Talk:In Rainbows/Archive 1

message: The article says that the initial sessions were with Spike Stent. I thought that the 2005 session were produced by Nigel Godrich.--Merijn2 18:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nigel Godrich and Spike Stent 

message: A big list of songs that the band has played recently (or not so recently) isn't a reliable source that they are potentially on the album. If Johnny said "we're recording some of the songs we've been playing on tour," then that's a source. If not, the list violates WP:OR and WP:BALL and we don't need it. Certainly the "considered highly unlikely" list should be out. Staecker 01:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced song list 

message: First of all, it's a cheap word.  Second, Radiohead themselves don't use the word to describe the second CD of material.  See http://www.inrainbows.com/Store/MoreInfo.html?PID=2 ...  13:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, it's the de facto standard on Wikipedia for noting which tracks or discs are included as extras, often only on some releases. The current working "Enhanced CD" is much less clear. It can easily be interpreted to mean that this is an enhanced version of the standard CD. For these reasons, I think the "bonus" designator should be restored. --PEJL 16:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I dropped the heading and used this instead: "The discbox release of In Rainbows includes a second Enhanced CD, which contains eight additional tracks:" with a reference to the appropriate page on Radiohead's web site.  I think this will be more clear about what's going on. Wikipedia's conventions don't really apply here -- if the artist doesn't call it a bonus disc, then we shouldn't either.  -/- Warren 17:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be a heading, per WP:ALBUM#Track listing. Why wouldn't Wikipedia's conventions apply? We can call it a bonus disc if it is a bonus disc, even if the artist doesn't call it that. --PEJL 17:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've removed the word "bonus" 

message: *Five star review at Guardian Unlimited. - Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 14:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations for use 

message: The IGN review for In Rainbows has been put and taken down a number of times.  I can't agree that just because a site reviews games means it cannot also do 'professional' music reviews.  Why not?  Because computer game journalists are suddenly 'unprofessional' when they write about music?  I haven't read the IGN review myself, but I don't see why this review has been taken down.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugh2323 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the list of accepted professional review sites at WP:Album#Review_sites Anylayman 04:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well it is back now (the IGN review).  The thing I don't understand about the afformentioned page is that it lists sites that are not acceptable as well.  That leads me to think that if something is NOT on the list of banned sites, then it MAY be acceptable.  If this is not the case, then why bother to list unacceptable sites?  Wouldn't it just say that all other sites not on the list are banned?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugh2323 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The best way to be sure would be to create a discussion at the above talk page and see if the moderators agree it's a valid source. Anylayman 08:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:Album#Review sites is not an exclusive list, the sites listed are examples of acceptable review sources. The criteria for acceptable reviews are at WP:ALBUM#Professional reviews. --PEJL 10:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Common sense would dictate that a web site that's generally devoted to computer gaming is not in the same category of professionalism as the other reviews we have listed.  Remember that we have a maximum of 10 reviews we can include; we'd be better off choosing reviews from well-known music reviewers and news sources, and if we're smart about it, they'd be from a wider range of sources than the predominantly UK-based ones we have now.   -/- Warren 11:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The metacritic listing should be up today or tomorrow- perhaps it would be best to choose a representative sample from that? Anylayman 17:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IGN review 

message: There should be a section for this  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.249.74 (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is - In Rainbows#Critical reception. User:Kollision added it earlier today. — Matt Eason (Talk •  Contribs) 15:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When there is almost universal acclaim (as the paragraph says there is), it doesn't make sense to devote so much space to one single bad review.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.7.199 (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the person who included the Dusted Magazine review in the section, I've got to say, when I was reading the review I was thinking "this guy doesn't know what he's talking about". Of all the reviews I read (and I've read a lot), his is the only wholely negative one (a couple of others had negative comments). Would it be considered too POV if we removed his comments or would it be considered "making the article more accurate by not using a review by an idiot". Not so much I don't like, more Reliable sources. Tyler Fisher of Sputnikmusic comments are fair enough though and I even agree with him. Maybe someone could find some more negative comments to use instead of Dusted's - kollision 14:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. There are two negative reviews stated in this article, one is by someone who seems to not know what he is talking about and the other is from a website that has fairly low traffic - at least compared to the others referenced (sputnik) and the review isnt negative, but there is a little addition in the final paragraph saying the album doesnt have a standout track. I am going to pull these two comments until someone can find something that is acceptable as a reference. Blueshoc12 02:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception and Criticism 

message: The site (inrainbows.com) states that the discbox will be shipped on or before December 3rd. I have edited the page to reflect this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.112.247.224 (talk • contribs) 
:The way I see it, since the discbox will be shipped on or before December 3, it is fair to say that no one will recieve it before December 3. As such, when refering to the discbox's release date we should say 'December 3', when refering to when the discbox will be dispatched we should say 'on or before December 3'. kollision 14:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, didn't think about it like that. You're right. - kollision 00:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discbox release timeframe 

message: The statement "Radiohead had stated while recording that they would not make a decision on how to release their new material until it was finished." is supposed to be supported by this citation. I can't find anything in the article to support that. The closest is "They are out of a contract, but they're not actively looking for another one. They're getting on with doing what they do." A proper citation needs to be found, or the sentence removed. kollision 14:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's ok now, Relaxing has edited the sentence and provided a citation that matches the new information. kollision 13:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement not supported by its citation

message: Please do not start an edit war over genre, fellas.  It's just not worth it.
Some quick thoughts:
* Radiohead's genre is unclassifiable since Kid A.  Too many influences from too many sources.  You can't even say all of their songs are "rock," since rock is defined by an accented backbeat, and while most Radiohead songs have an accented backbeat, not all do (e.g. Pyramid Song)
* I think Alternative and Art Rock are pretty apt, but Radiohead has actually gone on record saying they don't want to be classified that way.  heh, too bad for them, I say!  I recognize why they want to disassociate with Art Rock, but let's face it, if you make an electronic-tinged rock song with a 5/4 time signature (15 Step) and nobody blinks, you're Art Rock.  Live with it!  ;)
* Pop is actually not all that left field.  Radiohead has gone on record saying that they make pop music (I don't have the source handy, but I can find it).  Not so much with In Rainbows, but at least as recently as Hail to the Thief, a good percentage of the songs had a structure that is characteristic of pop (e.g. verse/chorus).  So Pop isn't totally ridiculous, though it carries connotations that I think probably don't describe Radiohead very well.
* Edit warring over genre is stupid, so let's not do it.  See the revision history of Underoath.  Oy.  What a bunch of dumb kids.
So those are my thoughts on genre.  I'd say Art Rock is most apt. --Jaysweet 15:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Genres are not proper nouns, and should not be capitalized. See WP:MUSTARD#Capitalization. --PEJL 15:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: So are you suggesting we remove the genre classification from the infobox altogether?  Cuz I don't see a WP:RS for any genre right now.. --Jaysweet 17:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Allmusic has defined it as "Alternative Pop/Rock" and "Experimental Rock" .  -/- Warren 02:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Genre

message: I've removed the following from the article: "In late March 2007, the band posted the words "Mixing it" on Dead Air Space". It was there supposedly to imply that the band was mixing the album in March, although that fact is only based on two words "Mixing It". Misinterpreted? It wouldn't even make sense that the band would be mixing the album in March when they only finished recording in June. If they really were mixing in March, please provide proper evidence. - kollision 16:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're reading too much into it. It's a factual statement, backed up by a source, about something that really did happen. It doesn't push a POV and it's not saying that the band were mixing it in March, so it doesn't need to provide evidence that they were.  Replenished entry 17:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then what does it say that is relevant to the article? --Richmeistertalk 18:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't know, don't care. I just know it wasn't supposedly implying anything Replenished entry 20:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think I agree with the Richmeister that this doesn't really add anything. It may have seemed relevant months ago when this was an article full of obscure tidbits about the album's progress, but I don't think that this information has any lasting notability. Staecker 19:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So it sounds like everyone here is in agreement:  The statement was well-sourced and so didn't fail WP:RS or WP:V, but it just doesn't really add anything to the article anymore and is better if removed.  --Jaysweet 20:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur — Matt Eason (Talk •  Contribs) 21:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mixing It

message: The album got itself the first top ten places in the weekly chart in Last.fm
One place for each song...
http://www.lastfm.es/music/+charts/?charttype=weekly&subtype=track&range=1191758400-1192363200
--Rodrigopenalba 04:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was mentioned in the article a few days ago, but was taken out most likely due to irrelevancy. Vanishdoom 04:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe if we open a section for Trivia and diverse facts for this album... it's just a suggestion. --Rodrigopenalba 08:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No way, we're having a hard enough time getting rid of trivia sections. Read WP:TRIVIA.--SeizureDog 09:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, it seems relevant to me. Is it a slightly random fact? Yes, i suppose so, but it's the best indicator we have of the success of the album. mattbuck 23:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top ten tracks in Last.fm 

message: A couple of people are saying that AMG has published a review.  I'm not seeing it.  The "Review" tab is disabled, and the link that's being proposed only shows a track listing.  What's going on here?   -/- Warren 13:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They haven't published a review, just a score - 4.5 out of 5. Apparently they do this quite often, giving the score first, followed up by a review a short time later. But I'm pretty amazed someone hasn't got something ready by now, this being the most talked about release of the year and all... They did do a blog article on it, but even that was laughably late. AMG on the way out...? :( Phyte 13:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was up earlier and the page went blank with all the info just recently. Something's up with their site, possible cache problems. It'll sort itself out in due time. Vanishdoom 13:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's up for me - http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:0zfuxz8hldde~T1 — Matt Eason (Talk •  Contribs) 14:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Strange.  When I go to that page, I see nothing at all... the page footer is directly underneath the tabs.  Is the review the same as what was posted here in their blog?  -/- Warren 14:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's the same one (apart from different links and paragraph breaks). It appears to only be up on some of the mirrors. (It's up here but not here.) --PEJL 14:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It's still not working for me, but whatever, it appears to be a temporary technical problem.  That said, it's a pretty poor review compared to the other ones.   -/- Warren 15:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What a disappointment. I was hoping for an all-new review Phyte 20:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AMG 

message: The Stylus review is much more comprehensive and I think most people would feel it has more 'influence' than Virgin Media. Knowing you 12:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replaced Virgin Media with Stylus review