Talk:Paint Box (song)

The "Pink Floyd chord"?
I may have added a huge digression with all the stuff I mentioned about the E minor ninth. The list isn't necessarily germane to "Paint Box". Maybe it belongs more in the actual Pink Floyd article. But I'm wondering, does anyone out there think it might be semi-appropriate to designate Em9, or Em(add9), the "Pink Floyd chord"? I mean this only in the sense that people refer to the E7#9 chord as the "Hendrix chord". To the educated musicians, the jazz and classical players, both cases might seem outrageously silly. But as far as rock/pop is concerned, is there any other band which uses the minor ninth chord so prominently and so often?

Hell, I didn't even mention that "Dogs" from the Animals album is completely based around a Dm9. I didn't want to confuse people by changing the key. --


 * It wouldn't be at all appropriate to call the chord "the Pink Floyd chord". It's actually extremely common (and you don't appear to have a notable source calling it "the Pink Floyd chord"). Moreover, as far as I can make out, your citations in this section refer merely to pop folios. None of them seem to refer to a notable source discussing the use of the chords you mention. That makes the paragraph Original Research and your use of citations deceptive. Either find real sources or delete the section. (And please sign in.) TheScotch (talk) 09:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Use of single's cover art image in B-side articles
63.25.117.132 (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

A single's cover art should not be used for the B-side song. According to WP:WikiProject Songs: "Use for album tracks and B-sides" (rather than Infobox Single). And from Template:Infobox Song: "You should not use the album cover, as this is not compliant with our fair-use criteria". The reason for this combination of rules is that cover art, under fair use rules, is only to be used in one article. The most appropriate article is the song for the A-side. This is an extention of the rule which states an album cover image is not to be used for song articles of individual songs from an album (i.e. using the same image in a dozen articles) even though each of those songs is "associated" with the album. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Minor ninth . . . Added ninth . . . Whatever.
The user, Bigmikerocks, removed the passages referring to the composer's emphatic use of an E minor ninth chord, the first known Pink Floyd song to do so. He did not address it on the Talk page (no consensus) and offered no sources for his contention in the Edit Summary:

(paint box does not contain the minor 9th chord, the chord played repeatedly throughout the song does not have a minor 3rd in it. It does have the 9th, but no 3rd)

The cited source for this song, The Pink Floyd Anthology song book, does in fact refer to it as a "Em(addF#)", a chord which is more properly called "Em(add9)". The chord diagram and the actual staff music also designate it as E, F#, G, and B.  I hear it, myself. There's a greater dissonance, one learns to recognize, when the third and the ninth (or second) occur together. What Bigmikerocks describes would be an Esus2 chord, which has a much "cleaner" sound. That's not it. The G is definitely in there.

What the chord doesn't have is a D, the seventh. That's the reason it's not an Em9, a minor ninth chord. See ninth. I changed the earlier text to refer to the many Pink Floyd songs having "either an E minor ninth chord or an E added ninth chord." I must say, however, I really doubt that the band members, with their relative lack of formal music education, sat around splitting hairs about it like this.

I don't believe there's a compelling reason to remove this section, even with a source. If you have a convincing source that says something different, report what it says and cite it. The information is definitely notable in the first place; this exact chord, played in a dramatic, crashing style, became a signature part of the Pink Floyd sound, as recognizably Floydian as perhaps even the so-called "Syd's Theme" from "Shine On You Crazy Diamond". (The arpeggio riff of Bb - F - G - E.) Thanks for your attention.

--Ben Culture (talk) 07:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Regardless of what chord it is, the paragraph contains a lot of peacock terms and POV. Okay for an essay, but not for an encyclopedia.  This really needs a clean-up.  Stating that a the use of a chord in one song inspired its use in others, is completely unsubstantiated (unless someone in the group said so).  Throwing in "factoids" like Roger Waters being a "dominant" member without references, is inappropriate, to give another example.  Adjectives like "classic" and "ominous" do not belong here.  I wasn't going to edit it, but I absolutely can't stand what I call the "fan-boy" use of "Floyd" (or worse, "The Floyd") in place of Pink Floyd, so I'm going to at least fix that part.  It's also inapproprate to demand that something you added not be removed (as was stated in your edit summary); it gives the impression you want to own the article. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Follow-up: Reading it again to see what needs to be removed, I can't see a justification for keeping anything except the part about the chords used. You mentioned on this talk page that you have a citation for the chord's use in this song, but you didn't put it in the article, which would have been a useful addition. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am in fact surprised at the amount of POV in my edit being discussed here. It was indeed quite unencyclopaedic. I apologize for that. All I can say is, it was over three years ago, and I was somewhat new to editing Wikipedia at the time.
 * Well, I'm no longer new. My experience has been largely positive, and my most of my contributions seem to be appreciated. Not until I re-visted this article today, and read A Knight Who Says Ni's comments, have I been on the receiving end of such broad and inexplicable refusal to assume good faith on my part.
 * I did my best, sir, with my limited experience as a contributor.
 * Your uncivil comments also strike me as rather less than intellectually honest. You said:


 * It's also inapproprate to demand that something you added not be removed (as was stated in your edit summary); it gives the impression you want to own the article.


 * Yes, that would be inappropriate, to demand such a thing. Had I actually done that. Had I demanded anything. But let's look at what I actually said for that edit summary:


 * Please don't remove this addition without seeing the Talk page. Thank you.


 * That's what I actually said. You could easily have checked that before posting your comments.
 * You honestly saw that as a "demand"? Really? I don't believe you did.
 * If there was a more civil and polite way to say, "Please, let's talk about it before you delete my work", by all means, enlighten me.
 * Next, I think most contributors to our Pink Floyd articles would agree that it is flat-out absurd to insist on a citation that Roger Waters was the dominant songwriter of Pink Floyd. It is not a "factoid", but a plainly apparent fact to anyone who reads the album credits. I did not describe Waters as "domineering"; that perhaps would be a "factoid", but he was absolutely the dominant songwriter: He wrote all the lyrics and much of the music. It is simple math. I think you knew that.
 * But you made your priorites known. I had, in an inappropriate and unencyclopaedic fashion, referred to Roger Waters as "Floyd songwriter", instead of "Pink Floyd songwriter" (which would have been perfectly fine). That "Floyd" thing irritated you. You said so directly. That was why you made the decision to go "clean up" my edit by removing it altogether. You pejoratively referred to my writing as "fan-boy", which was just unnecessarily demeaning.
 * You can read my earlier comment on this Talk page and see, I was willing to be wrong in the first place. I said:


 * I may have added a huge digression with all the stuff I mentioned about the E minor ninth. The list isn't necessarily germane to "Paint Box".


 * I was completely open to the idea that it didn't belong. You didn't have to accuse me of being a "fan-boy" who "demanded" his "factoids" be permanently enshrined in the article.
 * Finally, I have no idea what you're talking about when you say:


 * You mentioned on this talk page that you have a citation for the chord's use in this song, but you didn't put it in the article.


 * I don't know what to tell you. I cited no less than five sheet music songbooks, including the one for "Paint Box" at the top of the list, and clearly labeled them as such. I have no idea how you missed or misinterpreted that.
 * Your reaction to my good-faith edit was uncivil, overly judgemental, and unnecessarily discouraging. Try not to assume the worst about people in the future.
 * --Ben Culture (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Restored info on E minor ninth chord in PF's work, albeit w/o previous POV.
This is my thinking: A chord like E minor ninth was not common in rock/pop music circa 1967, when "Paint Box" was released. It was used prominently in this song (it's that ka-chang, chang part in the intro and between the verses), and this was the first time it appeared in a Pink Floyd song. It went on to be used prominently in many of Pink Floyd's better-known material (For example, it's the very first chord heard on Dark Side of the Moon, right after all the sound effects and the woman screaming, and it's the main body of the song, alternating with A Major). I have cited the sheet music that shows which songs it's used in, and the question of whether those songs are notable or not has already been answered by the fact that most of them have their own Wikipedia articles, with sources. So it's not really a leap to say it's a signature part of their sound. As such, I believe this information belongs in a Pink Floyd article. I chose this one because it's the first song in which the chord occurs. But maybe that's not the correct choice. I'm open on that. I can see how someone reading this article might wonder why all these other songs matter. So if this information does not belong here, where does it? I would argue against the notion that this information is fancruft. It isn't to a musician, at least, and Pink Floyd are an influential act with many fans who are musicians. So if anyone's inclined to remove this information from this article, I would implore them to please move it to another Pink Floyd-related article instead. Is that not reasonable? I'm doing my best to contribute in a meaningful and appropriate way. I'm not normally a fan of people restoring information that was removed, but I believe it's good information of an encyclopedic nature, that has a place on Wikipedia. --Ben Culture (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * To me written this way it's very distracting and off-topic sounding. You should make it much shorter, just saying "it's the first song with the distinctive Em add9 song which characterized many following songs" 91.81.50.234 (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I certainly see your point, but the problem with that is, then you have someone demanding a citation for the "many" in "many following songs". If I'm to take the trouble to list them for my fellow contributors, why shouldn't readers have access to that list? See, an encyclopedia is not like a newspaper or an advertisement. It isn't about grabbing your attention and holding it tight with a minimum of high-impact verbiage. It's about putting all the relevant facts in a place where those who are interested may find them. Encyclopaedia articles are allowed to be boring and completionist and specific. As for which facts are relevant, well, that's what makes Wiki-debating!
 * I would also suggest, there's precious little else to say about the song, and it's highly unlikely any new, interesting facts will ever emerge. Can you imagine: "Paint Box (The Previously-Unreleased Syd Barrett Guitar-Solo Mix)"?!? I wish, but it ain't gonna happen! What are we making room for?
 * But, having said that, I do believe it's relevant for the reasons stated in the article -- that is, that a great deal of their music revolves around this exact chord, and this is where it started!
 * Maybe this section could be cordoned off a little more, though, so it doesn't seem so much like a digression.
 * --Ben Culture (talk) 03:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

"Video" section.
The two links are bunk. The video has been blocked from YouTube on copyright-infringement grounds, and the second link does not contain any video; it appears to be a database. Can we get a worthwhile link, or else delete the section? Isn't it all copyright infringement?

--Ben Culture (talk) 07:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Paint Box. Pink Floyd
I heard this brilliant song, the B side of Apples and Oranges in the 60's. I loved it as soon as I heard it, but I did not understand the how the title came about. On Sunday I read an article in the Sunday Mail which mentioned a club from the 60's called 'The Paint Box' in London. Am I right in thinking that the song stems from this establishment? The words ' Last night I had too much to drink. Sitting in a town with so many fools, playing to rules' and then saying ' I had another drink'. Can anyone enlighten me on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catopoly (talk • contribs) 18:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * That's the first reasonable theory I've ever heard to explain this song's title! Good thinking on your part. I don't know of any Pink Floyd books that have ever established this. It might be worth mentioning, something like "In the mid-1960s, there was a club called 'The Paint Box' in London, [at approximate address, if available]". We'd just have to have our facts right, and not go into supposition (you know "This may be the source of the song's title", that just doesn't belong). But I bet you're right. Otherwise, the song's title just seems VERY random, and Rick Wright's titles and lyrics were generally not of a "random" nature. (Oh, and it's "Sitting in a club with so many fools".)
 * If you happened to save that page of the paper, that would make things a lot easier!
 * I have to say, it may not be possible to get this into the article while remaining consistent with Wikipedia's policies. You know, just a "don't get your hopes up" kind of thing. But I have a sneaking suspicion you're right.
 * --Ben Culture (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Was Gilmour in Pink Floyd in October of 1967?news to me!71.47.143.44 (talk) 04:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)