Talk:Hawkwind discography

Rename Various Artists albums

The wording of "Various Artists albums" seems awkward to me. I propose the section be renamed "Compilation appearances" or something similar.--Darknus823 (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Separate EP section

Hawkwind's EPs appear to be listed under the Singles section. Shouldn't the EPs have their own separate section?--Darknus823 (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Categorisations

For the first cut of this page, here's the reasons for some of the debatable categorisations:

• Hawkwind In Your Area is in the Studio albums section as it contains new studio material, despite the fact that half of it is new live performances of previously recorded songs. It is, in that respect, similar in nature to Pink Floyd's Umma Gumma.

• Spacebrock is in the Studio albums section as it was released under the name Hawkwind and it does contain studio material. However, the lack of contributors would suggest that that this is in fact a Dave Brock solo album. Further more, the material it contains does seem have been pulled from across the years, going as far back as 1978 in the case of Life Form

• Take Me To Your Future is in the Studio albums section because the audio side contains new studio material. But is this really a proper studio album, given that the audio side contains remixes and promos from a forthcoming release?
  • For me, I'd put "Take me to your future" alongside "The Earth Ritual Preview" - not a full album - I know it has more tracks, but there is only two new tracks from a project that may or may not happen (like The Earth Ritual!) --C Hawke 16:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Drwhawkfan 22:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This is great, what we will have to do is decide how much Discography to leave in the Hawkwind article itself because that could be trimmed. My personal opinion would be to trim the "archive" stuff out & the singles. If anyone's interested they can come here easy enough Megamanic 07:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the front page to show a summary of studio and live album recordings - we'll see what people think. I do think Chawke is right in that the opening paras need a rewrite. Drwhawkfan 18:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Naming

OK, some variance in opinion over Hawklords/25 Years On. I have always called this 25 Years On, it is what the band calls it on their Core List- yet some people who claim it is called "Hawklords" Ian Abrahams calls it "Hawklords" but adds "known on its first pressing as "25 Years On". My 1989 Virgin CD calls it "25 Years On" and next time I am in the loft I will check my vinyl copy. Starfarer says "Often (erroneously?) referred to as "25 Years On"". We do need to make the entry reflect what people call it, and what CD companies will list it as (if it ever officially re-issued)--C Hawke 08:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed what is said on the Hawklords page - I think that whilst it may have been decided by the band to call it Hawklords at the time, common usage, loads of listings, and the band themselves now, call it "25 Years On" so this should be addedd to the discography page.--C Hawke 16:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I need to go look at my vinyl copy too but I think there's a bit of revisionism going on because Hawkwind renamed themselves as the Hawklords in 1978 so what was "25 Years On" by "The Hawklords" is being brought in to the Hawkwind family (initially) as "Hawklords" by "Hawkwind" & now "25 years On" is making a comeback. Anyway, I'm pleased it's in the canonical listing because I like it a lot - I think the Charisma years were very underrated c/f "Space Ritual" era. Different, not for everyone but still very good - and a good place to start bringing on "post punks" - give them "Quark" or "Hawklords" to listen to & it usually puts them on the road to redemption :) Megamanic 01:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems apparent to me now that vinyl and CD reissues reverted back to it's original name, so you're probably right to change the listing. BTW, you really should get your vinyl collection out of the loft and get yourself a decent turntable (and don't let your wife tell you otherwise). Drwhawkfan 08:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No room mate - even the CDs are going in the loft soon - everything safely copied to PC. Large chunks of my vinyl was second hand and not too good quality. Anyway, I've tweaked both this page and the 25 Years On page - I've added a bit about the band name being Hawklords for legal reasons - I haven't cited a reference (Should I?) but it is from Ian Abrahams book. I'll change the Hawklords page to reflect this source when I get home and have the full details in front of me. I'll also (for interest) dig out Kris Tait's book and see what terms she was using in the mid-80s for both LP and band, it will be interesting (to me anyway) to see when the band switched back to 25 Years On --C Hawke 10:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, in Kris's 1983 biog she calls it Hawkords - the discography in the back (from Brian Tawn) has it as Hawklords - 25 Years On. Interestingly, he also list the 2nd LP as X In Search of Space - a name I hae seen before - again,the original vinyl is in the loft, so not checkable.--C Hawke 20:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Trivia and questions

Other entries for bands do have snippets of trivia. Could we not add some? For example does anyone know why the High Rise on the CD version is a different version to the original vinyl or if it is true that the DOJO version of WOTEOT was recorded at the wrong speed? --C Hawke 08:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Add as much verifiable trivia as you wish, everyone else has and will. Presumably masters have been mislaid, smoking too much herb and forgetting where they put them, no doubt. I have the Warrior CD, I don't think it's the wrong speed, but haven't listened to it for years 'cos I find it dull. Drwhawkfan 08:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well that makes two of us (who don't think it is the wrong speed) I have had, in order a pre-recorded cassette, bootleg cassette, vinyl and the DOJO CD of Warrior, so I would think if the DOJO one was at a drastically wrong speed I'd of noticed. I think I will remove this from the entry - I flagged it as citation required months back, but nothing has been added. Apart from the Moorcock speaches, I actually think it is a great LP! --C Hawke 11:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Member pages

For info, I have created stubs for both Alan and Harvey with basic stuff from Sonic Assassins (the book) but both could do with expanding. I've also added a re-direct from Huw Lloyd-Langton to the correct unhyphenated page, as many entries have the hyphenated name - can we remove these when we see them?--C Hawke 20:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Huw and Marion's surname is Lloyd-Langton - www.huwlloyd-langton.co.uk. Drwhawkfan 08:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Odd, the LLG band name isn't hyphenated. The re-directs have been set the other way round, with the hyphenated one being the target. BTW also added a redirect from Tim blake to a page with a capital B!--C Hawke 11:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC) modified --C Hawke 20:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh and a Sonic Assassins Stub --C Hawke 20:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

vinyl

Out of interest, what was the last one issued on vinyl and the first to be release on CD at the same time as vinyl? - the last vinyl I bought was Space Bandits, but I am sure others followed.--C Hawke 20:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Good Articles

I was looking at the quality scale used for albums & I reckon just about all of the 1970's albums are now either of "Good article" quality or extremely close. Should we nominate them & if so, how? Megamanic 08:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Images and tracklists

Well, surprise, surprise. the authoritarian policy makers and enforcers have bombed the page despite:

1. clearly the use of these thumbnails does not contravene copyright law [1] - it is standard practice across the internet for both commercial and non-commercial sites, and
2. their use was significant in helping the reader identify the works in question, which somehow translates to being "purely decorative" (Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #8) to the Ivory Tower dwellers.

All in all it leads to a degradation in the quality of this article. It won't be too long until these people will be removing album covers from infoboxes on album pages on the grounds that the article lacks "critical commentary" on the cover. I think they want us to make our own "free" covers or something. I understand what they're doing and why, but I do question whether Wikipedia is now the best environment for extensive and comprehensive coverage of popular music.

Perhaps as a final contribution, in an attempt to distinguish this page from the main article's discog list, I've listed album tracks which also makes it easier for anyone who wishes to search for a particular track. Drwhawkfan 22:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I get steamed up about this as well but I think I know the answer. What you have to do is write the fair use justification in each image page. Yes this is BS. Yes it is a cut & paste job. Yes the fucktards that go about deleting images could better spend their time putting in the fair use justifications instead of mutilating & vandalising articles. It falls to us however, to do this because they are small minded tw*ts. Try this for extra info WP:ALBUM#Album_cover - the only thing keeping me sane as I wrote this was the live version of D-Rider from the 1999 Party... Suggest you listen to the same & chill. Don't leave, your contributions are way to valuable and they are appreciated by those that matter - the Hawkfans. Megamanic 02:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

And another thing, you're right "It won't be too long until these people will be removing album covers from infoboxes on album pages on the grounds that the article lacks "critical commentary" on the cover." And if you add critical commentry to justify the album cover they slap NPOV on it & delete it - it's like Kafka isn't it? We're at the mercy of a bunch of mindless, faceless bureaucrats! I'm sure Charisma era Hawkwind had a song about it...Megamanic 02:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The album covers are permitted in articles about the album, but the problem is that discography articles are simply lists of an artist's works. Such lists are explicitly not allowed to contain fair-use images, per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #8. I hope that no one leaves Wikipedia or goes on a silly rampage over a policy about the use of copyrighted images... (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Now, I know you didn't make the policy - or if you did it was part of concesus - however, you're here so you're going to get it ;). I have no concept of what compells people to make a decision like this. What is the absolute worst that could happen if we have an illustrated discography? One or more of Hawkwind's myriad record companies decide that they want to sue wikipedia? Would they do this? What damages could they claim? This is the best possible free publicity for them. Remember how badly Metallica did when they went after people who were actively stealing their music? Would any sane record company want to risk a boycott by several hundred thousand music fans? Seriously - and I want an answer to this, how many cease & desists has wikipedia recieved about illustrated discographies? Also, there is a valid fair use of the images in discographis IMHO, see Talk:Rush_discography#Fair_use_of_the_album_covers. In particular I draw your attention to the fact that I was given an illustrated discography as an example to copy over there! This smacks of a recent, very poorly thought out dictat which is sadly typical of wikipedia - in the same section you link to there's a point made that fair use is strengthened if the image is pointed to from several sources - where else is going to be a candidate? A really poorly written meandering artist article (Megadeth) with every album cover in the body of the text or a concise discography letting casual fans identify glimpsed album covers so they can buy the albums themselves? Often, as an editor who concentrates on content creation rather than, say, wikipedia mandated vandalism ;), the first you hear about it is when somebody comes breezing through an article you've spent months refining & effectively ruins it in the name of some new order from the committee that you can't even find by navigating from the front page. Forgive the rant but it's a really sore spot. All-text discographies stink. They need some colour to brighten them up & make them readable.Megamanic 04:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

And before you jump on the last sentence & say the use of covers here is purely decorative, it isn't. It's important for people to identify albums "that they saw once at a friends house 20 years ago & remember liking & want to buy the CD of if they could only find out what it was called". So there!Megamanic 04:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I hope I haven't given the wrong impression here, I'm completely anger and stress free - I've seen too many editors get possessive and precious not to have learnt to be emotionally detached from what I'm doing, there's a lot to be said for WP:FUCK. I'm not hating on ESkog, he's just carrying out policy some people (policy makers) believe will improve Wikipedia, namely an attempt to make its contents as copyright free as possible. I understand and agree with that policy for an encyclopedia (within reason), it's just that there are certain subjects, such as popular music, that will never be able to fit well within those constraints, hence my declaration that perhaps Wikipedia isn't really the best environment for what we're doing. Drwhawkfan 11:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear it - I wouldn't know you if I passed you in the street but I feel you're a friend & I'd hate to see your great contributions stop. Have a look over here by the way - User_talk:ESkog#Discography_articles. It's like chasing rainbows but maybe we'll get somewhere. Also, do what I suggested he do & look at his "contributions". Pretty much a whole weeks worth of deleting content. No attempts to re-write or salvage or add fair use rationales. Nope, just deletion after deletion after deletion. Sad. Also, look at the Talk:Rush_discography - I've found a fair use rationale we should try using over here. Megamanic 06:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair-use on discographies test case

Please see Talk:The_Beatles_discography#Poll_on_the_use_of_fair-use_images_on_this_page_and_the_interpretation_of_policy which is acting as a test case in this matter. Jooler 09:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The Elf and the Hawk

Could someone with a little more expertise in Hawkwind's catalog add The Elf and the Hawk? More info here. BeastmasterGeneral 13:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The Elf and the Hawk appears to be a various artists compilation album, which features Hawkfan 12, which in turn is also a V/A comp with three HW tracks. I've added Hawkfan 12 to the private pressings section, but omitted The Elf and the Hawk as 1. it adds no further HW tracks, and 2. there are just too many HW comps to be accomodated in this discog list. Also, I've removed the entries The Chant of Allah (bootleg) and Live '74 (re-issue of The 1999 Party). Drwhawkfan (talk) 10:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Archive albums

Does anyone think this section is growing out of control? Who knows if there will ever be an end to the flow of CDs made up of old live recordings? Any feeling about moving this section else where, or pruning it? — Drwhawkfan (talk) 13:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

And should we move Hawkwind 1997 and Spaced Out in London from the live albums section, as they never received a general release? — Drwhawkfan (talk) 13:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I've chopped out the tracks and personnel as I think the page had become unreadable. I've put the albums in tables, which I think is a bit more presentable. I've also moved Hawkwind 1997 and Spaced Out in London from the live albums section into the private pressings - if they do ever receive a general release, then they should be put back. — Drwhawkfan (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand why some live albums are listed as "Live albums" and some as "Archive". What exactly is the difference please and who decides? --kingboyk (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Essentially one's contemporary (i.e. recorded on tour with the intention for release soon after), while the other is retrospective (i.e. pieced together from archive tapes). But also, archive stuff isn't limited to live albums, for example I would classify stuff like The Beatles Anthology 1 (out-takes), BBC Sessions (Led Zeppelin album) (radio sessions) as archive releases. I made the distinction here so that the reader isn't overwhelmed due to the sheer volume of releases (as I feel is the case with something like the Frank Zappa discography); there are other discogs that do something similar, such as The Doors discography#Bright Midnight Archives and Grateful Dead discography#Retrospective live albums. — Drwhawkfan (talk) 07:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hawkwind Albums circa: 1970s

I may be mistaken but, while i was in germany 1980-83, i listened to many times an album by Hawkwind which included tracks 'Widowmaker'& Silver Machine and various others, depicting in a story form, the uselesness of the F104 Starfighter. Many german fighter pilots were killed because the americans had turned what was designed to be an 'intercepter fighter' into a bomber. The airframe could not take the strain. Having to take 'Halo-peridol' before sorties is not what i would call,ideal. Anyway, anybody know what i am talking about ?

16:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaddafiduck (talk • contribs)  

Captain Lockheed and the Starfighters by Bob Calvert. It was his first(?) solo album,

in that he wrote virtually all the material.  However, almost all of the musicians involved

were Hawkwind members. It's also the source of the Hawkwind standard "Ejection."

 The original release was in 1974 from United Artists/EMI.  The CD I have was reissued 

1999 by Beat Goes On Records (BGOCD5). As for its current availability, I don't know. Also, "Silver Machine" is not on this release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.248.12.179 (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Album additions

 This is a very helpful article, but I've a couple of albums that aren't on the lists, namely---

   1982- "Hawkwind"- a 2-LP set licensed by Flicknife, made in Spain by Disco Victoria (VLP38/22A0553), and

   1985- "Utopia 1984"- Mausoleum (SKULL8369).

 The first would be an archive release I think, similar to "Hawkwind, Friends and Relations", 

the second a compilation. The cover LOOKS like a live album, but only a couple tracks sound live.

 Speaking of "HWFR", there are 3 more volumes that aren't listed.
 Also, I noticed a few omissions from the lists that were in the article links, but I'll have
to go back and check which ones.
 Overall, a job very well done!

166.248.0.92 (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hawkwind discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081106120055/http://www.cherryred.co.uk/atomhenge/artists/hawkwind.htm to http://www.cherryred.co.uk/atomhenge/artists/hawkwind.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071015215720/http://www.voiceprint.co.uk/web/Catalogue/Search/hawkwind/ to http://www.voiceprint.co.uk/web/Catalogue/Search/hawkwind/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Ridicule

How come Ridicule isn't included in this discography? See https://www.discogs.com/Hawkwind-Ridicule/release/1954734 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:244:4C7F:8B00:718C:4DF0:DE9B:439B (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Acoustic Daze is missing.

best regards, IP 77.183.67.33 (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Compilation Albums Night of the Hawk and Silver Machine

I have two compilation albums not listed in the main article:

• Night of the Hawk: an Australian release by Festival Records (catalog D 29089) in 1989, but they state it is licenced from an AVM Records U.K. release the same year. This seems to be a legitimate compilation of mostly rarities from 1970 through to the late 1980s, which I think should be added to the article.
• Silver Machine: a 1999 UK release by Hallmark (catalog 308412), which seems to be a somewhat dodgy compilation of re-recorded tracks covering mostly 1970 to the early 1980s. I'm not sure there's any great benefit to adding this to the article.

I'll leave this sit for a month or so, if I hear nothing to the contrary I'll add the former to the discography and leave the later out.

MarkDavidDancer (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)