Talk:In Rainbows/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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)

I agree. It's done in fi:In Rainbows finnish version. --kallerna 13:38, 4 September 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)

I agree. Flamingo88 (talk) 00:45, 8 August 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.106.11.124 (talk) 07:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• "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)

I own a U.S version, and there's no bonus track on mine. It may have just been a certain amount.JohnM.Kelly (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2010 (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)

So it looks like in the most recent edit to this article that the infobox containing reviews from various publications was removed. I don't see why that was necessary. If the information it contained was redundant, as Indopug claimed, then it would make more sense to remove that information from the paragraph describing the album's critical reception, particularly things like "Publication X gave this album a rating of Y/Z". I'd suggest undoing the changes made in the previous edit. Carps (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2011 (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)

Shouldn't there be a mention of the negative crit of the crappy music itself? There's a lot out there. 92.14.218.182 (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Who complained about it? I mean, it was free?... Flamingo88 (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite a few people actually http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1571737/20071011/radiohead.jhtml http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/12/radiohead-fans-feel-duped_n_68270.html Marcelload (talk) 11:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Revert?

Why? Almost all of those changes are recommended by WP:ALBUM and WP:DASH. Why would you revert them all? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hostess vs. BMG Japan

Reference says that it is Hostess, not BMG. --kallerna 13:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Genre List

Okay, every time I add Art rock and Electronic to the genre list, it gets reverted. Why? It even states in the article itself that this album using Electronic music. If anything, I would question Alternative rock being there. Seriously, they haven't played hardly any Alternative rock after OK Computer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.131.213 (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering why the genre is Alt Rock too - there is nothing really alt rock about this album at all 92.238.105.105 (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The sources disagree. indopug (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Haha, "the sources disagree". Get over yourself; wikipedia will never be a reliable source! haha Revan ltrl (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The comment wasn't about Wikipedia as a reliable source, rather the use of reliable sources. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Twilight

The song 15 step is featured in the twilight movie 2008. Please mention it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.46.83 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No. indopug (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Blind reverts again

Please stop The additions that I made were in accord with WP:ALBUM, and there is no rationale for deleting them and taking out a source for information relevant category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Do we really need the category "English language albums"? I don't feel strongly either way about that, but it's rather useless and broad. More importantly, the release history was done away with a long time ago because it was useless, cumbersome, and difficult if not impossible to source. The unusual release method of the album is worth delineating in the infobox, and as this article uses British English and dating, that "Startdate" template shouldn't be used, because it defaults to American dating (What's the point of the template, anyway? It's much easier and clearer in the edit window to simply write it out). WesleyDodds (talk) 11:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Granted You are completely right about the date and I was entirely wrong: WP:ALBUM explicitly says that the style manual should be obeyed and British dates used. I apologize and I honestly have no idea why the date template exists, in no small part because of the bias that you mention.

As far as the category goes, as long as it exists, I think that it should be added to relevant articles. If you feel that the category is broad enough to be useless (and I suppose so would be all other albums by language or possibly films by language categories), then I completely support an effort to delete it. The release history is easy to source (Allmusic) and explicitly recommended by WP:ALBUM. The same thing goes for the multiple formats and record labels in the infobox, i.e.:

"Only the record label that the album was originally released on should be specified. Where significantly different versions have been released (featuring alternate track listings) e.g. in the U.S. vs UK, the later release date and/or record label should be mentioned in the article, for example in a Release history section."

Again, the release history is assumed as being part of the article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Given the unusual release method of the album, I'd say it's best to WP:IAR and clarify that the wider, physical release was handled by label and wasn't self-released in the infobox. The release history section isn't necessary, and there are quite a few FA and GA album articles that don't include it, and I know that quite a few editors have advocated not including them at all in album pages and various music talk pages. Guidelines aren't unbreakable. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Release history There is no reason to exclude it and it is easily cited from Allmusic. There are also persistent problems with WP:DASH and other WP:ALBUM guidelines that are ignored with no outstanding circumstance. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The allmusic cite is unnecessary because the album itself is the source. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Which one? The source for the release history or the one after the track listing? The former was asked for in an edit summary, so I figured it was worth listing. Either way, you've given no justification for deleting all of that information. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The tracklisting. As for the release history, that's been removed by other editors aside from myself in the past as it's unnecessary (albums rarely have consistent worldwide release dates and distribution). WesleyDodds (talk) 07:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Release history It is precisely because albums rarely have consistent worldwide release dates and distribution that one would include a release history. Really, if you think that these are undesirable, this is probably something to be taken up at the talk page for WP:ALBUM. Otherwise, as long as that is the proscription at the WikiProject and this article is a child of that project, it only makes sense to include it; there are no exigent circumstances to delete it and in fact there are unique circumstances of its release that would demand it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

In Rainbows song pages?

Shouldn't every song have a page that describes it? You can find lots of information on each at citizeninsane.eu, which is a good Radiohead site all around (this is not self-promotion or anything, I do not have anything personally to do with the site).

Some comments:

-Why does Weird Fishes/Arpeggi have a page and not the other non-singles? It's just as important as the rest.

-I'm not sure the House of Cards/Bodysnatchers single was released, I haven't seen any shots of the cover art, and even promo singles have a cover page, at least.

-The Reckoner single artwork is blurry, and I'm not sure if it really became a single, I just think the band released the stems for mixing.

-I think 15 Step being played in Twilight is worthy enough of mentioning, no matter how much you may dislike the movie.

-Maybe somebody could have a section on how other musicians feel about the album? Billy Corgan and Trent Reznor both criticized rather specific parts of the release method, and artists like Lily Allen, Gene Simmons, and Liam Gallagher citicized the entire release method. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.178.84.238 (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

Where is the box summing up the albums reviews and ratings by mainstream publications? Is this not supposed to be a featured article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.110.25 (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, what's going on? I was looking for a handy box to see some ratings but got a couple of paragraphs describing it instead. Come on! - 220.239.231.94 (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Jets Overhead did it first!

Indie rock band Jets Overhead released their album Bridges online, for free, a year and a half before Radiohead did it, as mentioned on their page. I think that this is important to mention on this page because the erroneous assumption that Radiohead was somehow 'breaking ground' with this 'new experiment' drives me nuts -- they're getting credit for something someone else created.

If nobody else disagrees I will make the edits soon. AC (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Breaking ground Jets Overhead were also not the first band to release an album for free. What is innovative is not that the album was released for free, but that users could choose the price as well as the fact that this was a bold move by a major act. Since the Jets Overhead release is entirely unrelated to the marketing of this album, I find it likely that this will be reverted if you add it to this article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Koavf -- Jets Overhead had the same model -- it was identical, a voluntary donation model. You could pay whatever you wanted for the album; they didn't just release it for free. I find the similarities to In Rainbows almost the same. However, I'll let this stand before I edit it. AC (talk) 03:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

In that article it says that they either let you buy it or make a donation. Radiohead let you buy it for whatever you want. So it's not exactly the same, but close. But the better thing to do would be to modify this to say that Radiohead was the first major band to use such a scheme. I don't really think what Jets Overhead did would add much to this article, unless you can show that Radiohead took their idea from them (i.e., Radiohead are JO fans). MDuchek (talk) 12:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Scotch Mist

"On New Year's Eve 2007, Current TV streamed a webcast of 'Scotch Mist', a private concert filmed at Radiohead's Oxford studios;" I don't understand why talking about Current TV while this video is also available on the Youtube official channel. Is it a question of publication dates? December 31th for Current TV, january 1st for Youtube? Why not just say that this footage is freely available without advertising? Lacrymocéphale 23:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

01 and 10

I'm kinda surprised by the lack of referral to the 01 and 10 playlist, given that Thom Yorke has allegedly commented on it himself. Would it be suitable for inclusion? I don't mind writing something, I just don't wanna mess up a featured article with uncyclopaedic content either. 90.194.162.239 (talk) 00:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The reason it is not mentioned is because Thom Yorke's alleged comments are that; alleged. I remember an interview in which Thom Yorke commented on the number 10 thing, of which that playlist is an outgrowth and he classified it is some of the weird things people say about them. I have been a Radiohead fan for over 13 years and I have read every interview I could get, and in my humble opinion it is very unlikely that Radiohead (it would be a tiny bit more believable if this was about Tool for instance) wrote In Rainbows in 1997, including songs that sound way more 00's Radiohead than 90's Radiohead, and then decided not to release it as soon as possible but in 2007 because that is 10 years later and the title has 10 letters in it. Now, that I think that tenspiracy thing is bovine feces doesn't mean it shouldn't be included, but if it does it should certainly not sound as if it is something more than just baseless speculation that happened to catch on.--Merijn2 (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

samples

In my opinion House of Cards and Nude are too similar to both be samples of the record; they both show the most reggae/dub influences, and they are both very slow songs. Isn't it better to replace one of them (or perhaps both)? --Merijn2 (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

ATO Records question

There's mention in the article that this album was expected to be released on ATO Records. I'm just surfing through, but it would help if someone rectified the differences between the mention in that article, with the "self-produced" tag on this album. Thanks! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)