Talk:Sad Wings of Destiny

Fair use rationale for Image:Sad wings of destiny cover.jpg
Image:Sad wings of destiny cover.jpg 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

== citation neededs in a poll on an internet message board Sad Wings tied for First Place as best JP album, there is your citation as for it being a fan favorite. 70.20.11.161 12:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Title track?
The article states "The album was the only one by Judas Priest not to feature a title track up until 1980's British Steel (counting "Sinner" as the title track of 1977's Sin After Sin)."

So, why not count "Steeler" as the title track of British Steel then? That would make "Point of Entry" their first album without a title track. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjm905 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, and the line doesn't really add anything of worth to the article anyway. So I've taken it out. Prophaniti (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sad wings of destiny cover.jpg
Image:Sad wings of destiny cover.jpg 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) 10:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Original LP Track listing
The article states that the original track listing on the LP is starting on side 1 with "Prelude" and so on.

Well I have the LP (copyright 1975) in my possession and can say that this is not the case. The track order is the same as on the CDs starting with "Victim of changes" on side 1. Only on the sleeve it starts with "Prelude" but not on the disc.

I found also a side which supports my notice: http://www.discogs.com/Judas-Priest-Sad-Wings-Of-Destiny/release/385227

Can anyone confirm this or are there different versions of the original LP out? If not the article should be modified accordingly. 78.48.130.7 (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the LP sleeve suggests that side one begins with Prelude, but the label itself gives Victim of Changes as the opening track: http://www.collectable-records.ru/groups/judas%20priest/sad.htm

It could be that the band intended the track sequence to match the sleeve and a mistake happened with the labelling, but as a librarian and a cataloguer I'd have to select the record's label as the "chief source of information". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.238.27 (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking around at images of different pressings on the web, the "Victim of Changes" side is sometimes labelled "Side 1" and sometimes "Side A"—this blows my mind. The sequencing works so much better opening with "Prelude" and closing with "Deceiver". It has to be a mistake that nobody's bothered to fix after all these years. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Gull Records reissued this album in 2012 with correct tracklist on CD (Gull 88697967872-JK2).
 * Unfortunately I can find almost no info online about this release. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

http://rutracker.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4836371

Here. Fuck copyright extremists.)
 * Ummm ... I meant I was hoping for information that could be used for the article. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Try looking for "The Complete Album Collection" where ALL (even Gull albums) are. "Sad Wings Wings Of Destiny" with correct tracklist among them.

Proof of this release

Scanned Booklet from The Complete Albums box


 * K. K. Downing considers "Island of Domination" the album closer. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not reliable source. Turn the logic on and think why one track is called "Prelude"... 'Cause it would be the first one and this happened at last in the only Judas Priest-endorsed re-release of the album.
 * I know it's not a reliable source, but reliable sources don't state that "Prelude" was meant to start the album—and if a member of the band says "Island of Domination" is the album closer, then I'm not getting my hopes up that a reliable source will be found that says otherwise. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Equipment used?
Does anyone have a Reliable Source on what equipment was used on this album? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Epitaph
Guys. GUYS. Glenn wrote the song, not Rob, so why is Rob telling Popoff what the lyrics are about? At best, he's speculating. Should we remove that? Andreas George Skinner (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I tweaked the wording. Here's what Halford actually said:  "As there are no places for children in our modern cities, there’s also no place for the old.  And it's simply frustrating for me to see how these old human beings are forced to live their lives.  From these feelings developed the song 'Epitaph'. Besides, the lyrics and texts still have strong importance for me.  The words have to mean something for me; they have to help me articulate my feelings. Just like Glenn can make you happy or sad with his guitar playing, it has to be exactly the same with the lyrics. The sound must express what is stated in their logical content." Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys, did we mention Black Sabbath?
In this article, we learn that Sad Wings of Destiny is not only Black Sabbath-like, but also Sabbath-inspired with an influence of Black Sabbath, and (you'd better sit down for this) Black Sabbath-heavy and reminiscent of Sabbath! And Queen. But mostly Black Sabbath.

Is it really necessary to mention Black Sabbath *eight* different times throughout an article on another band's album? Don't get me wrong - I love Sabbath, and there's no denying their huge influence on Priest. But repeating the same comparison so many times is really grating, and comes off as unimaginative and amateurish writing. Even worse, it gives the impression that the sound of this album is completely derivative... which it isn't. If we were talking about Witchfinder General, you'd have a case, but JP were never clones. Not even on Rocka Rolla where they had Sabbath's producer.

One mention should be enough - maybe two, at most. Protip: if you really feel that the comparison helps describe specific parts or pieces, then be descriptive: instead of name-dropping, mention the qualities that evoked the comparison in the first place ('ominous', 'dark', 'brooding', 'ponderous', whatever... have at it).

79.178.70.22 (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see you strip the Sabbath references down to "one, maybe two" without butchering the article. Good luck with that. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If so many other wikipedia articles about landmark albums manage to describe the subject matter without depending so heavily on a single point of comparison, what's so preposterous about this one doing the same? At the very least, the track-by-track breakdown doesn't need those references, as long as the idea can be conveyed with descriptors. (As a bonus, readers who aren't intimately familiar with Black Sabbath would get the point more easily, I would think.)


 * If, on the other hand, you feel that it's your own work which would be "butchered" by such a change... well, that's why I'm not really inclined to do it myself; too burnt out on edit wars. Still, even if I may have come across slightly harsh up there, my suggestion isn't exactly unreasonable.79.178.70.22 (talk) 02:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've dropped two mentions, but I honestly can't see dropping any of the rest. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Judas Priest NWoBHM?
Over the next several years Judas Priest became a prominent example of the New Wave of British Heavy Metal.

This is not generally accepted. Although a source is given that confirms this statement, one is perfectly able to come up with plenty of examples that claim the complete opposite (I can do so if necessary). If no-one vetoes this I would just delete the sentence and leave the musical classification to the Judas Priest-article. S. Hauke (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's see those sources first. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure if this source is appropriate, but one can find the thesis that Judas Priest are not to be ranked among the NWoBHM for example in the article "The History of the New Wave of British Heavy Metal" on ultimateclassicrock.com. At one point it reads "[...] as punk rock was ravaging the dinosaur-rock aristocracy, even more recent heavy metal standard bearers like Rainbow, Uriah Heep and Judas Priest were inching closer and closer to commercial hard rock sounds;" and later, relating to the NWoBHM, "[...] it needed a brand new generation of musicians who were willing to embrace it [= metal music], warts and all, then reinvent and carry it forward into the future." These two sentences in correlation eliminate the possibility that Priest could be an NWoBHM-band.


 * The whole issue becomes even more obvious in the biography "The story of Judas priest: Defenders of the faith", written by Neill Daniels. In part 3, chapter 7 it reads "[...] Judas Priest had an impact on the [NWoBHM-]period but were definitely not part of it."


 * And, finally, it is wikipedia itself that reads in its article about the NWoBHM that these bands were "Following the example of Judas Priest [...]" - a statement that would also place Priest outside of the NWoBHM-movement.


 * I hope I was able to bring some enlightening sources to the table, I can do another research on the topic if this should not be the case.S. Hauke (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've commented out the sentence that says they were NWOBHM. I find it hard to separate Priest from NWOBHM, but if it's disputed it would be wrong to state it as a cut-and-dry fact. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

It didn't take long for the movement to gain more commercial momentum, but again, it didn't belong to the same musical generation as these two. Priest/Motorhead had an enormous influence on the NWOBHM, and you could argue that most of those younger bands were looking up to them, but claiming that they were part of the 'new wave' just demonstrates the limits of hindsight. No reputable *contemporary* source ever lumped them in the NWOBHM pile, and certainly I don't recall ever encountering this misinformed confusion until the early 2000s or so. 109.66.70.134 (talk) 14:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There are two bands - Judas Priest and Motorhead - that get lumped in with the NWOBHM very often these days, but that's a kind of revisionism. NWOBHM was a scene/movement (not a subgenre, in any case) composed of bands that were young upstarts with a purely 'underground' status around 1979, when the term was first coined.  At that time, Priest and Motorhead had multiple-album deals and were doing arena tours; the actual NWOBHM bands were mostly unsigned, and even if a select few *did* have a debut album out on an indie label, most were lucky to play the local pub twice a month or to scrape some cash for a demo.

Track listing
According to this, the Complete Albums box set marked the first time the band authorized the release of Sad Wings on CD, and the track listing there is indeed the correct one because the sides really were mistakenly reversed when the album was first released. The first part appears to be true, and that certainly does lend a lot of weight to the idea that that track listing is the correct one after all. I can't find an RS for it, though, so the best thing to do would be, if possible, to contact someone close to the band (or Sony) and see if we can get confirmation that that is indeed the case. I looked around on the band's website, but I couldn't find a way to get in touch with anyone close to them, and the same is true for Sony, who'd probably be much less willing to help us out anyway. Does anyone know how to get in touch with someone close to the band? Esszet (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Contacting Sony or anyone else won't help us when we don't have a published RS. I'm surprised this hasn't come up in a bio or an interview somewhere.  Just listening to the album makes it obvious which side was meant to be Side A. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I was thinking it might be acceptable because it can easily be replicated (i.e. someone else can ask them the same question the same way), but I might have found an answer. Although the booklet that comes with the Complete Albums box (viewable in full here) doesn't say anything about it, there's something written in the lower right-hand corner on the back cover of the version of the album included in the box set, and it doesn't appear to be on other releases. Can someone with the box set see what it says? Esszet (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Never mind, it appears to be the same thing as the one here, and it just says something about playing stereo records on mono turntables or something like that. Since on second thought contacting the band probably wouldn't be good enough to be a source on here, I guess we're stuck for now. Esszet (talk) 12:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Sad Wings of Destiny. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allmusic.com/album/victim-of-changes-mw0000503036
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allmusic.com/album/victim-of-changes-mw0000503036
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allmusic.com/album/sad-wings-of-destiny-mw0000201463
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041027232638/http://members.firstinter.net/markster/SADWINGSOFDESTINY.html to http://members.firstinter.net/markster/SADWINGSOFDESTINY.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of "Songs" Section
I recently deleted the content found in the "Songs" subsection of the article, and I was reverted. This material, which appears to be personal analysis from some guy's book, is not at all needed in the article, and should not be said in Wiki-voice as fact. It is certainly the first article I have come across that features an in-depth analysis of each song's content and style in addition to a track list. Essentially, this "Songs" sub-section is providing the helpful function of listing the songs on the album with a bunch of flowery language thrown in. I don't need to know if a particular song is a chugging, riff-heavy rocker or A forward-looking, riff-heavy rocker or A quiet track with piano backing and Queen-like layered vocals or a heavy rocker with a complex riff. As I stated in my original comment, this is not Pitchfork. This is not the space for "music journalism" or song analysis. It should be removed, and whoever is responsible for it should start their own music blog. KidAd (talk) 06:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. And thanks for leaving a message here rather than reverting, good form. The major content contributor was, whose userpage now shows a retired banner. Let's see if we get any response to the ping before carrying out anything drastic. Thanks — sparklism hey! 09:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I don't think I've touched this article (are you getting confused with Curly "JFK" Turkey who has done a lot of rock / metal GAs and FAs?) Anyway, from a cursory look, the song information looks like it's cited mostly to Martin Popoff's source. I would recommend instead of having an individual section for each song, to keep the section but trim it down to maybe two paragraphs - one for each side. While I'm here, I can't help thinking that the images are off-topic and excuses to put something in for a GA - in particular, the appearance of an early 1970s picture of Joan Baez is rather tenuous. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * yes I did get confused, and reverted myself. Sorry if I woke you, but thanks for your input! — sparklism hey! 10:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help! KidAd (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , it doesn't look like we will get a response from at this point. What do you think to Ritchie333's suggestions above? Thanks. — sparklism  hey! 07:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this fix is appropriate. KidAd (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)