Talk:Radiohead
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Radiohead is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article uses British English dialect and spelling. Some terms that are used in it differ from, or are not used in, American English. For more information, see American and British English differences. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 To-do list for Radiohead: |
edit · history · watch · refresh |
|---|---|
|
"INFLUENCE" subsection of "Style and Songwriting" needs work. Shouldn't be much longer, but the listing of some random acts that may have covered one Radiohead song, and the mention of a Rolling Stone list few would consider the most relevant measure of influence, are neither appropriate to the neutral tone of a featured article, nor appropriate to sum up the place (for better and worse) that Radiohead are seen to occupy in the music industry/popular imagination. Anyone with any ideas to make this a better section, please discuss them on this page first. I think the current last sentences must leave a bad taste in the reader's mouth about the merits of this article. |
|
 |
This article was a past Alternative Music Collaboration of the Week! You can view this week's collaboration, or view other past collaborations. |
 Archives |
| 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
[edit] Radiohead's Greatest Hits, and Boxset
http://www.ateaseweb.com/2008/02/09/emi-to-release-radioheads-greatest-hits/
It's fairly clear the band have nothing to do with these releases. Should any of this go back into the article, to make the disputes between ex-label very clear, and to help make more distinct who has the rights to what? Maybe once the details ofthe GH are a little more solid. LiamUK (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "Scott Tenorman Must Die"
Shouldn't one notice Radiohead's guest appearance in the South Park episode Scott Tenorman Must Die? I think it's a quite important fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.140.22.64 (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, especially since they are one of the very few celebrities who have guest starred on South Park rather than being imitated. They also have this (http://www.waste.uk.com/Store/waste-radiohead-dii-24-8-charity+white+older+tshirts.html) --RaphaelBriand (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This used to be on the page, but as part of an erstwhile trivia section which was removed in a bid to get to FA. But the information would, in my opinion, be more appropriate on the South Park page or even the individual episode page rather than here. Atlantik (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Dispute resolution: section heading
Please discuss the naming of the "In Rainbows" section heading here before altering it. We should try to achieve consensus and stick to the final decision. It's bad for the reader if things are being continually reverted. The suggestions I've seen so far include:
- In Rainbows and a new release method (2005–present)
- In Rainbows and "pay what you want" (2005–present)
- In Rainbows and a new pricing scheme (2005–present)
- In Rainbows and a change of labels (2005–present)
- In Rainbows and going independent (2005 – present)
- In Rainbows and leaving EMI (2005 – present)
Please discuss your preferred option, or propose an alternative (don't just vote!). Personally, I'd prefer to stick with any of numbers 4-6, or something like "In Rainbows and independent work" as it sums up the entire period. "Pay as you want" only lasted for a couple of months, and isn't a fair summary of the band's career in this entire 3 year period. Papa November (talk) 12:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I strongly support In Rainbows and leaving EMI (2005 – present), or "going independent" and "change of labels." The change of a record label is a significant event in the history of any band. Furthermore, the others are misleading; yes, In Rainbows was offered for free, but as far as we know this was a one-time-only deal. It is far too early to hail it as a "new release method." faithless (speak) 20:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I support the options selected by Faithlessthewonderboy. In contrast, the title "In Rainbows and "pay what you want" (2005–present)" is the worst possible choice and, quite frankly, utterly shit. Now there's some grammatical leeway with section titles, but that title is horrendously awkward (amplified by the word "and"). I'm for the use of quotes in sections titles if they are sensible (U2 uses the phrase "Reapplying to be the best band in the world" as a section title, because it is a notable quote that summarizes the point), but this quote is fairly random and not all that illustrative of what actually happened. Seriously, it's nonsensical, poorly constructed, and just plain horrible. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I support "pay what you want" (or as it should really be written pay-what-you-want). Yes, pretty ugly looking phrase, but the most appropriate. Google "In Rainbows" and you will see most news articles and reviews discuss pay-what-you-want heavily. The fact they left EMI is usually only briefly mentioned. To most people pay-what-you-want has been the most important thing Radiohead have done in recent years. Leaving EMI is really only important to fans (especially fans who write Wikipedia articles). As an encyclopedia article it should reflect what is widely seen as important, not what a bunch of fans think is important.Surlytim (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- We should try to be objective: we need a section heading that reflects the content of the section accurately. Every other section does this, for example the "Pablo Honey, The Bends and early success" section describes each of those things in detail. The "In Rainbows and insert preference" section however, only dedicates a couple of lines to the entire pay-what-you-want subject. It spends as much time describing the regular releases. Let's ask ourselves "what is this section talking about"? I'd sum up the section by saying it's talking about In Rainbows and the band's independent work since leaving EMI. Now, if I could only find a succinct way of saying that...! Papa November (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- To be fair then, "leaving EMI" is only discussed in a couple of lines. Perhaps independent work/going independent would be a better compromise as you suggest. Surlytim (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I was one of the ones changing it back to "Pay what you want" a few months ago (my reason: it was certainly preferable to the hilariously awkward "a new release method" or to "leaving EMI," since at least "pay what you want" refers to the music that WAS released during this period rather than simply the record label they had already departed). But both were bad, overly specific titles once we get into 2008, and I think everyone found a brilliant compromise with "...and independent work". The fact that band members' solo work accelerates in this period also helps make it an appropriate title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.130.89.26 (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Actually, in case anyone ever wants to change it back, I forgot my #1 objection to "leaving EMI"- it was that section titles should make some sense for the layperson reader who is not yet familiar with the subject. they serve to orient these readers, who may not want to read the whole article. while the ins and outs of what constitutes an independent label may not be clear to everyone, the phrase "independent work" (as with the other, good section titles) is quite clear in a general way, giving an idea what may be in the section even to someone who has never read a single word about pop music before. Whereas it's well possible that even many Radiohead hardcore fans in this day and age, much less the general wiki-reading public, may have no idea in advance of reading this article what "EMI" is. If this term "EMI" were extremely central to the theme of the article it would need to be used as a section title regardless of not being understood by laypeople, but this is not the case at all. 172.130.89.26 (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- The article gives adequate context and explanation of what EMI is. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- 1, 2, or 6. --RaphaelBriand (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- comment: Can you give a reason for your preferences? Simple voting is generally discouraged. Thanks Papa November (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, in case anyone ever wants to change it back, I forgot my #1 objection to "leaving EMI"- it was that section titles should make some sense for the layperson reader who is not yet familiar with the subject. they serve to orient these readers, who may not want to read the whole article. while the ins and outs of what constitutes an independent label may not be clear to everyone, the phrase "independent work" (as with the other, good section titles) is quite clear in a general way, giving an idea what may be in the section even to someone who has never read a single word about pop music before. Whereas it's well possible that even many Radiohead hardcore fans in this day and age, much less the general wiki-reading public, may have no idea in advance of reading this article what "EMI" is. If this term "EMI" were extremely central to the theme of the article it would need to be used as a section title regardless of not being understood by laypeople, but this is not the case at all. 172.130.89.26 (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] Discography link
The current external discography link is to MusicBrainz, which is pretty unusable. I'd suggest rhdiscog.com. Just an opinion of course, but MusicBrainz seems to be listing a whole load of bootlegs, which is hardly a discography, really! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.60.26 (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
the discography link should be to the discography on ateaseweb.com, the leading radiohead fan website —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.248.6 (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Band picture???
Why is it in black&white? Are they trying to be portrayed as some old school beatle-like band thus making them appear awesome? Seriphyn (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think it would look pretty bad in colour: all the source images are under very different lighting, so it's much better to just strip it down to B&W. Papa November (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Why not use one of the images released by the band on the In Rainbows disc? Or is this not fair usage? Arveigh (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Copyrighted images can never be used when there is a free alternative available. See WP:NONFREE for more information. Papa November (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Why not use one of the images released by the band on the In Rainbows disc? Or is this not fair usage? Arveigh (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Jonny's Picture
He's not playing an electronic instrument in this picture, so i think its inappropriate to refer to a variety of electronic instruments in a very specific period of time in the caption that does not actually relate to the picture. He is playing Glockenspiel in the picture. Tylerisfat (talk) 08:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
oh god... if true, THAT NEEDS FIXING. :) 172.130.89.26 (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 2008 Tour in South America
The band has not confirmed if they will tour South America in 2008. The statement that they will tour Norht America, Europe, South America and Japan must be corrected, unless there is official confirmation that they will tour all the mentioned regions. The article backing up these regions does not mention South America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.78.198.3 (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Humph
I have just been reading in Humphrey Lyttleton's obituary that he played on a 7 hour session for Amnesiac. Yet I can find no mention of it in the Radiohead article. Was his recording used? If so, it should be mentioned. Amnesiac is one of the few Radiohead albums I don't own! DavidFarmbrough (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- The piece he worked on was 'Life in a Glass House,' which is the last track off Amnesiac. I think such a small part on a b-sides album does not really warrant a mention 12.183.126.18 (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Slayer13
[edit] replacing false myspace link
dear wiki
www.myspace.com/radiohead isn't the band's myspace page. dunno why, but the url is www.myspace.com/215759866
cheers - jame —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.248.249 (talk) 04:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've removed the template anyway - it's really only intended for user pages, not as a reference for articles. Papa November (talk) 10:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Towering Above the Rest
If anyone knows more about Towering Above the Rest than I do. Please add it to that article It is seemingly a collection of lots of bootlegs which seem to have a lot of hits in google
Francium12 (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Bootlegs aren't really notable enough to mention. Papa November (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Seems strange we have Category:Bootleg albums then Francium12 (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "electronic music"
Any sources?--SilverOrion (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- 2530 Google News hits, 359 Google Scholar hits and 229 Google Books hits. faithless (speak) 09:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Paranoid Android, the longest song?
As per:
"Paranoid Android", Radiohead's first single from OK Computer, consisted of three sections, computerized voices, and abrasive guitar solos. It was the band's highest charting single thus far and remains the longest song they have released.
In fact, Motion Picture Soundtrack is 6:59 whereas Paranoid Android is only 6:23. I realise a large part of the former is whitespace, but since it's listed as longer in the Kid A article, isn't it wrong to state that the latter is longer?
[edit] In Rainbows Release
Why does someone continually change the release date from 'October 10, 2007' back to 'October, 2007'? It is an established fact that the record came out that day, so why can't the wiki show that information? 12.183.126.18 (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Slayer13
