# Talk:Hours (David Bowie album)

Image:Bowie Hours.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles 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 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 18:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Whilst the name of the article should comply with MOS guidelines and be capitalised the correct name of the album is 'hours...' which can be seen on Bowie's official website here in the current poll. --JD554 (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You know, if you cared to look up, we just had a discussion about the album's name...
For the record, we are following MoS guidelines by not using the name on Bowie's homepage. WP:MOSTM states not to use uncommonly-used special formatting, even if the author considers that spelling to be "official". We determined through that discussion that Hours... is the most common and WP:MOSTM-neutral name. Xnux the Echidna 13:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me for having a life and being on holiday when the discussion took place, if you look at my editing history you'll see a large gap. If you cared to read what I had written you would see that I agree with the article as it is now named. However, when referring to the name of the album in the article we should use the "official" name (it's not a trademark by the way so WP:MOSTM doesn't apply). The first character is ' and that can't be capitalized. --JD554 (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
By the way, if you want to start again and talk to me like a human being and not talk down to me as in your opening statement above, I'll gladly do the same. --JD554 (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Jeez, don't to get so worked up about that. I was merely informing you about the previous discussion; sorry if my slightly aggravated tone offended you. Let's bury that hatchet now before an edit war happens.
Anyway, 'hours...' is a trademark. A trademark is any phrase used by organizations (in this case, David Bowie's website) to identify their product (the Hours... album). We do not copy the unusual formatting for this album for two reasons. The first reason is that albums with unusual formatting (such as being in lowercase and with quotation marks) are strongly discouraged as per WP:MOSTM. This is done to avoid drawing undue attention to certain trademarks. WP:MOSTM should be followed unless a significant majority of the media uses this unusual formatting. That's the second reason we don't spell the name as 'hours...': practically no external media sources copy this formatting (the only one who does is The Music Box, while Allmusic, Pitchfork Media, and Robert Christgau do not). Xnux the Echidna 00:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
"A trademark is any phrase used by organizations "
No, no, no.  You're conflating two definitions of the word.  The applicable definition of "trademark", in this situation, is the one relating to copyright.  When you avoid drawing attention to trademarks, there are *legal* reasons to do that in the more limited definition of "trademark".  It would be nonsensical to universally apply the rule as you are suggesting.  There is nothing anywhere to indicate that the Bowie album's title is trademarked, so MOSTM does not apply at all to this situation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.23.40.34 (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC) 

Obviously not a trademark, it's a stylism and we normally don't do stylisms. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Just noticed that on davidbowie.com the album title is called Hours..., so with a capital and, more importantly, without the quotes. Perhaps we should rename this article. Jalwikip (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

As much as I've always found that talk-page discussions on musical genre(s) bring little joy, I've been invited along here … It does seem unusual (wrong?) to have "adult contemporary" appearing in the infobox. Okay, its inclusion is supported by a ref, but while AC is a style of sorts, it's hardly a musical genre. (It's a style only in the context of marketing, radio, etc. No artist would make an "adult contemporary album"; they'd make a rock or soul or blues or country album, say, which might well end up fitting into the very wide description "adult contemporary".)
Put it this way, if we are accepting AC as a musical style and a genre, then can someone tell me why "Motown" (for Motown Sound) shouldn't be included at All Things Must Pass? It's cited by the same source as "gospel", "hard rock", "country", in that article; and "Motown" is certainly a musical style, a sound – way more so than "adult contemporary", I'd say. JG66 (talk) 02:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Discospinster, got any thoughts on this? (The IP user mentioned you when they left a message on my talk page …) Regards, JG66 (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The claim in question leads to an article reference here: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/22/business/the-flux-in-pop-music-has-a-distinctly-download-beat-to-it.html
That article only seems to say that Bowie released Hours two weeks earlier as a digital album, not that he was the first artist to release an album digitally. On the second page of that article it mentions that They Might Be Giants had previously released an album, Long Tall Weekend online. This album's wikipedia entry also holds the same distinction that it is the first digital album released by a major artist: Long Tall Weekend
Hours was released digitally in September of 1999
Long Tall Weekend was released digitally in July of 1999
Looking at this, TMBG beat David to the punch, but it seems that Massive Attack's Mezzanine was released digitally in early 1998, making it the first complete album by a major artist released digitally. All three were released legally and in the MP3 format. There could be an argument that Massive Attack could be yet to be considered a major artist at this time.
There are a few differences between Long Tall Weekend and Hours still. TMBG was not on a label when they released Long Tall Weekend and David was still on EMI when he released Hours. I know that this is a lot of splitting hairs, but I can find no actual reference that Hours was the first digital album released by a major artist, at best it could be said that Hours is "the first complete album by a major artist available to download over the Internet while on a major label." That seems like much, but it is closer to the truth.
Radjose (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hours (David Bowie album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.musicbox-online.com/db-hours.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103181930/http://www.officialcharts.com/artist/_/david%20bowie/ to http://www.officialcharts.com/artist/_/David%20Bowie/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hours (David Bowie album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120828064820/http://www.infodisc.fr/CDCertif_O.php?debut=300 to http://www.infodisc.fr/CDCertif_O.php?debut=300
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hours (David Bowie album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 16:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Inspired by the Pietà – not sure, but the "the" somehow implies that a particular Pieta is meant here? If so, which?
I just used what my sources and the wiki page itself used, which is mostly "the" Pieta – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Aside from mixing a potential live album from the Earthling Tour, later released in 1999 as LiveAndWell.com, the only studio recording Bowie released in 1998 was – "Aside from" does not seem to fit here because that live album was apparently not released 1998?
Reworded. That better?
was examined by Bowie as "probably the most tragic song on the album",[2] "Survive" – that is confusing; better place a "." instead of a ","?
Yep, fixed
as an "angel of promise" is an angel who "heralds a covenant with God" – You use many quotes, but not always state which person is attributed to them, and in this example, I'm not sure from which source the quote is from..
Properly attributed
the track uses the Japanese koto[2] Perone believes it does – dot missing?
Yep, my bad.
it links the two tracks its sequenced between – "it is"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Yep, fixed
set the whole thing alight...Lee Stewart did the
Does the ellipse need spaces?
Fixed
Survive" was released as the third single – quotation marks or not?
Oops. Fixed
Jens Lallensack Done. Thanks for quickly reviewing! – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
You are welcome. I wasn't done yet, though; but just two more points above! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Jens Lallensack Haha my bad, I tend to work fast. All done! – zmbro (talk) (cont) 19:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Nice! Very solid work, promoting now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hours is just the latest in a stream of David Bowie album pages I've read recently. 
I have to say I'm completely at a loss to understand how the inclusion of contemporary (or later) reviews of Bowie albums (or anyone's albums) - snippets thereof - can be viewed as being of any material use or benefit to readers. Indeed, they arguably act to mislead and misinform readers, thus constituting a real negative "benefit" to Wiki users.
The chief problem is this: I am constantly reading extremely poor pieces of judgement from music reviewers. "Poor judgement" is in some cases my being kind. Knowing Bowie's oeuvre well and being a listener and (amateur) musician and writer of many decades, I find most of the evaluations either tone deaf, incomprehensible, thoughtless, uniformed or asinine. How does a patently stupid comment - where "stupid" means there being no viable reason for the comment holding water - or one of nothing but individual taste or bias - make an argument for itself as acceptable?
Even if the comments showed some understanding of music history, theory or practice (singing, playing, songwriting, arranging, engineering, production, etc.), how is a single person's evaluation/judgement worthy of anyone's attention? The alleged prestige of the source is no supporting argument. Neither is an individual having a lengthy career in music journalism any justification for the inclusion of such elements.
Given the blanket use of these review snippets as pieces of content, I hold out little to no hope of this note achieving anything positive (I would have every single one removed), but I do hope it will stimulate thought and debate here. I would be interested to know how many - in this case, I suppose, Bowie/music fans - agree with my argument.
Best wishes to all,
Craig DrCWT (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Are you questioning why album pages have critical reception sections in general? These sections provide context on how the album in question was viewed at the time of its release, and in other cases decades down the line. You don't have to agree or disagree with everything critical reviews have to say, as all music is subjective. But including the thoughts of music critics and other reviewers of reliable sources is integral for article completeness. It's the same for all forms of media: music, film, radio, etc. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Also, review sections can possibly help readers in understanding why a certain piece of media was received the way it was, and possibly invoke further insight into that. They could even help you realize there's a flaw into an album you love, or in some instances, find something you love about an album you hate or that's widely derided (cough cough Never Let Me Down cough cough). Hope this helps. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
I have to disagree with you completely about these reviews being integral. All opinions are subjective, obviously, both yours and mine. The impact of an album May be fraught with interest. But the impact of, say, Low, is not revealed by a journalist saying they thought the work good/bad, etc.
Most of the comments in Wikipedia album pages do absolutely nothing at all To contextualise an album.
Many of the comments could be immediately transferable to anybody’s help in any time in history. But in history, of course, the period, shall we say, since pop music began.
It would help, I think, if some of the worst examples of valueless evaluations were weeded out of many of the album pages. I’ll be happy to give you some examples from specific albums if you like upon request.
Further to your point about critical reception, let’s have context, not critical reception 2A00:23C8:2810:9F01:A439:D8C1:9B84:6DD2 (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
I still don't know what you're trying to accomplish here. If you're more or less questioning the use of reception sections across the encyclopedia please make a post about that elsewhere, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums, as this page is about improving Hours specifically. It seems you have more of a problem with all articles like this. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
It's perfectly obvious, surely: consciousness raising; change; improving Wikipedia.
I'm directly questioning the use of "reception sections" across Wiki.
So let's improve Hours specifically. Let those interested in doing so remove all comments from critics that are of no use to users. Let me quickly re-read them:
I'd remove the entire final paragraph in the section. I can see no value in presenting people saying, "I don't like the album, it's garbage."
One described it as "embarrassing." To be kind (again), I find many of the negative comments embarrassing. And indulgent. And wholly un-objective.
The positive reactions are little better. But how does it advance knowledge of Bowie's music & career, and popular music more generally, to tell users that a couple of critics hailed Hours as a "masterpiece"? Nothing. It's tittle-tattle; bar-talk. In my opinion, such material does not belong in an encyclopedia.
Thanks so much for the tip about making my opinions known in a deeper place within Wikipedia.
Kind regards,
Craig DrCWT (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Please get others input on your thoughts over at WPAlbums that I mentioned first. I personally think the current format of things is fine as is and doesn't warrant changing, but WP is obviously a collaborative effort. For the time being Hours will remain the same—consistent with every other album article—just know that hundreds of thousands of articles across the site are set up this way so you will probably find struggle encouraging changes, but I'm sure you could generate discussion at a page that's more watched that this one. I hope you find success elsewhere. Kind regards. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks again.
why not, just for the fun of it, try to justify the status quo. Please don’t feel you have to reply to me.
And bear this in mind: I’ve bothered to post about this issue to try to raise consciousness because the standard of the comments on Bose music is absolutely, utterly abysmal. 2A00:23C8:2810:9F01:3078:E60A:E518:685C (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Another problem I think lies in this article, and a few other Bowie ones, is the section doesn't necessarily adhere to WP:RECEPTION, which outlines how a plain list of "this person said this" and "that person said that" feels clunky and unorganized. Imo lots of reception sections have this problem (and I admit I struggle with it too). I've gone back through lots of these since initial writing them and tidied them up a bit, and with others' help I got articles like The Next Day where it's at today (FA status). If a more simpler note you're asking for the section to adhere to WP:RECEPTION than I totally understand what you mean, especially for this article. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 19:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Interesting reply, thanks.
Further to our above conversation I have literally just come across this from the Wiki article on Hunky Dory whilst listening to the album.
"Biographer Christopher Sandford states that "the songs [are] characterised by the lush ambience established by Bowie's vocal and the piano" and, along with Elton John and Phil Collins, helped create music on the "easy-listening continuum"."
This 100% supports every critical comment I made above.
Let me be kind (though I feel a real anger about this): "lush ambience"? Not remotely. The last point is such that I cannot find the appropriate words with which to negate the assertion, aside from, "what on earth is this doing in a Wikipedia article about Hunky Dory! (cue stream of expletives). DrCWT (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
WP is all about using reliable sources to try to convey a point. Since music is subjective, some people are not going to agree on others' thoughts on matters (ex. IPs over the years trying to call "Space Oddity" space rock even though it's not). Or a user who years ago tried to say "The Man Who Sold the World" was a "psychedelic ballad", which it's not. In regards to Hunky, if I could rewrite certain sections I would. The summary section for music and lyrics is basically just a bunch of opinions thrown together because at the time I struggled to find specific genres or failed attempts at writing it like Revolver. But it was my first time actually writing an album article so it is what it is. (P.S. don't take everything Sandford says truthfully, he's full of opinionated takes. Nicholas Pegg even trashes his book in his own book). – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I understand totally: I think I already said in one of my notes to you that everything is subjective.
But there has to be some quality control. Those of us who understand and have knowledge of Bowie, and of music and music history must be the gatekeepers (there have to be gatekeepers in an encyclopedia. The example I pointed out to you is utterly ridiculous and should be edited out for reasons of the need to achieve a minimum level of quality.
Don't you agree, Z? DrCWT (talk) 18:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
My problem with ditching it is that it reinforces David Buckley's later statement about Hunky's easy-listening nature, which is rightfully truthful. If you could find another reliable source that that we could substitute it for be my guest. We unfortunately can't remove cited content just because one person disagrees with it (especially one from an author who has written an array of rock biographies). – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
With respect, opinions are never true. And the notion that Hunky Dory has even any connection at all with easy listening music is IMHO so completely wrong it’s ridiculous. I’m sorry that my disagreement with you on this is so vehement W cause I have no intention of being rude.
Not a single moment of Hunky Dory can be regarded as “easy listening.” I wonder how familiar you are with the term?
Andy Williams is “easy listening“ music, Perry Como and Dean Martin too. The music of John Denver may resemble easy listening but it still has its roots in folk music. Bread may be regarded as easy listening. Peters and Lee: easy listening. Need I go on?
Now consider the album, Hunky Dory. What similarity does it have with the easy listening artists I’ve mentioned above? I would argue, none whatsoever.
I do not wish to put you on the spot, I just offer you some views on music w/ particular reference to Bowie & Bowie in Wikipedia. But without even considering having further contact with me on this, try justifying the  “Hunky Dory” is easy listening thesis.
Kind regards,
Craig
ps, Have you access to Rolling Stone’s review of HD? (Bowie May not have been on their radar in ‘71); the NME Encyclopaedia of Rock (pub. I think in 1976)? 2A00:23C8:2810:9F01:D5D:C993:1E94:9D32 (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
PPS, have just accessed and read RS’s HD review. 2A00:23C8:2810:9F01:D5D:C993:1E94:9D32 (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)