Talk:Shine On You Crazy Diamond

shine
Barret hear shine on you crazy diamonds ,not wish you were here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.254.248.81 (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

length
i think the first part lasts 13 minutes and 30 seconds, not 34. 13 and 34 is for a live version of the first part.

OMGWTFBBQ
"The last section (coda), 'Part IX', is introduced by a synth pedal point, which grows in volume as the previous goove dissipates. A slow 4/4 funeral march (9:08) becomes the parting musical eulogy to Syd."

I DIDN'T MEAN SYD DIED OMG! I meant it was thought of as a kind-of funeral dirge. Also, I was wrong... It's in Four. I think I used to play this part in three-four maybe. My mistake. 131.247.98.123

My viynl version says part 5 was (gilmour waters wright)not (waters)

Interesting. Which country is your vinyl version from? My UK vinyl copy credits Waters for part V and Wright for part IX as does the original, official songbook.NH78.147.104.165 (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of which... did you know the original Canadian edition of the LP just says "all lyrics by Roger Waters" on the innersleeve, and has no other composition credits on the label or cover? I'm not sure that's significant enough for the article, but at least it's here now on the talk page. I've seen this discussion before, and went to check my copy, but then remembered mine doesn't have credits. It's possible early copies of the album had mixed-up credits in various countries. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Take It From There
The article states Syd's theme came from a BBC program, "Take it from there". I think the program referred to is probably Take It From Here, a 1950s BBC radio comedy program, which always started with a four equal-duration-note motif played on glockenspiel that does indeed have similar (not identical) melodic shape and roughly the same rhythmic shape and speed. That said, can someone find more reliable documentary evidence for the assertion? --RobertG &#9836; talk 16:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that is from the Echoes FAQ, the most reliable Pink Floyd FAQ on the web. Hang on. I'm No Parking and I approved this message 19:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The FAQ says it is called "Take it from Here", so I guess that it's inaccurate on that point. I'm No Parking and I approved this message Grrr...

The link above gives the answer. - Sasuke Sarutobi 00:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Laughter at 08:48
Does anyone know whether this is Syd laughing or not? It sounds vaguely similar to the laughter on The Dark Side of the Moon, but I'm not sure. -- Sasuke Sarutobi 00:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't that be awesome? But it's almost certaintly not true. In his last studio appearance, Syd couldn't be bothered to bring a guitar that had strings on it, so I can't see him laughing on cue into the mike. Nor do I think Syd had much laughter in him by 1974. Plus, Syd was a baritone, with a rather nasal tone, and this chuckle sounds very tenor and breathy. I would bet it's Gilmour -- or else, as you indicated, Roger The Hat from "On The Run". Finally, I think Waters or Gilmour would have revealed such a startling tidbit by now. So, no. But damn, that would be cool.  --63.25.113.207 16:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Title
Well, okay, now it's "Shine on", so someone should go through the article and change it accordingly. Personally, I think the article should have the "O" capitalized as it makes more sense, but if wiki-rules are to the contrary then whatever... -albrozdude 03:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The "O" in "On" should be capitalized. The rules of capitalizing in titles indicate that articles, prepositions and conjunctions should not be capitalized. As you can see from my Wiktionary link above, "On" is not functioning as a preposition here, but as an adverb modifying the verb "Shine". It should be moved back. - dharmabum 20:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Composers for the various parts of the song?
Where does this information come from (eg. crediting Waters alone for Pt. V)? The only authoritative sources I can find for the composition is "Waters, Gilmour, Wright" for all 9 parts. - dharmabum 06:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It comes from the credits on the actual record label of the original LP AND the original songbook. Waters wrote part v and Wright wrote part IX.NH89.240.228.50 (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup
Having just finished reading this article, the first section reads as if it was written disjointly by many sources... because it was! I'd like to see a unified voice for this section. I don't have time right now to clean it up by myself, but I'll get to it over the next few days if someone else doesn't beat me to it. &mdash; X S  G  17:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I reorganized the information. From my point of view, problem wasn't that it read "as if it was written disjointly by many sources", but rather there was too much information under the 'Recording' section that didn't belong there. I moved the last paragraph to the introduction of the article (it's about the song and what's behind it, as a theme, and not about recording details), moved the information about the 'Part 1'/'Part 2' nomenclature to 'Trivia', and moved the "Two different edited versions of the composition have appeared on compilation albums." line to 'Edited versions' to pose as an intro to this section (which I also subsectioned for each of the compilations). Hope it's a good cleanup—I think it is, so I removed the cleanup template. —Rotring 17:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I reread the whole article and, apart from the section that was marked for cleanup, there might still be some cleanup base. Info about live performances is replicated, both on the song "analysis" by parts and on the live performances section; maybe maintain only the latter? —Rotring 17:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

4/4 Time in Part V . . . Really?
From the description of Part V: "After, a time signature switch from 6/8 to common time (4/4) gives the appearance that the the tempo speeds up the saxophone . . . ."

Time signatures can be arbitrary. You can call the faster section of Part V 4/4, if you like. . . but if you transcribed that section, you'd be putting little "3"s over all the eighth notes, because they're all triplets. Which is my sarcastic way of saying, this section is not in 4/4 time! Rather, the tempo has exactly doubled, where an eighth note at the new tempo is equivalent to a sixteenth note at the old tempo. That's why the arpeggio guitar part, unchanged, fits both tempos. It's in 12/8, or 6/8 if you want twice as many bar lines, but it ain't in 4/4. --63.25.113.207 17:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It's 12/8 rather than 6/8, I think. Listen to Part III of the song and discover that it is a variation on a twelve-bar blues (with the final bar extended by 2 extra beats). 81.154.54.195 15:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah - I've figured it out... Yes, the time signature changes - from 12/8 to 12/16!!! This way that circling guitar riff plays in semiquavers/sixteenth-notes throughout the section. By the time you read this I will already have corrected the time signatures throughout the article to match this. --The guy with the axe - aaaaaaargh!!! 20:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that's not the case either. The main part of the song is 6/4 and the solo bit is 12/8. BotleySmith 22:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know why I didn't get round to saying this before, but BotleySmith I haven't a clue what you're talking about. However, your solution is OK, I guess.  So I'm not about to change it back.  --The guy with the axe - aaaaaaargh!!! 17:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As you say, the arpeggio's don't change but underlying beat does. Using twelve 8th notes for the repeating arpeggio (and for a measure), it seems to start with one beat for every two (or six or twelve) 8th notes (which makes 6/4) and change to 1 beat for every three 8th notes (4/4 with 8th note triplets) without changing the duration of the 8th notes. It clearly goes from 3/4 to 4/4 (but I'm not sure it would be good to transcribe it that way). In part VIII the arpeggio is extended slightly to fit into a 4/4 measure as 16th notes. (beautiful, isn't it!). lifeform (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The original poster is correct. This part of the song is not in 4/4. It's in 12/8.
 * The sheet music book transcribes the main of the song in 3/4, and does not transcribe this section at all. (Seriously. It would have you believe that "Part V" ends on a sustained chorus of "Shine!") Musicologist Phil Rose's "Which One's Pink" describes the main of the song in 6/4, switching to 12/8. This makes the most sense.
 * To notate the seemingly-faster section in 4/4 would, as the original poster indicated, require measure after measure of forced, artificial triplets. It's precisely for music like this that the time signature of 12/8 was created. 12/8 is a time signature that feels like 4/4 but with strong, unyielding triplets. One sign that it is not in 4/4 is, there are no "straight" eighth notes.
 * . . . Okay, so I am the original poster, but that doesn't change my point!
 * And by the way, you are correct about Part VIII; the arpeggioes are "extended" (well put!) into a true 4/4.
 * --Ben Culture (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Pink Floyd Funk
This might seem a bit weird to some people, but doesn't Part 8 of "Shine On..." bear an odd resemblence to P-Funk? When I say P-Funk, I mean the style of funk that Parliament pioneered. Now there have been numerous other times that Pink Floyd have incorporated a few influences of funk music in their sound (like in "Echoes"), but to me, Part 8 definitely reminds me of something I might have heard on Mothership Connection with its "groovy" bassline and high-pitched synthesizer riff. I know the striking similarity is purely coincidental, because Wish You Were Here and Mothership Connection were both made in 1975, but I find Part 8 quite out of place with the rest of "Shine On..." because, like I said, it sounds exactly like something Dr. Dre would have sampled! Does anybody else notice this?71.183.84.74 23:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wright was quite a fan of Miles Davis and other jazz virtuosi, perhaps he picked up one or two licks from them. Waters and Mason naturally played very funky owing to the wide downbeat they created (with Roger playing quite far ahead of the beat and Nick lagging behind ever so slightly). Check out the "Funky Dung" part of "Atom Heart Mother Suite" for a good example. BotleySmith 22:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I would be very interested to hear a remix that omits this section entirely, with the last chorus of "Shine!" overlaid on the first chord of Rick Wright's "Part IX", which is so often sadly omitted from live performance, remixes, documentaries, etc.!
 * --Ben Culture (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Shine On You Crazy Diamond.ogg
Image:Shine On You Crazy Diamond.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 Wikipedia articles 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 15:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Parts I-V
According to the tablature book "Wish you were here" the first five parts are not correct..

The last part (the guitar solo) of Part I should be Part II instead, and the following parts should all increase by one, making the four note pattern including the second solo Part III, the following Part IV and the vocal part should be merged with Part V.

80.162.185.210 11:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Part two begins with the 4 note pattern. Part three begins with the horn-like keyboards, part 4 with the vocals, and part 5 with the sax solo. Tablatures are not always reliable and are usually not written or based upon the band members own interpretations. - Floydian (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So . . . What, you simply refute the sheet-music book? I agree there can be errors (the original Dark Side of the Moon book did not notate "Money" in 7/4; instead it put 3/4 and 4/4 side-by-side where the time signature goes. But then, that's better than notating it in 7/8, as David Gilmour has wrongly described it), but you're making some very clear statements, so what's your source?
 * The original sheet-music book is designed by Hipgnosis. Perhaps you've heard of them? They had a direct working relationship with the members of Pink Floyd.
 * The original poster is correct (and our article isn't); the sheet music notates "Part II" as the first guitar solo. "Part III" begins with the four-note pattern, through second guitar solo, "Part IV" with Rick's solo and third guitar solo, "Part V" vocals until the fade.
 * Seriously, all due respect, et cetera,
 * --Ben Culture (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I have to back those who have identified the first 5 sections as being
 * I: keys solo
 * II: guitar solo 1
 * III: 4 note theme plus guitar solo
 * IV: key and guitar solos
 * V: vocals plus baritone, then tenor sax solo

This comes from spending months transcribing and interpreting all of the bs tabs out there for a show and then comparing back to the Hal Leonard/Music Sales song book ISBN 0825610796 - the Hipgnosis designed book.

I'd also point out that in terms of how the copyright and publishing rights have been claimed, the above breakdown is what is recorded in all registers around the world, not the obviously faulty description that keeps appearing in the article page.

Yes there are some minor issues with time signatures in this book, and missing sections (the sax solo at the end of V is not included nor is the full version of part VI included; these are quibbles in the bigger picture of the book providing structures and chord progressions).

I'm inclined to fix the article to reflect the published version, but guess that has been done multiple times and been undone by someone else. -- Bandcoach (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Synth Solo on First Half
I'm pretty positive that Richard Wright hardly ever or never used a Minimoog synth. I'm pretty sure the horn like synth solo at the beginning is actually a sawtooth wave Prophet V sound. I'm going to change it in the article and someone can change it back if they think otherwise. --User:PhilyG 22:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

this is more likely to be on an EMS VCS3 or Synthi than a Prophet, which was not invented until two years after (1977) the album was released (1975) Bandcoach (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

What a load of poop I am
You talk about music like a lawer. Totally missing the point. As if Pink Floyd give a shite about Picardy thirds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.42.51.27 (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Translation: "You said something I didn't understand, and that makes me angry. CARE about me!!!
 * They damn well do give a shit that the song begins in G minor and ends on a G Major chord, and that's what a Picardy fucking third means, you ignorant wipe.
 * They - and the readers of Wikipedia - do not care about a bunch of unsourced sophomoric (and likely psychotic) rambling (from people who discovered Pink Floyd five years ago) about What It All Meeeaans Maaan. Let me guess: Part I is "about" the innocence of youth, a handsome young man in a field of oversized psychedelic flowers, with Lewis-Carrollian overtones, right? (Yeah, I attended that horrible fucking Division Bell concert, too. Did you know that "Time" is about an infinite amount of flexible clocks in the sky?)
 * "Shine the fuck On You Crazy fucking Diamond" is about Syd Fucking Barrett. "It's not about all the crazy diamonds", says Roger Waters. It's about Syd, and we HAVE an article about him!
 * --Ben Culture (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

...agreed, the article talks about the sounds, not the meaning. What did Floyd mean by the Crazy Diamond? What were they trying to say with the album, and the various songs. Someone should hunt down quotes about that, and compile it into something more useful. People don't talk about meaning anymore. Interviews with songwriters focus on fame and fashion and rarely on their art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.100.80.103 (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Real, actual interviews with Pink Floyd members don't even introduce topics like "fame and fashion"! If you had read any you would know that.
 * Don't encourage this nonsense! Not from a position of complete cluelessness! "People don't talk about meaning anymore"?!? Easy to say. A sure applause-winner. But compared to when? And who doesn't talk about meaning? Are you sure you're even looking?
 * There are websites called "Songmeanings" and "Songfacts" and they are HORRIBLE. Go work at improving them, if you care so much about "meanings" instead of facts. I want Wikipedia to contain verifiable facts, not a bunch of review-ish nonsense about "plaintive" lyrics and "mournful" guitar solos. I have removed such adjectivist bullshit personally many times, and will continue to do so, from Pink Floyd articles. That's what you get when you start trying to talk about "meaning" -- you get a bunch of description, increasingly airy-fairy adjectives and cliches.
 * Pink Floyd just put out a whole DVD called "The Story of Wish You Were Here" -- and it's largely The Story of "Shine On You Crazy Diamond", which is The Story of Syd Barrett, which I already had in my DVD collection. I actually feel pretty ripped off by it, but at least I feel ripped off by Roger, David, Nick, and Rick personally.
 * There is a LOT of ROCK JOURNALISM out there. What you are talking about is ROCK JOURNALISM. I spent my whole adolescence reading it. It's insipid as hell. There's plenty being written about Pink Floyd on blogs every day. Go find it. Whole books are for sale. Go buy them. Maybe you'll learn that this song is about Syd Barrett and nobody else. Roger Waters has said so explicitly. I'm more interested in the music and the history and the recording and the design and the sales and the tour and the facts, the facts, and the facts.
 * --Ben Culture (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Impossible. The Prophet 5 didn't come out until 1978 and this recording was made in 1974. So I'm changing it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.26.154 (talk) 08:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * And fuck you too!
 * --Ben Culture (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (I'm kidding)

Division
''but the song grew longer than a single side of vinyl would allow. It was split into two parts and used to bookend the album.''

Sure? I remember having read in Nic Schaffners Book that it was Waters who wanted that divison. Genesis hat 2 LPs ("Selling" and "And then tere were 3") which have longer B-Sides, so I think it should have been possible to put "shine on" on a single side of the LP --Münzberg (talk) 10:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you're right; the division had more to do with the album's concept/structure than limitations of vinyl. Then again, if they had put "Shine On" on one side and the other songs on the other, they would have ended up with 26 min and 18 min sides ... which they could have corrected by writing and recording another song.  Their next album, Animals had a similar problem, as all 3 main songs were originally written to be around the same length (10 mins each), and one was padded a bit (as it seems to me) to fill a side, but it's a shorter side.  If you want to remove the claim, go ahead.  If you can replace it with a citation from the book you mentioned, even better. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would do so, but I haven't the book so I can't. (I red the book five yeard ago, lent by a former colleague. Maybe someone reading this has the book and can confirm what I remember --Münzberg (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We can still remove the claim about vinyl limitations, and I've done so. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

All fine and good, but my understanding was, you can pack a lot of length onto vinyl, but the longer it gets, at some point you have to sacrifice sound quality, and we know they weren't going to choose that. Is that true, about vinyl? --Ben Culture (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The Unanswered Question resemblance
I removed the following for the article: "It should be noted that this composition is bears resemblance to Charles Ives's The Unanswered Question." It has no encyclopedic value. If we can get reliable sources that tackle this "issue" than it can be added again. Personally, I didn't notice any resemblance except for the first trumpet note (that isn't very significant). Feel free to disagree here, or revert the edit and add some basis for it. -- Will Mak  050389  02:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Length?
Just a trivia perhaps... maybe more.

When I used my audio editing software Cool Edit Pro 2 to edit together the halves into one song, my length was 25:40.

I am not perfect, but this is within a second for sure. I come to this conclusion based on how I combined the tracks: I first used the first half from Wish You Were Here up until the end of the sax solo, when the last cymbol crashes and the wind fades in. At this point, I cut in the same point on the track off the disk Echoes. At the first audible bass note, I again cut, placing the second half off Wish You Were Here ahead of the cut.

So again... Perhaps only trivia, perhaps it's notable on the sidebar. 25:40 is the actual length of the combined suite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floydian (talk • contribs) 08:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. SignorX (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC) --SignorX (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Re-recording of piano
I don't feel confident enough to do it myself, but it should've been mentioned somewhere that Rick Wright in 2007 re-recorded a piano part for the SACD mix at British Grove Studios. http://www.pinkfloydz.com/missingpiano.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.102.167.136 (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It was definitely worth adding to the article, and someone did, with a link to the video at vimeo.com. Basically, it was a ten-minute video to discuss, basically, 24 bars of what can only be described as "padding" - simple triads on right hand, with left-hand power chords thickening the bass register, with no noticeable reduction of Waters's bass guitar levels. It was mixed not to be noticed, but to lend atmosphere. Once you do notice it, you may wish you hadn't. I'm not wild about it. It is a case of a much older Rick Wright adding a genuinely new audio track to the 38-year-old multitrack, even if it's not a terribly notable part. It would have to be his last contribution to an original Pink Floyd record (and any Pink Floyd member's last contribution to that particular one). From the perspective of making the article better, the work has been done, so THANK YOU for bringing it up!
 * --Ben Culture (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Astronomy Dominé
The point about the very last keyboard lick being a tip of the hat to See Emily Play is absolutely right, but everyone seems to have missed the glaringly obvious (to me, at least!) reference to Astronomy Dominé! The chord structure under "Remember when you were young, you shone like the sun" is identical to the chord structure under "Lime and limpet green, A second scene, A fight between the blue you once knew", the former being Gm, F#, Bb and the latter being Em, Eb, G. MarkRae (talk) 06:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * No, because "Astronomy Domine" uses E MAJOR. The sequence is E, E-flat, G, and A -- all major chords.
 * --Ben Culture (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Electric piano on Part VIII
I found two different pieces of information in the article that seem to contradict one another. In the "Parts VI-IX" section, it says it's a Rhodes piano (without the Fender Rhodes and Mini-Moog overdubs) but in "Personnel" section, it says it's a Wurlitzer electric piano (clavinet and Wurlitzer electric piano on Part VIII) and both these bits of information appear to be unsourced. Furthermore, in the "Composition" section, there's a WP:OR maintenance template when all content must be verifiable. Does anyone have a reliable source with accurate information?--Kevjgav (talk) 10:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I just listened to Part VIII and it sounds like a Wurlitzer more than it does like a Rhodes. It also says Wurlitzer in the credits. I know it may be original research (I'm not going to make that change without citing a reliable source) but I think the "Wurlitzer" is actually the correct information because I can very easily tell the difference between a Rhodes and a Wurlitzer. Also, it's consistent with Shine On You Crazy Diamond and Electric piano. Unfortunately, Wikipedia itself can't be used as a source.--Kevjgav (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I too can very easily tell the difference between a Rhodes and Wurlitzer, and to my ear it is 100% a Rhodes on Part VIII :-) so I don't know where that leaves us. For now maybe we should edit both spots to just say "electric piano" without being specific about what kind. —Jeferman (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

A source that says its a Wurlitzer: http://sparebricks.fika.org/sbzine28/WrightGear-rev156.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agadish (talk • contribs) 11:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Shine On You Crazy Diamond. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060826062749/http://www.brain-damage.co.uk:80/news/0602061.html to http://www.brain-damage.co.uk/news/0602061.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Time Signatures
There was some talk about the time signatures years ago, but it's unclear if there was ever consensus, and regardless the page seems to have changed since then and is currently not consistent with itself. Most notably the page currently refers to parts II–V as being in both 6/4 and 6/8. I'm going to make some changes now which I think are consistent with the comments from years ago and are mostly in line with what the page has now: —Jeferman (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Parts II–IV and the first half of V are in 6/8
 * The second half of V is in 12/8, as is VI
 * It transitions back to 6/8 for VII
 * VIII and IX are both 4/4

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shine On You Crazy Diamond. 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:
 * Added tag to http://www.neptunepinkfloyd.co.uk/wiki/index.php/Total_Guitar_1996
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.brain-damage.co.uk/news/0602061.html
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6AbUYov2v?url=http://www.pinkfloydfan.net/t1483-gilmour-waters-mason-wright-shades.html to http://www.pinkfloydfan.net/t1483-gilmour-waters-mason-wright-shades.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) 08:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Barrett incident
The article includes a section about the Barrett incident (Barrett visiting the studio while the song was being recorded). This incident, however, is also discussed at length, but with different quotations/details, on the page about the album, Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd album). I think it would make more sense to describe the incident completely in one of the two articles, probably the page about the album, and not on the other. Any thoughts on this? Lennart97 (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Roman and Arabic numerals
The original UK LP label from Wish You Were Here in 1975 (SHVL 814) has Arabic numerals for the parts of the song (parts 1–5 and 6–9) while the US LP label from the same year (Columbia, PC 33453) has Roman numerals (parts I–V and VI–IX). I think we should mention the two numbering styles but use Arabic as standard notation. The Wish You Were Here album article does in fact use Arabic as standard. Binksternet (talk) 05:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)