Talk:U2 Live at Red Rocks: Under a Blood Red Sky

Correct video title
The correct title of this video is U2 Live at Red Rocks: ... not just Live at Red Rocks: ... and here's why. First I want to point out that "U2" is displayed twice on the covers of the Laserdisc and DVD releases:
 * U2
 * U2 Live at Red Rocks
 * "UNDER A
 * BLOOD RED
 * SKY"
 * BLOOD RED
 * SKY"

Second, most sources refer to this video as U2 Live at Red Rocks: ... with "U2" part of the title. This includes the book U2 Live: A Concert Documentary (page 47), the linear notes for the DVD release, and a 1985 issue of Billboard magazine (link). I wanted to make this clear to elminate any concerns after the move. – Dream out loud (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

U2 Wanderer sources
Unfortunately, U2 Wanderer is not a reliable source according to previous discussion, so I'm in the process of removing that citation and looking for a replacement (I ran into the same problem with Zooropa (song)). So we're going to need to find another source that mentions how Electric Co. was on the original videocassette but not mentioned on the box, and was later removed. U2 Wanderer states this, but we're going to have to find it mentioned somewhere else. I've been looking around, but so far found nothing. I also removed the statement from the track listing section for the time being. – Dream out loud (talk) 05:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We may or may not be able to use the Pitchfork review as a citation for "Electric Co."'s appearances/exclusions on some copies of the film. The sentence from Pitchfork says, "(This reissue, like the original U.S. release of the LP, features the truncated version of "The Electric Co.", without the snippet of "Send in the Clowns" that appeared on some international editions.)". It is explicitly referring to the album in this case, although it is true of both the album and film. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 07:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could contact U2Wanderer and ask them what their original source (if any) was for that. Melicans (talk, contributions) 01:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Pitchfork review in Reception section box?
The Pitchfork Media review that was put into the infobox in the Reception section (a 9.0/10) appears primarily to be a review of the live album, not the concert film. I mentioned the review's brief comments on the concert film in prose, but I think it would be a stretch to say Pitchfork's review was for the film. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 06:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologizes. I didn't actually read through the review.  I just saw that it was cited in the article and made the assumption that it was for the film.  I'm done editing the article for the night, but feel free to go ahead and remove it on your next edit. – Dream out loud  (talk) 06:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Electric Co./Laserdisc info and other additions
I feel like all of us, collectively, have pretty much covered the entire concert release in the article. I can't really think of anything else that needs to be added, except for 2 things. First would be info on "The Electric Co." and its inclusion on the original video release (despite not being on the track listing) and the whole legal issue with Sondheim. Second would be info on the Laserdisc release. I've had lots of trouble finding both, and have so far found nothing. Sure, I was able to come across the exact date/time/channel for every single TV airing of the video, but nothing on its Laserdisc. But in the meantime, is there anything else that we should look into for the article? I really don't think this one is too far off from getting its FA nom (of course may need some minor cleaning up beforehand). – Dream out loud (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A general copyedit would be beneficial; I made two small changes, but with my terrible track record I know there's more that I missed. Apart from that the only thing I can think of is an expansion of the Legacy section; as it is, the piece is fairly short and only really covers the reputation of Red Rocks. Melicans (talk, contributions) 01:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel like we're missing out on sales and any potential certifications it has received. I've seen it labeled as a "best selling" video, which leads me to believe that the sales numbers need to be discussed (if such information is available). I see that info on its appearing in certain charts was added, but I still feel like overall the commercial performance is lacking in coverage. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've searched high and low and haven't found any charting, certification, or sales info. All I've found so far is the video's ranking on Billboard best selling list, which is already in the article.  Other than that, what else should we do with the article before a thorough copyedit and an FA nom?  – Dream out loud  (talk) 05:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I went through and did another copyedit of the entire article. Maybe one more readthrough and I'll be comfortable saying it's ready for a FAC. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed text
From Broadcasts and home video—off-topic (magazine): The following issue was delayed until February 1984, as the editor had hoped to include details about the video release; there was still no information available, so the editor simply stated that the video "is due out in about a month's time".

Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Release date mystery
I've been doing some research trying to track down a more precise release date for the video. The only "reliable" source I've been able to find with the date was U2: A Musical Biography, which lists the video as having been released in May 1984. Where that date came from I am not sure, as I could not find one single source elsewhere that gave the same date. I did a little more research into archives of Billboard (using microfiche at my library!) and here is what I found: Based on all this, all I can conclude is that the video was released probably October or November 1984. I'll simply change the article to read "late 1984", but I cannot be any more precise than that. If anyone has any other information to solve this mystery, please let me know! – Dream out loud (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The video could not have been released in May 1984 because a Billboard article from June 1984 mentions the video as a future release.
 * Another article from September 1984 also mentions it as a future release, so it must have been delayed many times. I can assume this was due to the "Send in the Clowns" lawsuit, but that is just speculation and I can't find any sources to verify that.
 * The 7 November 1984 issue of Billboard lists two nominations for the video at their upcoming awards ceremony. It is safe to assume that the video must have been released by then.  Also, a New York Times article dated 16 December 1984 features a review of the video under "Recent Releases".
 * No issues of Billboard mention the video in their "New Videocassette Releases" list.
 * U2: A Diary says the video was released in May, but I don't know which source the book relied on for this. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 05:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I just emailed Matt McGee so I'm waiting to see what he has to say. – Dream out loud (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I heard back from Matt McGee (author of U2: A Diary, for anyone who's unfamiliar) and unfortunately he couldn't really help. He simply redirected me to the Billboard links that are already cited in this article.  Although interesting to note, this Billboard article from April 1985 states that the video was released "last summer" and "almost a year [ago]", contradicting the Billboard article from September 1984 that mentions the video as a future release.  At this point, I'm just going to leave release info as simply "1984" as contradicting sources draw no better conclusion. – Dream out loud  (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)