Talk:News of the World (album)

message: Perhaps someday we can all agree that 'Family Guy' has parodied everything.   Appears in innumerable wikipedia entries and almost never adds anything.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.68.34 (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Family Guy" references 

message: In almost two months, the pages Fight From The Inside, Sleeping On The Sidewalk, and My Melancholy Blues have experienced minimal content growth, and could still find a comfortable home on this page. Please discuss this and other similar small Queen song articles on my talk page. Dar-Ape 20:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small song articles 

message: "#"We Will Rock You ('1991 Bonus Remix Ruined by Rick Rubin')" (May) - 4:47"
*Ruined?   What? TheDavesr 05:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The title of this remix is "1991 Bonus Remix Ruined by Rick Rubin", see CD (Hollywood Records, 1991). - Candyfloss 12:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism?

message: My informations: 4x Platinum for Hollywood, Platinum for Elektra release. See: . Hi, DEgenerated 82.141.159.95 15:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: US sales

message: I have removed the comment about Get Down Make Love being monotonous as it sounds like POV - Knight of Ashitaka 23:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get Down, Make Love 

message: Kind of a minor thing, but is there any particular reason why there is a " mark after the names of songs in the track listing, but not before? - Im.a.lumberjack 16:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Track listing 

message: I changed it.  Weird formatting, but Wikipedia only puts the quote at the end of the code.  So I manually entered in quotes before the code. - Joepiekarski 02:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Done 

message: Didn't Steve Howe play the spanish guitar on Innuendo ?  In here it seems to imply it was May  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.154.150 (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe they both did. --lincalinca 02:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Possibly a POV issue there. I'm working through this article to improve it. It's getting there, slowly. --lincalinca 02:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who Needs You 

message: :Image:Queen News Of The World.png 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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Queen News Of The World.png

message: :Image:Queen News Of The World.png 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 this Wikipedia article 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 ensure 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Queen News Of The World.png

message: Freddie Mercury didn't design the artwork on this album, Frank Kelly Freas did. The original painting was done in 1953, and was updated by Freas in 1977, at Roger Taylor's suggestion. Freas also painted the inner sleeve especially for this album. Fr34kzi11a (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you here, but is there a source that verifies that? It doesn't indicate either Mercury, Taylor or Freas as its creator on the sleeve. --rm 'w avu 23:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From "As It Began", pg. 106, written by Jacky Smith and Jim Jenkins: "While in the United States Roger, a keen science fiction fan, had seen a copy of an American magazine called Astounding Science. On the cover was an illustration of a robot wreaking havoc among the human population, drawn by science fiction artist Frank Kelly Freas. Roger was convinced that the robot, with a little adaptation, would make an excellent cover for the next album. It took some time, but they succeeded in tracking down the elusive Mr. Freas. He loved the idea of his robot being used as an album cover, and willingly agreed to alter the picture, so that the people held in the robot's giant hand resembled the members of the band. He also created a new scene for the inside of the album sleeve." Fr34kzi11a (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artwork 

message: "News of the World was the second album to be produced solely by the band ... and was ... co-produced and engineered by Mike Stone."
Hmm? Who produced it? The band alone or with Mike Stone?
I think the article is very confusing about that.
Can someone please correct it, if it even needs correcting?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.73.44 (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Producing 

message: First off, this article claims that the Sex Pistols were next door recording their album, while Queen were doing theirs. I don't doubt that. What I do doubt is the authenticity of the story that Johnny Lydon sneaked up under Freddie's piano and said "Hello, Freddie!" before quickly crawling back to his studio. I'm not saying it's impossible that it did happen, but if so, then that needs some sources. Second, this:
Brian May describes News of the World as being a "rootsier" album than previous Queen records, partly due to the punk scene breaking at that time, which inspired Queen to record a more "back to basics" rock album. A bit of hypocrisy can be seen here, as one of the tracks, Sheer Heart Attack (not the album) was written as a jab at punks. News of the World is a less finely polished production than their previous offerings. The complex vocal harmonies and guitar orchestrations that are used heavily in earlier Queen albums are used much more sparingly and subtly on this album.
Soooooooo many issues with that bit there. First, where is the proof that the sound of this album was a result of punk rock becoming huge? NOTW does not sound like an album attempting to fit in with the punk trend, in fact no 70s Queen album sounds like it's trying to blend in with whatever was currently popular in the music scene back then. Queen were more of trendsetters rather than followers, but that's just my personal observation which is as equally WP:OR as the section I singled out. Second, I'd like for someone to explain to me how Sheer Heart Attack was "hypocritical". The song wasn't written as a jab at punks, that would be "Fight From The Inside". The person who wrote this could have at least done some research first, geez. Third, describing NOTW as "a less finely polished production than their previous offerings" when it's not a quote from a music critic is POV. Hell, that whole section needs to be rewritten from scratch. I'm removing it. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 08:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article has a lot of BS 

message: Do we really need the George Starostin review ? I mean, there are plenty of other reviews by professional reviewers whose reviews are actually published by reputable magazines and websites. On top of that, his reviews were written with the benefit of hindsight, which makes them far less interesting, because they don't exemplify the critical response at the time the record was released. Just because his reviews are long-winded and often disagree with popular opinion doesn't make them any more interesting than those of the next person with a website. 84.198.246.199 (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews 

message: A while back, I saw the claim that Freddie Mercury was thinking about football when he wrote 'We Are the Champions'. The statement lacked any sources, and was originally posted by someone who put a lot of unsourced information on this page. Having read a number of articles and interviews about Queen and Freddie, I have yet to see any evidence that he had ever even watched a game of football, let alone wrote a song about it. Until any source can be given, I think this should stay off the page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.4.227 (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  We Are the Champions 

message: Dan56, if you want to remove a genre that has been present in this article for 10 YEARS, you need to start a discussion about it. 86.142.178.61 (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There's clearly disagreement here, so why are you still assuming consensus? (WP:SILENCE) "Pop rock" is cited in #Critical response. You've shown no effort to cite a reliable source verifying your change. Please do so instead of leaning solely on your misinterpretation of Wikipedia's consensus guideline. Dan56 (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, please do not use different IP addresses to reintroduce the same disruptive edit, as you clearly have here as 86.172.245.41, 86.165.113.217, and now 86.142.178.61. Please create an account if you intend to continue editing this way. Dan56 (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: But you're not getting my point; there has been a consensus on "rock" for 10 years, since the article's creation in 2004, and there have been no issues or problems with the genre. If you wish to remove a genre which has a consensus you need to start a discussion first, and reach a consensus which validates its removal. And yes, I fully accept your addition and citing of "pop rock", I have no problems with this. The problem is that you are trying to remove a genre with a 10 year consensus without discussion. 86.142.177.209 (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

text: Did you read the guideline I linked in my previous comment? "Consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing)." (WP:SILENCE) There's clearly disagreement, and there's been reverting, hence no consensus. BTW, the article was created in 2003 without any genre in any infobox (when the article was created). "The burden of identifying a reliable source lies with the editor who adds or restores material" (WP:PROVEIT), not me to defend removal of unsourced material that has been left unaddressed for almost a decade. Dan56 (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rock 

message: Arena rock is such a lazy genre, and to me isn't a true genre, just like "album-oriented rock", just a style if that makes any sense. If it were me, it should be hard rock. 108.81.33.59 (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Think about it: music composed and arranged for powerful effect when played live in a stadium is not so much different than music composed and arranged to flow well from one song to the next on an album. These are just two of many strategies for how the music can be presented. Such strategies certainly change the way the music is composed and arranged. As such, they are genres. Binksternet (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Arena rock is just as much a genre as any other sort of performance genre. Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

text: You're entitled to your opinion, but we're going off of what critics and other relevant writers on these topics have said, not our personal opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE). If there have been people who've written that arena rock is not a genre, it would be great to include that at the Arena rock article. Otherwise, this amounts to forum-like talk. Dan56 (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't follow your "logic". The onus is not on us to assert a negative, the onus is on you to find a source that describes "arena rock" as a genre, which they do not. All the provided sources use AR as others use Classic Rock, but that does not make CR a genre, does it? You are essentially saying that until someone proves that AR is not a genre, that we will go with AR here, but looking at the history it would appear as if rock as a genre was the running consensus until you quite recently decided to change it. Where is the discussion that ended in the consensus that this album is not accurately described as rock? And it's not forum talk, so please stop trying to throw around your mis-readings of guidelines to intimidate everyone. MaximumEdison (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  , you need to calm down. No "running consensus" in the world can take precedent over Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. There's plenty of unsourced material in this article, but so much attention being paid to my addition of a sourced genre is telling. I don't understand your claim about "Classic rock" and "Arena rock"--looking at the articles, sources in the former refer to radio format and rock radio, while sources in the latter cite books analyzing rock and popular music. Furthermore, the third line in the lead for "Arena rock" (cited to AllMusic) discusses it as a genre: "...using a more commercially oriented and radio-friendly sound, with highly-produced music that includes both hard rock numbers and power ballads, both often employing anthemic choruses." And yes, unfound claims from IPs and others like "a lazy genre", "not a true genre!", and other personal opinions on the album or its songs without citing any WP guideline or policy to back up their argument does in fact amount to forum talk. Dan56 (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let's assume that AR is indeed a music genre, though I don't know why Binkernet keeps mentioning performance genre, because this is a recorded album, not a live performance. However, if AR is a genre then how many songs on this album are AR? I think only three are regularly described that way: "WWRY", "WATC", and "It's Late". According to this source, "Sheer Heart Attack" is punk, "Fight From the Inside" is funk, "Sleeping on the Sidewalk" is "almost" blues, "Who Needs You" is obviously not AR, "My Melancholy Blues" is a jazzy blues number. Only 3 of the album's 11 tracks are AR, so that label does not accurately describe the album as a whole. I think that, per , rock should be restored to the infobox, as that's the most accurate genre for the album as a whole. MaximumEdison (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I say "performance" genre because a band may write and arrange a song with the intention of playing it for huge crowds. Binksternet (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, I guess I see what you mean, but again -- assuming it's appropriate, that only describes two or maybe three songs on this album, which most sources praise for its diversity of genres. Allmusic says it's, "an explosion of styles that didn't seem to hold to any particular center" and "when it works, it's massive, earth-shaking rock & roll". The BBC states, "Queen's varied palette of styles was none more apparent than on their sixth studio album, News Of The World". The Sputnik review used to cite AR says, "It's not to say that News of the World is better than A Night at the Opera, but its explosion of genres definitely puts Queen at their prime once again like they were in that album ... However, the three songs mentioned are not even close to the end of how many styles are present here." By all reliable accounts this album is multi-genre, not simply AR, assuming that it is in fact a music genre in its own right. MaximumEdison (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You point out a valid concern: albums composed of widely varying songs. If I was dictator of the WikiProject Music I would instruct the user regarding genres in album infoboxes that the genre should not be engaged unless it could be shown by reliable source that the whole album was one genre. For albums like News of the World, the genre would remain blank. Even the generic "rock" genre is undercut by descriptions such as jazzy blues for one song. Binksternet (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  , there is no accuracy to these things. Genres are subjective interpretations, not concrete facts that can be proven. You finding a critic who calls a certain song "punk" doesn't mean they share the same viewpoint as the available source/critic for the album's genre, who may have a completely different view of music genres and this album's music. This isn't like we have one source that verifies the recording location, and another who verifies the recording dates for an album, and we have to consolidate both. Please keep in mind that the genre parameter summarizes how the album's music has been interpreted by most sources, not what the music actually is. This is one of the reasons editors in the past have argued against it as a parameter in the infobox--because it does not deal with verifiable facts, but verifiable opinions. All of this notwithstanding, thanks for citing a source for "rock". Dan56 (talk) 02:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  For one, there is some accuracy to genres, and it's not as nebulous as you say. "Who Needs You" is bosa nova, that's not opinion because certain musical styles and genres contain indicators, and the genre describes the characteristics of a song or album. These have explicit almost mathematical values to musicians; music is math. Secondly, per "This is one of the reasons editors in the past have argued against it as a parameter in the infobox--because it does not deal with verifiable facts, but verifiable opinions", I think this is plain wrong. On Wikipedia we write what the sources say, and that's all the verifiability that we need. If a RS calls "Who Needs You" bossa nova, then we need not split-hairs over whether it is or not, we just include the sourced statements. It's opinion to say that Tom Cruise is a great actor, but as long as a reliable source says that then it's verifiable; not that he is great, but that reliable sources have described him as such, opinion or not. To be clear here, I think you misunderstood my last post. I am not saying that this album is punk or funk, or "almost" blues. I'm saying that the album is known for its diversity of genres, and to say that arena rock covers them all is also flat wrong. Rock is the best descriptor here, since it encompasses the three songs that are arguable AR and most of the others that are not. I.e., AR, funk and punk are subgenres of rock. If we aim for generality, as our guidelines suggest, then we would avoid using such a specific descriptor as AR, not just because there is some disagreement about it's value as a genre, but because it's never used to describe more than a couple of the album's songs. Look at it this way, we could accurately describe at least 5 or 6 of the 11 tracks as rock, but since AR only pertains to 2 or 3, we should defer to the more overarching term, which is rock. MaximumEdison (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Actually, it doesn't ("The Great Arena Rock Wonder"); I don't know what you're referring to in this case. Dan56 (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I meant this one: http://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/15089/Queen-News-of-the-World/ also another one for hard rock: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/news-of-the-world-19780209 Arena rock needs to go. Or at least come after Hard rock, which is what this album truly is, not just the first two songs.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.81.33.59 (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  The review you're citing from Sputnikmusic is a user review; only staff and emeritus reviews are acceptable (WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES). The Rolling Stone review you're citing is referring to the band, not the album, when they write "They push boys' public-school chorales and English martial music through the funnel of hard rock..." Dan56 (talk) 05:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  The other review is also a user review though. I still don't see how this is an arena rock "album", if only the first two and most famous songs are. By the same logic, Blondie is a disco band because their most famous song is a disco song. 2602:306:8B83:4860:58D:190C:D4F2:3950 (talk) 07:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre (again) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on News of the World (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/20071203143634/http://www.queenonline.com/history/70/ to http://www.queenonline.com/history/70/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141101212619/http://www.infodisc.fr/CDCertif_O.php?debut=2215 to http://www.infodisc.fr/CDCertif_O.php?debut=2215
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) 21:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It's been confirmed on Queenonline.com that the News of the World 40th Anniversary Edition deluxe edition is released on 17th November 2017 which features the Vinyl LP, CD1 which is the original album (the Bob Ludwig 2011 remaster), CD2 which is News of the World: Raw Sessions and CD3 which is News of the World: Bonus Tracks and the new 1 hour documentary on DVD called Queen: The American Dream.
Here's the link: http://www.queenonline.com/news/press-release-news-of-the-world-40th-anniversary-edition  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.56.206 (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  News of the World - 40th Anniversary Edition 

message: "News of the World initially received mixed reviews, mostly reflecting on the album's shift towards a more mainstream sound, and away from the band's previous predominantly progressive rock sound."
Are the band's previous albums "predominantly progressive rock"? 86.190.171.142 (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progressive rock 

message: The article includes an alternative cover (it's a crop of the original gatefold art). It's presented as an exclusive for Kmart, presumably in the US, but judging by the Discogs.com entry it was actually produced in South Korea for the Korean market. Wikipedia seems to be the only place that claims it was made for Kmart. 217.194.190.218 (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative cover