Talk:Radiohead/Archive 2

message: The order of the Radiohead singles in the Radiohead template is way off compared to the order of the singles if you go to the first one and click on the next single in the song box one after another. What gives? zafiroblue05 | Talk 05:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of Radiohead singles

message: I have written an introduction that seems to mend to the formula for featured music articles.  Discuss if my revision should be kept. Mkaycomputer 22:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may need some biographical info, but I think it summarizes Radiohead's legacy, history, style, and influences quite well. Mkaycomputer 22:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you've done a quite excellent job with it! Johnsorc 02:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Problems: you have to squeeze your edits down to about uh, say, 1 edit?  so we can actually organize your thoughts without having to screw everything up.  second of all, all of your edits are exactly the problem i had when i started with this.  if you're a fan of Radiohead, hold it in, and actually give positively to the ARTICLE.  An introduction is a summary.  You put a lot of good information into it, however a lot of it was loaded with POV, nearly all of it didn't belong in an introductory summary of an article, and some of it didn't even belong in the Radiohead article.  Don't just load up information into the article and leave it.  However, you inexplicably seem to calm down in your POV and random fact spewing in the members section, which is why I left it untouched, and I commend you for fixing that section up, as we had hit a roadblock with it.
why don't you even post your username or IP if you're so high up you can dismiss contributors like that?
I'm not a regular wiki user, I don't even have an account, so I'm aware I don't have any right to edit anything or expect any politeness. but I edited that little by little while I had time working on something else, thus the many separate edits. I am certainly aware of this subject, and I've also followed this article and been equally disgusted as some with the ridiculous hyperbole and poor writing in the past, and occasionally made minor edits to tone things down.
So I'm sorry for the confusion, but it was not just random "fact spewing" thrown on the page as I felt like it. Descriptions of sound were possibly out of place in that section and certainly subjective and overlong, but there was nothing hyperbolic in there, nothing whose implication wouldn't be out of place in at least some section of this article, however poor you found the writing.
you see what is wrong now is all the so-called hyperbole may be gone, but the people editing this down for length have no familiarity with the material, so they don't know what facts are important to keep and what to throw away, and they continue to propagate certain innaccuracies. If new or unsigned-in wiki users who actually know about the subject are writing what you consider too indulgently, fix our contributions or let us know, but don't revert it as if it was vandalism.
That's nice, youre starting a fight, and youre right, you dont have much right in editing wikipedia.  Mkaycomputer 21:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Regards: Painbearer 08:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if it's changed since you last looked at it, but I think this intro actually looks very good, and the style of prose is by far the best it's been in a long while.  Let's take a moment to note the positives, as a number of people have obviously put a lot of time and effort into this that should be acknowledged.  Thanks Hongshi 22:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction!!! 

message: Other bands' wikipedia articles have their logo above their picture in the infobox.  I have a logo here, , should I make it the caption?  I understand this logo isn't used too often nowadays, but it was quite official in the past. Mkaycomputer 23:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that logo works great!  I'm going to go check out the new intro now. Johnsorc 02:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Check the image's talk page for more input. LIllIi 23:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo 

message: Needs to change. Skinnyweed 21:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How so?Mkaycomputer 22:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV lead 

message: while editing this I sensed that someone had carefully made sure to say "England" and "English" a lot, and I couldnt tell if it was out of some anti-Scottish/Welsh(um,Ulstermaybe) animus or just an American who didnt get the difference. I'm an American too but as far as I understand the nation as a whole is the United Kingdom, whatever countries make it up. while it's fine to say Radiohead is an "English band," I don't think anyone is entirely sure all members are originally from England and it might be slightly more appropriate to call them a British band, everyone knows Oxford is in England anyway (or we could say "a British band from Oxford, England.") and then with regard to the later text which said The Bends found favor in "their native England," I changed it because as far as I can tell these days there is a British music press, British music industry, British music taste, and not a separate "English" one. Especially as Radiohead is not one of those London based oh-so-English bands, I doubt their records appeal any less in Scotland or Wales. Or Northern Ireland! ;)
:Well, when press writes about Welsh bands or singers from Scotland - they are called Welsh, Scottish, etc. I'd say this is more like pro-English sentiment, not anti-something ("why Scots or Welsh can have their separate identity, but English cannot?"). Since the article is written in UK English, and from UK point of view, I don't see any reason why it cannot be "English". Futurix 16:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And, I forgot, there are separate charts in both Scotland and Wales ;-) Futurix 16:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regionalism: "Britain" and "the UK," vs "England"

message: This article is hopeless.  We were almost going in the right direction, but I just give up.  I'm not going to point fingers (although some know who deserve the blame), I'm just not going to care.  I take no responsibility for the insanity this article is going through.  Maybe in some months I'll return, but I doubt it.  I've got more to do then waste my time with a hopeless article. Mkaycomputer 20:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given up already? Skinnyweed 20:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  RIP senor article. Johnsorc 20:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's take a break and revisit this in a couple of months.  I'm afraid I've had enough too.  Thanks to everyone who tried though... Hongshi 20:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good.  It was nice working with you.Mkaycomputer 21:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the article is not too good at the moment. Progress was being made, but ATM it comes across as clunky and cack-handed. Thanks to everyone who has tried to improve it. Im sure that we can get it on track once again.--Richj1209 00:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Regardless of anyone's personal opinions on Radiohead, the existence of articles like this add credence to the idea that Wikipedia is not a legitimate source of information, but rather a pretentious collection of fan-forum opinions.  Also, how long do you think EMI will tolerate Radiohead's political independence?   Edmundssteven 11:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hopeless 

message: Add internet references to the article. There is only book references now. Skinnyweed 18:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: As per other large artist articles (Rolling Stones, Nirvana, Beatles), I propose that the discography information be removed from this article and just a link to the discography main page left there.  In the mean time, I'm going to make sure that all information on the discog page is concurrent with what is on here.  Johnsorc 19:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discography 

message: Just as a note, could people please remember to use Commonwealth (specifically UK) spelling as it isn't an American-centred article. Regards hedpeguyuk 21 June 9:00 (UTC)
:Righto, me feller me lad.203.131.167.26 09:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling

message: "'How to Disappear Completely': Radiohead and the Resistant Concept Album"
This says Radiohead formed in 1992. Macarion 27 June 17:11
They actually formed before that, but they started using the name Radiohead then. Originally they were called "On A Friday", but the name was universally hated.--Unopeneddoor 22:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Year Formed

message: Maybe someone could put a bit on why Radiohead aren't on iTunes? Its very unusual for a band to do that and I heard that it was something to do with seeling songs seperately but I'm not sure if thats at all correct. Also, this page couod do with making smaller, surely all these discussions aren't still going on? Poiuytre 13:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radiohead & iTunes 

message: i have to correct something.  I'm about 99% Jonny is not the only classicly trained member of the band. Colin studied classical music. Thom also has some classical voice training.--Unopeneddoor 22:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jonny and Colin 

message: Was NOT their first single. Anyone Can Pplay GUitar was--Unopeneddoor 22:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creep / Radiohead's first single? 

message: Is this really relevant?
No.  It should be removed immediately.--Hypermagic 03:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: Should there be a list of instruments they have used during studio sessions as well as when performed live? 
For example on live performances:
* Analogue Systems RS8000 Integrator - Idioteque (Live on SNL)
* Korg KP1 KAOSS Pad - Everything In Its Right Place
--The Rumour 21:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Instruments Used In The Studio and during Live Performances 

message: In a recent mass renaming of categories, we renamed nearly every category of Singles by artist into the appropriate subcategory of Songs by artist. We did not immediately rename the few categories in which there was a large number of both singles and non-singles separated, just to make sure there was no absolutely pressing reason that fans of those few acts (the Beach Boys, the Beatles, David Bowie, Nirvana, Oasis, Prince, Radiohead) wanted the singles by artist category kept. So one last chance: Does anyone think that :category:Radiohead singles shouldn't be merged into :category:Radiohead songs, as all the others except th ones listed have?--Mike Selinker 08:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mass renaming of Singles by artist into Songs by artist

message: According to the article right now: "With Kid A (2000) and Amnesiac (2001), Radiohead reached their peak global popularity".  I'd like to see citation for this, as it seems unlikely, or possibly just a slight change in wording to make the meaning more precise.  I'm happy to accept that more people bought Kid A in a big hurry, but I imagine that many of them hated it.  I'm ashamed to say that I myself have still never managed to listen to the whole of Kid A, although I rushed out to buy it on the day of release.  So, just to be picky, are we happy to say that "album X sold more than album Y" means that X was the more popular? Leeborkman 02:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peak of popularity? 

message: We must be completely clear with we want to say in that section. We must also try to organize and resize it as much as possible, because the album as we all know is still recording. We are approaching 2 years of recording sessions, so we must trim the big amount of information. Thus I think that what I am trying to do - trim it in last few edits and re-reverts related with some anonymous user. So, I think the article will be better and I think that these re-reverts are making me... uneasy.
:Regards: Painbearer 11:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regards: Painbearer 09:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seventh studio album section 

message: The band pictures seem to be perpetually tagged as "unfree"... The picture I uploaded is free, but it only shows Thom and Ed. This is seemingly the only "free" Radiohead band image on the web, and  believe me, I've looked. Both in CC and GFDL meta searches. ErleGrey 02:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Just a note

message: :This shouldn't even be considered until I can read the article and not puke. Mkaycomputer 19:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Made a start on discography/general style.  Would welcome a hand from others on the rest due to limited time and expertise...! --Hongshi 10:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Music Project evaluation 

message: Can I suggest the five songs chosen as audio samples be changed?
The first 4 are fine, You especially is a good choice to show his early vocals.. but Let Down or Airbag might be a better sample from OK Computer than Lucky, which is great but quite backward looking, not really an example of the evolution that characterized the rest of the album. I suppose it's a good example of Nigel Godrich's smooth production style, but it was written in 1995 anyway, 2 years before the rest of the album.
I also think Life in a Glass House is a very poor choice for this and must be replaced, though it's one of my favorite Radiohead songs, just because the only member of Radiohead involved is Thom Yorke, singing over accompaniment by the band of jazz trumpeter Humphrey Lyttelton. even the drums are not performed by Phil Selway of Radiohead, let alone all the horns. so while it shows unbelievable performances by all and great songwriting skill from Thom and perhaps arrangement skill by Jonny Greenwood (if he wrote out an arrangement), it doesn't show the BAND's versatility with jazz the way the quote says, at least not the same way as National Anthem, where the whole arrangement was written by them and mostly played by them and produced by them and the improvisation by the session players is a small though integral part of the whole.
a clip from a song from Amnesiac or Hail to the Thief such as Pyramid Song, You and Whose Army, Knives Out, Like Spinning Plates or Wolf at the Door would be more appropriate. there is no song there that has the "organic" kind of sound of Pyramid Song/You and Whose/Knives, and there's no real synth/electronic song either, which is strange considering the way the band has gone since 2000. Idioteque or Everything in Its Right Place could be used also, but Plates would be better because there's already one off Kid A, and it's also an example of the type of creativity (or pretentiousness) associated with the band, in that it was sung backwards. you might even have a clip from the electronic studio version and another from the live piano version, to show how Radiohead changed their electronic songs in performance. 172.166.95.12
:I agree.  Like Spinning Plates would be a much better song from the most recent tracks.  Unfortunately, I don't have any sort of .ogg encoder, which I believe is the preferred format for wikipedia. Johnsorc 20:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Strange Choice of Audio Samples

message: Is it really necessary to add more and more information *every* time DAS is updated? It has a seperate entry of its own now. Exceptions should be if they use DAS to announce a tour, important information that is directly regards to the release/content of LP7, i.e. a post detailing the fact that a song has finished, or to use an example, Thom's post of early February that the band were back to work, with Mark Stent (significant as it was for the first time the band were recording with him). Photos, etc could imply all sorts of things, and perhaps the DAS entry is a better place to discuss these than the main Radiohead article.--Richj1209 23:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  Mkaycomputer 23:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead Air Space