Talk:In Rainbows

Amplive Remix Album

Does this page warrant a section about the Amplive remix album. The DJ did the remixes, got a cease and desist, and then the band heard them and allowed him to release them for free. Do a news search right now and it's on Pitchfork, Rollingstone, NME, Q, Paste, Wired, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.247.1 (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Here's a link for the AmpLive album (called "Rainydayz Remixes"). There is also another remix album out there called "Rhyming in Rainbows". I think maybe a section on these remixes would be appropriate. Anyone else agree? Shnakepup (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Pitchfork (again...)

I don't know if anybody noticed it previously but... in a somewhat unusual move, they gave a separate review and rating to the bonus disc... on December 14. --200.118.203.21 (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Good Article Review - Failed

This article fails to meet criterion #5 as it was physically released two days ago. Therefore, information regarding this article will change erratically, such as chart positions and sales figures. NSR77 ^T_C 22:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Although in every other respect it seems as though it should be able to pass GA. I just got the album today and am listening to it for the first time... this should be renominated in a month or so.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Record label in infobox

Let's talk about the record label in the infobox. I think it should be 'Self-released' but others think it should be 'XL Recordings, TBD Records'. According to {{Infobox Album#Label}} only the record label that the album was originally released on should be specified which would mean 'Self-released' since it was first released as the digital download. Even if you were to ignore that, listing XL and TBD does not represent a worldwide perspective. Why list the US and UK labels and not Australia, Canada and Japan's labels? They weren't even the first countries to release the album on CD. - kollision (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It currently contradicts the second sentence of the intro. Or, for a compromise, get rid of the field as there's clearly a whole section on it for people who want to find out. –Pomte 11:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I see four options here:

1. Blank record label field
2. Self-released
3. (See 'Release history' section)
4. Self-released (Details below)

- kollision (talk) 09:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm definitely for option 4. It's the earliest known release and probably the one that's made the bigger impact, thus, more notable than a couple labels that a large majority of people don't know about or have an interest in. —Vanishdoom (talk) 10:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

MK1

Just a suggestion, but it's perhaps worthy of a mention that "MK1" samples "Videotape" from disc 1. Orangekubrick (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

GA on hold comments

These are essentially just copy editing suggestions.

• When you first mention OK Computer, give it a wikilink. Same with Hail to the Thief.
• "…suddenly everyone is being spontaneous and no one's self-conscious because you're not in the studio... it felt like being 16 again" Use a more standard ellipsis (…) for this and the other times when you use them.
• "The lyrics are quite caustic – the idea of 'before you're comatose' or whatever," Use an unspaced em dash (—) instead of a spaced en dash ( – ).
• "…it's very colourful - I've finally embraced colour!" Use an unspaced em dash instead of a hyphen.
• "every record for the last four — including my solo record — has been leaked." Use em dashes rather than en dashes.
• "45 RPM"—"rpm" need not be capitalized.
• "The box includes a second enhanced CD which contains 8 additional tracks," since the number (eight) is below ten, it should be written out rather than using a symbol, per the MoS.
• "The album was released on CD and vinyl in Japan by BMG on 26 December 2007," You mention the CD format before in the article, but link it here. Find the first occurrence, link that one, and then remove this.
  • Release in Japan was on Hostess, as the article (39) correctly states, not BMG.
• "Mediabase noted that "Jigsaw Falling into Place," You wikilink "Jigsaw Falling into Place" earlier in the article, so this one should be removed."
• The links titled "Mix Of Art And Morality", "It's Up To You", and "Discbox: Details" are dead. Please fix or remove them.
• When you write things such as ""15 Step" – 3:57", em dashes, not en dashes, should be used.

Kakofonous (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Just curious -- why are you making a list of extremely straightforward fixes to the article, that requires no knowledge of the subject, rather than improving the encyclopedia by just doing the work yourself? -/- Warren 16:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Because it's a review and these are for the article's nominator to fix, not me. Kakofonous (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

We're all here to improve the encyclopedia, not to run around writing to-do lists for other people to act on. It isn't your position to give other people tasks. Fucking hell, man, it takes less time to add wikilinks to an article than it takes to write a to-do item that says "add wikilinks here and here". Think about it! -/- Warren 17:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As you can see from my contribs, I generally do correct mistakes that I find in articles, but, when reviewing a GA nom, I review the article, leaving the corrections to the article's nominator. Kakofonous (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed these issues, but I think that en dashes are more suitable for tracklistings; at least that's my understanding of the MOS. Atlantik (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Passed

I passed the article, as I had no issues besides the mechanical ones I mentioned. Kakofonous (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Bonus Track

In Rainbows has been out ages and I am wondering if anyone could shed some light on whether this is true... http://covertarget.com/si.php?cat=1&id=201358&sid=6675

Seems there's a bonus track on some version of the In Rainbows album. I only have 10 tracks and I'm in England. Any US In Rainbows owners care to elaborate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.3.6 (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

also another thing... isn't 'Last Flowers' called 'Last Flowers To The Hospital' ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.3.6 (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe as a bootleg it was "Last flowers to the hospital" as a work in progress, but the official release is just "Last flowers" full stop. 67.5.157.118 (talk) 06:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That cover is pure photoshop. Highly unlikely that this is legit. —Vanishdoom (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Vanishdoom is correct—that cover itself acknowledges that it's fan-made, based on the In Rainbows website. As for I Want None Of This, Radiohead contributed that song to a compilation charity album back in 2005 (like they originally did with Lucky, except that ended up on OK Computer as well). — maestrosync ^{talk&contribs}, 03:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Critical reception

Having gone through the article, I want to say it's quite near ready for a new Featured Article Candidates nomination. There is one major flaw left that needs to be addressed: the critical reception section. There's a lot of reviews by minor publications cited; with any album (particularly with one of this impact and notability in mainstream media) you want to cite reviews from the most notable publications possible. I've added the Rolling Stone review, but other reviews by the likes of NME, Time, Spin, The New York Times, All Music Guide, and so forth need to be worked into that section before this article can be taken to FAC. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem with doing this except for one thing - the only well-written negative reviews (that go into negative aspects of the music in any conclusive depth) are written by The Wire, Slant, and the Austin Chronicle, and so I'm not sure if any of those publications would satisfy any criterion in regards to their mainstream profile. Atlantik (talk) 12:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The Wire is pretty notable. We just want to avoid random web critics or college papers when what Rolling Stone and NME say has far more impact and importance. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed a few of the reviews; would you say that the article is ready for another FA nomination at this point? Atlantik (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Put in a couple more of the major reviews. Quote the NME, at least. Also, I'm not too fond of the sentences at the end that summarize multiple reviews and are citd with numerous footnotes in a row. It's close to original research. Either find a source that makes the observations directly ("_____ said a number of reviewers praised the album for not being overshadowed by its marketing campaign . . .") or quote one or two reviews that made that point. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's the Spin review; [1]. I'll try to find the print version so i can find the number of stars they gave it. It's a bit hard to figure out which is the proper New York Times review for the album, but the article "Pay What You Want for This Article" looks like that might be it. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Last.fm record

Would it be worth mentioning that the album is by far the most succesful on the last.fm database over the past 5 months? Of the top ten spots per week for 20 weeks (that's 200 top spots in total) In Rainbows has held at least 187 of those, possibly 197 depending on the figures for last week to be released in the next few hours. Every single track from the album has held one of the top ten spots at least 17 times in the last 20 weeks on the largest music-listening trend database on the internet (over 15million users).

Surely this staggering statistic is worth noting, if only as a reflection of the album's impact outside of the critical/commercial arena? Max xxx (talk) 10:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That does seem quite impressive, but is original research and synthesis - unless someone has a page which says this, we can't include it. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not notable whatsoever. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Last.FM is definately notable, if that's what your getting at. Radiohead is the 2nd most played band on there, with a little over 100,000,000 plays. 1st is the Beatles with 110,000,000 plays.

the band in third has like 49,000,000, nowhere close. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 10:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

There seems to be a bit of a war about the inclusion of trivia. It seems to me that the fact that In Rainbows has the same number of letters as OK Computer is so trivial as to not be worth mentioning unless there is a source showing that the band deliberately intended there to be such similarity (see WP:Trivia). The quote associated with the trivia (which is not sourced) does not by itself strengthen the tie. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 14:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Unlike the critics quotes used, there is nothing opinionated about what I have added to the article (eg. saying that there are 'no weak tracks' is an opinion). I have not speculated that it was Radiohead's deliberate intention to have the same of numbers. I just thought that, as they have most notably compared In Rainbows to OK Computer it was worthy as being included as trivia. There is a larger question of why some relatively well known critic's opinion is considered more worthy of inclusion than some relatively unknown critic's (I myself) statement of fact but I realise that is how Wikipedia works, just like any dusty encyclopedia. Also, when removing anybody's work from Wikipedia, those users are supposed to put a brief description why they are doing that. If they don't then their edit has been done for unknown reasons and therefore is essentially not valid in the eyes of the person who added the information in the first place and to anyone who agreed with it being added in the first place. I even took the courtesy of stating why I was putting my entry back in so why couldn't they have the courtesy to say why they were removing mine? (Picnico) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Picnico (talk • contribs) 15:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You were provided with a few links as to why. First off, wikipedia does not encourage trivia sections, and that OK Computer and In rainbows have the same number of letters is most likely pure coincidence, and unless there is some statement otherwise, should be regarded as such. In fact, both aforementioned albums have the same # of letters as "Pablo Honey", and did you know that "Kid A" and "fish" have the same number of letters? Also, the quote is uncited, which might lead to the article losing its featured status. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It's sub-trivia. It's so pointless and such a product of original research it has absolutely no place in this article. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

15 step page?

Could someone create a page about the song, 15 Step? It's a little different from the other tracks on 'In Rainbows' as it's recorded in a 5/4 time signature. Just a suggestion, much appreciated if someone ends up creating it. Thanks! Ard0 ^{(Talk - Contribs)} 03:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

singles

how come the singles aren't mentioned anywhere on the page? somebody fix this. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 10:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Nvm, fixed it myself. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 10:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

criticism

Shouldn't there be a mention of the criticism surrounding the online release? Critics complain that the download was relatively low-quality MP3. 64.223.183.170 (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Signed by Bro2baseball (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)