Jump to content

Talk:Black Holes and Revelations: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
JAK2112 (talk | contribs)
Line 168: Line 168:


: http://www.bbc.co.uk/totp/new_releases/soon.shtml [[User:CfW|CfW]] 07:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
: http://www.bbc.co.uk/totp/new_releases/soon.shtml [[User:CfW|CfW]] 07:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Though this may be a rumor, apperantly on December 10th, Kerrang radio announced that Invincible would be the next single from Black Holes and Revelations. However, I have yet to find any articles confirming this, so for now it appears to just be speculation. [[User:JAK2112|JAK2112]] 04:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:10, 12 December 2006

Any idea (if any) which classical pieces influence take a bow?

WikiProject iconAlbums Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis 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.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Map of the Problematique

If you go to this page it appears to have been deleted without reason.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_Of_The_Problematique Anybody know why?

The nazis tend to delete non-"notable" tracks, I just hope that when it is released as a single it'll be restored rather than a new article made in its place (a la Starlight). --Tene 21:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • erm, please refrain from calling the administrators 'nazis' please. The song, no matter how brilliant is happens to be (and let's face it, it is), is simply not notable enough in it's present form (as a non-single album track) for it's own seperate article Karma Llama 23:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of pissing off Radiohead fans with administrator attention, if this is the case then why the hell does Kid A get entries for every one of its songs? I think the existence of a song with a particular title is worth noting in Wikipedia, *as long as there is useful information in the article*.

Zebulon Macon 06:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the song's page should be there and I totally agree with Zebulon Macon. Elevenzeroone talk / contribs 19:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supermassive Black Hole release

According to Muse's site, the single won't be available for download until June 12th. Is there another site that will be releasing the song earlier, or is the article just inaccurate? -DMurphy 03:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.microcuts.net/uk/news/archives/05022006-new_single_downloadable_on_may_the_9th.php no sources for that but we will find out in 2 days;) Citizen erased 15:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's supposed to be a surprise. It's been confirmed by Tom Kirk, their manager though. http://board.muse.mu/showthread.php?p=1850539#post1850539 BigBlueFish 20:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation

Everywhere where the surrounding prose is correctly capitalised [1] the album is referred to as Black Holes And Revelations. HMV says it is too. I'm changing the references likewise. BigBlueFish 20:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Album Art

Does anyone agree with me that it doesn't look that Muse like... and i don't really like it, i definately prefered the fake one that looked really cool http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Blackholesandrevelations.JPG , anyone else agree?

does anyone know the reason why their atwork is down by storm thorgerson?

Because it is done by him. I'll try to find a source. --Tene 13:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GRRR i Hate that album art!!! i hope its fake! The other fake one was better

It's not fake. It was in the latest Muse newsletter & it is also in their news section. Btw, I can't find a source. --Tene 16:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the album art is very much in keeping with the Muse album art trend, and by that I mean it's dreadful. The album art for 'Showbiz', 'Absolution' and 'Black Holes and Revelations' all look dreadful, and they'll look even worse in the future. The art for 'Origin of Symmetry' is okay, if only because it's a little less pretentious. Drumnbach 10:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, everything Muse do is pretentious, that's why I love them so much ... Regardless, I dislike the album art - it's hardly accurate. The atmopshere wouldn't allow anyone from the surface to see any planets, & Earth is far too big to be Earth.--Tene 11:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the small issue that there are men sitting round a table. Why haven't their heads exploded from the low pressure, or the men at least collapsed from asphyxiation? Because it's mean to be surreal, that's why. I'm not sure the sky would appear blue with Mars's atmosphere either. Maybe Mars is meant to have spun out of orbit and is on a collision course with Earth? That would certainly be apocalyptic. Then our friends the horsemen could be used to explain this imminent disaster. Makes just as much sense as people's souls casting shadows on the ground, to be honest. Erm. What I meant to say was that this page is for discussing changes to the BHAR article, not for discussion of the album. Any further discussion should be taken to the forums. BigBlueFish 13:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The album art is credited to "the men of mystery"-i presume this is storm etc

iTunes says its by Storm, the album itself says the men of mystery. Perhaps iTunes just assumed, because the last album was done by him?

im 99% sure that its a storm album sleeve hey hold on, it says in the description that theres 4 horses on the table, but i only see 3, 2 white, one brown at the right side of the table explanation?

This was probably an assumption from when the only available image was fairly poor quality. I had thought the idea was they had one each. I corrected it. BigBlueFish 20:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted track article

Can someone restore Assassin now that the album has leaked? It's pretty obvious what was there is fact ... --Tene 04:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map Of The Problematiqué

From the track listing on the leak, it would appear that the last e is accented. Would anyone object to me changing it to be as such? --Tene 04:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would. Of all the professional reviews I have seen, none put an accent on the e. It seems to me whoever leaked it thought they were real good at French. They're not. Although it just occurred to me that the French word is actually spelt problématique. I guess nobody said it was French though, indeed nobody said it had an accent on the e. BigBlueFish 15:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm also pretty sure it doesnt have an é too, since it'd create a pronounciation somewhat like 'Problematikuay' Mr8131127126 10:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it would be "-kay," not "-kuay." --Macarion 19:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the é is not on the cover or in the booklet

Yes, it was leaked

No, it's not notable. Most albums get leaked prior to release. This one was leaked less than three weeks prior to sale of the first CDs. The date is unverifiable, it can't be linked to and therefore not cited. The Muse management haven't made any public statement which might make this particular leak somehow noteworthy. Please don't bring it up in the article without justifying doing so over here. BigBlueFish 19:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, someone's just done that on the article again, heh Mr8131127126 08:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How tiresome. I reverted it again. BigBlueFish 10:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Track times

I've seen someone has changed them back. Which copy, may I ask with blantant critisism, are you listening to? I direct rip would seem to disagree with you ... --Tene 08:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to remove the track timings altogether on the grounds that it constitutes embargoed information. Ultimately let's not get too worked up about it while the CD is still to be published. BigBlueFish 22:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming?

Should this article be called "Black Holes & Revelations"? That is what it says on the album cover. The iTunes Music Store says "Black Holes and Revelations" which looks more correct than "And". Any opinions? Mahahahaneapneap 21:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should take that with a grain of salt until at least the Japanese version comes out on the 28th, when someone gets to confirm up front how it's written. Isn't there a problem for MediaWiki software using ampersands in titles, anyway? --Tene 01:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, only on MuseWiki ;). Tom Kirk has spelt it Black Holes And Revelations several times. However, if it is written with an ampersand on the cover, I would assume it flexible and use lowercase "and" per Wikipedia naming conventions. The ampersand is simply an abbreviation of the word "and" anyway, and the catalog registration will use the word "AND". BigBlueFish 16:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest this article should be renamed "Black Holes and Revelations" as per Wikipedia naming conventions. Thus swapping it with the redirect at this title. Chardir 10:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rats. The redirect has a page history, so I can't move it myself. I've posted it on Requested Moves... here is the official bit. BigBlueFish 15:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Survey

The cover uses 'AND'. The sticker on the cover uses '&'. --222.153.159.17 04:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result:moved

Clear consensus. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MySpace preview

I checked just now to confirm the preview was available on their MySpace page, but can only seem to find two tracks. Have they removed this, or is it only available in some countries? (I'm in Japan) Match 00:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they've reverted to only two tracks. I've changed the article but I'm not sure it's even notable enough to be mentioned? Chardir 12:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... it might be of some use to people as there might be others wondering what's happened to it, but I don't know much about editorial policy here, only generally editing typos and phrasing myself. Match 23:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starlight will be a single?

Source? I remember reading that they said it is too obvious a single, so wouldn't be released as such. --Macarion 17:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Trivia' entries

The album notes do contain writing credits, it clearly states on the last page 'Songs by Matthew Bellamy'. Any 'ambiguity to the origin of the songs' is derived only from the original contributors inability to read and is both misleading and possibly damaging to the bands reputation

Secondly, I don't see any spelling errors in the 'Supermassive Black Hole' lyrics, both my own copy of the album notes and this one here include the word 'alight' spelled perfectly (note that both are from the earliest official release, and therefore are not reprints from a later date featuring corrections), does this 'spelling mistake' even exist? What copy of the album does it feature in?

Miranda07 02:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not mine, that's for sure. — mæstro t/c, 13:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Artwork criticisms

The suppoedly Martian imagery is incorrect on technical grounds, however, because

  • The sky is blue. Blue sky on Earth results from Rayleigh scattering of light by dust particles in the atmosphere. On Mars, the sky is pink due to dust comprising iron compounds suspended in the atmosphere.
  • The Earth and Moon in the sky are far too large for realism; Mars appears as a small, reddish point in Earth's night sky, and there is no reason to suspect that Earth would appear much larger from Mars.

I propose this be deleted; it's just artwork, it doesn't have to make sense. Plus, it's really irrelevant to the article. amsterdam528 22:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be mentioned somewhere, though if not in this article I doubt anyone would think it warrants and article of its own. --Tene 00:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I vote for deleting it. It's hardly encyclopedic information. Besides, give the cover artist some artistic license. I mean, you might as well criticise the Sgt. Pepper artwork for multiple anachronisms or something. (this was me by the way. - Tredanse 10:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete, While it is Encyclopedic, it's art... unless you also want to mention that four men would not scientifically be able to be sitting at a table on Mars without dying in the first place (have you considered that perhaps this is not the present day version of Mars to which these facts apply?), or that having flying people on the Absolution cover isn't physically possible, or that the orange sky and white earth on the Origin of Symmetry cover is innaccurate, or that Matt Bellamy couldn't fall through space and sing at the same time!!1 as seen in the Bliss video... Maybe we should mention that Soldiers Poem was actually written by a band and not a soldier too? Art doesn't need to be factual, it's an album cover, it's not like they are trying to fake a Mars landing, why do you feel the need to overanalyse it? Miranda07 20:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The four men, assuming they're the horsemen (I recall Bellamy stating in an interview that they are), wouldn't need a hospitable environment - they're immortal religious figures. --Tene 20:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And with that said, do you believe that realism is a major contributing factor to the concept of this artwork? Miranda07 23:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then as soon as you delete all the evaluation of fictional literature and art work on the Wiki, then I'll agree to delete :) --Tene 20:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, maybe as soon as you add references to the sky being pink (which funnily enough isn't all that accurate anyway, as while the colour of the sky on Mars is difficult to judge it is generally accepted to be tawny in colour, not pink, and would you believe that at sunrise/sunset the sky on Mars contains, yes... blue!) and the Earth not being visible (common knowledge, but what kind of boring artwork would that make?) to the Mars Wiki page, I will consider agreeing that this information is even remotely relevant to the Wiki page of a music album (or even accurate, for that matter... someone needs to do their homework) :) Miranda07 23:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you didn't read who contributed to that section - I have very little knowledge of the Martian surface, I haven't contributed to the section at all, perhaps you should be asking the contributer(s) to add the "tawny" sky bit. --Tene 11:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps my point was that you and Albrozdude are campaigning to keep information which not only do you fail to notice is incorrect, but is also far too complicated/debated to explain accurately on an album page while still being relevant to the subject, and is even missing from Mars' own page. Not to mention that there is plenty of evidence of blue sky on Mars, and we know how Muse love their conspiracy theories :) Miranda07 15:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What if Thorgerson made those mistakes diliberatly? What if it's meant to signify something? Maybe we don't need to "overanalyze" the artwork, but it is worth mentioning that a)Mars' sky is not blue and b)Earth appears too large in the sky.-albrozdude 20:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also note, the article for Knights of Cydonia points out the mistakes in the roman numerals in the music video.-albrozdude 05:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote to delete artwork criticisms

As of me posting this, the count is:

  • Delete - 5
  • Keep - 2 (however most of these votes suggest condensing this part of the article more than it currently is)

Unless someone can condense that part into something that we all agree on (like, a sentence or two at most), it should be deleted outright. Tredanse 15:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map of the Problematique similarity to Second Reality

This song sounds like it draws inspiration rather deeply from the Second Reality demo by Future Crew. Has anyone else drawn the same conclusion? What would be the best way to cover this in the article? (I obviously think it's worth mentioning.) --GargoyleMT 01:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map of The Problematique on ITV advert for champions league

I just saw an advert for the Champions League which used Map of the Problematique. Could someone please add this in somewhere? (I have no souces though) Mahahahaneapneap 18:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who decided Invincible will be a single?

I'm not flat out denying this, I just want to know if there's any sources, as it seems to have shown up as a link on the album page, as the next single on the Starlight page and in the singles section in the discography, without a cite =S Anyone got anything on this? AllySDude 22:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The latest fan mailing states that Knights of Cydonia will be the next UK single release. Chardir 12:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/totp/new_releases/soon.shtml CfW 07:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though this may be a rumor, apperantly on December 10th, Kerrang radio announced that Invincible would be the next single from Black Holes and Revelations. However, I have yet to find any articles confirming this, so for now it appears to just be speculation. JAK2112 04:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]