Talk:Time (Pink Floyd song)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Time (Pink Floyd song) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Pink Floyd Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pink Floyd, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pink Floyd on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pink FloydWikipedia:WikiProject Pink FloydTemplate:WikiProject Pink FloydPink Floyd articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was a past project collaboration.

To-do list:

Fair use

Add fair use rationale to all images and sound samples (all except images already labeled free use).
Re-size large images around to 300 pixels (all "fair use" images), other than album covers (already done).

Articles

Expand all articles to at least Start class. Some song stubs can't be expanded and should be redirected to the relevant album article. Use the "Interstellar Overdrive" article as an example when editing a song stub.
Expand all of the Floyd's studio album articles to at least GA status.
See COTM for monthly collabs.

Project building

Add WikiProject Pink Floyd banner {{WPFloyd}} to all appropriate Talk pages.
Personally invite quality editors working on Pink Floyd articles to join the project.

If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list.

This article does not yet have a related to do list. If you can think of any ways to improve the article, why not create one?

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Breathe (Reprise) was copied or moved into Time (Pink Floyd song) with this edit on 6 May 2012. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

On 10 August 2012, it was proposed that this article be moved to Time (song). The result of the discussion was not moved.

Infobox

Seeings as this was released as a single (double A-side with "Us and Them"). Does anyone mind me changing the infobox to reflect that? Or is there a specific reason for the current layout? --Will Mak 050389 01:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure about the official status of "double A-sides", but the "single" infobox instructions state that it should not be used for B-sides. In general, one side of the single should be regarded as the B-side, even if both sides received airplay and charted as a result. The Goldmine guide lists "Time" as the A-side, and the article for "Us and Them" seems to confirm this, in which case the "single" template should be added to "Time" and removed from "Us and Them". The picture should also be removed from the "Us and Them" article, as it's not a proper illustration. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That all seems to make sense, I've updated this page, but as for "Us and Them" because the single was considered a double A-side, I think the infobox should stay on there too (though, the cover image could be removed). --Will Mak 050389 02:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

I couldn't help but notice that hard rock isn't listed as a secondary genre for this song. I feel that hard rock should be included in this song because the guitar riff in the middle of the song has a hard rock sound as does the first half of both verses in the song (as in David Gilmour's loud vocals which, after four lines, then segues into Richard Wright's melodic, progressive vocals and tone). So might I ask that we include hard rock in the infobox for this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madroxxide17 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You feel that it should be included? That's original research. What we need is reliable sources. Sorry for that. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 08:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To me, hard rock is more of a description or adjective, than a real genre. We have a lot of "genre" articles at Wikipedia that aren't really genres in the proper sense. So I'm not disagreeing that this song could be described as "hard rock", but it's more of a "hardness ranking" if you will, than a genre. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 11:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that sources are mainly used for classifying certain things on wikipedia but when it comes to music, I feel that sources don't really HAVE to support one's claim because one could just listen to the song for themselves and here exactly what it is.

Here's what I mean: Let's say in the Roger Waters article, we use a quote from Roger Waters about an update on his plan for a broadway musical version of The Wall. Of course, we can't just say that Roger actually said that because for all everyone knows, it's a false claim so we need use sources from interviews, etc. to support the claim that Roger actually said that. I say that when it comes to classifying what a genre is for a song/album, sources aren't always needed because all you have to do is listen to the song or album for yourself so you can hear exactly what kind of sound it is (in other words, the sources are right there). I can see where sources are needed for describing a song, album, or even a band who's true genre is debatable (wish I had an example) but when the type of genre for the song or album is obvious, sources aren't always needed.

I'm not saying that sources are useless and that we don't need a source to support wikipedia's claim of the song's genre but that we don't need a source for the song's secondary genre: hard rock. As I've said, anyone who's listened to the song and can tell various types of rock apart would know that this song has elements of hard rock so I feel that it's necessary for us to label this song as "Progressive rock, hard rock".--Madroxxide17 (talk) 00:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's still original research. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 16:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then how did "hard rock" get in the infobox before? I know I've seen it there before.--Madroxxide17 (talk) 03:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be because of me. Although I've come to see that in most cases sourcing is important because it limits the number of squabbles over genre, there are some cases where it's pretty obvious that a song has a certain genre or sub-genre. This one, for example, has a pretty obvious hard rock feel in addition to it's atmospheric prog rock sound. That guitar solo (Gilmour's finest, in my opinion) demonstrates the band's more aggressive tendencies, while still being refined and proggish. Obviously, enough people shared my view (and yours, apparently), so that "hard rock" remained up there in the genre slot for at least a year after I edited it in. But there has been a crackdown over the past few months on the music articles, and anything not sourced is removed. So I'm not proposing that we put it back in now, but I want people to keep in mind that trying to find a source for everything becomes a little ridiculous and makes writing a good, informative article very difficult. Consider this: it is well established that Pink Floyd's music overall is progressive rock, and they could easily be considered the first prog rock band. However, is there a cite that says "Time" is prog rock? Is there one that says "Echoes" is, or "Welcome to the Machine", or any other song by the band? We know what they are, but by Wikipedia's standards, most of their songs would not have "progressive rock" in the genre slot because it isn't formally established and cite-able. Krobertj (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image, no cover

I do not agree with that live image is in the infobox, because it is an image, not the cover of an album or single, should not be there but elsewhere within the page.--Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Pink Floyd performing in 2006 before a backdrop during the song "Time""

Nice picture, but not of The Pink Floyd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.66.51.127 (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can indeed identify that this is an image not of THE Pink Floyd, but of the Australian Pink Floyd Show. --Antster1983 (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Time (Pink Floyd song) → Time (song) – Most notable song from those listed at Time (disambiguation), thus a primary topic. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Disambiguation 2, multiple songs with the same title should be disambiguated further by the artist's name. It says nothing about primary topic which applies to article titles with no disambiguation. Piriczki (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Evil. (Posted via phone) yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 14:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per User:Piriczki. Even if WP:PRIMARYTOPIC did apply, the Pink Floyd song is not primary. Most notable does not equal primary. Instead, (crudely) the primary topic is more notable than all others combined. No evidence provided for that in the nomination. — AjaxSmack 02:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose it's not moving to Time, so there is no reason for this to be confusing. -- 70.24.247.242 (talk) 04:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Use of Farfisa organ

I don't mean to be subjective, but the Farfisa organ in this song doesn't sound like the Farfisa organ in Arnold Layne, but more like the Hammond organ in Breathe. Nor does it sound like the Farfisa organ that I hear in other songs with this instrument. It sounds more like a Hammond B-3 (which was used in other tracks on The Dark Side of the Moon including Breathe) than it does like a Farfisa. I'm not saying it wasn't a Farfisa which I believe it was, it just doesn't sound like one. It sounds like Rick Wright is playing the Farfisa through the Hammond B-3's Leslie speaker and I don't know of any instances of a Farfisa being played through a Leslie. I'm not going to edit the article so that it mentions any of this (after all, this is technically original reaserch which I know articles must not contain) but I would like for someone else to explain what I'm really hearing.--Kevjgav (talk) 09:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevjgav If it makes you feel any better, I also have never heard any Farfisa on this song. In fact I don't hear any Farfisa anywhere on Dark Side, and my impression is that Rick Wright had basically moved away from Farfisa in favor of B3 by this point in their career. Personally I would be comfortable changing the article to simply say "organ," since we don't have sources to support it in either direction. —Jeferman (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Classic Albums Documentary on DSOTM, which shows the track sheet for the entire album in the first few minutes, the farfisa is indeed present in the track. I agree with the use of the leslie speaker with the farfisa, which did happen live (71-73 versions of careful with that axe and set the controls had clearly been run through the leslie, along with the build up section in echoes during 75). PurityInitiative (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rhodes piano

I'm nearly certain that the piano in the intro is a Rhodes, rather than a Wurlitzer. Thought he rest of the song is definitely a Wurlitzer. I can't find any sources that talk about it one way or the other, but there are no sources listed for any of the personnel, so I'm gonna go ahead and add it. Let me know if you've got any additional info on this. —Jeferman (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeferman:Yeah, I agree about the Rhodes in the intro as the Wurlitzer hasn't got that "bell-like" timbre. I haven't found any additional info, but I'll let you know if I find any.--Kevjgav (talk) 05:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]