Talk:The Colour and the Shape

If it ain't broke, don't fix it
If you're a fan of organization, which is really what online encyclopedias are all about (organizing/storing/supplying information) and consistency, I suggest whoever is doing it, to leave the article alone.

There is absolutely no good reason whatsoever to change or tamper with information that is already sufficient. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Don't go out of your way to change something if it doesn't need to be done.

Capisce? Spooky873 (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Do people around here have the intelligence of a pubic hair?

What is the point of changing something that is completely fine? Alternative rock suffices, there is NO POINT in going out of your way to CHANGE it whatsoever. There is NOTHING WRONG with the genre.

I don't understand why you keep doing it and doing it and doing it. Every time you change it it will be RESTORED to its ORIGINAL information.

The original genre listed is COMPLETELY FINE, and has been there since inception. There is no good reason to take Alternative rock OUT.

Spooky873 (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Tracklisting
It lists Goldsmith and what he does there. There is not one good reason whatsoever to put that information anywhere else in the article. Spooky873 (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no legitimate reason that we can't expand on the information in the tracklisting. Nowhere in any guideline does it say we have to restrict certain statements to the tracklisting.  Give me a specific reason that we can't expand on it, and I'll hear it out.


 * But Simon agreed that it should be included. So that's one less reason that it should be removed.  (Sometimes, bringing people into a consensus discussion can have negative consequences.) -- ChrisB (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

1) I thought Simon was me?

2) Wait a minute, now all the sudden to your advantage his vote counts for this but not pg discussion? Lets not all be hypocrites here.

3) He agrees to including Goldsmith's contributions in general, as do I. That specific discussion is about removing the information in 'parentheses'. I don't think there is one good reason to include it, because it is listed in the tracklisting, simple. You keep trying to point the finger at me as if I want Goldsmith out of the article. If that were the case, how come i'm not removing him from EVERYTHING? So, give me one good reason why it should be in the article twice. Chris, buddy, you're not on top of things. (sometimes, wikipedia editors are hypocrites) Spooky873 (talk) 06:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I never accused you of being Simon. In fact, I asked for his username to be removed from the list of suspected sockpuppets.


 * And, no, he didn't agree to the contributions only being listed in the tracklist. Everything written in the statement that he agreed with specifically described the sentence that you keep removing.  If he wanted it removed, he wouldn't have supplied information supporting it.


 * So take your pick. Either both of his "votes" don't count, or they both do count.


 * Regardless, "because it is listed in the tracklisting" is not a legitimate reason to delete a sentence.


 * You're big on "consistency". If you want consistency, then remove this sentence, too: "The re-release includes six previously released B-sides, consisting of "Dear Lover", "The Colour and the Shape", and four covers, including "Baker Street"."  All of that is mentioned in the tracklisting, right?


 * And this one: "It was released May 20, 1997 through Roswell/Capitol Records." It's all listed in the infobox, right?


 * And this: "The Colour and the Shape was produced by Gil Norton" That information is listed in two other places in the article. -- ChrisB (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Simple, theres one thing that separates these you are listing and Goldsmith. Parentheses. Is there a specific reason why he's in one, and the rest aren't? If its such an essential piece of information, why is it in parentheses? Seems more like a secondary piece of information as opposed to the rest. I wonder what you'll come up with next, can't wait. Spooky873 (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, so we'll put it back and remove the parentheses. I have no problem with that. -- ChrisB (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No no, there's a reason why it was in parentheses. Care to explain why? Spooky873 (talk) 05:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Open your English book. The paragraph covers the specific events related to the recording of the album.  That Goldsmith still appears on the album is related to the recording of the album, but isn't a part of those events.  Therefore, it should be included, but belongs in parentheses.  It fully conforms to grammar rules and is used across Wikipedia.


 * Using parentheses doesn't make the sentence non-notable - otherwise, there wouldn't be a need for such a device in the English language.


 * But your arguments are disingenuous. First, it was because Goldsmith's involvement wasn't notable.  Then it was because it was repeated twice.  Now, it's because it's in parentheses.  Basically, you don't want it in period, and you'll pull out every absurd excuse you can to "justify" it.  Anything else you feel like adding? -- ChrisB (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You know there was a reason why it was put in parentheses before. Its obviously implying a sort of reluctance to include it in the original text. Spooky873 (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Organized
Inspired by how the In Your Honor page looked, I organized this one the same. I think it is looking good. :-) Spooky873 (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course its changed back for no reason whatsoever. Is there a specific reason In Your Honor's is like that but this one isn't? You guys really like consistency around here. Spooky873 (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Consistency? How about waiting until the article is long enough to justify four section breaks?  And how about not making (and hiding) contested edits in amongst your effort at "consistency"? -- ChrisB (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm, somehow, In Your Honor IS though, hmmmmmmm. That makes perfect sense. Spooky873 (talk) 02:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If In Your Honor were a featured article, you might have a case for claiming it as an example to use to create consistency. However, it isn't.  On the other hand, there are already guides for album articles: WP:ALBUM.  On that page, there is nothing that supports splitting the article into the four sections you described - particularly when the article is as short as this one.


 * You do not have the authority to unilaterally dictate how to establish "consistency", particularly when this article is already consistent with countless other album pages (and with WP:ALBUM).


 * If we had three paragraphs about Production, then it would warrant a section split. (Regardless, "Information" is not a suitable section heading for any article.  The entire article is "Information" - that doesn't differentiate the content in any way.)  But more content needs to be written for that to happen. -- ChrisB (talk) 04:10, 29 March 2008

(UTC)

There is no difference in the articles whatsoever to constitute anything like this. Spooky873 (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Genre
This album has always been listed under Alternative rock, leave it that way. It is not anything else, ESPECIALLY post-grunge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.85.13.60 (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Asked and answered, your continuing opinion on the matter is irrelevant. That's how easy THAT is.  Kingoomieiii ♣    Talk    18:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

READ
DO NOT move this page to the American spelling; it is correct as-is. Kingoomieiii 07:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

True or false??
True or false: this is a UK album as opposed to a US album (hence the colour spelling.) 66.245.77.90 01:16, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

False. Adam Bishop 09:26, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Problem
This article is not written in the style of an encyclopedia. E.G "Dave didn't think he was good enough". Speedboy Salesman 13:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Album Recording Sessions
Why include a recording session that ultimately was not used. They scrapped those sessions with the exception of two drum tracks. Two drum tracks out of six weeks doesn't really qualify for much of a recording, let alone a significant one, especially considering not a single song track was used. The scrapped sessions they recorded started in October and November of 1996 but actual recording that was used didn't take place until January and February of 1997, and to my knowledge we're only talking of actual recording on the front page. If you bother including October and November because of scrapped sessions you might as well track Dave down for when he wrote the songs (most are on tour anyway). Its too much unnecessary information. You don't see Cigarettes and Valentines material on American Idiot for Green Day's wiki.

via fooarchive:

"EVERLONG A lot of people regard this as your best song. Where were you when you wrote it'? "We started working on our second album, 'The Color And The Shape' in October and November of '96. We recorded at a studio just outside Seattle that was a converted barn and you could stay in the house. Behind it there was this creek that had salmon jumping in it. It was beautiful but you were really isolated, outside town by about 45 minutes. So I was staying out there and while I was there my ex-wife and I split up." So Everlong' came together at that point? "Not quite. We took a break for Christmas, so I went back to Virginia by myself. I took the rough tracks of what we'd done and it didn't seem right. The album had something missing. But I had this one riff that I originally thought was a Sonic Youth rip off, but I decided it might be good to turn it into a song. When I brought it to our producer Gil Norton, he said, 'That's greatl Let's put it on the album!'"

131.125.115.15 (talk) 05:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Where in that paragraph does it say that they entirely scrapped the Seattle recordings? THEY DIDN'T.  THEY KEPT ALL OF "DOLL" AND THE SLOW VERSION OF "UP IN ARMS".  What you hear of those on the album is ENTIRELY from the Seattle sessions.  AND IT SAYS SO IN THE LINER NOTES. -- ChrisB (talk) 05:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No it does not. What does the slow version of Up In Arms have to do with anything? Thats a completely different recording that was a b-side. The only part you should be talking about is the slow part (the build up by Will) that was used in the actual version. Lets go over where they went and when. Seattle from October to December 1996, then to Washington, DC in December 1996 and finally to Los Angeles in January - February 1997. The band re-recorded the album in Los Angeles following that break, using two drum tracks (one full track, the other half track) from the original session. The one actual song they included from the Christmas break was Walking After You, which is the December 1996 track. That is it. 131.125.115.15 (talk) 05:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Doll", as it appears on the album, was entirely recorded in Seattle. The b-side version of "Up in Arms" is the exact same recording that was used for the slow section of the version on the album - they just edited it down.  That's what it says in the liner notes. -- ChrisB (talk) 06:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

From the liner notes of the 1997 release of TCATS:

"RECORDED AT GRAND MASTER RECORDERS, LTD., HOLLYWOOD, CA; EXCEPT "DOLL" AND "UP IN ARMS (SLOW)" RECORDED AT BEAR CREEK STUDIOS, WOODINVILLE, WA, AND "WALKING AFTER YOU" RECORDED BY JEFF TURNER AT WGNS STUDIOS, WASHINGTON, D.C."

(Written here in all-caps to match the liner notes.) -- ChrisB (talk) 06:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If you still aren't clear, here are the entries for "Doll" and "Up in Arms" on the official site (emphasis mine):

"Doll: First track on The Colour and The Shape. William Goldsmith plays drums on this track. Recorded at Bear Creek Studios in Woodinville, WA. Produced by Gil Norton. Written by Dave Grohl/Foo Fighters."

"Up In Arms: Track number 6 on The Colour and The Shape. William Goldsmith plays drums on the slow part. Written by Dave Grohl and produced by Gil Norton. The full slow version was released on various singles. There also was a version recorded at the 1995 BBC Session which is at a medium pace:) Also the band once played a "country fried" version on 11/5/97 (Very Interesting)."

http://www.foofighters.com/dictionary -- ChrisB (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

As i said in the general Foo Fighters discussion page, i am in agreeance that all three sessions need to be listed and should well be, as parts from all three sessions were used on the record.

I would again like to point you to the recording history section of the website i am webmaster of. http://foofighterslive.com/recordinghistory/?id=studio. If you look over the three sessions at that time, you can see which parts of the sessions were used for the final record, which are pretty clearly pointed out above. The only sketchy part that can't be confirmed is which parts of My Poor Brain were taken from which sessions. The general thought is that it is a large cut and paste job, with parts of the song being Goldsmith's drumming, and part Grohl's.

If there is anything not clear on there please let me know. Thanks Skilmore (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Platinum certification
This album is STILL only certified as platinum. It may have sold over 2 million units, but is NOT certified 2x platinum. BGC (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. The albums 2x platinum, period. Its sold over 2 million units in the US, therefore, it is 2x platinum. End of issue. 67.242.58.111 (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It makes perfect sense if you look up platinum certification. That second word, "Certification", means it has to be "Certified"- in this case, by the RIAA, at the request of the music label that owns the rights to the album. According to this |This Page, The Colour and the Shape is only certified SINGLE platinum, as of 2/26/1998, regardless of the actual sales figures reported by the label- and will remain single platinum until the RIAA re-evaluates it (not any time soon).
 * Please don't rely on your own assumptions when tersely 'correcting' other editors. You're sitting in front of a computer, there's absolutely no excuse to not look things up. --  Kingoomieiii ♣    Talk    19:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Fails WP:NOTE
"While Rock Band is indeed a popular video game its inclusion of TCATS is not pertinent. There are dozens of compilation albums that use songs from TCATS, but we are not at liberty to include them all; for example, those ubiquitous "Best of the 90s". Rock Band is, furthermore, a pretty recent occurrence. I can guarantee you it's a trendy, decade-relative fad that will probably die out just as every other one has.

The information regarding which songs are featured on Rock Band, Guitar Hero, and the like is more relevant to the game articles (there's some featured lists about which songs are on the games, I believe), than it is to the song/album pages themselves. In regards to song and album pages, it's about as notable as saying a certain song appeared in a movie trailer, which really isn't that notable unless a secondary source comments on it."

I guess it shouldn't be included. 67.242.58.111 (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Most flash-in-the-pan fads don't constitute a $2,000,000,000 industry all by themselves (music games), but I tend to agree with the above. Where is the quote above from? Kingoomieiii ♣    Talk    19:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe the Red Hot Chili Pepper's page for Blood Sugar Sex Magik, Yes, i'm the one who added it. Your alternative rock pal, and way back in September (obviously). 67.242.56.62 (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal of information
I don't really understand why the detailed track commentaries I wrote for this page have been removed. If I was reading this page I'd be happy to have the extra information available if I wanted it. Whoever did this has some explaining to do, as those commentaries took a long time and were all completely true, describing the music of each song in detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reagar (talk • contribs) 23:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Bonus track information
All that needs to be stated in the bonus track information is that the songs were b-sides to the album's singles. mjgm84 (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of bonus content section
Regarding this edit. It's useless, pointless information that'd belong on pages for the individual songs, if they had them anyway. It's also completely unsourced. So there. I went and removed what would prove to be a problem later on. It looks close to a Good Article - if we reorganize the "track information" section I'd nominate it, but this kind of gross section just gets in the way, so I removed it.  danny music editor  Speak up! 21:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Colour and the Shape. 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.nme.com/reviews/album/reviews-foo-fighters-8844
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/f/foo-fighters/colour-and-the-shape.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120121123242/http://blog.rock.inmusic.ca/2011/12/foo-fighters-surpass-10-million-mark-so-yeah-theyre-loaded-.html to http://blog.rock.inmusic.ca/2011/12/foo-fighters-surpass-10-million-mark-so-yeah-theyre-loaded-.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) 07:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)