Talk:Third (Portishead album)/Archive 1

Untitled
The album is complete, in 320kbps and great. The first song rather stops abruptly, but I believe that it's intended to be like that Range (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Does SILENCE [formelly known as WICCA] really begins with that sentence in Portuguese? Well, I'm asking because I've just downloaded the whole thing, and when listening for the first time I heard it, and thought, "they gotta be kidding, this must be a joke with me"; but then, I checked the other tracks and they seem to be ok. So, ... ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.44.195.138 (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's an evangelical prayer in Brazillian Portuguese. The album is amazing. 77.54.173.49 (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Album is amazing? I think it's horrid. It's all over the place and sounds amateur. Singing is way off key and the music is dreadful. The only song that had any hope was number 10 (don't even care enough to remember the name), which was ruined about two thirds through by what sounds like an elephant solo. It's cool to sing and play outside, as long as it adds tension in relation to the stuff that is in tune. Jazz musicians do it all the time. When everything is outside, you sound tone deaf. I had hopes for this album, too. Straight to the dustbin with it.

Is this an album review site? Apparently you don't care for Portishead, that's your choice. Why are you saying this here? Magu (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm Brazilian and can confirm, it's Brazilian Portuguese. The voice says something like: "Be aware of the 'rule of three'. What you give will return to you. You have to learn this lesson. You only get what you deserve." And the voice sounds identically of Brazilian evangelical prayer Edir Macedo! But I can't figure out an evangelist spelling such Wicca rule, so it's a little funny! Cyb3r (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. The 'rule of three' is the wiccan belief that all you do, good or bad, come back to you multiplied by 3. Cyb3r (talk) 13:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Genre
While Portishead is known as a trip-hop band, that doesn't mean every album they produce can be instantly labelled as trip-hop, and I think most people would agree that Third is a big departure from typical trip-hop. It definitely has elements of rock, IDM and experimental music. Possibly giving it a hybrid genre or multiple genre would be good? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.138.127 (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but it's neither experimental, nor IDM. The only possible problem with the album is that the separate songs belong to different genres. I'll try to summarize (please tell me if something's wrong with this interpretation): Silence: Trip-Hop/Rock, Hunter: Trip-Hop, Nylon Smile: Trip-Hop, The Rip: Adult-Pop, Plastic: Trip-Hop/Electronic, We Carry On: Electronic Pop, Deep Water: Vaudeville, Machine Gun: Electronic Pop/Industrial Pop, Small: Trip-Hop/Electronic, Magic Doors: Trip-Hop, Threads: Trip-Hop RichLow (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Nah, I would call We Carry On "Krautrock" and the album as a whole for "Alternative Folktronica".   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.229.233.182 (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You can't call them Krautrock, as it refers to a specific regional scene. I'm changing this to "experimental rock". Epigrammed (talk) 05:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation not needed?
Do we need a citation to prove the album was leaked on P2P networks? Do we have to wait until a proper website writes it? How about using this torrent site as a reference? [] That's proof. [Ps. I'm not condoning illegal downloads by posting that link. Buy the album.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.225.183 (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I don't see why a citation is needed for an illegal leak. Just buy the album, we've all waited long enough! Istabo (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Illegal leak is fact, and therefore need a citation (not that torrent site, who wants to find it will do it). There are such informations in other articles (e. g. 10,000 Days) Unverified statement was removed, so it's ok now. Filip en (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

iTunes bonus track?
i saw an ad for this. is it true? what's the song?

also, should the Okayplayer review be there, since it's not considered a professional review?

Last.fm early release
The album in its entirety has been available to listen to on last.fm for several days now (since the 23rd I think?), a fairly notable period before the true release date. Shouldn't this get some mention since it's a little out of the normal. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Magic Doors writer
Baggott? Who's that? And does this need a citation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.138.127 (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That's John Baggott. He plays keyboards in Portishead along with Clive Deamer on drums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.77 (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Review sites
Reqluce deleted the AMG review claiming "Only 10 official reviews allowed per album as per WIKI:ABLUMS" ; maybe, but that's no reason to delete the established Allmusic for a non-notable, spam-like recent blog such as The Quietus, so I switched them. 62.147.39.39 (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Third (Portishead album)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Third (Portishead album)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "guardian": From Metacritic:  From NME:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 08:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)