see also WP:GWAR).
I think this falls completely in line with the recommended usage of WP:HIDDEN, specifically:
And with regards to being peremptive, the bullet point reads:
There is a guideline here: WP:OR. The description does not preclude additions of genres, only those without sourcing.
AquitaneHungerForce ( talk) 21:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
<!-- Do not add unsourced genres -->
. If you have an issue with it I suggest you take it up there rather than here.
AquitaneHungerForce (
talk)
18:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Although MOS:ALBUM says "Track lengths should be included for each track", the only official (Bandcamp) release doesn't specify them. The actual track delineation is ambiguous, so the currently listed track lengths are WP:OR and should be removed (with another hidden RS admonition!), leaving only the verifiable totals. 66.30.12.132 ( talk) 14:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
1. all lights fucked on the hairy amp drooling- SIDE A1 17:23 2. all lights fucked on the hairy amp drooling- SIDE A2.wav 17:45 3. all lights fucked on the hairy amp drooling- SIDE B1.wav 17:51 4. all lights fucked on the hairy amp drooling- SIDE B2 16:35 SIDE A drifting intro open / shot thru tubes / threethreethree / when all the furnaces exploded / beep / hush / son of a diplomat, daughter of a politician / glencairn 14 / $13.13 / loose the idiot dogs / diminishing shine / random luvly moncton blue(s) / dadmomdaddy SIDE B 333 frames per second / revisionist alternatif wounds to the hairkut hit head / ditty for moya / buried ton / and the hairy guts shine / hoarding / deterior 23 / all angels gone / deterior 17 / deterior three / devil's in the church / no job / dress like shit / perfumed pink corpses from the lips of ms. celine dion
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
Is there any proof that this actually exists? As beloved as Godspeed is (and considering how obsessive some of their fans can be), if there was a copy of this, it most likely would've been ripped and be circulating the internet. Or is it already? I suspect that it's some sort of band in-joke, but as it's listed as an official release by several authorities, there has to be a copy out there somewhere. Chris Berry 04:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
.... Efrim never said he doesn't want it released. He said he doesn't care enough to go out of his way to release it. He even said he's looked on the internet to see if someone's posted it because it would be interesting. 68.84.235.198 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
It was self-released so maybe they just had one master tape,dubbed 33 copies and then the master was worn out and at the time no one cared about,because they didnt thought this band/project would last so long.And as far as i know Constellation and the Godspeed collective is most likely the same people or at least close friends.They are not doing it to make money.So just because people want to hear and buy it,doesnt mean they made it up,just to make them look more interesting,if in fact the band just doesnt want it to be released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.137.6.108 ( talk) 00:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, this page lists Mike Moya as a member on this release, but the Constellation page doesn't. -- Vans74 18:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
not suitable for wikipedia obviously, but CST have confirmed by emails posted on afterthepostrock.com that they have a copy of the cassette and that nobody's allowed to hear it. Obviously they could be lieing but they have made claims this specific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.214.63 ( talk) 14:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
How the hell do you know its post-rock if you've never heard it.apparantly the genre of the album was more like funk jazz,and that they hadn't experimented with post rock yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirvanarox55 ( talk • contribs) 19:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
There's some drama going on right now surrounding a tape that surfaced on reddit. Side A was ripped before the person with the tape backed out and deleted his post. That's the cause of the recent vandalism.
It might be noteworthy to post that a physical copy is known to exist out side of constellation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.151.167 ( talk) 21:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
The track here sounds like Efrim singing: http://www.tinymixtapes.com/news/godspeed-you-black-emperors-long-lost-debut-cassette-all-lights-fucked-on-the-hairy-amp-droolin
I'm just making the case for including a mention of the rumor or possible hoax. The argument that the supporting footnotes aren't "notable" enough doesn't hold water unless one were to also argue for the deletion of the entire article.
The article itself is supported almost entirely by references to sources that are as "non notable" as the ones I used to support mentioning the supposed surfacing of the tape on reddit.com, with exception of the label Website. However, I don't think one single reliable (albeit arguably NOT neutral third party) source isn't enough to justify the existence of the article. I do think that the other references indicate it should be included, I'm only making this point to support keeping my edit mentioning the Reddit.com incident/rumor. If it turns out to be a hoax (or not), the page can then be edited to reflect that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roomsmoody1924 ( talk • contribs) 18:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Roomsmoody1924 ( talk) 01:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The problem with including references to the hoax is not the notability of the sources, but the content of the information - unverified, sketchy, and reported on as such. Including the information muddies the (verified) information concerning an already enigmatic article. There have been numerous attempts at faking this record over the years, also reported as gossip on low-level blogs, and this one's no different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.122.112 ( talk) 23:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
All Lights Fucked on the Hairy Amp Drooling. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on All Lights Fucked on the Hairy Amp Drooling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
This page for some time had a supposed track list for this phenomenon, which I removed. I wanted to start a thread for discussion with the person who's been re-posting that list. As I noted in the edit summary, we need something third-party to substantiate the tracklist per WP:V. A (virtually unreadable) single, primary source isn't sufficient to demonstrate that this is a genuine release; we have no documentation of the contents of this release from a reliable third-party source and no ability to compare it to the (alleged) original release itself. If it were an ordinary published work, like most bands' releases, none of this would be necessary, but this is a special case and requires reliable, exceptional sourcing. Chubbles ( talk) 20:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Information about the recent potential leak on 4chan's /mu/ board is trying to be deleted on the grounds of being irrelevant. Most of this article is about the tape's obscurity and people's interest in finding it. This is the first potential leak in almost a decade so yes it's absolutely relevant, even if it turns out (probably) fake like the Reddit debacle. If you want to ignore this development then might as well delete the paragraph about the Reddit hoax too, or just nuke the whole article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:710F:6C00:B00C:F068:12AC:6D03 ( talk) 00:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
A member of the group, its label, and several reliable sources have acknowledged its release. 66.30.12.132 ( talk) 19:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Should the article's opening album description change from "is claimed to be the earliest release" [emphasis added] to "is the earliest release"? 18:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
A brief discussion arose today at the List of 2022 albums talk page about whether the original 1994 release should be considered "official" or not, given its limited scope and the apparent attempts to bury the album's existence prior to the recent leak/new release. A number of sources (e.g. The Line of Best Fit, Exclaim!, and Pitchfork) are calling this new release "official" which prompted me to add the album to the 2022 list, but the concern is that the original release should perhaps take precedent in this case, meaning the album gets listed in 1994 instead. Before making any edits in this regard, I'd like to see a consensus around this question: Do we consider the original 1994 release to be "official" despite the aforementioned factors, or do we follow the sources claiming the 2022 release is "official" and leave it as is? QuietHere ( talk) 21:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Why would the first release not be official? It was not a bootleg. I have tons of records and tapes than were issued in 50 copies. 33 was probably too many. I don’t know what drives Wikipedians so crazy about this poor article… Tothebarricades ( talk) 05:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I added a hidden note to the genre section which was rolled back so I'd like to provide an explanation here as to why the hidden text is valuable and meets guidelines. The text is:
<!-- Do not add genres without sourcing. -->
I added this following the third time I removed various unsourced genres from the article. [1], [2], [3], [4]. Genres were removed in accordance with WP:UNSOURCED (see also WP:GWAR).
I think this falls completely in line with the recommended usage of WP:HIDDEN, specifically:
And with regards to being peremptive, the bullet point reads:
There is a guideline here: WP:OR. The description does not preclude additions of genres, only those without sourcing.
AquitaneHungerForce ( talk) 21:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
<!-- Do not add unsourced genres -->
. If you have an issue with it I suggest you take it up there rather than here.
AquitaneHungerForce (
talk)
18:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Although MOS:ALBUM says "Track lengths should be included for each track", the only official (Bandcamp) release doesn't specify them. The actual track delineation is ambiguous, so the currently listed track lengths are WP:OR and should be removed (with another hidden RS admonition!), leaving only the verifiable totals. 66.30.12.132 ( talk) 14:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
1. all lights fucked on the hairy amp drooling- SIDE A1 17:23 2. all lights fucked on the hairy amp drooling- SIDE A2.wav 17:45 3. all lights fucked on the hairy amp drooling- SIDE B1.wav 17:51 4. all lights fucked on the hairy amp drooling- SIDE B2 16:35 SIDE A drifting intro open / shot thru tubes / threethreethree / when all the furnaces exploded / beep / hush / son of a diplomat, daughter of a politician / glencairn 14 / $13.13 / loose the idiot dogs / diminishing shine / random luvly moncton blue(s) / dadmomdaddy SIDE B 333 frames per second / revisionist alternatif wounds to the hairkut hit head / ditty for moya / buried ton / and the hairy guts shine / hoarding / deterior 23 / all angels gone / deterior 17 / deterior three / devil's in the church / no job / dress like shit / perfumed pink corpses from the lips of ms. celine dion