Talk:Paranoid (album)

message: *All song titles serve as redirects to this album or have been placed at the appropriate disambiguation pages.--Hraefen Talk 17:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: <^>v|This album is connected|v<^>

message: Pointless to make individual song-articles as long as the album article itself is this short. --128.214.205.4 10:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pointless

message: This article needs to go into a little more detail about the album's content, rather than just that it had some hits and that the cover is famous/weird. dethtoll 23:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes, but what's the ALBUM like?

message: Why was the album cover deleted? dethtoll 16:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted in the edit summary, because of WP:CSD#I6. --PEJL 06:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: cover

message: ...that's not what Paranoid is about.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.183.70 (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  There's something wrong with the Rolling Stone link 

message: The opening paragraph of this page states that Paranoid's US release was delayed until January of 1971. It then states that in March of 1971, the album broke the Top 10 in the US. Next, it says that the album's chart success in the US allowed the band to tour there for the first time in December 1970.
Asking for clarification, which of the following would be correct?
1. "The band's debut release was successful and led to a US tour in December 1970."
1a. "Paranoid's initial success on the UK charts led to a December 1970 US tour and the subsequent US release of "Paranoid" in January of 1971."
2. Did the band actually do a US tour in December of 1970, or was this a typo that should have read 1971? (ie, "Paranoid's chart success in the US allowed the band to tour there for the first time in December 1971.")  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.125.132.63 (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Release & Reception is confused, unclear, and incorrect. 

message: Does anyone know the full story behind the original (German) Vertigo LP release of Paranoid? If you've ever listened to it, it's obviously a different mix from the US and I believe the UK releases. There is way more bass, some might say too much, in this mix. In particular, the single 'Paranoid' is so overwhelmed with bass guitar & drum as to almost totally swamp the rest of the mix - Ozzy's vocals in particular.
I've heard a number of different explanations for this, one being that the German version was actually the first version pressed, but due to complaints about the excessive bass it was re-mixed prior to the UK & US pressings. Drlegendre (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original German Vertigo release 

message: It's a well known fact that Robert Christagu despises Heavy Metal so I think we should remove his review. It's entirely not objective. He obviously wouldn't give it an impartial review if he dislikes the genre.What We Have Here Is A Failure To Communicate 23:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Robert Christagu REview 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Paranoid (album)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "AMG Biography":
From The Devil You Know (Heaven & Hell album): 
From Ozzy Osbourne: 
From Black Sabbath (album): 
From Warner Bros. Records: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Paranoid (album)]] 

message: Here's a link to a source for adding hard rock to the genre, which in my opinion the first 6 sabbath albums are also kind of hard rock. I'm trying to find sources for the next four (currently waiting input on the link for their debut). http://www.rollingstone.com/music/pictures/readers-poll-the-10-best-metal-hard-rock-albums-of-the-1970s-20130828/3-black-sabbath-paranoid-0351448 108.81.33.59 (talk) 02:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre 

message: From section 1, Recording: "According to Alexander, "Paranoid" "crystallized the band's writing process, with Iommi initiating the ideas with his charred riffs,". Can anyone explain what a charred riff is? I would assume this is a typo, but I can't guess what word it's a typo of. Robocon1 (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charred riffs 

message: This section refers to the original LP title being Warpigs, the original artwork for that title still being used after the title was changed, and that the cover shows a man dressed as a pig waving a sword. But the illustration of the cover, which is definitely the cover used when Paranoid was released in the UK, shows a blurred photo of a man in a motorbike crash helmet with a plastic shield and some kind of sabre wearing a kind of baggy version of a comic book superhero tights & Y fronts outfit with a sash over one shoulder. He has a beard, but he looks nothing like a pig. 
Was the cover the text talks about used initially and then replaced? Shouldn't there be some mention of the cover in the illustration, which was certainly used on LPs sold in the UK? Robocon1 (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title and artwork: text/illustration anomaly 

message: Not hard rock. Not doom metal. Not stoner metal. The doom and stoner would be fine on Master of Reality, but none of those descriptions fit Paranoid.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iron Wizard13 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is heavy metal. 

message: Substituted at 02:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: It is, literally, impossible to keep things like this out of album leads. As I noted in my edit summary, one source – or even more than once source – is not enough to justify this sort of broad sweeping puffery. I appreciate it is now relying on a verbatim Allmusic quote from the body, rather than a misleading interpretation from the directly cited Hall of Fame blurb, but if you look hard enough most high-profile albums have one or two journalists, somewhere, lauding them hyperbolically. It's what journalists do. It doesn't mean every single album page in an encyclopedia has to say something about them being "[regarded as] the greatest". Indeed, it becomes meaningless, unless that is to reflect a genuinely much wider consensus. Plus "has been regarded" is an odd construction? Is it no longer? N-HH talk/edits 10:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And you have gained no consensus to change the lead. The highly regarded AllMusic quotes it as it is, not how you think it ought to be. Please stick to source.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please stop blindly knee-jerk reverting every I edit I make? My change to the lead maintained the basic point being made, but just toned down the language to make it more encyclopedic. Consensus isn't needed before making every single reasonable but fairly minor edit. If you want to rely on and keep a direct quote from AllMusic in the lead, you would need to put it in quote marks and attribute it. Otherwise it is cherry-picking AND plagiarism. As for the removal of content from the body, as I explicitly noted, that content was a total misrepresentation of the source and your edit has returned it, almost as if you don't care whether material here is accurately rendered and references. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame blurb re the band says absolutely nothing about Paranoid being the band's "best album" or "the best heavy metal album of all time" or close to it. Nor have you addressed the grammar point I made above. Jesus. I thought I'd take a break from politics pages to find easier places to make improvements. As if. This whole place is full of fuckwits. N-HH talk/edits 13:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I support  changes, AllMusic is a horrible source, and N-HH changes to the lead are more Encyclopedic, I've been a Sabbath fan for as long as I can remember and would love to leave "", but honestly only a Rolling Stone level reference could provide proper support using, those words.  - Mlpearc (open channel) 14:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure the phrasing could be tweaked again, just as I based it on tweaking what was there already, but it is an attempt to summarise the entire reception section, without hyperbole or cherry-picking, which is what a lead should do. I agree we can't rely on AllMusic alone – or indeed any individual source, I would argue – for the lead, even if quoted and attributed (which it wasn't). The other edit, as noted, resolved an inarguable misrepresentation of a source in the body (a source which was originally directly cited in the lead for a variation of the contentious phrasing, just as inaccurately), and I can't see that there can be any debate around that. Btw likewise, the fact that I originally took issue with the wording is unrelated to what I happen to think or would like to see written about the band or the album. N-HH talk/edits 15:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Only on Wikipedia! Someone takes issue with a sourced review and someone else decides they think that source is "horrible"! Words like fuckwits then get used and in the meantime vast tracts of the article go unsourced including quotes, covers, art work and the development of the tracks themselves. Good job this is not one of the "greatest and most influential albums".......--Egghead06 (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "It has been regarded as one of the greatest and most influential albums in heavy metal history" 

message: I see people quite often trying to change song credits, and writing “all lyrics by geezer Butler”. It’s just false. In several documentaries, Butler himself has stated that Ozzy Osbourne wrote the lyrics for the demo track and he then re-wrote them. Yes, quite often he would re-write them to the extent that absolutely no original Osbourne lyrics remained. But at the same time, in certain songs he would retain at least some of Osbournes original lyrics or intentions. They were co-lyricists on many many songs 
2A02:C7F:18AE:4900:3057:E86A:B1AA:C92A (talk) 09:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Geezer Butler as sole lyricist

message: The link to "Black Sabbath at Wikibooks" in External links is dead, and archive.org does not have a saved copy of this page at Wikibooks.  Should this link be removed?  Riordanmr (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black Sabbath at Wikibooks link is dead