![]() | 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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Does this page warrant a section about the Amplive remix album. The DJ did the remixes, got a cease and desist, and then the band heard them and allowed him to release them for free. Do a news search right now and it's on Pitchfork, Rollingstone, NME, Q, Paste, Wired, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.247.1 ( talk) 19:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if anybody noticed it previously but... in a somewhat unusual move, they gave a separate review and rating to the bonus disc... on December 14. -- 200.118.203.21 ( talk) 21:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This article fails to meet criterion #5 as it was physically released two days ago. Therefore, information regarding this article will change erratically, such as chart positions and sales figures. NSR77 T C 22:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's talk about the record label in the infobox. I think it should be 'Self-released' but others think it should be 'XL Recordings, TBD Records'. According to {{ Infobox Album#Label}} only the record label that the album was originally released on should be specified which would mean 'Self-released' since it was first released as the digital download. Even if you were to ignore that, listing XL and TBD does not represent a worldwide perspective. Why list the US and UK labels and not Australia, Canada and Japan's labels? They weren't even the first countries to release the album on CD. - kollision ( talk) 01:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Just a suggestion, but it's perhaps worthy of a mention that "MK1" samples "Videotape" from disc 1. Orangekubrick ( talk) 20:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Flamingo88 ( talk) 00:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
These are essentially just copy editing suggestions.
Kakofonous ( talk) 16:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed these issues, but I think that en dashes are more suitable for tracklistings; at least that's my understanding of the MOS. Atlantik ( talk) 18:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I passed the article, as I had no issues besides the mechanical ones I mentioned. Kakofonous ( talk) 18:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
In Rainbows has been out ages and I am wondering if anyone could shed some light on whether this is true... http://covertarget.com/si.php?cat=1&id=201358&sid=6675
Seems there's a bonus track on some version of the In Rainbows album. I only have 10 tracks and I'm in England. Any US In Rainbows owners care to elaborate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.3.6 ( talk) 17:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
also another thing... isn't 'Last Flowers' called 'Last Flowers To The Hospital' ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.3.6 ( talk) 17:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
That cover is pure photoshop. Highly unlikely that this is legit. —Vanishdoom ( talk) 08:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I own a U.S version, and there's no bonus track on mine. It may have just been a certain amount. JohnM.Kelly ( talk) 22:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Having gone through the article, I want to say it's quite near ready for a new Featured Article Candidates nomination. There is one major flaw left that needs to be addressed: the critical reception section. There's a lot of reviews by minor publications cited; with any album (particularly with one of this impact and notability in mainstream media) you want to cite reviews from the most notable publications possible. I've added the Rolling Stone review, but other reviews by the likes of NME, Time, Spin, The New York Times, All Music Guide, and so forth need to be worked into that section before this article can be taken to FAC. WesleyDodds ( talk) 11:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed a few of the reviews; would you say that the article is ready for another FA nomination at this point? Atlantik ( talk) 01:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's the Spin review; [1]. I'll try to find the print version so i can find the number of stars they gave it. It's a bit hard to figure out which is the proper New York Times review for the album, but the article "Pay What You Want for This Article" looks like that might be it. WesleyDodds ( talk) 00:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
So it looks like in the most recent edit to this article that the infobox containing reviews from various publications was removed. I don't see why that was necessary. If the information it contained was redundant, as Indopug claimed, then it would make more sense to remove that information from the paragraph describing the album's critical reception, particularly things like "Publication X gave this album a rating of Y/Z". I'd suggest undoing the changes made in the previous edit. Carps ( talk) 16:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Would it be worth mentioning that the album is by far the most succesful on the last.fm database over the past 5 months? Of the top ten spots per week for 20 weeks (that's 200 top spots in total) In Rainbows has held at least 187 of those, possibly 197 depending on the figures for last week to be released in the next few hours. Every single track from the album has held one of the top ten spots at least 17 times in the last 20 weeks on the largest music-listening trend database on the internet (over 15million users).
Surely this staggering statistic is worth noting, if only as a reflection of the album's impact outside of the critical/commercial arena? Max xxx ( talk) 10:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
the band in third has like 49,000,000, nowhere close. - -[ The Spooky One | [ t c r 10:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a bit of a war about the inclusion of trivia. It seems to me that the fact that In Rainbows has the same number of letters as OK Computer is so trivial as to not be worth mentioning unless there is a source showing that the band deliberately intended there to be such similarity (see WP:Trivia). The quote associated with the trivia (which is not sourced) does not by itself strengthen the tie. -- Flyguy649 talk 14:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Unlike the critics quotes used, there is nothing opinionated about what I have added to the article (eg. saying that there are 'no weak tracks' is an opinion). I have not speculated that it was Radiohead's deliberate intention to have the same of numbers. I just thought that, as they have most notably compared In Rainbows to OK Computer it was worthy as being included as trivia. There is a larger question of why some relatively well known critic's opinion is considered more worthy of inclusion than some relatively unknown critic's (I myself) statement of fact but I realise that is how Wikipedia works, just like any dusty encyclopedia. Also, when removing anybody's work from Wikipedia, those users are supposed to put a brief description why they are doing that. If they don't then their edit has been done for unknown reasons and therefore is essentially not valid in the eyes of the person who added the information in the first place and to anyone who agreed with it being added in the first place. I even took the courtesy of stating why I was putting my entry back in so why couldn't they have the courtesy to say why they were removing mine? (Picnico) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Picnico ( talk • contribs) 15:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Could someone create a page about the song, 15 Step? It's a little different from the other tracks on 'In Rainbows' as it's recorded in a 5/4 time signature. Just a suggestion, much appreciated if someone ends up creating it. Thanks! Ard0 ( Talk - Contribs) 03:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
how come the singles aren't mentioned anywhere on the page? somebody fix this. - -[
The Spooky One | [
t
c
r
10:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a mention of the criticism surrounding the online release? Critics complain that the download was relatively low-quality MP3. 64.223.183.170 ( talk) 14:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Signed by Bro2baseball ( talk) 14:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Who complained about it? I mean, it was free?... Flamingo88 ( talk) 00:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Quite a few people actually http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1571737/20071011/radiohead.jhtml http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/12/radiohead-fans-feel-duped_n_68270.html Marcelload ( talk) 11:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Why? Almost all of those changes are recommended by WP:ALBUM and WP:DASH. Why would you revert them all? — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 06:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Reference says that it is Hostess, not BMG. -- kallerna 13:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, every time I add Art rock and Electronic to the genre list, it gets reverted. Why? It even states in the article itself that this album using Electronic music. If anything, I would question Alternative rock being there. Seriously, they haven't played hardly any Alternative rock after OK Computer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.131.213 ( talk) 22:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering why the genre is Alt Rock too - there is nothing really alt rock about this album at all 92.238.105.105 ( talk) 15:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Haha, "the sources disagree". Get over yourself; wikipedia will never be a reliable source! haha Revan ltrl ( talk) 17:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The song 15 step is featured in the twilight movie 2008. Please mention it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.46.83 ( talk) 22:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Please stop The additions that I made were in accord with
WP:ALBUM, and there is no rationale for deleting them and taking out a source for information relevant category. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
00:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't every song have a page that describes it? You can find lots of information on each at citizeninsane.eu, which is a good Radiohead site all around (this is not self-promotion or anything, I do not have anything personally to do with the site).
Some comments:
-Why does Weird Fishes/Arpeggi have a page and not the other non-singles? It's just as important as the rest.
-I'm not sure the House of Cards/Bodysnatchers single was released, I haven't seen any shots of the cover art, and even promo singles have a cover page, at least.
-The Reckoner single artwork is blurry, and I'm not sure if it really became a single, I just think the band released the stems for mixing.
-I think 15 Step being played in Twilight is worthy enough of mentioning, no matter how much you may dislike the movie.
-Maybe somebody could have a section on how other musicians feel about the album? Billy Corgan and Trent Reznor both criticized rather specific parts of the release method, and artists like Lily Allen, Gene Simmons, and Liam Gallagher citicized the entire release method. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.178.84.238 ( talk) 21:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Where is the box summing up the albums reviews and ratings by mainstream publications? Is this not supposed to be a featured article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.110.25 ( talk) 12:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, what's going on? I was looking for a handy box to see some ratings but got a couple of paragraphs describing it instead. Come on! - 220.239.231.94 ( talk) 12:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Indie rock band Jets Overhead released their album Bridges online, for free, a year and a half before Radiohead did it, as mentioned on their page. I think that this is important to mention on this page because the erroneous assumption that Radiohead was somehow 'breaking ground' with this 'new experiment' drives me nuts -- they're getting credit for something someone else created.
If nobody else disagrees I will make the edits soon. AC ( talk) 20:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
"On New Year's Eve 2007, Current TV streamed a webcast of 'Scotch Mist', a private concert filmed at Radiohead's Oxford studios;" I don't understand why talking about Current TV while this video is also available on the Youtube official channel. Is it a question of publication dates? December 31th for Current TV, january 1st for Youtube? Why not just say that this footage is freely available without advertising? Lacrymocéphale 23:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm kinda surprised by the lack of referral to the 01 and 10 playlist, given that Thom Yorke has allegedly commented on it himself. Would it be suitable for inclusion? I don't mind writing something, I just don't wanna mess up a featured article with uncyclopaedic content either. 90.194.162.239 ( talk) 00:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion House of Cards and Nude are too similar to both be samples of the record; they both show the most reggae/dub influences, and they are both very slow songs. Isn't it better to replace one of them (or perhaps both)? -- Merijn2 ( talk) 23:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
There's mention in the article that this album was expected to be released on ATO Records. I'm just surfing through, but it would help if someone rectified the differences between the mention in that article, with the "self-produced" tag on this album. Thanks! -- Leahtwosaints ( talk) 23:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
![]() | 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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Does this page warrant a section about the Amplive remix album. The DJ did the remixes, got a cease and desist, and then the band heard them and allowed him to release them for free. Do a news search right now and it's on Pitchfork, Rollingstone, NME, Q, Paste, Wired, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.247.1 ( talk) 19:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if anybody noticed it previously but... in a somewhat unusual move, they gave a separate review and rating to the bonus disc... on December 14. -- 200.118.203.21 ( talk) 21:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This article fails to meet criterion #5 as it was physically released two days ago. Therefore, information regarding this article will change erratically, such as chart positions and sales figures. NSR77 T C 22:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's talk about the record label in the infobox. I think it should be 'Self-released' but others think it should be 'XL Recordings, TBD Records'. According to {{ Infobox Album#Label}} only the record label that the album was originally released on should be specified which would mean 'Self-released' since it was first released as the digital download. Even if you were to ignore that, listing XL and TBD does not represent a worldwide perspective. Why list the US and UK labels and not Australia, Canada and Japan's labels? They weren't even the first countries to release the album on CD. - kollision ( talk) 01:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Just a suggestion, but it's perhaps worthy of a mention that "MK1" samples "Videotape" from disc 1. Orangekubrick ( talk) 20:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Flamingo88 ( talk) 00:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
These are essentially just copy editing suggestions.
Kakofonous ( talk) 16:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed these issues, but I think that en dashes are more suitable for tracklistings; at least that's my understanding of the MOS. Atlantik ( talk) 18:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I passed the article, as I had no issues besides the mechanical ones I mentioned. Kakofonous ( talk) 18:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
In Rainbows has been out ages and I am wondering if anyone could shed some light on whether this is true... http://covertarget.com/si.php?cat=1&id=201358&sid=6675
Seems there's a bonus track on some version of the In Rainbows album. I only have 10 tracks and I'm in England. Any US In Rainbows owners care to elaborate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.3.6 ( talk) 17:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
also another thing... isn't 'Last Flowers' called 'Last Flowers To The Hospital' ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.3.6 ( talk) 17:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
That cover is pure photoshop. Highly unlikely that this is legit. —Vanishdoom ( talk) 08:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I own a U.S version, and there's no bonus track on mine. It may have just been a certain amount. JohnM.Kelly ( talk) 22:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Having gone through the article, I want to say it's quite near ready for a new Featured Article Candidates nomination. There is one major flaw left that needs to be addressed: the critical reception section. There's a lot of reviews by minor publications cited; with any album (particularly with one of this impact and notability in mainstream media) you want to cite reviews from the most notable publications possible. I've added the Rolling Stone review, but other reviews by the likes of NME, Time, Spin, The New York Times, All Music Guide, and so forth need to be worked into that section before this article can be taken to FAC. WesleyDodds ( talk) 11:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed a few of the reviews; would you say that the article is ready for another FA nomination at this point? Atlantik ( talk) 01:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's the Spin review; [1]. I'll try to find the print version so i can find the number of stars they gave it. It's a bit hard to figure out which is the proper New York Times review for the album, but the article "Pay What You Want for This Article" looks like that might be it. WesleyDodds ( talk) 00:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
So it looks like in the most recent edit to this article that the infobox containing reviews from various publications was removed. I don't see why that was necessary. If the information it contained was redundant, as Indopug claimed, then it would make more sense to remove that information from the paragraph describing the album's critical reception, particularly things like "Publication X gave this album a rating of Y/Z". I'd suggest undoing the changes made in the previous edit. Carps ( talk) 16:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Would it be worth mentioning that the album is by far the most succesful on the last.fm database over the past 5 months? Of the top ten spots per week for 20 weeks (that's 200 top spots in total) In Rainbows has held at least 187 of those, possibly 197 depending on the figures for last week to be released in the next few hours. Every single track from the album has held one of the top ten spots at least 17 times in the last 20 weeks on the largest music-listening trend database on the internet (over 15million users).
Surely this staggering statistic is worth noting, if only as a reflection of the album's impact outside of the critical/commercial arena? Max xxx ( talk) 10:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
the band in third has like 49,000,000, nowhere close. - -[ The Spooky One | [ t c r 10:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a bit of a war about the inclusion of trivia. It seems to me that the fact that In Rainbows has the same number of letters as OK Computer is so trivial as to not be worth mentioning unless there is a source showing that the band deliberately intended there to be such similarity (see WP:Trivia). The quote associated with the trivia (which is not sourced) does not by itself strengthen the tie. -- Flyguy649 talk 14:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Unlike the critics quotes used, there is nothing opinionated about what I have added to the article (eg. saying that there are 'no weak tracks' is an opinion). I have not speculated that it was Radiohead's deliberate intention to have the same of numbers. I just thought that, as they have most notably compared In Rainbows to OK Computer it was worthy as being included as trivia. There is a larger question of why some relatively well known critic's opinion is considered more worthy of inclusion than some relatively unknown critic's (I myself) statement of fact but I realise that is how Wikipedia works, just like any dusty encyclopedia. Also, when removing anybody's work from Wikipedia, those users are supposed to put a brief description why they are doing that. If they don't then their edit has been done for unknown reasons and therefore is essentially not valid in the eyes of the person who added the information in the first place and to anyone who agreed with it being added in the first place. I even took the courtesy of stating why I was putting my entry back in so why couldn't they have the courtesy to say why they were removing mine? (Picnico) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Picnico ( talk • contribs) 15:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Could someone create a page about the song, 15 Step? It's a little different from the other tracks on 'In Rainbows' as it's recorded in a 5/4 time signature. Just a suggestion, much appreciated if someone ends up creating it. Thanks! Ard0 ( Talk - Contribs) 03:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
how come the singles aren't mentioned anywhere on the page? somebody fix this. - -[
The Spooky One | [
t
c
r
10:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a mention of the criticism surrounding the online release? Critics complain that the download was relatively low-quality MP3. 64.223.183.170 ( talk) 14:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Signed by Bro2baseball ( talk) 14:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Who complained about it? I mean, it was free?... Flamingo88 ( talk) 00:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Quite a few people actually http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1571737/20071011/radiohead.jhtml http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/12/radiohead-fans-feel-duped_n_68270.html Marcelload ( talk) 11:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Why? Almost all of those changes are recommended by WP:ALBUM and WP:DASH. Why would you revert them all? — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 06:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Reference says that it is Hostess, not BMG. -- kallerna 13:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, every time I add Art rock and Electronic to the genre list, it gets reverted. Why? It even states in the article itself that this album using Electronic music. If anything, I would question Alternative rock being there. Seriously, they haven't played hardly any Alternative rock after OK Computer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.131.213 ( talk) 22:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering why the genre is Alt Rock too - there is nothing really alt rock about this album at all 92.238.105.105 ( talk) 15:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Haha, "the sources disagree". Get over yourself; wikipedia will never be a reliable source! haha Revan ltrl ( talk) 17:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The song 15 step is featured in the twilight movie 2008. Please mention it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.46.83 ( talk) 22:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Please stop The additions that I made were in accord with
WP:ALBUM, and there is no rationale for deleting them and taking out a source for information relevant category. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
00:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't every song have a page that describes it? You can find lots of information on each at citizeninsane.eu, which is a good Radiohead site all around (this is not self-promotion or anything, I do not have anything personally to do with the site).
Some comments:
-Why does Weird Fishes/Arpeggi have a page and not the other non-singles? It's just as important as the rest.
-I'm not sure the House of Cards/Bodysnatchers single was released, I haven't seen any shots of the cover art, and even promo singles have a cover page, at least.
-The Reckoner single artwork is blurry, and I'm not sure if it really became a single, I just think the band released the stems for mixing.
-I think 15 Step being played in Twilight is worthy enough of mentioning, no matter how much you may dislike the movie.
-Maybe somebody could have a section on how other musicians feel about the album? Billy Corgan and Trent Reznor both criticized rather specific parts of the release method, and artists like Lily Allen, Gene Simmons, and Liam Gallagher citicized the entire release method. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.178.84.238 ( talk) 21:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Where is the box summing up the albums reviews and ratings by mainstream publications? Is this not supposed to be a featured article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.110.25 ( talk) 12:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, what's going on? I was looking for a handy box to see some ratings but got a couple of paragraphs describing it instead. Come on! - 220.239.231.94 ( talk) 12:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Indie rock band Jets Overhead released their album Bridges online, for free, a year and a half before Radiohead did it, as mentioned on their page. I think that this is important to mention on this page because the erroneous assumption that Radiohead was somehow 'breaking ground' with this 'new experiment' drives me nuts -- they're getting credit for something someone else created.
If nobody else disagrees I will make the edits soon. AC ( talk) 20:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
"On New Year's Eve 2007, Current TV streamed a webcast of 'Scotch Mist', a private concert filmed at Radiohead's Oxford studios;" I don't understand why talking about Current TV while this video is also available on the Youtube official channel. Is it a question of publication dates? December 31th for Current TV, january 1st for Youtube? Why not just say that this footage is freely available without advertising? Lacrymocéphale 23:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm kinda surprised by the lack of referral to the 01 and 10 playlist, given that Thom Yorke has allegedly commented on it himself. Would it be suitable for inclusion? I don't mind writing something, I just don't wanna mess up a featured article with uncyclopaedic content either. 90.194.162.239 ( talk) 00:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion House of Cards and Nude are too similar to both be samples of the record; they both show the most reggae/dub influences, and they are both very slow songs. Isn't it better to replace one of them (or perhaps both)? -- Merijn2 ( talk) 23:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
There's mention in the article that this album was expected to be released on ATO Records. I'm just surfing through, but it would help if someone rectified the differences between the mention in that article, with the "self-produced" tag on this album. Thanks! -- Leahtwosaints ( talk) 23:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |