Talk:Heligoland (album)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

YouTube?[edit]

Why do you remove the links to YouTube ? I think they are a great addition to this page. --kevin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.68.165.6 (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't seem to make the ref link work - grateful if someone could fix it?

umm....the name of the album is Red Light and it, along with it's cover, has been leaked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.154.196 (talk) 03:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.172.105 (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Track Times???[edit]

So where is the source for these track times coming from? The only times we know for certain are correct, are Pray For Rain and Splitting The Atom as they are from the already released EP. I really don't think this info has been divulged yet but if someone can provide a source link to the track times.... Nametaken12 (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genre[edit]

I will not take a side on the issue considering how I have not heard any music off this album yet. I will say though, without giving an opinion biased to one genre set up or another, that I have never known Massive Attack to be anything related to punk music. Anyways, I just want to put it on here that a genre feud isn't necessary and that it should have one genre set-up and stay there; that doesn't necessarily mean just one genre, though. I hope the issue can be resolved soon. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 23:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm keeping the genre general until the release happens, the world's reviewers listen to it, and then we see what's being said. The Allmusic review should help a lot. PRB88 (T) 21:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is cool; thanks for the input. By the way, my previous post is not up to date; since then, I have listened to the song "Paradise Circus". It probably isn't important, but I felt like posting that. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 03:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never known Massive Attack to be related to punk / post-punk? Mezzanine?? How do you characterise MA's continual use of distorted guitar then. I tried to add post-punk to the page. "Post-rock" is mentioned umpteen times in reviews and any knowledge of Del Naja will tell you that's an obvious influence here along with Electronica and also, I suggest, "pop" essentially. I'm going to try to add the other genres one more time. EXCLEY (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is slighly misguided that I never knew of them as related to punk. I'm not an expert of post-punk though, so I'm not a reliable source of information for that particular genre. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 20:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having genre for Heligoland as more than just Electronica[edit]

Okay this is my pov and I welcome anyone who wants to undo to chip in, particularly if there's some little wiki rule or protocol that I'm blissfully unaware of when it comes to this issue...

My contention is Heligoland is not just Electronica. Kraftwerk, say, are just electronica. There must be some way to reflect the fact that there are so many instances of arty guitar on many of the tracks. Now not fussed whether you call it post-punk or post-rock or go as far as alt rock, but ought there to be a way to reflect that the Heligoland-era Massive Attack sound is not merely an electronic aesthetic but often combines this with distorted guitar textures as a principle.

Similarly, the song "Saturday Comes Slow" has virtually no electronic aesthetic at all. And the use of guitar is gentle enough for it to be regarded as essentially a pop song, no? (Even if you don't think post-punk or post-rock deserves status as a secondary genre, you do have to admit there is at least one song on this which has nothing electronic about it.)

Hence the addition of post-punk and pop. Could back it up with quotes from reviews if that is very necessary. I don't disagree that Electronica[/Dance] is the overriding genre but does that give the entire picture of what the sound is intermingled with. I do find it a bit arrogant when things are undone by a wiki emperor with no more than the usual laconic dismissal. Not wishing to moan too much or anything... EXCLEY (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually maybe just take out the genre altogether. I've seen lots of album pages where genre isn't there. EXCLEY (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Electronica encompasses the album nicely, just enough breadth but also accuracy. Post-punk was in the 80s btw and also there is no way this can be classified as pop music. PRB88 (T) 21:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your reasoning, but I think you should be aware of the principle of no original research. Some of your reasoning behind the genres may be bordering on original research. This rule emphasizes that sourcing is important. Also, I am very skeptical about the "pop" tagging as well. Just because one or two songs on an album sound like they could be a given genre doesn't mean that the whole album can be categorized as that given genre. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 22:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right in the album as a whole cannot be categorised as pop in a genre sense, no. If one track isn't enough to justify acknowledgement then fair enough.

As for post-punk, perhaps post-rock is less contentious but it's definitely a part of their sound. On the research point - not really original research, yes I obviously know a lot about this group and speak to people firsthand on occasion, but you can find 'post-rock' in a dozen of the reviews its quite a common description of their sound. I suppose post-punk is more of an influence in that this is/was a scene (yes from the 80's in a sense of origin, although you could put 'revival' on the end of it not that that quite cuts it either, but the term more refers to an approach of mixing basic rock with other bass-driven genres of music as you can see from the wiki entry on it) which informs how Del Naja (whose formative years were obviously spent entirely influenced by such artists) crafts the music with others, which is why I've suggested post-rock or alt-rock or something, BUT having thought about it more I don't feel that strongly about it to argue it any further, I suppose Electronica can encompass a lot of elements, including the live band ones that characterise the album... guess its just sometimes it feels - I don't know - a bit lazy, you know, like everything in modern music is essentially electronically made, therefore everything is electronic-a... I looked up Air, as another Electronica duo to perhaps refer to, who use live sounding elements, and noticed on their recent album page no genre is given... anyways... EXCLEY (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confusing electronica, which is "electronic dance music, dub music, electro music, musique concrète, and industrial music" with the more general electronic music. PRB88 (T) 23:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah maybe so... EXCLEY (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is still following this discussion, note that iTunes has categorized this album as Pop! I would personally propose Experimental in addition to Electronica. But if there is a lesson to be learned here, Massive Attack (and a whole mess of other innovative musicians) cannot be so easily categorized. I believe it is acceptable to include more than one genre in a WP infobox. Massive Attack surely don't confine themselves to one category, so why should we? DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not against using more than one genre for infoboxes either. It can be useful at times. But I don't feel like proposing anymore genres for this particular infobox. As for iTunes categorizing it as pop, that doesn't mean it is pop. I would discredit iTunes calling it pop music, because that site isn't an information site as much as it is a music sharing site. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 20:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I eventually came round to thinking that Electronica, in its widest sense, i.e. music of an electronic sensibility with other influences mixed in, is the best you can probably do, or at least the least contentious. Though I admit it doesn't paint a particularly vivid picture as a single word. Problems with "Experimental" - their music just isn't strange enough to be considered that really, even though it is thought of like that in a way, plus I'm fairly sure they are on record as saying it is not particularly so - it's more that they just change their style around more than a typical high profile band would, out of their non-conventional nature. Actually now I think about it again, I'd favour no genre being stated, but I don't see others having that really. EXCLEY (talk) 01:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Reviews[edit]

Right now I think there's one very favourable review too many in the list, that rather terse Rock Sound one really, not that I think I can be bothered to try to keep replacing it with a more substantive, less favourable one...

Metacritic hasn't used many of the more lukewarm reviews to calculate its average either, avoiding major mags like Q and Mojo, which gives a slightly rosier than accurate impression of the album's overall critical reception... EXCLEY (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The average score here is not given by Metacritic. (In fact, the average is much lower than Metacritic.) The POV spread is now fine. I added sources that readers could read, and also the mags citations were very vague, i.e. no page number or author. If you have any specific concerns, please list them. PRB88 (T) 21:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The average rating doesn't have to be a mix of positive and negative ratings, as long as its not too biased to either side. That is how I've found it to be. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 22:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm just curious about these things... it is lower than metacritic. If I was running metacritic I would get a far wider number of scores than they seem to have bothered to. Interesting you mention bias, I was thinking today any publications that have had an interview with the duo should be eliminated because there is always a sense of bias when they have granted a particular source an interview first, as if they are beholden to be nice... I don't know if you or anyone has an opinion on that...

I'm curious to know what 'too biased to either side' actually means. As in what would be an example of that. For example, I found that 5-star Telegraph review, which is no longer 1 of the 10 I guess rightly so, to be way over the top - did not even mention a track by name - and just didn't seem measured or considered at all. Is that the sort of thing you mean or something else.

Well, we can only proceed through WP:RS. What you're saying is WP:POV and even WP:OR. We can't let our personal opinions about what MIGHT be occurring to cloud an encyclopedic judgement. PRB88 (T) 23:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could easily get the page number and author for, say, the Q and Mojo reviews. I wonder whether being far more read magazines (than the ones used which are used solely because they happen to be online seemingly) makes them commensurately more relevant? I suppose it felt like - Rock Sound, okay but who reads that, its just it happens to be online that it gets included. In a way yes that seems fair and logical, 'cause people can go to it instantly and see how that 8/10 has been justified, albeit for a paragraph, but then on the other hand, should that mean that stuff that isn't online, but ultimately read far, far more, should get overlooked as a result..

If you can find the actual Q and Mojo ones, fair enough. But it's not just a question of finding better published sources, we also need to give POV spread. I would eliminate a Q or Mojo if they all gave something a 5 in favour of a 10 from Sputnik for POV spread. PRB88 (T) 23:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well Q and Mojo were both 3 out of 5's. I tried to look up 'POV spread' just now, couldn't find any definition. Does it basically just mean 'a range of scores' then. Or a range of favourable and unfavourable viewpoints? Or is it that Sputnik is a different sort of publication and therefore shows more variety. Just trying to understand these things... EXCLEY (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"A range of scores" (around a vague average) is spot on. We also don't favour any particular publication as long they adhere to WP:RS, but if all is normal, i.e. the average is OK, we tend to favour publications with historical cultural clout. PRB88 (T) 23:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose I have any strong technical objections to it as it is, just 'thinking aloud' here really... EXCLEY (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get the chart procession / succession thing that someone has added..?[edit]

Is that relevant and normal for a wiki page..? EXCLEY (talk) 02:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen stuff like it be on other pages without it being an intruding presence, so I personally don't see anything wrong with it. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 02:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even sure I understand what it means. What does it mean? EXCLEY (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually never mind, I think I get it... EXCLEY (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title?[edit]

Anyone know why the album has the name "Heligoland"?

89.100.251.145 (talk) 14:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested, there is this page, which details a place called Heligoland. Maybe that's where the album's name comes from. But that can't be definitely determined without reliable sources. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 00:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Heligoland (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Heligoland (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Heligoland (album). 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:

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) 21:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Heligoland (album). 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:

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) 09:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heligoland_(album)&oldid=1211199275"