# Talk:Rio (Duran Duran album)

This is really great, Catherine.  You obviously put a lot of effort into it.  Any more info you can find would be great, but this is well-detailed.  The only major thing it needs to be in line with Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums is a paragraph or two on the roots and influences of the album, both who influenced the sound of Duran Duran, and Rio specifically, and who was influenced by the sound of Duran Duran, and Rio specifically.
Were there any links to here that meant to go to Rio De Janeiro?  It seems potentially ambiguous. Tuf-Kat

No, not a one.  I did a text search, and although there are thousands of [[Rio de Janeiro]] and [[Rio Grande]], et al, no one has tried to link to [[Rio]]  unless they meant the album.  I added a disambiguation block at the top, to be sure.  Don't ''think'' theres a need for [[Rio (album)]], but I'll move it if anyone disagrees.
Thanks for the compliments! Catherine
The question around the album title -- why Rio? -- can be definitively answered thanks to the excellent new book from Annie Zaleski (33 1/3: Rio) published in May 2021. I have updated the main page, citing the origin of the name, which has no explicit tie to the city, but was chosen for the feeling that the band hoped to evoke. Interestingly, the title came before the album, and also, nobody in the band at that point had ever been to the real city. Guywelch2000 (talk) 03:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Very thorough and informative.  Good article.  My quibble would be the use of the term "dance music", which I think means something very different today than it may have then.  That point aside, I would personally call it a "newro" album in the first paragraph -- I was a bit confused that the remixing of 4 songs changed the album from a New Romantic album into a dance music album.  66.153.56.194 04:32, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks!  You're right, the definition has definitely changed, and the dance music article is not relevant to this album.  There's very little of use at new romantic either (although you should feel free to expand it).   I hesitate to use newro here, though, because the band had really left the "new romantic" label behind before Rio was even recorded; the music was less electronic  (the guitars on "Hungry Like the Wolf", for instance) and art-school experimental, and they'd definitely ditched the frilly pirate shirts and sashes, first for a glammy faux-military look, then for the Anthony Price silk suits.....  I think I may just change it to pop music or synth pop album; what do you think?
As for "changing the album", of course the remix of the album didn't really change it from Newro to Dance (although the remixes are definitely punchier) -- all it did was change Capitol's perception from "this is an obscure electronic British fad band whom we'd be wasting our time trying to break in America" to "hey, this is really danceable synth-pop the deejays love -- let's push this into the market as hard as we can!"  Of course the growing evidence that the band could be a cash machine with teens (the growing popularity of one-year-old MTV & its glossy DD videos, DD all over the magazines, etc.) helped change their minds too.
For what it's worth, the whole album was remixed, not just four songs -- the four mentioned are just the ones which are significantly different structurally, with rearranged lyrics, inserted middle eight sections, etc.  The rest were just polished, given a roomier sound with a more prominent rhythm section.  Perhaps I can make that clearer in the article.  -- Catherine

Just a note to say that much of the info on the different versions of this album came from the hard work of Tom McClintock (with help from Ansgar Thomann
and Alan De Feyter) -- he created the "Versions of Rio" page cited in the external links, and extracted an understandable summary from a very confusing tangle of versions, histories, and multiple release dates.  Many thanks to them!  Catherine | talk

Uh... narrative under Background says Rio was recorded in spring of 1982, but the inset box says "January-February 1982".  Does spring come that early in London? -Rolypolyman 07:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the inconsistent dates that had existed on an earlier version of this page. I have updated things, citing the excellent new book in the 33 1/3 series on Rio by Annie Zaleski released in May 2021. Guywelch2000 (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Capitol re-released the Rio album in the U.S., with Kershenbaum's new remixes in November 1982. All tracks benefited from some minor reworking, but the significant structural differences in the songs on this second pressing (matrix #ST-1-12211-Z13-REI #1) include:
This "minor reworking" comment seems to contradict information in the rest of the article.  Other sources say that only the 5 songs on side one were changed.  What if any, were the actual changes to the songs on side two of the 2nd U.S. version?  This comment either needs to be clarified or removed entirely.

The band may have filmed this video at the same time as the others, but you need to make it clear that this is a song off the "Duran Duran" album (the first one), and is not contained on "Rio." 69.138.181.203 (talk) 04:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a staggering lack of contemporaneous reviews for this album (save the one done by Robert Christgau) included in the article, which in turn severely disputes its neutrality, as the reader is left with no idea of how this album was received by critics at the time of its release, especially when the band in question is one that has been notorious (no pun intended) for being a near-steadfast target for critical disfavor. It would be much appreciated if some editors could help improve the article in this manner! Interlude 65 (Push to talk) 22:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Late reply but it's a work in progress. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 03:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Duran Duran (Rio).JPG
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rio (Duran Duran album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ippantekina (talk · contribs) 11:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Review to come soon- Ippantekina (talk) 11:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


### Lead
"pursuing a crush" I am unsure if "crush" is encyclopedic tone
love interest?
"The iconic cover artwork" a little puffery
Adjusted
"Initially unsuccessful in the United States, Capitol Records commissioned a remix to better match American radio at the time, which went on to spend" grammar
Spent?


### Background and development
"demos of several songs at the basement studio of EMI's Manchester Square building that would appear on their next album" grammar
Fixed
What do we mean by "sessions proper"?
Official. Changed to that.
I am pretty sure it's "cherished" instead of "charished"
Fixed
"the sequenced-based tracks" I don't get what this means
Built using sequences via synthesizers
I'd link synthesiser
Done


### Recording
I'd link overdubs, mix, kibbutz
Done
"Hamilton had previously contributed to the "night version" of "Planet Earth" " Is "Planet Earth" a song by the band?
Yessir. Clarified


### Promotion
"With "Planet Earth" director Russell Mulcahy, the band produced videos" I'd write "Russel Mulcahy, who had directed "Planet Earth", worked with the band on..."
Fixed
"All the videos were storyboarded and art directed by former film student Marcello Anciano" I'd switch to the active voice
Done
De-italicize Associated Press
Done
"Entering the UK Singles Chart at number 35, Duran Duran mimed to the song" grammar
Fixed


### Critical reception
I don't see how the quotebox is helpful; usage of quotebox is discouraged per WP:LONGQUOTE. I'd also revise the quoteboxes in the prior sections.


### American remix
"issued Rio through its Harvest subsidiary, which debuted at number 164 on Billboard's Top LPs & Tape" grammar
Done


### Overall
Too many quoteboxes! See WP:LONGQUOTE (which I raised above) and revise them.
How's that look?
Except for the issues I raised above, the article is overall well-written. Putting this  On hold. Ippantekina (talk) 04:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Ippantekina Replies above. Thanks for reviewing! – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing my comments. I went on to rewrite a sentence in the lead. The article looks fine now, great job! Ippantekina (talk) 02:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)