Talk:Spirit of Eden: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:34, 4 October 2009

Albums C‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Alternative music C‑class Low‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Colour of Spring

"Spirit of Eden's experimental nature was in contrast to the pop leanings of Talk Talk's previous releases, the most recent being their 1986 hit The Colour of Spring." - I had tought Colour of Spring was the break away from their pop sound. Ceoil 13:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it. Punctured Bicycle 05:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"While Talk Talk were not favourites amongst critics, the European commercial success of their first two albums provided enough money to incorporate acoustic instruments on 1986s The Colour of Spring." - This has been rephrased, but I don't get it. Normally an acoustic album signals "No Cash Here". Should it read orchestra. Ceoil 21:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustic just means any "real" instrument—piano, violin, harmonica, trumpet, etc. It's in contrast to synthesizer. Punctured Bicycle 23:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)#[reply]

So why not just say that. Ceoil 23:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it would be a long winded way of saying what acoustic already captures by itself. If the article referred to the album as an "acoustic album", I'd sympathize with your concern, but it doesn't say that. Punctured Bicycle 23:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reading so that money, effectively, should mean "Additional musicians". Ceoil 23:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If c/e contributes are not welcome, you might however cut out some of the blue links. As a tip maybe assume your audience is aware of basic English. Ceoil 01:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedits that improve the text are welcome. Arbitrary edits that do nothing other than make the text conform to your own personal style aren't. I don't know which blue links you have a problem with, but "tour" has been delinked (although I don't think it was much of a problem). Punctured Bicycle 03:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is the right way to put in an comment, but I try :) In the artical there is written: "Around November, Tim Pope directed a music video for "I Believe In You", featuring Hollis sitting with his guitar, singing the lyrics."... It can not be recorded around November 'cos I was on 18 august 1988 at the press presentation of the album in the Imax theatre at The Hague... (and yes I met Mark Hollis there :), and they showed the videoclip of "I believe in you" there. Appeboy (talk) 06:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.191.48.191 (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Talk Talk - I Believe In You video frame.jpg

Image:Talk Talk - I Believe In You video frame.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 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) 06:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Talk Talk - Spirit of Eden cover.jpg

Image:Talk Talk - Spirit of Eden cover.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 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) 06:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too much focus on negative reviews?

In the "critical reception" section, there is a short line saying it's been critically acclaimed, then a whole paragraph of negative criticism. Unfair? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.25.55 (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's because the negative criticism paragraph is easier to write, since there hasn't (to my knowledge) been much negative criticism directed towards the album. There is, by contrast, tons of positive criticism, and it will take work to combine it all into a few concise paragraphs. Wounder (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post-rock

Though this album and its follow-up Laughing Stock defies categorization and is all about sound and texture, experimentation and genre-bending, it simply can't be labeled as post-rock, since the genre didn't exist back then, even though they were highly influential to the genre. It's just like naming an artist from the 70s 'alternative rock'. This album and laughing stock is, if anything, art rock, through and through.Revan ltrl (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should actually be considered Ambient music. There's nothing art rock at all about this or Laughing Stock. It's too minimalist.--Degree9 (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 06:39, 10 February 2009 edit WesleyDodds (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 55,176 edits No edit summary ← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:34, 4 October 2009 edit undo Degree9 (talk \| contribs) 99 edits No edit summary Next edit →
Line 44:		Line 44:

	Though this album and its follow-up Laughing Stock defies categorization and is all about sound and texture, experimentation and genre-bending, it simply can't be labeled as [[post-rock]], since the genre didn't exist back then, even though they were highly influential to the genre. It's just like naming an artist from the 70s 'alternative rock'. This album and laughing stock is, if anything, [[art rock]], through and through.[[User:Revan ltrl\|Revan ltrl]] ([[User talk:Revan ltrl\|talk]]) 00:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)		Though this album and its follow-up Laughing Stock defies categorization and is all about sound and texture, experimentation and genre-bending, it simply can't be labeled as [[post-rock]], since the genre didn't exist back then, even though they were highly influential to the genre. It's just like naming an artist from the 70s 'alternative rock'. This album and laughing stock is, if anything, [[art rock]], through and through.[[User:Revan ltrl\|Revan ltrl]] ([[User talk:Revan ltrl\|talk]]) 00:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

			:I think it should actually be considered [[Ambient]] music. There's nothing art rock at all about this or Laughing Stock. It's too minimalist.--[[User:Degree9\|Degree9]] ([[User talk:Degree9\|talk]]) 15:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)