Talk:The Wall/Archive 2

Charts
Most of the charts of European contries just show the position when the album was reissued, not the original issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.32.92.124 (talk) 05:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed a rock opera
Someone who previously edited this article asked "what is a rock opera", and thereby removed the term from the article.

I have reinstated the "rock opera" status to "The Wall" as it is just that...this is an album that tells a definitive story. I also left the term "concept album" in the article, because, as it is explained under the rock opera article, sometimes a rock opera can also be classified as a "concept album", so "The Wall" carries both meanings.

Hiphats

Yes, it's a rock opera, but it doesn't have to be stated twice in two paragraphs. I've deleted the second reference so that it reads more fluidly. HM211980 (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)HM211980HM211980 (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup
Set Cluebot on here with a 30 day threshold. Enjoy the lack of scrolling :) -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  03:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Next
Right, if nobody minds I'm going to have a go at this article next, in my sandbox. I'm reasonably happy with The Final Cut, it only needs a few cite requests fulfilling and that shouldn't be too difficult. The Wall is a big subject so I'll probably completely re-write it. Parrot of Doom 15:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I stalled on this. I've started work on it, I'll probably copy it across in a day or two and continue work.  At least that way I can get feedback as I work. Parrot of Doom 15:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Parrot - I've made some additions and rewrites of my own in the meantime. I hope they are helpful. Have cited where possible. - Dann Chinn (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't too happy with the concept section as it was, but unfortunately most of what you've added appears to be editorial, and completely uncited. The article will never pass GA with those additions.  Do you have any sources, or is it WP:OR? Parrot of Doom 20:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Have restored the "uncredited personnel" section which you deleted, as this is covered by a published source (see also the articles on the individual songs). The column format could be made tidier, though...


 * Fair comment on the apparent lack of sources elsewhere - I will look into this. The main analysis of the concept section comes from simply listening to the album (am not sure quite how much source citing is required to support this - perhaps exactly the same information as stated in a published volume?)


 * There is also some content regarding "influence" which is technically speculation but appears to be logically supportable by observation - I will see if there is any written and technically citeable speculation on the topic within the body of Wall-related media out there. Give me a couple of weeks to look into this... - Dann Chinn (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The analysis section and influence will have to go then. They are WP:OR, pure and simple.  If you find WP:RELIABLE sources, there's no problem with it going back in, its all still in the history. Parrot of Doom 08:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Third best-selling album of all time in the US
This article states that The Wall is the "third best-selling album of all time in the US." However, the source shows it is fourth on the RIAA's list of Top 100 Albums. Also, the article does not mention that this ranking is based on RIAA defined "certified units", not the number of albums sold which is how the average reader would likely interpret "best-selling album." It is also inconsistent to claim The Wall is the third best-selling album in the US while the Dark Side of the Moon article claims that album is Pink Floyd's best-selling album in the US. Piriczki (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * List of best-selling albums in the United States shows it in third. I followed the same order.  The source doesn't give precise enough figures to say which has sold more, its ordered by the number of platinum awards, and so I'm presuming that they're in alphabetical order, hence it appears fourth.  To be quite honest, I don't know if it is or not, so I'll change it to 'one of the best' instead.  Since The Wall is a double album, it has actually sold fewer copies, but it gets 'double points' since each copy contains two LPs.  However DSotM is a single album, and while it has fewer platinum awards, it has still sold more individual copies.  This is mentioned in the body of the article but it could probably stand to be clarified. Parrot of Doom 20:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Confusing wording.
"At the end of the performance, the wall would collapse, once again revealing the band." Is this referring to the end of the concert, or the end of the song "Comfortably Numb"? I imagine it's the former, the but way it's worded makes it seem like the latter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodbye Galaxy (talk • contribs) 15:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed Parrot of Doom 22:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Remove Robert Christgau review?
Along with professional reviews from Blender, Allmusic and Rolling Stone, there is a review by Robert Christgau listed in the "Professional Reviews" section below the album art. Following the link to the reference of this review takes you to a very short review on an otherwise low-budget looking website.

Is this review really of such importance that it should be listed among the three professional reviews already meantioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.162.144 (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, since his reviews are included in most of the other articles. He even has his own article. Parrot of Doom 22:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

changes
As I was chastised for not discussing on the talk page, changes I made to the Final Cut article, I will give a quick summary. First, as far as the chronology, it is Pink Floyd's 11th album. That discussion can be found at WP:ALBUM. Secondly, not every concept album is a "rock opera". I have removed the statement. If someone insists on referring to it as such, then please cite one reliable source that calls The Wall a "rock opera". Third, it said that The Wall is a concept album, "like most of their previous albums". Piper At The Gates Of Dawn, A Saucer Full Of Secrets, Ummagumma, Atom Heart Mother, and Meddle are certainly not concept albums. So that's half of them. Even if you want to make the case that the rest are, it still would not qualify as "most of them". Then there's also the issue of Rick Wright. I removed the statement that "his name did not appear anywhere on the finished album", as his name appeared right next to "keyboards".Mk5384 (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Protected - rock opera/concept
The back and forth over rock-opera/concept album needs to stop. Perhaps people could discuss it on the talk page? Maybe actually quote the source where it uses one description or the other?&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I, too, encourage interested editors with access to the source to simply add a quote="whatever it says in the book, just a sentence" param to the citation, or if that is too hard, to add it to the talk page.- Sinneed  15:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * page 94, Rock Opera. Let me know if you can't read it and I'll quote it for you. Parrot of Doom 15:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "The Wall was another bleak, overly-ambitious, narcissistic double concept album..." from page 94. It then proceeds to say "Essentially, The Wall was a rock opera...", but the primary identification is concept album. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Is not a rock opera a type of concept album? Parrot of Doom 15:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares. "essentially" is a caveat word (wp:weasel wording):  "Essentialy", if the author doesn't feel confident enough to say it outright, WP doesn't say it either. -  Sinneed  16:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well that's fair enough for me. It isn't as though we're debating world peace here so I'm happy for concept album to be used instead - although I would prefer the citation to remain. Parrot of Doom 16:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems reasonable to provide the link to page 94, to me (personally, I love quote=params but no such available for Harvnb, to my limited knowledge). If I Understand Correctly, the dispute was tightly tied to the "rock opera".  If anyone disagrees, perhaps they will join in while the article is protected.-  Sinneed  19:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem with the link.Mk5384 (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Rolling Stone Link
The link to the Rolling Stone review is broken, and I can't seem to find it anyhwhere. Any suggestions? Friginator (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup/Recent edits
I've just made a few changes to the article which generally shouldn't be controversial, with the exception of the album being referred to as a "rock opera." Obviously, the debate over this has gotten pretty heated, and I'm hoping it won't lead to any more edit wars/page protection now that it has been sourced adequately. Also, because it is also a concept album, I've put the paragraph mentioning the previous three concept albums before it to avoid redundancy. However, I'm mainly having problems with the link to Rolling Stone. The URL contains brackets, messing up any citations or links to their website. I don't claim to be any kind of expert on some of the more complicated format issues, so for now the best I could do was to use the "nowiki" tool. This means that while the citation can still be listed, it can't link to the external site. Does anyone with a better knowledge of formatting than myself know a solution? Friginator (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Rolling Stone's website redesign is a PITA. Any website designer worth his salt will include redirects to the old material, unless that material has been deleted (which I suspect it has).  The links always worked before, so I suggest leaving them as they are until the waybackmachine archives those pages, at which point we can change them to point there instead? Parrot of Doom 22:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I just repaired a few on The Dark Side of the Moon. One isn't yet available (hopefully it will be at some point). Parrot of Doom 10:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I found one of the rollingstone.com pages on the Wayback Machine here, so I restored the link to the album review that I had previously removed. Friginator (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Best Selling Soundtrack of All Time?
I frequently see The Wall cited as the best-selling film soundtrack of all-time. What do you think about this statement? Can The Wall be considered both a soundtrack and a studio album? DFS (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In no way can this film be considered a soundtrack. The album came first, the film second. Parrot of Doom 23:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the "best selling soundtrack" claim is ridiculous. Someone who cites the Wall as a soundtrack really doesn't sound like a very reliable source of information. Also, a soundtrack to the Wall film was never released, so it's not like there's much confusion over the subject. Only two songs from the Wall film were ever released. Just like Tommy, Quadrophenia, Jesus Christ Superstar, American Idiot, Evita and other rock operas, it was a concept album first and doesn't count as a soundtrack by any means. Friginator (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

'witchcraft?'
So - "Ezrin later related the band's alarm at this method of working—they apparently viewed the erasure of material from the 24-track master as 'witchcraft.'"

Does anyone else think this could use some clarification? If their feelings about this process are worthy of mention, what does 'alarm' and 'witchcraft' imply - fear? Stemming from superstition (it's just bad luck,) or from lack of technical understanding (it's bad for the recording?) Was the process not explained to them? Were they just joking around with the interviewer? - matt lohkamp 08:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think its fairly clear that Ezrin's quote is his way of saying that the band thought his methods unusual. Parrot of Doom 20:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Confused reading the Recording section
Lemme see if i'm getting this straight : previous albums were produced by Pink Floyd, but this time they hired Bob Ezrin to co-produce (is it known why ?), then Wright says "Hey i wanna be the producer, because i worry that Ezrin may disrupt the band's internal relationships, however Bob is to remain co-producer" ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Then, apparently, i have to explain here why i tagged the following as unclear :
 * (abbreviated) James Guthrie, hired as a co-producer, arrived in the production process replacing engineer Brian Humphries. Says he : "I saw myself as a hot young producer ... When we arrived, I think we both felt we'd been booked to do the same job."
 * &mdash; Who are "both"? Surely not he and Humphries, who's on his way out, therefore no longer "booked", right ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Read it again. "The group hired Ezrin to co-produce the album"..."Guthrie was hired as a co-producer". If you find something confusing, then why not just ask the question on the talk page, where somebody can answer, instead of inserting clarify tags and confusing tags, expecting everyone else to tidy things up. Parrot of Doom 22:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Those two statements are not in the same section, and are quite far apart. But thanks for the fix, though. However, my first question remains unanswered. --Jerome Potts (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I added some detail to explain why Ezrin was hired to co-produce the album. — GabeMc (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

wot, no bass?
Under Personnel, nobody is credited with playing bass. Is there any reliable info as to who did? Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger Waters was the band's bassist. The list is kept deliberately short for two reasons, first to reflect the album's credit list, second because people just add and add and add to it until it becomes longer than the article itself... Parrot of Doom 21:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am, of course, aware that Roger Waters was the bassist of Pink Floyd. Did he play bass on The Wall though and if so was he the only or even main bass player? I believe that it may be held that Gilmour played most of the bass on later Pink Floyd albums, which in itself would makes the fact notable, even, or particularly, if Waters was officially credited (if reliably cited of course).


 * My 30+ year old vinyl copy has no credits for instrumentalists at all so if I reflected that there would be nothing.


 * The omission of the bass player from an article about a rock album is surely glaring, particularly in a list which credits, e.g., the bongo and clarinet players, and particularly when it was presumably played by one or both of the leading contributors to the album. If the section becomes longer than the rest of the article together, that is not, in itself reason to omit notable information. (Possibly even justification for a sub-article - again only for reliably cited entries.) Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * My copy is the Mobile Fidelity gold plated CD version, and IIRC it's from that that I took the credits (IIRC they're on the gatefold). I'll check it in the morning.  With regard to length, one unfortunate aspect of Wikipedia is that people often add factoids as they become aware of them, without first considering if they're actually worthwhile.  I often find myself undoing such edits, in the interest of focus. Parrot of Doom 22:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, couldn't agree more about factoid overdose and if there's a sniff of the -oids about any fact, only too happy to see it ditched. Nonetheless, the bass credit has got to be worthwhile, plus, if it is the case, any evidence that the credit is not entirely, or at all, accurate. Would be interested to know. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)