Talk:Atom Heart Mother (suite)

message: "The only main argument about the song is about how long each part is" ... Ok, but shouldn't other views on the timing be aknowledged ? I for one think that the Funky Dung part is *... well, the part with a funky rythm, called Mother Fore here. Xave 16:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the very least, the arguments provided here sound like pure unsourced conjecture and original research.  None of which is welcome in Wikipedia.  If you have times that point to a reliable source (liner notes, commentary track, etc.) then that wins.  If no one has a real source, then I don't believe the times belong at all. -Verdatum (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Having said that, I just reviewed the content again.  I think summarizing the information described in the FAQ (explaining the track time controversy, and giving both times) is a good compromise, though I do lean towards the official track listing times unless someone can find an actual authority (and not just a random concensus among fans who maintain a FAQ page). -Verdatum (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just 2 sets of times that are being proposed.  If it were, then quoting both would be a solution.  But some editors want to change it to a little of one, a little of the other.  I agree that official timings are best, but we've been waiting 38 years! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure if the "Split Knees" info is helpful.  It almost sounds like Geesin might have named all the parts, and if he did, he might even have named the parts that he didn't need to orchestrate (which probably includes the sound collage section).  It's also not clear if "Split Knees" really became "Funky Dung", or if the it became the section that the author of that page thinks is "Funky Dung", and if that's the case, it's not clear which part that would be!  Regarding a CD that identifies the parts: link please? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Here's the problem: The fact that numerous editors have been coming in with their own divisions, and quoting exact times, tells me that they must be using CDs, and therefore the vast majority of CD editions do not divide the tracks.  In fact there only appears to be rumours of a CD with the parts on separate tracks.  So my first question is, which CD edition is the French Wikipedia referencing?  (Country of manufacture, catalogue number, and year of remastering would be helpful.)  If it's just one obscure oddball edition, the splits were probably chosen by someone at the CD factory and not Pink Floyd, otherwise we would expect to see it on all editions.  Since French WP shows alternate divisions, it appears they don't consider their first list to be reliable.  Also note that one wiki cannot cite another as a reference; see WP:SPS.  As long as there is no widely distributed modern edition with splits, I still feel the best authority is sheet music as published in the 1970s, which would almost certainly have been reviewed by someone in authority, and I'm certain sheet music exists; it's just a matter of someone getting out to a good reference library! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as it's an official release and not just a bootleg, I think it would be appropriate to mention such timings with context (e.g. "according to the <blah blah> CD release the tracks are <blah blah blah>").  The French article says it is the EMI release.  I can't say if there is only one EMI release, but if so, all is well.  I also feel any other decently sourced origin for the track times could be included (even if there are more than two, it can't be that many.  Obviously, the random editors who come in and adjust the times without a source can continue to be reverted until a proper source is provided. (and if an orchestral score actually was published/archived, I'd love to do what I could to acquire a copy!) -Verdatum (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not against it, but maybe we can prepare a proposed update on someone's sandbox page for review before placing it in the article?  Pink Floyd's European releases have been on EMI since 1987, so it's my understanding all CD releases of AHM for the continent including UK are on that label, and most do not have track splits.  (All guesswork on my part; my record collection is mostly vinyl.)  I'd still like to hear from someone who actually has the CD with splits, and I'm not sure we can cite French Wiki when they do not have a citation, but at this point I'm not against putting it in the article, maybe with a "citation needed" tag.  I keep mentioning a reference library because there is a good one in my city with a big music archive department, and I'll bet they have it, but I haven't been in there in years; just trying to remind myself to go in and look it up some day. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

text: On second thought, it's probably not that big of a deal, so I've gone ahead and copied the French wiki track list to the article.  If anyone wants to add another proposed division, go ahead; I'm only against removing one set of divisions to replace it with another. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Parts

message: A citation on the question of who (Ron Geesin, Alan Parsons, or Peter Bown) says the two bits of studio chatter would be valuable.  This article seems to be the only web page that suggests a person, and a usenet search turns up only a controversy over whether it is Parsons or Geesin.
: Alan Parsons didn't work with Pink Floyd until Dark Side of the Moon in 1972/73, before this Parsons was a junior/trainee engineer. I believe the spoken parts (like "silence in the studio!") were done by Mason. – Dyolf87 (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Who talks ?

message: The article says "It is also the only Pink Floyd song over 18 minutes long without lyrics.". Which is the one that is 18 minutes, and also is without lyrics? If there isn't one, why was 18 minutes chosen?
Well, the next longest instrumental they have is A Saucerful of Secrets, no? That one's 12 minutes. IceKeyHunter 07:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I modified it with a more convenient time: 15 minutes --200.118.217.125 23:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does have lyrics. "This is a loud announcement" or whatever it says, and "Silence in the studio". Not to mention the "scat" lyrics (appropriate pun!) in Funky Dung. --Matt Westwood 12:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you need to familiarise yourself with what a lyric is. Spoken words within a piece of music do not, necessarily, constitute a lyric. – Dyolf87 (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "It is also the only Pink Floyd song over 18 minutes long without lyrics." 

message: The spoken line - "silence in the studio!" i always thought was a nick mason line rather than alan parsons. Im not sure whether pink floyd had even met alan parsons at this time.
:This was the first of two Pink Floyd albums in which Parsons was an engineer (the other being The Dark Side of the Moon). For more discussion on who spoke that bit and the "Here is a loud announcement" bit, see above. --69.79.198.71 23:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alan Parsons - Nick Mason 

message: Something interesting I came across: what appears to be the original score autographed by Ron Geesin.
Heres's what I can make from it:
Fah 
See co ba 
Neee toe 
Ka reelo yea 
Sa sa sa sa sa 
Fss Drrrr boki 
Rapateeka dodo tah 
Rapateeka dodo cha 
Ko sa fa mee ya 
Na pa jee te' fia 
Na pa ru be' m 
Ba sa coo ba sa coo 
Ba sa coo Ba sa cooooooo 
Ku ku loo ku loo 
Yea yea yea hm 
Hm ku ku loo 
You too boo coo coo joo 
Foo goo hoo joo 
Loo moo poo roo 
Ooooooo
80.203.49.238 10:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mother Fore "lyrics" 

message: The image :Image:AtomHeartMotherCover.jpeg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:AtomHeartMotherCover.jpeg

message: I believe that that piece of dialogue may have been misinterpreted. I always heard "hear is a loud announcement", and several other websites have listed it as being that. I'll change it for now, and if anyone knows it to be any different then they can revert it  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattybigback (talk • contribs) 16:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, I reverted it before seeing your explanation.  I just gave it a listen, and I think there is indeed a one-syllable word, stretched out, in place of "important".  But I can't hear it as "loud", and I can't think of why someone would announce that.  I wonder if it might be "odd"?  The first part is definitely "Here is a..." (or "an"), and no trace of "now".  Looking at the other announcement, "Silence in the studio", it sounds like PF stuck in some engineer's studio chatter for their amusement.  I'd say put your change back in, but cite one of the websites you mention, preferably not one that labels it as copy-vio "lyrics". --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've listened to it very carefully on headphones. I'm now fairly sure it says "There is now an important announcement". The word "important" (in the right channel) is obscured by the noises that are happening elsewhere - in binaural listening conditions the "important" is not obscured. --Matt Westwood 06:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is now an important announcement 

message: As I recall, off the top of my head, because of the crazy logistics required, this piece has only been performed live a few times.  If I am correct in that, then it might be appropriate to have a section discussing these few performances.  I mention this because of the newly added content about a June 2008 performance (currently unverified).  It feels a little weird to have it in the lead section.
Also, I believe I remember some quotes from Roger Waters, talking about his negative experience recording the piece, due to the attitude of the ochestral musicians or something like that.  I believe I heard that bit on the BBC Radio documentary on Pink Floyd (available online).  If I or someone else could confirm that quote with a source, it would probably be good content to add. -Verdatum (talk) 22:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was performed about as frequently as other early (pre-"Dark Side") pieces.  They went on tour with the orchestra (which only appeared on stage with the group for this piece) for a few months, which caused them to lose money, but continued to perform it for several years without the orchestra.  Usually the non-orchestral version is shortened to about 15 minutes, omitting the strange sound collage sections.  A version of it appears on their NET (PBS) special.  There is also a live version where the collage is replaced with a drum solo, but the bootleg I've heard of it fades out during the solo, and is incomplete, so I'm just guessing it returns to the main theme to end.  I'll let you decide if any of this is worth putting in the article.  But as I've said elsewhere, information taken from listening to bootlegs is rather close to original research, and often seems to be inserted as a means of the editor boasting that he's got the bootlegs.  I would rather see these articles concentrate on the recorded versions.  But some mention of live versions, if significant and non-opinionated, is fine. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 09:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

text: PS, I suppose it's okay for the new performance to be in the lead section, since it included 2 of the composers, and is not just a cover version.  As for verifiability, it's on Youtube, if that helps.  Considering all the negativity the band had toward the piece post 1970s, especially Waters saying he would never perform it again for any money, and others saying the composition wasn't that great, it's nice to see Gilmour showing a change of heart by endorsing its revival. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 09:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, thanks for all the info!  Lines like Waters saying he'd never perform it again would be good to add to the article (with source obviously).  I always found the band members' lack of enthusiasm for the piece to be quite curious, it's one of my favorites.  Going by bootlegs is too OR-ish for my taste (though now I'm gonna have to track these down, heh!); I had a foggy recollection of sources discussing performances, so I wanted to make the suggestion in case any of the fanatics could recall if and where such things were stated.  And yes, I agree it's fine that the 2008 performance is in the lead section, particularly as the article isn't terribly long.  I'll see what I can find when I have some free time. -Verdatum (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote is already on the album page, see Atom Heart Mother#Quotes.  Some negative comments are also in the Pink Floyd article. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performances 

message: My copy back from the mid-70's I'm pretty sure had the tracks separated out on the vinyl. This had Mind Your Throats Please finishing at 17:45 at the end of the explosion. Remergence then begins with reprises of all the previous themes over one another and interfering, culminating in the "Silence in the studio" thing. (Always cracked us teenage boys up.) The point being that the name "remergence" does kind of suggest a "re-appearance" of all the other themes. The finale of course is the reworking of Father's Shout after the call for order. --Matt Westwood 12:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Atom Heart Mother (suite). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061215024045/http://www.pinkfloyd-co.com:80/disco/ahm/ahm_album.html to http://www.pinkfloyd-co.com/disco/ahm/ahm_album.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Atom Heart Mother (suite). 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/20120404131546/http://www.rock.co.za/rogerwaters/ to http://www.rock.co.za/rogerwaters/
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) 00:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I was wondering if both bits of studio chatter are actually both Nick Mason. Sure the source just lists one but at the same time the interviewer also just mentions one. As the interview also acknowledges Alan Parson does not remember all of it so he might actually have forgotten that there are two bits. That said, I do think the voices do sound similar.Tapio1994 (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nick Masons voice in the song/suite 

message: The article says
Mind Your Throats Please (15:28–17:56)
Part one (15:28–16:42)
Part two (16:42–17:56)
Remergence (17:56–23:44)
The real ones are as follows
Mind Your Throats Please (15:28–19:49)
Part one (15:28–17:56)
Part two (17:56–19:49)
Remergence (19:49–23:44)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.167.178.176 (talk) 07:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time partition wrong