Talk:Interstellar Overdrive

Stereo vs. mono mix
I've just downloaded the newly remastered mono mix of this album (*) from iTunes and bravely listened to the whole thing. There are subtle differences between it and what I was already familiar with on nearly every track (rather like "Sgt. Pepper's ...") but this is the only track which was transformed. In the first minute it's clear what they meant about the entire ensemble being double-tracked; I couldn't place the tempo with certainty until about 1:15 in. The whole thing seems to sound even more spaced-out; it would appear eventually to switch to single-tracked ensemble somewhere around the 8-minute mark (i.e. at the climax of the song). I think the article ought to mention this.

(*) Side note: I went for the mono version because the stereo mix of this song just sounds sickening on headphones (from about 8:30 to the end - that's the section featured in the Ogg Vorbis sample). Should the article mention that effect in the stereo mix too? --The guy with the axe - aaaaaaargh!!! 19:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I listened to the mono version, and i found it far better at the begining and the ending. We can mention, yes, 2 editors agree, and if none oppose we can do, but we must be very careful with the wording, because the danger of original research is "right behind (after) the corner".Doktor Who 00:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

French edit
The "French edit" from the 40th anniversary of the album. What is the name of the EP it's taken from? --Deba Tihs ´n´ Mad Dog 15:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

AllMusic Guide
Whole sections of this entry are copied verbatim from the All Music guide. I think this is probably a copyright violation. Neil 01:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, like "An earlier, 16-minute rendition (recorded for the film Tonite Let's All Make Love in London by Joe Boyd on 11 January 1967) may actually be superior in its more kinetic approach to the early sections, though it is perhaps more tedious and drawn-out as a whole". This would be POV anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.72.216.84 (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Interstellar Overdrive.ogg
Image:Interstellar Overdrive.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The song the first riff was adapted from
This song is described by Pete Jenner as "this new Arthur Lee song" or something like that. It would hardly have been "My little red book" because: a) This was a cover. b) It was Love's first single and Arthur Lee was unknown in Britain before releasing it. Hence it couldn't have been his "new song". IMHO, the song was "And more" from Love's first album. If you hum the melody and speed it up, you might get a prototype for this riff. Syd played a chord for each note that Jenner hummed, which is quite an alteration. Sponsianus (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The article says "most commonly identified as ... 'My Little Red Book'" and therefore does not positively state that was the song. To state that it could be another song, without citation, might be seen as original research.  For that matter, the current identification is both uncited and a guess, which is not very encyclopedic.  If you could find a citation from a professional reviewer, for instance, who says it could be "And More", you might try adding it and see what happpens.  If you want to add an explanation that Syd changed melody notes into chords, that's fine, because that's the generally understood theory.  But this section really could do with some citations.  References to the origins of this song have been documented in books; it's just that nobody has bothered to add them. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Questionable, but sourced, assertions.
I feel like I have to start buying every Pink Floyd-related book and read them all, so I know which ones are full of shit and which aren't. Cliff Jones's was only the start, I suppose.

Manning, Toby (2006). The Rough Guide to Pink Floyd (1st ed.). London: Rough Guides. p. 26. ISBN 1-84353-575-0. The free-form section (and also, "Pow R. Toc H.") was inspired by Frank Zappa's free-form freak-outs and The Byrds' "Eight Miles High". As far as I have ever been able to ascertain, only journalists and strangers on the Internet like Frank Zappa; I have certainly never met a live human being who does. But I have read journalists twisting and distorting in an attempt to force connections between Zappa and Pink Floyd. Karl Dallas did it a long time ago. This is the first I have EVER heard of ANY member of PF being a Zappa fan, and I mean in the slightest. And this from a "rough" guide to Pink Floyd? I DON'T BUY IT. Show me a quote. From somebody relevant.

Palacios, Julian (2010). Syd Barrett & Pink Floyd: Dark Globe (Rev. ed.). London: Plexus. p. 319. ISBN 0-85965-431-1. A bass riff in the song later evolved into another Pink Floyd song, "Let There Be More Light", which was written by Waters Just barely believeable, but could be sheer coincidence. I'm pretty sure I know what part he's talking about. A different bass riff was referenced in another Pink Floyd song, as the verses of "Comfortably Numb". OKAY, THAT'S IT! I'm calling bullshit right now. Either Mr. Palacios is a lazy, dishonest writer, or some dishonest Wikipedia editor is misusing sources for his own Original Research ... but THIS IS WRONG. "Comfortably Numb" was IN NO WAY inspired by "Interstellar Overdrive"; "Comfortably Numb" is IN NO WAY similar to "Interstellar Overdrive"; "Comfortably Numb"s music was mostly composed by one David J. Gilmour, who had NOT joined the band at this time. True, he wrote the verse music in E minor rather than the B minor Waters transposed it to, and I'm sure Waters had heavy influence on the general pacing and all -- that G, F#, E little kick that makes us love the song so much, totally absent from Gilmour's demo -- but I digress. THIS IS BULLSHIT!

I am too tired to set about fixing a whole article right now, but I'm just removing this assertion about "Comfortably Numb". It would eventually attract others like me who know better, anyway. (If I do say so myself.)

Quite unfortunately, these two books are cited frequently throughout the article, which is a shame, as they now seem the least reliable. Is there a tag, like the Citation Needed tag, for "Questionable or Unreliable Source"?

--Ben Culture (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I think I know why somebody with only a loose musicianship to him might see a similarity between the main theme of "Interstellar Overdrive" and "Comfortably Numb". As I wrote in the "Composition" section: "Interstellar Overdrive" shares an emphasis on chromaticism with "Astronomy Domine". The main theme descends chromatically from B to G, before resolving to E, all chords major. A novice musician might see that, the general bass territory being from B to G to E, and think "Ah! I know what song does that!"


 * But it's bollocks. What "Interstellar" is about is, as I indicated, the chromaticism. Almost amateurishly so; I like to call it "genius", but it's certainly crude: It goes B, B, B♭-B-B♭, A, A, A♭-A-A♭, G ... G♭, E ..., resolving to an E Major. It stays on the E Major, and after the theme repeats are through, the improvisation takes off from there. It is RESOLVED on E Major, whereas "Comfortably Numb" could never be finished on its E chord, an E minor. It is in B minor. "Numb" is a very diatonic song; the verse contains no accidentals, absolutely no chromatic descents like B-to-B♭. It alternates between minor and major chords, faithful to its key structure: |Bm |A |G . . /f# Em . . . |Bm | Only in the third measure can we call it truly similar to "Interstellar", in the sense that F# is briefly used as a (again, diatonic) passing tone. But while "Numb" only uses it in the bass, in "Interstellar" it's a big, whopping MAJOR CHORD, not a passing tone at all. And, to get fussy, it functions as G-Flat rather than F-Sharp. Most importantly, "Numb" just can't leave off at the E minor, it has to return to B minor for a fourth measure before restarting the sequence in the same place. "Interstellar Overdrive" can ONLY end on the E.


 * And the chorus of "Comfortably Numb" simply has nothing whatsoever in common with "Interstellar Overdrive" at all. Until Roger Waters says otherwise, I say any similarities are complete coincidence, and not especially notable.


 * So, there's a little original research of my own to disprove the other person's! Or Mr. Palacios's.
 * --Ben Culture (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)