Talk:Ashes to Ashes (David Bowie song)

message: Argh, the dodgy English threw me off... Nevermind.
Tom Prankerd 20:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Live performances 

message: Towards the end of the first verse there are different lyrics being sung in the background. They go something like 'Songs that please the earth but leave the mind blown.....<something>...since 1974'.
Any ideas, anyone? Martyn Smith 20:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although we can't use Songfacts as a reference, a couple of the commentators there have come up with some convincing suggestions. This is at the "I ain't got no money and I ain't got no hair" part; most of the background vocals are just repeats of the foreground, but it ends with songs that please the ear and leave the mind alone" or "leave the mind blown" depending on who you believe. When Bowie plays the song live nowadays that part of the arrangement is taken out, and the backing vocalists don't try to imitate it. I suspect the only person who could possibly answer this would be David Bowie himself. Is he on Wikipedia? Does he remember 1980? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Background singing in first verse

message: I've always thought that the video contains references to a lot of other Bowie songs, on top of the Major Tom sub-text that we all know about.  There's one shot of Bowie sinking and looking worried ("Quicksand"?) and then there's my mother, my dog and clowns ("Life on Mars"). There are others no doubt. Did I dream it? BaseTurnComplete 21:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Flashes of other Bowie songs?

message: Ashes to Ashes' intro was sampled in a fairly recent pop song performed by a female singer or group... I can't remember what this song was called, however. Anyone know? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.29.92.13 (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sampled in another track 

message: This article states: "With production costing £250,000, it was at the time the most expensive music video ever made and remains one of the most expensive of all time." The reference cited is from 1999 so is quite dated. Some sites state that several videos today (20 years later) get into the "seven figure" range every year, so suspect this article's claim is probably not even remotely true anymore. Actually, having just watched this video, it seems quite crude by today's standards.
:Please sign your comments! (use 4 tilde's). £250k in 1980 Monday is over £1m in today's currency, so it's certainly a worthy amount. I think a few things would help here: 1) we should clearly label <I>when</I> that statement was made, to give it context, and 2) maybe if there's a list on Wikipedia of "most expensive videos ever made" we could add a link to that at the bottom of the article, so interested readers could do more research if they saw fit. Anything is just opinion or conjecture. 87Fan (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: See List_of_most_expensive_music_videos which sheds some light. Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Most Expensive Video?

message: :Image:AshesToAshes3.jpg 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 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 12:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Cheers, Ian Rose 12:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:AshesToAshes3.jpg

message: I've added a section on the borrowing of Bowie's original iconography for the TV series Ashes to Ashes.  Can anybody think of a decent name for this section?  I didn't called it "TV series" as I don't want to give the impression that the series is closely related to the video or the song.  Graham and Pharaoh simply liked the images and borrowed them as a shorthand for the early 1980s. --Tony Sidaway 19:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a prob with the section title you've chosen, Tony, although it could also go by the generic References in Popular Culture, as that's effectively what it is - and because you've written it in prose, I don't think such a title should inspire a knee-jerk Trivia tag like many such sections do. Regardless of the section name, however, can you add a citation re. the inspiration the writers took? At the moment it's the only section without a source. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the advice.  I've provided the citations.  If more popular culture references emerge, perhaps they can be merged into a single section under "popular culture." --Tony Sidaway 01:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, that'd be the way, ta. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  While I like the section as written, I feel "coopted iconography" is not an appropriate title; the term "coopted" is often used in a perjorative sense and sticks out like a sore thumb in the article, IMO. Agreed tho that simply "TV series" is not helpful for the reasons given above. "Influence" would be relatively neutral, tho could fall foul of the "in popular culture" ban. --172.201.39.14 (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Coopted iconography

message: I've moved the following, added to the main article by InPartnership at 15:54, 20 May 2011, to this more appropriate spot:
:I don't know where this figure of £250,000 originated from for the cost of the video.  It was shot on location near Hastings for one day and a second day in the studio in Wandsworth.  Facilities were provided by Ewart Television.  Some of the special effects were supplied by a faulty camera channel, the effect was instantly liked and the vision engineer had to keep his foot very carefully positioned against the CCU to make sure the fault remained for long enough!
In response, the £250,000 is cited and comes from Bowie biogrpaher David Buckley, which is considered a reliable source. I agree it seems high for then and I've also seen £25,000 in another reliable source (possibly Nicholas Pegg, can't recall for sure). If a third reliable source could be found that confirmed either one of these figures then I'd be happy to use that one. Also I'd be happy to see the info about the fault-turned-effect in the article, but it'd need to be cited as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video 

message: Is definitely produced by a Mellotron.
Played by Bowie hiself?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.207.140 (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 'string' sound of Ashes to Ashes 

message: Why has the paragraph about Inchworm been deleted?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barakpick (talk • contribs) 15:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inchworm - Deleted? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Ashes to Ashes (David Bowie song). 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/20090609154740/http://www.irishcharts.ie/search/placement to http://www.irishcharts.ie/search/placement
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080211072610/http://www.theherald.co.uk:80/features/lastnighttv/display.var.2028798.0.Back_in_the_day_when_PC_meant_copper.php to http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/lastnighttv/display.var.2028798.0.Back_in_the_day_when_PC_meant_copper.php
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) 13:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have removed the assertion that the set was featured in a 1979 parody of the song called 'Space Oddity' on the Kenny Everitt show. Firstly, the song was not even recorded until early 1980, so why would Kenny be parodying it? The public would not identify what was being parodied. Secondly, the set dates from 1980. The record was not even released until August of that year. Thirdly, the linked source no longer exists, and does not appear to have matched Wikipedia standards for citations.
(86.176.53.142 (talk) 13:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for posting about it here. I appreciate you have solid reasoning as you're right it wouldn't make much sense (SM didn't start recording until February 1980). I'll check out more of my book sources for more details. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicholas Pegg actually confirms the piece you removed as true. Part of the cell and kitchen sets apparently were developed from the Everett 1979 promo of "Oddity". As of now I'm finally working a complete overhaul of the article so I'll be sure to clear the air here. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  1980