Talk:Shine On You Crazy Diamond

message: Barret hear shine on you crazy diamonds ,not wish you were here  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.254.248.81 (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: shine

message: "The last section (coda), 'Part IX', is introduced by a synth pedal point, which grows in volume as the previous goove dissipates. A slow 4/4 funeral march (9:08) becomes the parting musical eulogy to Syd."
I DIDN'T MEAN SYD DIED OMG! I meant it was thought of as a kind-of funeral dirge. Also, I was wrong... It's in Four. I think I used to play this part in three-four maybe. My mistake. 131.247.98.123
My viynl version says part 5 was (gilmour waters wright)not (waters)
Interesting.  Which country is your vinyl version from?  My UK vinyl copy credits Waters for part V and Wright for part IX as does the original, official songbook.NH78.147.104.165 (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  OMGWTFBBQ 

message: The article states Syd's theme came from a BBC program, "Take it from there".  I think the program referred to is probably Take It From Here, a 1950s BBC radio comedy program, which always started with a four equal-duration-note motif played on glockenspiel that does indeed have similar (not identical) melodic shape and roughly the same rhythmic shape and speed.  That said, can someone find more reliable documentary evidence for the assertion?  --RobertG ♬ talk 16:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that is from the Echoes FAQ, the most reliable Pink Floyd FAQ on the web. Hang on. I'm No Parking and  I approved this message 19:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Take It From There'' 

message: Does anyone know whether this is Syd laughing or not? It sounds vaguely similar to the laughter on The Dark Side of the Moon, but I'm not sure.
-- Sasuke Sarutobi 00:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't that be awesome?  But it's almost certaintly not true. In his last studio appearance, Syd couldn't be bothered to bring a guitar that had strings on it, so I can't see him laughing on cue into the mike. Nor do I think Syd had much laughter in him by 1974. Plus, Syd was a baritone, with a rather nasal tone, and this chuckle sounds very tenor and breathy. I would bet it's Gilmour -- or else, as you indicated, Roger The Hat from "On The Run". Finally, I think Waters or Gilmour would have revealed such a startling tidbit by now. So, no. But damn, that would be cool.  --63.25.113.207 16:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laughter at 08:48 

message: Well, okay, now it's "Shine on", so someone should go through the article and change it accordingly. Personally, I think the article should have the "O" capitalized as it makes more sense, but if wiki-rules are to the contrary then whatever... -albrozdude 03:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Where does this information come from (eg. crediting Waters alone for Pt. V)? The only authoritative sources I can find for the composition is "Waters, Gilmour, Wright" for all 9 parts. - dharmabum 06:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Composers for the various parts of the song? 

message: Having just finished reading this article, the first section reads as if it was written disjointly by many sources... because it was!  I'd like to see a unified voice for this section.  I don't have time right now to clean it up by myself, but I'll get to it over the next few days if someone else doesn't beat me to it.  —XSG 17:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reorganized the information. From my point of view, problem wasn't that it read "as if it was written disjointly by many sources", but rather there was too much information under the 'Recording' section that didn't belong there. I moved the last paragraph to the introduction of the article (it's about the song and what's behind it, as a theme, and not about recording details), moved the information about the 'Part 1'/'Part 2' nomenclature to 'Trivia', and moved the "Two different edited versions of the composition have appeared on compilation albums." line to 'Edited versions' to pose as an intro to this section (which I also subsectioned for each of the compilations). Hope it's a good cleanup—I think it is, so I removed the cleanup template. —Rotring 17:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I reread the whole article and, apart from the section that was marked for cleanup, there might still be some cleanup base. Info about live performances is replicated, both on the song "analysis" by parts and on the live performances section; maybe maintain only the latter? —Rotring 17:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: :Image:Shine On You Crazy Diamond.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 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 15:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Shine On You Crazy Diamond.ogg

message: I'm pretty positive that Richard Wright hardly ever or never used a Minimoog synth.  I'm pretty sure the horn like synth solo at the beginning is actually a sawtooth wave Prophet V sound.  I'm going to change it in the article and someone can change it back if they think otherwise. 
--User:PhilyG 22:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synth Solo on First Half 

message: but the song grew longer than a single side of vinyl would allow. It was split into two parts and used to bookend the album.
Sure? I remember having read in Nic Schaffners Book that it was Waters who wanted that divison. Genesis hat 2 LPs ("Selling" and "And then tere were 3") which have longer B-Sides, so I think it should have been possible to put "shine on" on a single side of the LP --Münzberg (talk) 10:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure you're right; the division had more to do with the album's concept/structure than limitations of vinyl.  Then again, if they had put "Shine On" on one side and the other songs on the other, they would have ended up with 26 min and 18 min sides ... which they could have corrected by writing and recording another song.  Their next album, Animals had a similar problem, as all 3 main songs were originally written to be around the same length (10 mins each), and one was padded a bit (as it seems to me) to fill a side, but it's a shorter side.  If you want to remove the claim, go ahead.  If you can replace it with a citation from the book you mentioned, even better. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would do so, but I haven't the book so I can't. (I red the book five yeard ago, lent by a former colleague. Maybe someone reading this has the book and can confirm what I remember --Münzberg (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We can still remove the claim about vinyl limitations, and I've done so. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Division 

message: I removed the following for the article: "It should be noted that this composition is bears resemblance to Charles Ives's The Unanswered Question." It has no encyclopedic value. If we can get reliable sources that tackle this "issue" than it can be added again. Personally, I didn't notice any resemblance except for the first trumpet note (that isn't very significant). Feel free to disagree here, or revert the edit and add some basis for it. --WillMak050389 02:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Unanswered Question]] resemblance 

message: Just a trivia perhaps... maybe more.
When I used my audio editing software Cool Edit Pro 2 to edit together the halves into one song, my length was 25:40.
I am not perfect, but this is within a second for sure. I come to this conclusion based on how I combined the tracks:
I first used the first half from Wish You Were Here up until the end of the sax solo, when the last cymbol crashes and the wind fades in. At this point, I cut in the same point on the track off the disk Echoes. At the first audible bass note, I again cut, placing the second half off Wish You Were Here ahead of the cut.
So again... Perhaps only trivia, perhaps it's notable on the sidebar. 25:40 is the actual length of the combined suite.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floydian (talk • contribs) 08:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length? 

message: One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s).  Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  SignorX (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: I found two different pieces of information in the article that seem to contradict one another. In the "Parts VI-IX" section, it says it's a Rhodes piano (without the Fender Rhodes and Mini-Moog overdubs) but in "Personnel" section, it says it's a Wurlitzer electric piano (clavinet and Wurlitzer electric piano on Part VIII) and both these bits of information appear to be unsourced. Furthermore, in the "Composition" section, there's a WP:OR maintenance template when all content must be verifiable. Does anyone have a reliable source with accurate information?--Kevjgav (talk) 10:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I too can very easily tell the difference between a Rhodes and Wurlitzer, and to my ear it is 100% a Rhodes on Part VIII :-) so I don't know where that leaves us. For now maybe we should edit both spots to just say "electric piano" without being specific about what kind. —Jeferman (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electric piano on Part VIII 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Shine On You Crazy Diamond. 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/20060826062749/http://www.brain-damage.co.uk:80/news/0602061.html to http://www.brain-damage.co.uk/news/0602061.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There was some talk about the time signatures years ago, but it's unclear if there was ever consensus, and regardless the page seems to have changed since then and is currently not consistent with itself. Most notably the page currently refers to parts II–V as being in both 6/4 and 6/8. I'm going to make some changes now which I think are consistent with the comments from years ago and are mostly in line with what the page has now:
* Parts II–IV and the first half of V are in 6/8
* The second half of V is in 12/8, as is VI
* It transitions back to 6/8 for VII
* VIII and IX are both 4/4
—Jeferman (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Time Signatures

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Shine On You Crazy Diamond. 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  tag to http://www.neptunepinkfloyd.co.uk/wiki/index.php/Total_Guitar_1996
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.brain-damage.co.uk/news/0602061.html
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6AbUYov2v?url=http://www.pinkfloydfan.net/t1483-gilmour-waters-mason-wright-shades.html to http://www.pinkfloydfan.net/t1483-gilmour-waters-mason-wright-shades.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article includes a section about the Barrett incident (Barrett visiting the studio while the song was being recorded). This incident, however, is also discussed at length, but with different quotations/details, on the page about the album, Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd album). I think it would make more sense to describe the incident completely in one of the two articles, probably the page about the album, and not on the other. Any thoughts on this? Lennart97 (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barrett incident 

message: The original UK LP label from Wish You Were Here in 1975 (SHVL 814) has Arabic numerals for the parts of the song (parts 1–5 and 6–9) while the US LP label from the same year (Columbia, PC 33453) has Roman numerals (parts I–V and VI–IX). I think we should mention the two numbering styles but use Arabic as standard notation. The Wish You Were Here album article does in fact use Arabic as standard. Binksternet (talk) 05:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman and Arabic numerals