![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
From [1]: "Return to the Sun of Nothing (Echoes) was done early on. Roger's original title for 'Echoes' was 'We Won the Double'. Return to the Son of Nothing was eventually redone and renamed 'Echoes'.
Factual enough? Nothing was also parts 1-36, and that was the original name for Meddle - Fizscy46 20:20, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I rearranged a few bits to make it look better in my opinion. Do this to the others? Also fixed a few links. RttlesnkeWhiskey 10:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone else hear coughing or some other noises around 1:12 or 1:13?
Can you describe how to sync the two up, so we can experience this? -- Karada 15:21, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've put the section on the band denying that the sync is intentional back in. While linking to the sync page is good, it doesn't mean that you have to take out so short a section. Brother Dysk 12:56, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
Why are we deleting the 'How to sync it up' section??? Why would anyone visit this article otherwise? Hello!!!
I hotly dispute the claim that "Echoes" was intentionally designed to be part of 2001 and that Pink Floyd was ever offered to do the score for the film. More from me later. Djproject 20:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I played Echoes alongside the "Jupiter" section from 2001. There's little correspondence between the changes in the music and the visuals in the movie.-- MackORell 13:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I tend to think the "2001" bit in the article actually underplays the correspondence with its weaselly verbiage. Roger Waters is literally quoted as saying that not scoring the film was his "greatest regret"--uh, how does that accord with your post-war commie conspiracies? The two segments match up *to the second* (when do you turn on the song? The instant the title card "Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite" appears...the song's last note vanishes almost to the millisecond "written and directed by Stanley Kubrick" appears.) I suppose it's most likely a coincidence, but the preposterous "Dark Side"/"Wizard of Oz" nonsense tends to discredit this as well, even though this is exponentially more likely a deliberate thing--even if it's MOST likely not deliberate.
Why on Earth would it BE deliberate, in the pre-VCR days? Maybe Waters dreamed of actually projecting the end of the film during live performances--"The Wall" was initially conceived as ROCK THEATER--the starting-point, creatively for Waters, was imagining the concert. You can see psychedelic-era Floyd shows, and there's amateur psychedelic stuff projected--compared to which the end of "2001" is the "Godfather" of psychedelic shows. Maybe it was Waters' dream to arrange "psychedelic rock theater"/"2001" for "Echoes" performances, but it never came together, legally (Kubrick famously would have flat-out denied Floyd the right to project the end of "2001" at shows, were he ever asked.) I'm not saying he was asked, but it's plausible.-- 67.184.180.81 ( talk) 17:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
There was an interview with Waters in 1992, after Amused to Death was released, where he says that after trashing on Andrew Lloyd Webber in "It's a Miracle" he was staying in a rental house in the USA. He noticed they had "Phantom of the Opera" in their CD collection and decided to throw it on, as he claims he'd never heard ALW before and wanted to make sure he hadn't made an idiot of himself by trashing on him. He put it on, and not only had he decided that ALW was shite within a few minutes, he realized the overture was "Echoes"; he said that life was too short to bother with a lawsuit. That's why I removed the section saying he wrote the lines about ALW in "It's a Miracle" as payback, as this interview seems to indicate he'd already recorded "It's a Miracle" before discovering the plagarism. If anyone demands it I can dig up the interview, but I'm short on time at the moment. - dharm a bum 06:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you both. It would be nice to have both sound clips but how much time and effort would that take?? V Schauf ( talk) 13:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The quote “the potential that human beings have for recognising each other’s humanity and responding to it, with empathy rather than antipathy.” in the interview cited seems to me to be a comment on Dark Side rather than Echoes; in fact, I can't find a single mention of the song on that page. If this is correct, it should probably be moved... Caterpillar 36 16:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Why was the meaning section deleted? The quote "the potential that human beings have..." was originally said about the song Echoes and he later said that about DSotM. But that is the point of the song. He has also stated (for example if you watch the Dark Side of the Moon documentary) that Echoes was the first step towards what was finally realized in DSotM. The source that was used for that quote either misquoted him or incorrectly sourced it but that quote was Roger Waters describing the meaning of the song Echoes. - Anon
Jaco Pastorius was not the first fretless bass player? Most of music magazines that I read from 1984 to 1994, reported that Pastorius innvented the fretless bass guitar. Brian Wilson 15:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The only organ they used was Farfisa? Farfisa is just an Italian manufacter, it sounds very strange to me that Hammond organs are almost never mentioned in Wikipedia, as most of articles regarding prog rock bands state. Brian Wilson 15:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
perhaps this section ought to be condensed -- the three transcriptions are largely similar, and they all seem to be refinements of the longtime echoes faq entry. there are quite a few sections in the faq reconstruction that simply aren't supported by recently propagated, clearer recordings of the source material.
additionally there is a very clear recording not mentioned here, from 15 may 1971 in london, which i think casts a good deal of doubt on the berlin transcription, and would provide an exellent complement to the rome transcription.
anyone? -- G0zer 21:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
the wikipedia fair use guidelines identify four major factors used by u.s. copyright law to determine fair use of a work.
To me this sounds like Monster v. Turner [8] but I am by no means an expert. -- G0zer 18:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I've been a long-time watcher of this page and of the Pink Floyd syncs. Quite frankly, nobody will ever be able to convince me that they weren't done intentionally. You don't need to be inebriated to see the match-ups, only open-minded. I have a copy of 2001 that has the entire movie dubbed over with music from Ummagumma, Atom Heart Mother, and Meddle. Anyway, I think that the alternate lyrics should still be listed on this site as a means of comparison and as a way for people to be able to decide for themselves whether or not the sync is merely coincidence or intentional. ExpandingMind 22:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
hi, i moved the templates, like "fan site", here. primarily, i moved them because the "fan site" and "review" templates are pretty critical, and unnecessarily. i read through the article, and i agree there's some material that's unencyclopedic (such as the synchronizations section; i would have removed that in particular except that it's sourced, and discussed above here on the talk page). as well, it's been nag-tagged since june of 07, or at least a couple months. you'll notice from the templates at the top of the talk page that this is ranked as a "B", and listed as important (Echoes is in fact an important piece of Floyd's catalogue).
the problem with these "reads like a review" or "reads like a fan site" tags is that the article references the song, and is thus a self-referencing source. it's hard to find much of a corpus of research on the subject because it stands on its own (for example, find a source that indicates Renee Zelweger's ass has a polyester tail on it in Bridget Jones' Diary; yet we would all argue that the movie is an important part of her career – or of Hugh Grant's). thus, tagging the article with those templates doesn't especially help.
careful and informed pruning would be a good idea, however. 69.143.136.139 23:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to make an issue but I recently made some important changes (all small edits) to this article only to find they had been undone within a matter of hours by someone giving no valid reason. I shan't embarrass that person but would like to request that they discuss with me any point with which they have issue. I shall concentrate on one correction which I made which was undone. The article stated that the opening ping on Echoes was the second highest note on the grand piano, which is a B. Well the Steinway Model B Grand which I have in front of me does indeed have a B in this position but the one which is recorded on Echoes is an octave down from this which is why I changed it to "the second highest B". Throughout the article I made subtle changes all of which I can justify. Please do not undo these again. Thank you. NH 79.121.143.143 ( talk) 03:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Good man! You're right about my inadvertent grammatical error. It had been bugging me too! I'm very new to Wickipedia and it's quite tricky editing sentences and keeping the flow. Probably comes with practise. I'm a huge Floyd fan and have absorbed a lot of knowledge of PF over the years as well as a lot of musical equipment of the same type they used eg Farfisa Compact Duo. I've notice one or two people have been discussing whether the sound it makes on certain tracks is a synth but I don't want to be too picky! Thanks for your thoughts and no harm done NH 79.121.143.143 ( talk) 06:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Image:Aphrodite-1971-08-06 Echoes.ogg 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 05:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
For some reasons, I was sure that they used synths in Echoes, right the drone sound that in the article is reported to have been created by Waters with his bass. Anyone has any clue? Brian Wilson 20:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe in the "Main theme" off the 'More' album they use a synth (I guess a minimoog) for those notes resembling a sort of wha-wha, which was an oscillator with a ADSR modulated cutoff frequency. Possibly the same occurred in 'Let there be more light' from "A saucerful of secrets". Earlier synths didnt have any keyboard, so when musicians are interviewed, they use to refer to "oscillators" but actually they mean such kind of synths. I cant believe that they didnt use even some self-made oscillators in Ummagumma's "The narrow way"; maybe they just want to keep "confidential" such info, I am a musician myself and I can understand/agree with this policy. Brian Wilson 22:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Here's a source for the claim that the first time they used synth was on Obscured by Clouds, about halfway down the page. - dharmabum 20:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
With regard to the above comment
please note that there is no need for a varispeed or a tape effect to change the frequency of an oscillator, it is done by mean of a simple potentiometers.-- Doktor Who 19:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Please note also, that Botley Smith is right when he correctly states that the rising and descending tone on "Bike" is exactly what he says. You, however, are wrong when you try to assert that the Farfisa/Wah combination on More's Main Theme is a synth.NH 79.121.143.143 ( talk) 03:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
It looks like the bulk of the composition section is Original Research. A technical analysis of the song is not appropriate unless you are referencing the technical analysis or a Reliable Source. At the moment there seems to be some back and forth editing about specific details, that, without a reference, are entirely arguable. I am going to tag the section, and pending discussion, in a few days, I believe I will seriously trim it down. - Verdatum ( talk) 15:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi again. I agree that the composition section is rather waffly (no offence to whoever wrote it!) and reads rather like a review. However, I would disagree about the importance of the pitch of the opening note. On the studio version it is definitely a "B". However, in the Pompeii version it is a semitone higher on "C". The reason for this is the difference in frame rates between film and video/DVD when it is transferred. On part two, Wright can be seen playing a B minor chord on the Farfisa, yet it comes out as C minor for this reason. Perhaps I'm being too pedantic but when I first looked at this page I think it was stated that the "ping" was C# which is clearly wrong! Regarding the middle "seagull" section, I think it is important to make the point that NO synthesizers were used on it. Gilmour has said in interviews that the first album they used Synths on was Obscured by clouds and that they didn't actually realise that the VCS3 had to be set up to play musical notes, hence it is only used for "drones" on that album. All the sounds on that section are produced by the instruments themselves (except for the rook squawks) as described. The only way I can think of to show this is by doing a video on Youtube with the Grand Piano going through the Leslie and with the Vox Wah-wah plugged in back to front etc! Whether that would be acceptable as proof is another matter. All the best. NH 79.121.143.143 ( talk) 19:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I must admit I would personally rather see no information than wrong information. The Gilmour interview which I mentioned was not from Pompeii but from a magazine article years ago which I have...somewhere! It would take a month of Sundays to find it but I realise information needs to be backed up. I'll probably do the Youtube video anyway as I had intended to even before I looked at Wickipedia. Just for fun. I've got nothing better to do!NH 79.121.143.143 ( talk) 20:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Thought I'd watch it again too. It's indisputable that the entire film is running fast. In the Us and Them section Gilmour asks Wright if he's "doing the rundown from D to B...in the middle eight" Wright then plays this and again it comes out a semitone higher. NH 79.121.143.143 ( talk) 16:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah! I taped the original hour long Pompeii (different intro and audio mix) off the TV on a Betamax tape in 1983 and that's a semitone high too. I suppose I got a little perturbed when I saw that someone had put on Wickipedia that PF played Echoes in a different key live! At least they've returned The Wall to its original key on the DVD, though the picture jerks on my copy. But that's another story! NH 79.121.143.143 ( talk) 03:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
See my comments in the "plagarism" section. I just want to re-iterate this: "Echoes" is NOT in tweleve-eight time! Roger Waters, in his comments about Andrew-Lloyd Webber, states that it is, but he is simply mistaken (he said several other things in that interview that don't entirely make sense). The main body of "Echoes", just about whenever there is a steady drum beat, is in "Common Time", 4/4 time. In fact, the very riff Waters believes was plagarized is a sequence of straight sixteenth notes! (This isn't the first time a member of Pink Floyd was mistaken about time signatures -- see the "Money" Talk page about Gilmour erroneously saying "Money" is in seven-eight time, instead of seven-four.)
I'm 90% sure this comment wasn't necessary, but I'd hate to see someone get a bug up their butt and provoke an edit war, just because Roger Waters had a bad night's sleep one night before an interview (with a nasty, small-minded British journalist who thought a good way to open the interview was, "So, where's Syd?").
--
63.25.104.164 (
talk)
15:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
This has been removed three times by one editor and replaced by two different editors. It would thus seem that there exists currently a consensus that it should be in the article, and I suggest that any editor seriously seeking to change that consensus should discuss it here. I will advise Wikiproject Albums of this debate. -- Rodhull andemu 13:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
the problem is not of fair use or OR but a technical problem - the data shown is a static representation of the amplitude of the piece, with no frequency or time data included. the OP does not seem to grasp that in this form it may repesent any number of sounds - as an analogy, it is comparable to describing(for example) a lamp to someone who has never seen one by using only its colour or its height! similarly, if you gave a frequency spectrum of 'echoes' commenting on its range (in pitch) it would be equally meaningless given any number of sounds (not even music!) could have a similar representation. why not use a short audio clip of one part of the the piece? (as commonplace elsewhere) you can also argue aesthetically that the dynamics of echoes are nothing compared to many pieces of classical music - yet such comment is not made in those cases. I think it adds nothing to the article and is potentially misleading, so removed Jw2034 ( talk) 23:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
the arguement 'because it's on the Layla page, and that's quite good' is a poor one. I don't dispute it is fair use. I think a better, clearer representation is required with explanation if it is to remain - the one on the layla page is given in context with a discussion and adds something to the article, not just slung under the menu box as an afterthought. In this artilce it is misleading, has minimal explanation and is unclear.
my objection still stands that the dynamics of echoes (and layla for that matter) are less dramatic and really nothing special when compared to many classical pieces (eg: Serenade for Strings (Tchaikovsky) - Serenade for Strings in C major, Op. 48, see [10]) yet no such discussion is undertaken on such pages. Jw2034 ( talk) 20:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I have been trying to remove a dubious and uncited claim that Gong recorded a song that is intended as a parody of "Echoes". The editor, an anon IP, claims he has seen verification of this on another website, but has yet to insert a link. I posted the following on his talk page: "Regarding your comment that the claim about a connection with Gong should never have been removed from "Echoes": The claim read like someone's guess, and certainly should have been removed without any statement that anyone from Gong ever stated this connection, with appropriate citation. Things are not added or removed from Wikipedia because they are true or untrue, but because of whether or not they are properly sourced. If you have a citable source, please insert it, otherwise the claim will be removed again. I haven't seen the citation you refer to, but if it is not clearly attributed to someone from the group, it may not be acceptable proof. If you want to be doubly sure, post a link to it on the article's talk page and solicit an opinion on whether it's acceptable." I did not remove the text, because I presumed he was going to add the citation, but I did put a "fact" tag on it.
Instead of using this talk page as requested, he removed the tag, and used this edit summary: "Sorry but you just need to hear this Gong's piece to see the clear pitch and tempo signature of Echoes. If you heard it and are not certain, that's one thing. But you acting as a censor is not acceptable. If you delete it again, it will be added again." So now I'm taking the discussion over here.
Well first of all, I've known about that track since 1977 when it was released on the album Gong Live Etc. There is only a co-incidental similarity. You say they have the same "clear pitch" and "tempo signature"? What is the pitch, and what is the tempo? This section we're referring to (in the Gong track) is a rising tone (and has no pitch to speak of), and has no tempo. If you're thinking the rise in pitch follows the same rate as it does in "Echoes", check again; the raise in "Echoes" is even and consistent; the raise in the Gong track is fast at first, and then slows down. Also, the raise in pitch in "Echoes" is an illusion, as new low voices are added as the high voices fade out, so overall the pitch remains the same throughout, which is why it never reaches an end. There is no duplication of this trick on the Gong track. There is another point which you're overlooking: Gong copied this effect from an earlier track of Daevid Allen's, called "Est-ce Que Je Suis" which also appears (in a live version) on Gong Live Etc.. The original version of this song was released in 1971 (not certain what month), and "Echoes" was released in November 1971. Did Daevid really hear the track and release a "parody" version so quickly? It seems unlikely.
But all of this guessing by analysis is irrelevant. The claim does not belong in the article if there is no cited quote from a member of Gong stating that this similarity was intentional. You said you have a quote that proves it, and I invited you to add it. You also said, in a previous edit summary, that Nick Mason's production association with Steve Hillage (6 years later?) proves this connection, which I just can't see as valid. Removing an uncited claim is not "acting as a censor". And as for threatening to add this claim again (presumably without citation), if you keep doing it, you may find yourself blocked. The best thing to do at this point, is find the citation and add it. -- A Knight Who Says Ni ( talk) 00:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
What is this ?
The Pink Floyd used oscillators dating from their first album, a Moog or Minimoog is used in Main Theme, from album More. With all due respect, they seem not even capable to remember in which The Wall songs Wright played, so I am not surprised that they deny to have ever used simple oscillators or synth before 1972.-- Dr. Who 01:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
this sound could be a taped effect from the doctor who serial 'inferno' about 18 minutes into the first episode, the doctor is transported into an alternate dimension via the tardis console and there is an extraordinary resemblance between the sound effects used in that sequence and this part of the song in question. Since pink floyd has used the doctor who theme song 'one of these days' it is entirely possible that this is a tape effect not instrumentation, pedal effect or synthesizer. Lassiriven ( talk) 04:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't it make sense to use another person that was there at the creation of Echoes? Nick Mason wrote that it was from "inadvertently plugging in a wah-wah pedal back to front". Moreover, prior to the "whale scream" the sounds of bass strings could easily been done to make that sound. V Schauf ( talk) 19:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I have read this article and have been impressed with the article for awhile. I especially like the way that editors here have explained the development of the song from start to finish. I have discussed this article with krobertj and we agree this article deserves Good Article Nomination. There are other reasons why I think this article is deserving of Good Article Nomination: 1. Very good work on Composition section. 2. There are very few grammatical errors, if any. 3. There are some disputes, but there are not editing wars as far as I have been able to check and see. 4. The discussion about the varying arrangements of lead and accompanying vocals is both insightful and very interesting.
Is the article great? No, it does need more referencing, but that can easily be done by someone with a Pink Floyd book. It's not considered a Good Article yet; it's not A quality yet, but with some editing, it certainly could BE!!
V Schauf (
talk)
14:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I DELETED the part at the top of the "Composition" that stated the section needed additional citations. There are currently NO SECTIONS where it states that it needs to be better referenced or cited.
V Schauf (
talk)
01:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I would like to thank the reviewer, Wasted Time R for the remarks. I agree with the reviewer saying to the effect that it definitely isn't a great article (& I said that before) . There were good points made. I would agree that we need to get rid of dead links. I have gotten rid of one already.
There are 2 points I would like to make:
1. I don't agree with the statement that this article is "poorly referenced". In fact, the article is referenced quite a bit, but it could use more. There is a danger of referencing/footnoting so much that the article is not so much a compilation of editors coming together and writing the article but rather a compilation of books' and magazines' points of view. There needs to be some original thought as well as referencing.
2. I don't agree with the last remark of "not close to being ready". That sounds more like subjective spite than it does objective analysis of what's wrong with the article.
However, I still say "thanks", and I don't think the idea of passing this as good article should be reconsidered until more editing is done (as I started to already). I hope that other editors that care about the article will help in referencing and making the article more consistent in the MOS, Manual of Style that was indicated. V Schauf ( talk) 13:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
ok, Wasted Time, you make good points on Dec 1, and showed some empathy, so guess what? I think the best plan is to continue to rework the article and would like nothing more than for you to say later, "there's enough improvements that the article qualifies as a Good Article". Now I've seen in Wikipedia where it says to write and edit boldly; there should be some room for creativity b/c this is after all the writing process. But I know that we can split hairs til the "cows come home", and I do agree, there needs to be more research. I predict that within 6 months, you'll like this article better than you do now. 05:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC) V Schauf ( talk • contribs)
The Composition section was slightly rearranged tonight and addresses 1 remark made when the article was up for Good Article status. I moved the graphic of the opening notes of the song. It was at the top of the Composition section. The problem was that it left an unsightly gap between the title and the first paragraph of Composition. I think it now looks better, and ends the criticism of this gap that came up earlier. V Schauf ( talk) 04:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Can someone find a better source for this? Sure the source has all of the facts in it, but it is a very insulting and biased form. It says things like "SO HOW'S Syd these days?" and describes Roger Walters as "Roger Waters. He's the one who invented giant inflatable pigs, the one who tortured schoolyards of children by making them sing his catchprase ("We dahn nee nur edercayshun, we dahn nee nur fort corntrawel") This whole part of the article before isn't even intelligent enough to be considered gossip, much less a well written article on the matter. 207.191.210.136 ( talk) 22:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Reviewer: Wasted Time R ( talk) 13:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
This article has many shortcomings.
Echoes (song) redirects to Echoes (Pink Floyd song). Does this seem backward to anyone else? Shouldn't this entire article be moved to Echoes (song)? Father McKenzie ( talk) 04:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
In the article "The drone vocalizations heard in the final scenes of 2001..." are being mentioned. Not only the practice of calling something one does not understand "a drone" and discrediting its possible meaning and importance is here at work, but the aforementioned "drone vocalizations" actually happen to be "Lux Aetherna", a composition by Hungarian composer György Ligeti (1923 - 2006), one of the most complex and demanding masterpieces of choral music ever written. As far as "drone vocalizations" are concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.81.180 ( talk) 16:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 ( talk) 21:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Echoes (Pink Floyd song) →
Echoes (song) – "Echoes (song)" redirects here.
yeepsi (
Time for a chat?)
20:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not the one who made the most recent edit changing "high C#" to "high B", but I was curious. An earlier edit summary indicates that an official tab book lists the note as C#. Frequency analysis of the first note indicates that it is within 1 or 2 cents of B.
If someone would care to analyze the other notes in the introduction, we can determine definitively whether it is in fact a B, or whether the piano is merely one half-step out of tune and it is a C# sounding B. -- G0zer 06:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
To my ears, the very first note sounds like a B. But the introduction is improvised overall around the key C# minor (as is a large part of the song). Try putting the album on and playing along on piano and see what you think. It's probably more obvious on Pompeii. -- Ritchie333 16:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, then I'm afraid you don't have perfect pitch and/or your piano is out of tune. I counted the cycles. It's a B. — ptk✰ fgs 17:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I just said in the above paragraph. -- Ritchie333 17:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I actually thought it sounded like a C, but I asked a friend who uses a tuning machine to make sure he's not out of tune. Using the machine (it's called a "C12 Chromatic", I think), he showed me that the note is, in fact, a B. V Schauf ( talk) 20:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The first note is indeed a B6, but the verse chords for guitar are C#m - G#m - F#m - G#7, so it's definitely written in C# minor, that's the classic I-IV-V (I-V-IV-V in this case.) Then there is that funky part where it's going from a B major chord to a C#m. I know at least one of the guitar solos (the first one, not the one in the intro) is also in C#. -- Markboydude ( talk) 02:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Can somebody well endowed enough write a meanings section? I really want to know more about this song! Whiskey in the Jar 14:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
and please add some comment to the cover, what is depicted and why? 125.24.101.22 ( talk) 15:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I hope there was an unstated consensus against a "Meanings" section. That's not Wikipedia's purpose, and it would be an invitation for people who neither know or care about Wikipedia's purpose to add their own personal interpretations.
--
Ben Culture (
talk)
10:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Our article currently states:
The song changes to 12/8 during the riff after the chorus, while most of the song is in 4/4, 6/8 and 6/4 time.
This isn't clear enough, and may be flat-out incorrect. Let's take the first half: "The song changes to 12/8 during the riff after the chorus" WHAT does THAT mean? WHICH chorus? If the editor was referring to the "funky" section after the two choruses and extended solos, he's wrong. And no part of "Echoes" before that section is in 12/8, either.
The only part I can, at least, condone being described as 12/8 (or 6/8, for that matter), is the B minor section after all the seagull shit, when Rick's organ builds up with ||:Bmin | F#min7 | D6 | A/E :|| (Confused? Try thinking of it as ||: Bmin | A/F# | Bm/D | A/E :||, if that's easier for you.) During this section, Gilmour plays those "Good Vibrations"-style triplets, although Nick Mason and Roger Waters still seems to be thinking in 4/4.
Anyway, so what's what? What's the 12/8 refer to, what's in 6/8, and what's in 6/4? If I don't get some sort of reasonable answer before the end of this year, I might very well remove this dubious "information". As far as I can tell -- after 25+ years of listening -- is that this is a song almost entirely in 4/4, except for a short section you could call 12/8 (although only the guitar is articulating the song in that time signature.
-- Ben Culture ( talk) 05:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
[12/8 & 4/4 are similar - but 12/8 allows for an established triplet on every beat - the Bminor section employs a triplet staccato that is best expressed in 12/8 and not 6/8 because the chord changes happen on the first beat of a bar: kind of like this - the numbers in parenthesis are quavers or eighth notes adding up to 12 in a bar: Beat Beat Beat Beat
Bmin 1 (1,2,3) 2 (4,5,6) 3 (7,8,9) 4 (10,11,12) F#min7 1 (1,2,3) 2 (4,5,6) 3 (7,8,9) 4 (10,11,12) D6 1 (1,2,3) 2 (4,5,6) 3 (7,8,9) 4 (10,11,12) A/E 1 (1,2,3) 2 (4,5,6) 3 (7,8,9) 4 (10,11,12)
I'm not so sure it is similar. The band had communicated with Kubrick. At least one good source reports that they wanted to score 2001, but it is hard to tell if this is just a rumor. There seems to be more to this story. Viriditas ( talk) 23:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Echoes (Pink Floyd song)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
To date, is the best and most extensive article about a Pink Floyd song, it even surpasses various album articles, but maybe it could be expanded a bit more so it could achieve A-Class grading, with information of its meaning, and more details on recording and instrumentation. -- 200.118.217.125 17:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC) |
Last edited at 17:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 19:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I recently made the mistake of making an addition this page without requesting it. I wanted to make an addition to the "cover versions" section to include a cover which has been doing the rounds on the internet. A YouTuber/musician who does many Floyd covers did a full cover of this song. My original edit was removed because the cover wasn't "notable". I'd like to know what makes a cover notable. This particular cover was shared by many blogs and websites and people non other than Pink Floyd drummer himself Nick Mason, receiving high praise from the main man.
I think for a Wikipedia page this detailed it should also include more covers. It looks a bit empty the way it is just now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WisemanOnceSaid ( talk • contribs) 23:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
@ WisemanOnceSaid: In order to include a cover, the band/musician should be notable (per Wikipedia's guidelines for notability of musicians). If you can create an article about Ewan Cunningham, and get it to "stick" (i.e. not be deleted), then you might get by with this mention of his cover, but otherwise, it's just a bit of trivia that isn't really encyclopedic, even if Nick Mason liked the cover. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 18:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@ WikiDan61: Thank you for your helpful answer. Need more people like you in this space. WisemanOnceSaid ( talk) 18:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I've got another source for Ewan Cunningham; it's also the top hit for "pink floyd echoes cover" on Google, so I've added it, and included Dean Ween's cover too. To be honest, this sort of stuff is borderline, like "cultural references" in films and places; some people don't mind it being there (as long as it's reliably sourced), some people think it's off-topic. I personally prefer to include it, because if you don't, somebody will come along and add it anyway, and then you'll get a silly edit war. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@ Ritchie333: Thanks Ritchie, I look at it the same way. Have a good day. WisemanOnceSaid ( talk) 20:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Note that the guideline at WP:SONGCOVER says that "a particular artist's rendition should be included" if one of the two following cases is met:
So it's not enough to get a reliable source about a song cover. The source should first be talking about the song itself. The following references fail this point:
Since these references fail the guideline, the cover versions supported by them should be removed. Binksternet ( talk) 21:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I am adding the genre "post-rock", on the page I use as a reference, Echoes is cited as the beginning of this genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:200:E800:D8C:9C99:4CC7:7FF0:18C9 ( talk) 00:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Is rock, but in the source besider to be rock, Echoes is cited as a the "post-rock" starting point, obviusly post-rock doesn't exist on 1971 but this song was ahead of what would be the genre years later and Echoes could be a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:200:E800:D8C:9C99:4CC7:7FF0:18C9 ( talk) 00:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
"with all instruments joining in for two swells of B♭/C# major, A major, and A♭sus4 which resolves to a A♭ major."
D/B minor, and E/F# minor.
1. There's no such chord spelling/chord symbol grammar that allows for Bb/C# major. Do you mean Bb/Db - in other words Bb major/C#(that's Db/C# in the bass)? Whoever has ears, or the knowledge, needs to change this to something that makes sense.
2. Whenever someone finds out what the above is supposed to mean: if you end up keeping C# major it ought to be changed to Db major. Not incorrect originally, but clunky.
3. Same as #1 for D/B minor - which almost makes sense if it weren't for the E/F# minor to follow - again - whoever knows what this section is: please change to something that makes sense!
4. "two swells of C# major, A major, and G#sus4 which resolves to a G#major" should really read "one bar each of C# minor, A# minor, A major, G#sus4 and G#major". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.8.152 ( talk • contribs) 30 April 2019
I've been cleaning up the article today, checking everything against four main book sources I have access to (Blake, Mabbett, Mason and Povey) and taking out anything that looks like fancruft, and adding some things that are in those sources. It would be nice to see if somebody can cite Dick Parry playing a saxophone solo in later tours. I can't use "heard it on a bootleg" as a source, but no reliable source specifically mentioned it anyway. Martinevans123, can you help? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Zmbro ( talk · contribs) 19:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I'll take this. –
zmbro (
talk)
19:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
What I got so far. – zmbro ( talk) 19:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
All right it look's much better. After another read through I'm happy to ✓ Pass – zmbro ( talk) 16:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
From [1]: "Return to the Sun of Nothing (Echoes) was done early on. Roger's original title for 'Echoes' was 'We Won the Double'. Return to the Son of Nothing was eventually redone and renamed 'Echoes'.
Factual enough? Nothing was also parts 1-36, and that was the original name for Meddle - Fizscy46 20:20, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I rearranged a few bits to make it look better in my opinion. Do this to the others? Also fixed a few links. RttlesnkeWhiskey 10:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone else hear coughing or some other noises around 1:12 or 1:13?
Can you describe how to sync the two up, so we can experience this? -- Karada 15:21, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've put the section on the band denying that the sync is intentional back in. While linking to the sync page is good, it doesn't mean that you have to take out so short a section. Brother Dysk 12:56, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
Why are we deleting the 'How to sync it up' section??? Why would anyone visit this article otherwise? Hello!!!
I hotly dispute the claim that "Echoes" was intentionally designed to be part of 2001 and that Pink Floyd was ever offered to do the score for the film. More from me later. Djproject 20:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I played Echoes alongside the "Jupiter" section from 2001. There's little correspondence between the changes in the music and the visuals in the movie.-- MackORell 13:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I tend to think the "2001" bit in the article actually underplays the correspondence with its weaselly verbiage. Roger Waters is literally quoted as saying that not scoring the film was his "greatest regret"--uh, how does that accord with your post-war commie conspiracies? The two segments match up *to the second* (when do you turn on the song? The instant the title card "Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite" appears...the song's last note vanishes almost to the millisecond "written and directed by Stanley Kubrick" appears.) I suppose it's most likely a coincidence, but the preposterous "Dark Side"/"Wizard of Oz" nonsense tends to discredit this as well, even though this is exponentially more likely a deliberate thing--even if it's MOST likely not deliberate.
Why on Earth would it BE deliberate, in the pre-VCR days? Maybe Waters dreamed of actually projecting the end of the film during live performances--"The Wall" was initially conceived as ROCK THEATER--the starting-point, creatively for Waters, was imagining the concert. You can see psychedelic-era Floyd shows, and there's amateur psychedelic stuff projected--compared to which the end of "2001" is the "Godfather" of psychedelic shows. Maybe it was Waters' dream to arrange "psychedelic rock theater"/"2001" for "Echoes" performances, but it never came together, legally (Kubrick famously would have flat-out denied Floyd the right to project the end of "2001" at shows, were he ever asked.) I'm not saying he was asked, but it's plausible.-- 67.184.180.81 ( talk) 17:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
There was an interview with Waters in 1992, after Amused to Death was released, where he says that after trashing on Andrew Lloyd Webber in "It's a Miracle" he was staying in a rental house in the USA. He noticed they had "Phantom of the Opera" in their CD collection and decided to throw it on, as he claims he'd never heard ALW before and wanted to make sure he hadn't made an idiot of himself by trashing on him. He put it on, and not only had he decided that ALW was shite within a few minutes, he realized the overture was "Echoes"; he said that life was too short to bother with a lawsuit. That's why I removed the section saying he wrote the lines about ALW in "It's a Miracle" as payback, as this interview seems to indicate he'd already recorded "It's a Miracle" before discovering the plagarism. If anyone demands it I can dig up the interview, but I'm short on time at the moment. - dharm a bum 06:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you both. It would be nice to have both sound clips but how much time and effort would that take?? V Schauf ( talk) 13:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The quote “the potential that human beings have for recognising each other’s humanity and responding to it, with empathy rather than antipathy.” in the interview cited seems to me to be a comment on Dark Side rather than Echoes; in fact, I can't find a single mention of the song on that page. If this is correct, it should probably be moved... Caterpillar 36 16:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Why was the meaning section deleted? The quote "the potential that human beings have..." was originally said about the song Echoes and he later said that about DSotM. But that is the point of the song. He has also stated (for example if you watch the Dark Side of the Moon documentary) that Echoes was the first step towards what was finally realized in DSotM. The source that was used for that quote either misquoted him or incorrectly sourced it but that quote was Roger Waters describing the meaning of the song Echoes. - Anon
Jaco Pastorius was not the first fretless bass player? Most of music magazines that I read from 1984 to 1994, reported that Pastorius innvented the fretless bass guitar. Brian Wilson 15:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The only organ they used was Farfisa? Farfisa is just an Italian manufacter, it sounds very strange to me that Hammond organs are almost never mentioned in Wikipedia, as most of articles regarding prog rock bands state. Brian Wilson 15:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
perhaps this section ought to be condensed -- the three transcriptions are largely similar, and they all seem to be refinements of the longtime echoes faq entry. there are quite a few sections in the faq reconstruction that simply aren't supported by recently propagated, clearer recordings of the source material.
additionally there is a very clear recording not mentioned here, from 15 may 1971 in london, which i think casts a good deal of doubt on the berlin transcription, and would provide an exellent complement to the rome transcription.
anyone? -- G0zer 21:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
the wikipedia fair use guidelines identify four major factors used by u.s. copyright law to determine fair use of a work.
To me this sounds like Monster v. Turner [8] but I am by no means an expert. -- G0zer 18:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I've been a long-time watcher of this page and of the Pink Floyd syncs. Quite frankly, nobody will ever be able to convince me that they weren't done intentionally. You don't need to be inebriated to see the match-ups, only open-minded. I have a copy of 2001 that has the entire movie dubbed over with music from Ummagumma, Atom Heart Mother, and Meddle. Anyway, I think that the alternate lyrics should still be listed on this site as a means of comparison and as a way for people to be able to decide for themselves whether or not the sync is merely coincidence or intentional. ExpandingMind 22:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
hi, i moved the templates, like "fan site", here. primarily, i moved them because the "fan site" and "review" templates are pretty critical, and unnecessarily. i read through the article, and i agree there's some material that's unencyclopedic (such as the synchronizations section; i would have removed that in particular except that it's sourced, and discussed above here on the talk page). as well, it's been nag-tagged since june of 07, or at least a couple months. you'll notice from the templates at the top of the talk page that this is ranked as a "B", and listed as important (Echoes is in fact an important piece of Floyd's catalogue).
the problem with these "reads like a review" or "reads like a fan site" tags is that the article references the song, and is thus a self-referencing source. it's hard to find much of a corpus of research on the subject because it stands on its own (for example, find a source that indicates Renee Zelweger's ass has a polyester tail on it in Bridget Jones' Diary; yet we would all argue that the movie is an important part of her career – or of Hugh Grant's). thus, tagging the article with those templates doesn't especially help.
careful and informed pruning would be a good idea, however. 69.143.136.139 23:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to make an issue but I recently made some important changes (all small edits) to this article only to find they had been undone within a matter of hours by someone giving no valid reason. I shan't embarrass that person but would like to request that they discuss with me any point with which they have issue. I shall concentrate on one correction which I made which was undone. The article stated that the opening ping on Echoes was the second highest note on the grand piano, which is a B. Well the Steinway Model B Grand which I have in front of me does indeed have a B in this position but the one which is recorded on Echoes is an octave down from this which is why I changed it to "the second highest B". Throughout the article I made subtle changes all of which I can justify. Please do not undo these again. Thank you. NH 79.121.143.143 ( talk) 03:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Good man! You're right about my inadvertent grammatical error. It had been bugging me too! I'm very new to Wickipedia and it's quite tricky editing sentences and keeping the flow. Probably comes with practise. I'm a huge Floyd fan and have absorbed a lot of knowledge of PF over the years as well as a lot of musical equipment of the same type they used eg Farfisa Compact Duo. I've notice one or two people have been discussing whether the sound it makes on certain tracks is a synth but I don't want to be too picky! Thanks for your thoughts and no harm done NH 79.121.143.143 ( talk) 06:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Image:Aphrodite-1971-08-06 Echoes.ogg 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 05:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
For some reasons, I was sure that they used synths in Echoes, right the drone sound that in the article is reported to have been created by Waters with his bass. Anyone has any clue? Brian Wilson 20:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe in the "Main theme" off the 'More' album they use a synth (I guess a minimoog) for those notes resembling a sort of wha-wha, which was an oscillator with a ADSR modulated cutoff frequency. Possibly the same occurred in 'Let there be more light' from "A saucerful of secrets". Earlier synths didnt have any keyboard, so when musicians are interviewed, they use to refer to "oscillators" but actually they mean such kind of synths. I cant believe that they didnt use even some self-made oscillators in Ummagumma's "The narrow way"; maybe they just want to keep "confidential" such info, I am a musician myself and I can understand/agree with this policy. Brian Wilson 22:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Here's a source for the claim that the first time they used synth was on Obscured by Clouds, about halfway down the page. - dharmabum 20:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
With regard to the above comment
please note that there is no need for a varispeed or a tape effect to change the frequency of an oscillator, it is done by mean of a simple potentiometers.-- Doktor Who 19:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Please note also, that Botley Smith is right when he correctly states that the rising and descending tone on "Bike" is exactly what he says. You, however, are wrong when you try to assert that the Farfisa/Wah combination on More's Main Theme is a synth.NH 79.121.143.143 ( talk) 03:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
It looks like the bulk of the composition section is Original Research. A technical analysis of the song is not appropriate unless you are referencing the technical analysis or a Reliable Source. At the moment there seems to be some back and forth editing about specific details, that, without a reference, are entirely arguable. I am going to tag the section, and pending discussion, in a few days, I believe I will seriously trim it down. - Verdatum ( talk) 15:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi again. I agree that the composition section is rather waffly (no offence to whoever wrote it!) and reads rather like a review. However, I would disagree about the importance of the pitch of the opening note. On the studio version it is definitely a "B". However, in the Pompeii version it is a semitone higher on "C". The reason for this is the difference in frame rates between film and video/DVD when it is transferred. On part two, Wright can be seen playing a B minor chord on the Farfisa, yet it comes out as C minor for this reason. Perhaps I'm being too pedantic but when I first looked at this page I think it was stated that the "ping" was C# which is clearly wrong! Regarding the middle "seagull" section, I think it is important to make the point that NO synthesizers were used on it. Gilmour has said in interviews that the first album they used Synths on was Obscured by clouds and that they didn't actually realise that the VCS3 had to be set up to play musical notes, hence it is only used for "drones" on that album. All the sounds on that section are produced by the instruments themselves (except for the rook squawks) as described. The only way I can think of to show this is by doing a video on Youtube with the Grand Piano going through the Leslie and with the Vox Wah-wah plugged in back to front etc! Whether that would be acceptable as proof is another matter. All the best. NH 79.121.143.143 ( talk) 19:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I must admit I would personally rather see no information than wrong information. The Gilmour interview which I mentioned was not from Pompeii but from a magazine article years ago which I have...somewhere! It would take a month of Sundays to find it but I realise information needs to be backed up. I'll probably do the Youtube video anyway as I had intended to even before I looked at Wickipedia. Just for fun. I've got nothing better to do!NH 79.121.143.143 ( talk) 20:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Thought I'd watch it again too. It's indisputable that the entire film is running fast. In the Us and Them section Gilmour asks Wright if he's "doing the rundown from D to B...in the middle eight" Wright then plays this and again it comes out a semitone higher. NH 79.121.143.143 ( talk) 16:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah! I taped the original hour long Pompeii (different intro and audio mix) off the TV on a Betamax tape in 1983 and that's a semitone high too. I suppose I got a little perturbed when I saw that someone had put on Wickipedia that PF played Echoes in a different key live! At least they've returned The Wall to its original key on the DVD, though the picture jerks on my copy. But that's another story! NH 79.121.143.143 ( talk) 03:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
See my comments in the "plagarism" section. I just want to re-iterate this: "Echoes" is NOT in tweleve-eight time! Roger Waters, in his comments about Andrew-Lloyd Webber, states that it is, but he is simply mistaken (he said several other things in that interview that don't entirely make sense). The main body of "Echoes", just about whenever there is a steady drum beat, is in "Common Time", 4/4 time. In fact, the very riff Waters believes was plagarized is a sequence of straight sixteenth notes! (This isn't the first time a member of Pink Floyd was mistaken about time signatures -- see the "Money" Talk page about Gilmour erroneously saying "Money" is in seven-eight time, instead of seven-four.)
I'm 90% sure this comment wasn't necessary, but I'd hate to see someone get a bug up their butt and provoke an edit war, just because Roger Waters had a bad night's sleep one night before an interview (with a nasty, small-minded British journalist who thought a good way to open the interview was, "So, where's Syd?").
--
63.25.104.164 (
talk)
15:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
This has been removed three times by one editor and replaced by two different editors. It would thus seem that there exists currently a consensus that it should be in the article, and I suggest that any editor seriously seeking to change that consensus should discuss it here. I will advise Wikiproject Albums of this debate. -- Rodhull andemu 13:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
the problem is not of fair use or OR but a technical problem - the data shown is a static representation of the amplitude of the piece, with no frequency or time data included. the OP does not seem to grasp that in this form it may repesent any number of sounds - as an analogy, it is comparable to describing(for example) a lamp to someone who has never seen one by using only its colour or its height! similarly, if you gave a frequency spectrum of 'echoes' commenting on its range (in pitch) it would be equally meaningless given any number of sounds (not even music!) could have a similar representation. why not use a short audio clip of one part of the the piece? (as commonplace elsewhere) you can also argue aesthetically that the dynamics of echoes are nothing compared to many pieces of classical music - yet such comment is not made in those cases. I think it adds nothing to the article and is potentially misleading, so removed Jw2034 ( talk) 23:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
the arguement 'because it's on the Layla page, and that's quite good' is a poor one. I don't dispute it is fair use. I think a better, clearer representation is required with explanation if it is to remain - the one on the layla page is given in context with a discussion and adds something to the article, not just slung under the menu box as an afterthought. In this artilce it is misleading, has minimal explanation and is unclear.
my objection still stands that the dynamics of echoes (and layla for that matter) are less dramatic and really nothing special when compared to many classical pieces (eg: Serenade for Strings (Tchaikovsky) - Serenade for Strings in C major, Op. 48, see [10]) yet no such discussion is undertaken on such pages. Jw2034 ( talk) 20:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I have been trying to remove a dubious and uncited claim that Gong recorded a song that is intended as a parody of "Echoes". The editor, an anon IP, claims he has seen verification of this on another website, but has yet to insert a link. I posted the following on his talk page: "Regarding your comment that the claim about a connection with Gong should never have been removed from "Echoes": The claim read like someone's guess, and certainly should have been removed without any statement that anyone from Gong ever stated this connection, with appropriate citation. Things are not added or removed from Wikipedia because they are true or untrue, but because of whether or not they are properly sourced. If you have a citable source, please insert it, otherwise the claim will be removed again. I haven't seen the citation you refer to, but if it is not clearly attributed to someone from the group, it may not be acceptable proof. If you want to be doubly sure, post a link to it on the article's talk page and solicit an opinion on whether it's acceptable." I did not remove the text, because I presumed he was going to add the citation, but I did put a "fact" tag on it.
Instead of using this talk page as requested, he removed the tag, and used this edit summary: "Sorry but you just need to hear this Gong's piece to see the clear pitch and tempo signature of Echoes. If you heard it and are not certain, that's one thing. But you acting as a censor is not acceptable. If you delete it again, it will be added again." So now I'm taking the discussion over here.
Well first of all, I've known about that track since 1977 when it was released on the album Gong Live Etc. There is only a co-incidental similarity. You say they have the same "clear pitch" and "tempo signature"? What is the pitch, and what is the tempo? This section we're referring to (in the Gong track) is a rising tone (and has no pitch to speak of), and has no tempo. If you're thinking the rise in pitch follows the same rate as it does in "Echoes", check again; the raise in "Echoes" is even and consistent; the raise in the Gong track is fast at first, and then slows down. Also, the raise in pitch in "Echoes" is an illusion, as new low voices are added as the high voices fade out, so overall the pitch remains the same throughout, which is why it never reaches an end. There is no duplication of this trick on the Gong track. There is another point which you're overlooking: Gong copied this effect from an earlier track of Daevid Allen's, called "Est-ce Que Je Suis" which also appears (in a live version) on Gong Live Etc.. The original version of this song was released in 1971 (not certain what month), and "Echoes" was released in November 1971. Did Daevid really hear the track and release a "parody" version so quickly? It seems unlikely.
But all of this guessing by analysis is irrelevant. The claim does not belong in the article if there is no cited quote from a member of Gong stating that this similarity was intentional. You said you have a quote that proves it, and I invited you to add it. You also said, in a previous edit summary, that Nick Mason's production association with Steve Hillage (6 years later?) proves this connection, which I just can't see as valid. Removing an uncited claim is not "acting as a censor". And as for threatening to add this claim again (presumably without citation), if you keep doing it, you may find yourself blocked. The best thing to do at this point, is find the citation and add it. -- A Knight Who Says Ni ( talk) 00:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
What is this ?
The Pink Floyd used oscillators dating from their first album, a Moog or Minimoog is used in Main Theme, from album More. With all due respect, they seem not even capable to remember in which The Wall songs Wright played, so I am not surprised that they deny to have ever used simple oscillators or synth before 1972.-- Dr. Who 01:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
this sound could be a taped effect from the doctor who serial 'inferno' about 18 minutes into the first episode, the doctor is transported into an alternate dimension via the tardis console and there is an extraordinary resemblance between the sound effects used in that sequence and this part of the song in question. Since pink floyd has used the doctor who theme song 'one of these days' it is entirely possible that this is a tape effect not instrumentation, pedal effect or synthesizer. Lassiriven ( talk) 04:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't it make sense to use another person that was there at the creation of Echoes? Nick Mason wrote that it was from "inadvertently plugging in a wah-wah pedal back to front". Moreover, prior to the "whale scream" the sounds of bass strings could easily been done to make that sound. V Schauf ( talk) 19:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I have read this article and have been impressed with the article for awhile. I especially like the way that editors here have explained the development of the song from start to finish. I have discussed this article with krobertj and we agree this article deserves Good Article Nomination. There are other reasons why I think this article is deserving of Good Article Nomination: 1. Very good work on Composition section. 2. There are very few grammatical errors, if any. 3. There are some disputes, but there are not editing wars as far as I have been able to check and see. 4. The discussion about the varying arrangements of lead and accompanying vocals is both insightful and very interesting.
Is the article great? No, it does need more referencing, but that can easily be done by someone with a Pink Floyd book. It's not considered a Good Article yet; it's not A quality yet, but with some editing, it certainly could BE!!
V Schauf (
talk)
14:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I DELETED the part at the top of the "Composition" that stated the section needed additional citations. There are currently NO SECTIONS where it states that it needs to be better referenced or cited.
V Schauf (
talk)
01:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I would like to thank the reviewer, Wasted Time R for the remarks. I agree with the reviewer saying to the effect that it definitely isn't a great article (& I said that before) . There were good points made. I would agree that we need to get rid of dead links. I have gotten rid of one already.
There are 2 points I would like to make:
1. I don't agree with the statement that this article is "poorly referenced". In fact, the article is referenced quite a bit, but it could use more. There is a danger of referencing/footnoting so much that the article is not so much a compilation of editors coming together and writing the article but rather a compilation of books' and magazines' points of view. There needs to be some original thought as well as referencing.
2. I don't agree with the last remark of "not close to being ready". That sounds more like subjective spite than it does objective analysis of what's wrong with the article.
However, I still say "thanks", and I don't think the idea of passing this as good article should be reconsidered until more editing is done (as I started to already). I hope that other editors that care about the article will help in referencing and making the article more consistent in the MOS, Manual of Style that was indicated. V Schauf ( talk) 13:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
ok, Wasted Time, you make good points on Dec 1, and showed some empathy, so guess what? I think the best plan is to continue to rework the article and would like nothing more than for you to say later, "there's enough improvements that the article qualifies as a Good Article". Now I've seen in Wikipedia where it says to write and edit boldly; there should be some room for creativity b/c this is after all the writing process. But I know that we can split hairs til the "cows come home", and I do agree, there needs to be more research. I predict that within 6 months, you'll like this article better than you do now. 05:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC) V Schauf ( talk • contribs)
The Composition section was slightly rearranged tonight and addresses 1 remark made when the article was up for Good Article status. I moved the graphic of the opening notes of the song. It was at the top of the Composition section. The problem was that it left an unsightly gap between the title and the first paragraph of Composition. I think it now looks better, and ends the criticism of this gap that came up earlier. V Schauf ( talk) 04:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Can someone find a better source for this? Sure the source has all of the facts in it, but it is a very insulting and biased form. It says things like "SO HOW'S Syd these days?" and describes Roger Walters as "Roger Waters. He's the one who invented giant inflatable pigs, the one who tortured schoolyards of children by making them sing his catchprase ("We dahn nee nur edercayshun, we dahn nee nur fort corntrawel") This whole part of the article before isn't even intelligent enough to be considered gossip, much less a well written article on the matter. 207.191.210.136 ( talk) 22:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Reviewer: Wasted Time R ( talk) 13:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
This article has many shortcomings.
Echoes (song) redirects to Echoes (Pink Floyd song). Does this seem backward to anyone else? Shouldn't this entire article be moved to Echoes (song)? Father McKenzie ( talk) 04:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
In the article "The drone vocalizations heard in the final scenes of 2001..." are being mentioned. Not only the practice of calling something one does not understand "a drone" and discrediting its possible meaning and importance is here at work, but the aforementioned "drone vocalizations" actually happen to be "Lux Aetherna", a composition by Hungarian composer György Ligeti (1923 - 2006), one of the most complex and demanding masterpieces of choral music ever written. As far as "drone vocalizations" are concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.81.180 ( talk) 16:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 ( talk) 21:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Echoes (Pink Floyd song) →
Echoes (song) – "Echoes (song)" redirects here.
yeepsi (
Time for a chat?)
20:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not the one who made the most recent edit changing "high C#" to "high B", but I was curious. An earlier edit summary indicates that an official tab book lists the note as C#. Frequency analysis of the first note indicates that it is within 1 or 2 cents of B.
If someone would care to analyze the other notes in the introduction, we can determine definitively whether it is in fact a B, or whether the piano is merely one half-step out of tune and it is a C# sounding B. -- G0zer 06:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
To my ears, the very first note sounds like a B. But the introduction is improvised overall around the key C# minor (as is a large part of the song). Try putting the album on and playing along on piano and see what you think. It's probably more obvious on Pompeii. -- Ritchie333 16:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, then I'm afraid you don't have perfect pitch and/or your piano is out of tune. I counted the cycles. It's a B. — ptk✰ fgs 17:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I just said in the above paragraph. -- Ritchie333 17:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I actually thought it sounded like a C, but I asked a friend who uses a tuning machine to make sure he's not out of tune. Using the machine (it's called a "C12 Chromatic", I think), he showed me that the note is, in fact, a B. V Schauf ( talk) 20:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The first note is indeed a B6, but the verse chords for guitar are C#m - G#m - F#m - G#7, so it's definitely written in C# minor, that's the classic I-IV-V (I-V-IV-V in this case.) Then there is that funky part where it's going from a B major chord to a C#m. I know at least one of the guitar solos (the first one, not the one in the intro) is also in C#. -- Markboydude ( talk) 02:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Can somebody well endowed enough write a meanings section? I really want to know more about this song! Whiskey in the Jar 14:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
and please add some comment to the cover, what is depicted and why? 125.24.101.22 ( talk) 15:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I hope there was an unstated consensus against a "Meanings" section. That's not Wikipedia's purpose, and it would be an invitation for people who neither know or care about Wikipedia's purpose to add their own personal interpretations.
--
Ben Culture (
talk)
10:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Our article currently states:
The song changes to 12/8 during the riff after the chorus, while most of the song is in 4/4, 6/8 and 6/4 time.
This isn't clear enough, and may be flat-out incorrect. Let's take the first half: "The song changes to 12/8 during the riff after the chorus" WHAT does THAT mean? WHICH chorus? If the editor was referring to the "funky" section after the two choruses and extended solos, he's wrong. And no part of "Echoes" before that section is in 12/8, either.
The only part I can, at least, condone being described as 12/8 (or 6/8, for that matter), is the B minor section after all the seagull shit, when Rick's organ builds up with ||:Bmin | F#min7 | D6 | A/E :|| (Confused? Try thinking of it as ||: Bmin | A/F# | Bm/D | A/E :||, if that's easier for you.) During this section, Gilmour plays those "Good Vibrations"-style triplets, although Nick Mason and Roger Waters still seems to be thinking in 4/4.
Anyway, so what's what? What's the 12/8 refer to, what's in 6/8, and what's in 6/4? If I don't get some sort of reasonable answer before the end of this year, I might very well remove this dubious "information". As far as I can tell -- after 25+ years of listening -- is that this is a song almost entirely in 4/4, except for a short section you could call 12/8 (although only the guitar is articulating the song in that time signature.
-- Ben Culture ( talk) 05:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
[12/8 & 4/4 are similar - but 12/8 allows for an established triplet on every beat - the Bminor section employs a triplet staccato that is best expressed in 12/8 and not 6/8 because the chord changes happen on the first beat of a bar: kind of like this - the numbers in parenthesis are quavers or eighth notes adding up to 12 in a bar: Beat Beat Beat Beat
Bmin 1 (1,2,3) 2 (4,5,6) 3 (7,8,9) 4 (10,11,12) F#min7 1 (1,2,3) 2 (4,5,6) 3 (7,8,9) 4 (10,11,12) D6 1 (1,2,3) 2 (4,5,6) 3 (7,8,9) 4 (10,11,12) A/E 1 (1,2,3) 2 (4,5,6) 3 (7,8,9) 4 (10,11,12)
I'm not so sure it is similar. The band had communicated with Kubrick. At least one good source reports that they wanted to score 2001, but it is hard to tell if this is just a rumor. There seems to be more to this story. Viriditas ( talk) 23:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Echoes (Pink Floyd song)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
To date, is the best and most extensive article about a Pink Floyd song, it even surpasses various album articles, but maybe it could be expanded a bit more so it could achieve A-Class grading, with information of its meaning, and more details on recording and instrumentation. -- 200.118.217.125 17:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC) |
Last edited at 17:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 19:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I recently made the mistake of making an addition this page without requesting it. I wanted to make an addition to the "cover versions" section to include a cover which has been doing the rounds on the internet. A YouTuber/musician who does many Floyd covers did a full cover of this song. My original edit was removed because the cover wasn't "notable". I'd like to know what makes a cover notable. This particular cover was shared by many blogs and websites and people non other than Pink Floyd drummer himself Nick Mason, receiving high praise from the main man.
I think for a Wikipedia page this detailed it should also include more covers. It looks a bit empty the way it is just now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WisemanOnceSaid ( talk • contribs) 23:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
@ WisemanOnceSaid: In order to include a cover, the band/musician should be notable (per Wikipedia's guidelines for notability of musicians). If you can create an article about Ewan Cunningham, and get it to "stick" (i.e. not be deleted), then you might get by with this mention of his cover, but otherwise, it's just a bit of trivia that isn't really encyclopedic, even if Nick Mason liked the cover. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 18:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@ WikiDan61: Thank you for your helpful answer. Need more people like you in this space. WisemanOnceSaid ( talk) 18:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I've got another source for Ewan Cunningham; it's also the top hit for "pink floyd echoes cover" on Google, so I've added it, and included Dean Ween's cover too. To be honest, this sort of stuff is borderline, like "cultural references" in films and places; some people don't mind it being there (as long as it's reliably sourced), some people think it's off-topic. I personally prefer to include it, because if you don't, somebody will come along and add it anyway, and then you'll get a silly edit war. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@ Ritchie333: Thanks Ritchie, I look at it the same way. Have a good day. WisemanOnceSaid ( talk) 20:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Note that the guideline at WP:SONGCOVER says that "a particular artist's rendition should be included" if one of the two following cases is met:
So it's not enough to get a reliable source about a song cover. The source should first be talking about the song itself. The following references fail this point:
Since these references fail the guideline, the cover versions supported by them should be removed. Binksternet ( talk) 21:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I am adding the genre "post-rock", on the page I use as a reference, Echoes is cited as the beginning of this genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:200:E800:D8C:9C99:4CC7:7FF0:18C9 ( talk) 00:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Is rock, but in the source besider to be rock, Echoes is cited as a the "post-rock" starting point, obviusly post-rock doesn't exist on 1971 but this song was ahead of what would be the genre years later and Echoes could be a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:200:E800:D8C:9C99:4CC7:7FF0:18C9 ( talk) 00:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
"with all instruments joining in for two swells of B♭/C# major, A major, and A♭sus4 which resolves to a A♭ major."
D/B minor, and E/F# minor.
1. There's no such chord spelling/chord symbol grammar that allows for Bb/C# major. Do you mean Bb/Db - in other words Bb major/C#(that's Db/C# in the bass)? Whoever has ears, or the knowledge, needs to change this to something that makes sense.
2. Whenever someone finds out what the above is supposed to mean: if you end up keeping C# major it ought to be changed to Db major. Not incorrect originally, but clunky.
3. Same as #1 for D/B minor - which almost makes sense if it weren't for the E/F# minor to follow - again - whoever knows what this section is: please change to something that makes sense!
4. "two swells of C# major, A major, and G#sus4 which resolves to a G#major" should really read "one bar each of C# minor, A# minor, A major, G#sus4 and G#major". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.8.152 ( talk • contribs) 30 April 2019
I've been cleaning up the article today, checking everything against four main book sources I have access to (Blake, Mabbett, Mason and Povey) and taking out anything that looks like fancruft, and adding some things that are in those sources. It would be nice to see if somebody can cite Dick Parry playing a saxophone solo in later tours. I can't use "heard it on a bootleg" as a source, but no reliable source specifically mentioned it anyway. Martinevans123, can you help? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Zmbro ( talk · contribs) 19:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I'll take this. –
zmbro (
talk)
19:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
What I got so far. – zmbro ( talk) 19:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
All right it look's much better. After another read through I'm happy to ✓ Pass – zmbro ( talk) 16:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)