Talk:The Planets/Archive 1

first complete public performance
In the article, it says:


 * ...received its first complete public performance on October 10, 1920 in Birmingham, with Appleby Matthews conducting.

I just wrote Albert Coates, in the course of which I looked at the Coates article in the Concise Grove, the Coates article on allclassical.com and then The Planets entry in Kenneth Thompson's A Dictionary of 20th Century Composers (Faber and Faber, 1973) (among several other irrelevant things) - all say that Coates conducted the first complete public performance of the piece (Thompson says at the Queen's Hall in London on November 15, 1920). Several websites seem to agree. But then I found the liner notes for the Hyperion disc with Colin Matthew's "Pluto" on it, which agrees with what we have in the article, and specifically mentions the Coates performance as the first in London. I'm not a Holst scholar, and don't know which version is correct.

So which is it? Coates seems to have support in numbers, but the Hyperion notes are recent, and may better reflect recent research. The fact that they mention the later Coates performance also makes me think it could be correct. Still, the person who wrote those notes could be mistaken if, for example, the Birmingham performance was planned but never happened, or if it was not in fact complete, or if it was not in fact in public.

I don't know which version of events is right, and I don't know how to resolve this. But I thought I'd note the conflict here in case anybody else has any ideas. --Camembert


 * This may or may not relate to my query down below ("First performances") about the 3 premieres. JackofOz 05:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"Earth, the Home of Man"
Apparently there IS a "Earth, the Home of Man" that came out of somewhere... Anyone has any info about that one? Kieff 05:53, May 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * According to who is there such a movement? There is an mp3 going around some of the file sharing networks with this title, but in fact it's just an incorrectly labelled "Mercury". --Camembert 14:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

The rest of the media
Why don't we have Saturn and Neptune on the media for downloa as well? &mdash; Kieff | Talk 04:11, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe something is wrong with my browser, but I don't see the download links at all. Just non-existant infopages and links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki --DooM Drat 10:38, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I have added a MIDI link with all movements (not Pluto), which is not great. 82.40.75.55 20:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

"Pluto: Lord of the Underworld"
An anon editor recently changed the part about Holst not writing a "Pluto" movement after its discovery to read:


 * When Pluto was discovered in 1930, four years prior to Holst's death, Holst debated writing another movement to encompass the new planet. In the end he did, and named it Pluto - Lord of the Underworld.

I'm quite sure this is incorrect, so I've changed it back. Common knowledge, as all standard reference works reflect, is that Holst never wrote a "Pluto", nor showed any sign of doing so. Of course, if there's been recent scholarship which shows such a movement exists, then lets give a source and I'll be happy to be proved wrong.

I wonder if the edit was motivated by an mp3 which seems to be floating around some of the file sharing networks labelled "Pluto - Lord of the Underworld" and claiming to be by Holst. What that file is, I don't know (it's nothing I recognise; portentous synthesised-orchestra nonsense), but it's not what it claims to be. --Camembert 13:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The music is Pluto, God of the Underworld by Brad Spitz and Bryan Tari. It is on their THE PLANETS - 2000 and Beyond CD, and it is featured on the Patrick Stewart Narrates THE PLANETS epoch 2000 DVD.  Personally, I like it much more than Matthews' version. --Ian-Miller 18:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Jazz Version?
Has any jazz combo or orchestra ever recorded an arrangement of the Planets? --82.41.110.120 14:08, October 28, 2005


 * I once went to a football game and heard the marching band playing a version of Mars... It made me so happy I forgot that I hate football... Sbrools 22:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect Heinlein Reference
The article said: "In addition, the "Mars" movement was used as the "Martian National Anthem" in Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land.

This is not correct, though it is widely 'remembered' in SF fandom circles. The actual text from Stranger in a Strange Land says:

From Chapter XIX: ''Now, we realize you can't play Martian music, any more than a boy with a tin whistle can play a symphony. But you *can* play a symphony — 'The Nine Planets Symphony'. Grok it? I mean, 'Do you catch on?' Have the tape cut in at the beginning of the Mars movement; play that... or enough bars to let the theme be recognized.''

Then from Chapter XX: The fortissimo tocsin of the "Mars" movement filled the room — the "War God" theme that startles even an audience expecting it.

"The Planets" is not a symphony, and its Mars movement does not begin fortissimo, nor with a tocsin. The piece Harshaw is referring to is fictional, though probably inspired by the existence of "The Planets". I modified the text to read:

(It is not true, however, that the "Mars" movement was used as the "Martian National Anthem" in Robert A. Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land — the piece cited in that work is a fictitious "Nine Planets Symphony" whose 'Mars' movement as described could not be Holst's "Mars" movement.)

DMTate

To which someone anonymously replied:

> Isn't it possible Heinlein just didn't know the correct musical terminology?

No, it is not really possible that Heinlein was attempting to refer to the Holst piece, but happened to get the name wrong, miscount the movements, and also misuse the terms 'symphony', 'fortissimo', and 'tocsin', and inexplicably use the phrase that startles even an audience expecting it to describe a theme that builds in a slow crescendo. All in one paragraph.

If you require authority other than common sense: James Blish/William Atheling wrote in his essay Cathedrals In Space (in The Issue at Hand), in a footnote, that Heinlein invented a Nine Planets Symphony "rather than the famous work of Gustav Holst which, being real, would have served his [plot] purpose much better, and would have spared him the embarrassment of being caught with the notion that nine movements is a reasonable, let alone a likely number for a symphony."

DMTate

'The World in Union'
I have just added a short comment at the end of the first bullet point under 'The Planets in popular culture', regarding the use of the mid-section of Jupiter as the musical basis for 'The World in Union', the international anthem of the sport of Rugby Union.--202.72.148.102 11:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC) ENKC, 27/12/2005, 7.12pm GMT + 8, Perth, Western Australia

Disorganisation
When looking up The Planets, I noticed that all the program notes and commentary on the pieces are on Gustav Holst's biography page. Shouldn't they be on the actual entry for The Planets? It was hard for me to find the commentary.

possible additional references
Jupiter was quoted in an episode of The Simpsons, and parts of the closing to The Boondocks sound suspiciously like the opening to it.

Isn't West Side Story's "Tonight, Tonight" lifted directly from the intro to Mars? 216.99.241.62 (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

National Geographic
Isn't the theme song for the National Geographic TV shows a bit from Jupiter? If so, should that be added here? Adam Bishop 05:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Stranger in a Strange Land Comment
I've moved this comment of User:70.162.15.145 from the article for discussion here: John (Jwy) 04:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not true, however, that the "Mars" movement was used as the "Martian National Anthem" in Robert A. Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land — the piece cited in that work is a fictitious "Nine Planets Symphony" whose 'Mars' movement as described could not be Holst's "Mars" movement.


 * Prove it. The only words and phrases given to describe the "Nine Planets Symphony" from "Stranger", which symphonic name is indeed fictional, are "fortissimo" which means quite simply "very loudly" and "tocsin", which means "a signal of alarm given by the ringing of a bell, and hence any warning or danger signal."  Both of those definitions are taken from Wikipedia and other dictionary sources.  Listening to the "Mars" movement from Holst's composition, it certainly spends a few seconds building up quietly, but then it immediately comes to the fore with a blatantly present theme that, should the word "tocsin" be applied with a liberal eye to the definition, does indeed resemble a tocsinal (word?) movement.  - comment from User:70.162.15.145.


 * Surely the clearest indication that Heinlein was not referring to Holst's suite is that the name of the piece given in the book is not the name of Holst's suite. Indeed, one would assume that a piece entitled, Nine Planets Symphony, would consist of nine parts not the seven parts of Holst's suite. Heinlein's work is set in a fictional future; it seems a bit of a reach to assume that just because a piece of music in that world is about planets that it must be Holst's suite, especially given the stated difference between that fictional work and Holst's suite. The burden of proof must surely lie with those that claim correspondence between the two.


 * One would certainly think that the burden of proof would be on someone who claims that Heinlein did intend to refer to the Holst work, despite not mentioning Holst and not getting any of the details about Holst's piece right except the word 'Mars'.

To the skeptical Mr. 145 above: As you note, 'fortissimo' means very loud, and is the most widely-known of the terms used. The piece does not begin fortissimo, and Heinlein did specify in the text that the movement should be played from the beginning. The fortissimo theme, when it eventually arrives, bears no resemblance to a tocsin, or any other kind of alarm. The "few seconds" spent building up to fortissimo are more like half a minute -- you now need to assume Heinlein also didn't know how the piece begins.

At any rate, you don't have to take my word for it. See my separate discussion above for a citation to a reputable science fiction critic (James Blish) who asserted in print that Heinlein was unfamiliar with the Holst piece and thus used a weak invention where he might have made a strong allusion. DMTate


 * Look, everyone, there is something I need to point out. You all keep assuming that Heinlein wouldn't have been wrong about the name of the work and whether it was a symphony, whether the opening is pianissimo or not, and so on. You're being too strict in your reading. It can go either way, and a reader can certainly hear a futuristic rendition of Mars being played whilst reading the novel if they choose, and it fits perfectly.
 * Just because it's called a symphony when it' not doesn't mean a thing. It doesn't even mean Robert Anson Heinlein was wrong, in fact. It simply means that Jubal Harshaw was wrong, which despite the appearance that the two are one and the same, is certainly possible.
 * Just because it's said to start out fortissimo does not mean that Jubal remembered the quieter beginning, and there was enough time in between that could have had him going "hmm... So. Clip out the quiet part up front there. I'd forgotten about the lead-in. We don't have enough time for all the slowness. We want to make a point--not annoy everyone."
 * And any orchestra that reinterpreted it in the future could certainly add bells to their interpretation. To assume that it MUST be a different piece because no existing performance would be described accurately by a single adjective is reaching just as much as assuming that there couldn't be a new symphony with a similar subject in a spacefaring future. Personally, since I actually know how Mars goes, I'll be sticking with my reading.
 * James Blish doesn't know any more than you or I do, and his idea that, if it isn't Holst's work that Harshaw refers to, that it's somehow less effective to make a reference in-universe to something new in, you know, a science-fiction future than to something that exists in our current future gives me reason to discard him as having any clue what he's talking about.
 * Of course, this is Wikipedia, where we bolster the fools who have already spoken and silence the potential of quiescent geniuses by policy -- I hate this site and it's retarded approach to things. I wish there were a better alternative.209.131.62.115 (talk) 05:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Number of movements
I think that the "8th movement", Pluto, was not dealt with very well in the beginning of this entry. It is important to distinguish between that separate work and Holst's original (and, at the time, complete) work of 7 movements. Holst's 7-movement original is what people think of when they refer to the "The Planets". The "8th movement" composed by Colin Matthews certainly deserves mention, but it seems more appropriate to include it strictly as a piece inspired by Holst's creation rather than a part of the original.

In light of the above, I believe it is misleading and contradictory to state in the introduction that "The Planets" is "an orchestral suite by the English composer Gustav Holst" while also saying that "The suite has 8 movements (formerly seven)..." Either "The Planets" is 7 movements and is by Holst, or "The Planets" is 8 movements and by Holst and Matthews. I think that popular perception is the deciding vote here, and that popular perception is that "The Planets" is Holst's 7-movement work.

I have changed the beginning of the entry slightly to say that "The Planets" has 7 movements. Mention of Colin Matthews' work is retained later in the entry.

Orchestration
The orchestration (list or paragraph of ALL instruments scored for (the version for large orchestra of course)) should be present in the article. A Wang (talk/contrb.) 20:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC) (Number of flutes, oboes, clarinets, bassoons, horns, trumpets, trombones, tuba, percussion, organ, choir, and strings.) I do hear a high-pitched tuba, which should be a euphonium. A Wang (talk/contrb.) 00:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) 00:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I got it. 4 flutes (3rd and 4th = piccolo, 4th = alto flute), 3 oboes (3rd = bass oboe), English horn, 3 clarinets, bass clarinet, 3 bassoons, contrabassoon, 6 horns, 4 trumpets, 3 trombones, 2 tubas, percussion (bass drum, cymbals, glockenspiel, gong, orchestra bells, snare drum, tambourine, triangle, xylophone), 2 timpani, 2 harps, celesta, organ, strings, and women's chorus A Wang (talk/contrb.) 01:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone disagree with the orchestration? I am beginning to doubt it. I am sure there is a euphonium. (or two.) Then, I checked the euphonium page. There is a euphonium. A Wang (talk/contrb.) 13:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) 13:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I just re-did the orchestration with direct refference to the score. There is a Tenor Tuba in Bb, a euphamism for Euphonium.Justin Tokke 04:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 7-November-2006: (2 months later) Someone removed "euphonium" on 4-Nov-2006, and I re-added 3 days later as "Tenor Tuba in B-flat (also known as Euphonium)" since the mention of euphonium has been a topic. -Wikid77 14:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The "Euphonium" part can, and occasionaly is, played on a Wagner Tuba in Bb (removing the need for transposition, ither than at the octave I believe). 82.40.75.55 20:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Insufficient detail about recording
How useful is it to include in the list of recordings one with no conductor or other details apart from the orchestra? IMHO, either someone should provide more detail (e.g. release date, label etc) or it should be deleted. Jon Rob 09:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, sure it could and should have more info, but the samples are useful either way. ☢  Ҡ i∊ ff   ⌇  ↯  10:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm -- how about a new entry in the discography: "unknown orchestra, unknown conductor, unknown label, unknown date"? Sorry, that was sarcastic.   Anyway, I've removed the entry for the Philharmonia orchestra, since ArkivMusic shows at least four different currently available recordings of the Planets by the Philharmonia orchestra (and there are many others thar are out of print), and it isn't clear which (if any) of these are meant. Grover cleveland 13:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction, people
On the page, it says the work is astrological rather then astronomical. Then later in the page it says Neptune was written for organ because piano wasn't suitable for it because "the sound of the piano was too harsh for a world as mysterious and distant as Neptune". A contradiction about two sentences apart from each other... 13:51,


 * My edit might have resolved this issue. JackofOz 05:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

First performances
The first complete public performance was in 1920, but there was an earlier premiere in 1918. I assume that the 1918 premiere was either public-incomplete, private-complete, or private-incomplete. Do we know which? And if it was incomplete, which bits were missing? JackofOz 01:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. I've been doing some digging in Grove V, and it appears there were three premieres.
 * It says that Adrian Boult gave the first performance at Queens Hall on 29 September 1918 - this was a "semi-private morning performance". (We currently say this occurred in the Royal Albert Hall, so that's something that needs clarifying.)


 * It then says that it was performed for the first time in public at a Philharmonic concert "the following year". This is still only 1919, and it presumably took place in London.


 * If the Appleby Matthews 1920 performance was the "first complete public" performance, this suggest to me that the sequence of events is:


 * 29 October 1918: the first performance of any version of the work; its status was incomplete, and it was held in private (either in Queens Hall or the Royal Albert Hall)
 * 1919: the first public performance of any version of the work, in a Philharmonic concert, presumably in London; this must still have been incomplete
 * 10 October 1920 - the first performance of the complete work in Birmingham; this was the usual public performance.


 * Any thoughts? JackofOz 04:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've corrected Royal Albert Hall to Queen's Hall throughout. I remember reading (almost certainly in a concert program for a Prom in the mid-70's) that Balfour Gardiner made Holst a present of the Queen's Hall and its orchestra as a sweetener for sending him to Salonika to entertain the troops. Classical Net mentions Salonika, but not the relationship. Has anybody else heard this, or got a reference? --ColinFine (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Broken link
Unsure how to fix.

World in Union
Why is there no mention of World in Union?

State of the article
Having only just read this article for the first time, I must say it strikes me as being in great need of rewriting. There seems to be a fair amount of guff along with a fair amount of received but unverifiable opinion, leaped-to conclusions, and misunderstandings. For example, all the stuff about how he composed it for piano duet and then orchestrated it...this is a standard practice for composers, to compose for keyboard in some fashion as an intermediate point on the road to actual completion as an orchestral score. As far as I know Holst never intended it to be a piano piece, he just did so to simplify the compositional process. Same thing for Rite of Spring.

I also find it very hard to believe that this is the most-performed composition by an English composer. A citation that is better than some CD booklet would be nice.

If I have time I will try to attend to this but I encourage others to consider how to improve it too! --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 20:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. I started by moving the pop culture section to the already established main article created for that purpose. I've been watching this page for some time and I've seen folks adding inconsequential material to this page when it more appropriately should have been placed on the main pop culture article. Keeping a section here encourages future contributions to fill up that space, thus securing the more prominent spot for a particular item favored out of bias. —scarecroe 00:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Low flute
I really believe there ought to be a mention of the confusing terminology regarding the bass flute/alto flute. As the article stands right now nobody would know there's anything to be clarified. Alto flute & bass flute are two different instruments, and anyone reading the current entry would think Holst used the bass flute, which is not true. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 17:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * From memory: Holst calls for the "Bass flute in G" which is the modern alto flute. I've made some changes which I think distinguish the two.  Further mentions can just call it "flute in G".  Note that both bass flute and alto flute mention the confusion.  -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict ... funny how that happens) Why not put it this way: "Bass flute in G"?  I'm at work and don't have a score in front of me but I think it's called that in the score, and the link would then go to the article on the correct instrument.  Antandrus  (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's fine; I just don't think the instrumentation list is a good place to hash out the minutae of differences in instrument nomenclature. Put in a link like that if you think it's appropriate.
 * By the way, I just edited the bass flute article and moved the note on the confusion over the use of the term close to the top of the article, so either link should be OK now. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the removal of the comment -- by saying "bass flute" most people will think of a different instrument than what Holst meant. The instrumentation list is the perfect place to discuss instrumentation.  "Bass (i.e. Alto) flute in G" could also work.  You wouldn't take a 17th century instrument list and write "2 clarinetti" without mentioning that those are actually trumpets, would you?  -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"Selected" discography?
What makes anything here selected? I could understand first recordings, important arrangements; C.M.'s Pluto movement, important recordings still in print, etc. But what about the other 90%? I think the list should be trimmed substantially. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sigh, in the two days since posting this we've added three or four new discs to the list. Sigh.  Maybe we can fork to Discography of the Planets.  Or just cut it.  -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I say cut it completely if this is what's going to be happening. I don't think it helps anyone. If someone wants to know they can go to Amazon or some such place. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 23:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup, cut it completely. If an individual removes 70% of what was there, anything leftover is selective from their POV. Wikipedia works to establish a Neutral Point of View. So either the full list should go back, or the entire thing needs to be removed. —scarecroe 14:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems that a discography in Wikipedia ought either to aspire to completeness (e.g. every recording of The Planets ever available to the public), or be restricted to recordings in some reasonably well-defined and objective category (e.g. every recording of The Planets that has won a notable award such as the Grand Prix du Disque, or recordings of The Planets recommended in reliable sources). In both cases each entry should be supported by some kind of citation.  It should be OK to cite critical commentary on recordings as long as it has appeared in reliable sources and is attributed per NPOV.  Grover cleveland 16:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds good to me. —scarecroe 19:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Looking at other similar articles here, it seems to me that all discographies here are "selected", even if not so designated. These lists are, so far as I can tell, understood not to be complete, though additions are usually welcomed. What's the problem? Do people feel there are so many recordings that to list them all would overwhelm the article? Or is there a sense that those recordings which might be inadvertently left out would feel hurt? If the latter, I don't think that's a valid objection. +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There are some discographies on Wikipedia that aim to be complete: see Category:Classical music discographies. Grover cleveland 03:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a question for user:Mscuthbert who trimmed the section down. —scarecroe 03:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm -- Mscuthbert can you explain how you chose which recordings to delete and which to leave? The contents of your personal collection perhaps? Grover cleveland 03:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, no. Thanks for assuming.  I kept four recordings: one because it was conducted by Holst, one because it was the first recording with "Pluto" which the article mentions (too) prominently and thus would be useful information, and the Bernstein because it was the only one in the whole list which asserted a significance to the recording (basis for a Young Person's Concert show).  Lastly the Mehta is more arbitrary and arguable--I chose it because of the awards it won at the time and its importance to the orchestra at the time, and to the conductor (being featured in a best of Mehta collection) and because it was re-released.  A quick search found me 69 professional recordings of the Planets released in America since 1970--I doubt the article would be improved by adding all those (plus European, pre-1970, and why not amateurs too!).  There seemed to be pretty good consensus to cutting the whole thing or trimming when I asked here.  If you must know, I own three copies of the Planets, one (Bernstein) of which were on the list that I kept but two (Dutoit and Levine) of which were on the list that I cut.  I write about music for a living--I think I can separate my personal CD collection from a list of what's important.


 * As far as why cut at all: the article is not anywhere close to being a good article--dwelling far too much on the astrological side and the discography and having almost nothing on the analysis of the pieces, their relationship to other works by Host, and their influence and influences. There is no citation of any of the musicological literature on Holst and this work; almost all the notes come from Amazon, Naxos, other websites, and generic books on classical music.  The more that the article is dominated by a discography, the less likely anyone is going to make the big changes this article needs.  Sometimes an encyclopedia article is improved by trimming that which isn't that important--or shall we merge the "In Popular Culture" page back?  -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 06:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're going to make those kinds of cuts, you need to explain why you're making them and clearly define why the ones you're leaving are notable with a source as to *why* they're notable. Otherwise, contributors are left to assume and people get their panties in a bunch. —scarecroe 14:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Mike I apologize for the slightly snide comment about keeping the contents of your record collection. It was meant as a bit of a joke but, like most jokes, probably didn't work very well on the internet.  As scarecroe says, it would have been a good idea to explain all this either in your edit summary on on the talk page.  Cheers.  Grover cleveland 16:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What I wonder at this point is, what makes the listed recordings notable? This is the sand pit that this article has slid into. If we're going to have a discography, it seems to me that it has to be a complete one, otherwise it is by definition POV. This is why I feel that without an agreed-upon template for what makes a recording notable, there shouldn't be any recordings listed. In a very quick scan of some piece-specific articles on Beethoven & Brahms, I have found no such lists of recordings. I believe there should not be a discography at all; it's not feasible for us to have a complete one, and there will always be arguments about what's in and what's out in a "selected" one. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 15:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S.: This also begs the question of the commercial availability of a given recording. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 15:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * These days it's very hard to say what recordings are "comercially" available at any one time. A recording not available in the USA may be available in Europe, or vice versa.  And if it's not available in the US or Europe, it's almost certainly available in Japan.  And then there are all sorts of resellers such as zShops on Amazon that carry copies of recordings that may no longer be carried by their own record labels.  Grover cleveland 16:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, I do happen find the Discography section is most displeasing. Led Zeppelin!? "Dazed and Confused", I do beg ones pardon but I shall not condone the inhalation of hemp, how disgusting. And Frank Zappa!? dear God, of what musical knowledge are we trying to provide, though thank Zeus some good soul removed the dreaded inclusion of "Diamond Head"! I say, we have no room for Satanism here, I do apologize if that commment sounded rather snide, but it was not a notable recording (despite the fact there is a clear extract of the Mars section), no musical importance or relevance whatsoever. Whatever next I do ask, Ozzy Osbourne!?--Dimedude 20:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Dimedude doesn't seem to know that Zappa wrote classical music as well, in a 20th century style influenced by Varese, Stravinsky, and yes, Holst factors in as well. Anyway, my addition is that the 'Jupiter' quote DOES appear on the 'Just Another Band...' album, it's just a little truncated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.157.193 (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)