Jump to content

Talk:Discovery (Daft Punk album)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleDiscovery (Daft Punk album) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starDiscovery (Daft Punk album) is part of the Daft Punk studio albums series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 15, 2018Good article nomineeListed
June 18, 2020Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article
GA toolbox
Reviewing

This album is connected!

[edit]

Nightvision & I'm Not in Love

[edit]

Was the stylistic similarity between "Nightvision" and 10cc's I'm Not in Love never mentioned? Rufous 17:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other sampling

[edit]

While searching around to listen to the real "More Spell on You" that Daft Punk sampled, I found other sites saying that Daft Punk had also sampled ELO's Evil Woman for Face to Face, and Cerrone's Supernature for Veridis Quo. The following are links to the sites stating thisStyle HipHop, DiszkovagasandInlounge, I'm sure there are various other sites, but I rather not list them all. I also have links to the actual song of ELO's Evil Womanand a sample of Cerrone's Supernature If this is a repeat of information and, or has already been discussed, please forgive me.--Taruru 04:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Face to Face/Evil Woman If I am correct then this is the exact same site that has been referenced for Aerodynamic--Taruru 23:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do NOT add links to full-length MP3 files. Just64helpin 18:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Refrenced Song List

  • Eddie Johns: More Spell On You/One More Time
  • Sister Sledge: Il Macquillage Lady/Aerodynamic
  • George Duke: I Love You More/Digital Love
  • Edwin Birdsong: Cola Bottle Baby/Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger
  • The Imperials: Can You Imagine/Crescendolls
  • Barry Manilow: Who's Been Sleeping In My Bed/Superheroes
  • Cerrone: Supernature/Verdis Quo

Unreferenced

  • Oliver Cheatham: Get Down Saturday Night/Voyager
  • ELO: Evil Woman/Face to Face

Please do not add the bottom two songs onto the main article's sample list without a reliable resource

Can we keep this list for the people who still add the bottom 2 songs? and could I just add "previews" of the sampled songs on the main article? ——Taruru 04:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The individual singles articles already have short clips of the sampled songs. Adding those to the Discovery article would make the graph more cluttered than it already is. Just64helpin 16:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understandTaruru 23:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Evil Woman/Face to Face can be added. It's not a clear and obvious sample but as stated before, the same website that made the Eddie Johns/One More Time claim also made the ELO/Face to Face claim. I'm still iffy with the sample to be honest. Douglasr007 20:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Woman Sample and some others, a better look at which part they sampled for Face to Face--Taruru 15:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, was the Anthem magazine that said him denying most of the samples on PalmsOut released yet? Just wondering--Taruru 02:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea, to be honest. Douglasr007 03:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verifying sources of sampling

[edit]

How reliable is the Style Hip Hop link? After the claim that Bangalter made about sampling, I'm still suggesting that the samples not credited in Discovery to not be added for the moment. At least, until Bangalter states what samples are true and which ones aren't. As for the Veridis Quo sample, I found the source with the book I've been reading but to be honest, the source doesn't exactly point out the sample was used for "Veridis Quo". If anybody wants the passage of the statement. I would be glad to provide it. Douglasr007 01:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Anthem magazine source currently included just assumes that Bangalter is talking about the Palms Out blog. Specifically mentioning the blog in the Discovery article is somewhat misleading and non-notable. Just64helpin 17:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that but since you worded the source as "half the list" as being incorrect, people are going to get confused as what they mean by half the list. The Palm Out Sounds does also indicate the Aerodynamic - Sister Sledge sample. I'm going to remove the samples that are not credited on the album as of for now. Douglasr007 00:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not interpret what half of the list "most likely" is without a source. That is O.R. Just64helpin (talk) 12:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just wanted to ask if these sources for the following samples are ok, and if so, if they could be included on the table, but labeled something like "uncredited" or "sourced", since these two in particular are pretty clear insofar as actually being sampled: "Aerodynamic" || "Il Macquillage Lady" by Sister Sledge ref: http://www.samples.fr/blog/index.php/2006/10/11/43-daft-punk-aerodynamic ref: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abf-sYr2K3o "Face to Face" || "Evil Woman" by Electric Light Orchestra ref: http://www.samples.fr/blog/index.php/2006/11/19/49-daft-punk-face-to-face Anyone ok with this being added?^^65.12.233.213 22:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should clearly distinguish reported samples from those mentioned in the liner notes. Bangalter has stated that half of the songs reported as being sampled are false, so further additions to the table have the potential to be libellious, even if marked "uncredited". Just64helpin 18:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We need to stop using the samples.fr link - it's not a valid source as it's a blog and anyone can add info. Douglasr007 00:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, the reason I used the samples.fr link is because it contains very specific samples of the songs that are supposedly sampled in the album. And I don't think evil woman warrants a mention any longer; it bears more of a stylistic resemblance than actual sampling. I don't understand how that could be unreliable or anyone could add to it. However, the "Il Macquillage Lady" riff is the most prominent non-credited samples in the album; if not the samples.fr link, what about the youtube video of someone reconstructing that part of Aerodynamic with Il Macquillage lady? They both even share a soft cowbell or other percussion every beat or so. Just want to make sure that one, if anything, could be added, with some sort of note of how it's presumed, or uncredited, or something to that effect.65.12.233.213 02:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube isn't considered a reliable source per WP:YOUTUBE and WP:V as its content is uploaded by users. Douglasr007 02:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...wait, after reading those guidelines, that means that even though the samples.fr links and the youtube recreation of the opening riff from Aerodynamic using Il Maquillage Lady contain actual samples of specific moments in the song that correlate, they can not be referenced...because they're both not considered "verifiable resources"?65.12.233.213 02:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video

[edit]

This article should give reference to the film 'Interstella 5555: The 5tory of the 5ecret 5tar 5ystem' that has it's own article on wikipedia. This film is the visual realisation of Discovery and parts of it make up the videos for the songs on the albums. Can someone who is good at all this put in the link and stuff?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.36.108.249 (talk • contribs).

This is already in the article. Just64helpin 20:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pitchfork article

[edit]

Before the edit wars start with this article (link here) - I am still asking to withhold on the addition of the other sample for these reasons:

  1. The Discovered album is being released on Rapture records. There is no involvement with Virgin, EMI, or Daft Trax on this at all.
  2. Nothing in the article mentions the involvement of Daft Punk.

Douglasr007 03:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genre: House?

[edit]

The genre of this album is not house. I barely know what House is, but it's not this. Maybe electropop or something... if no one disagrees after a while I'll go ahead and boldly change it. -M.Nelson (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the cover of Interstella 5555 does have the tagline "The Animated House Musical". Daft Punk also repeatedly identified the album as house in interviews. just64helpin (talk) 01:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discovery is definitely house. Just like Just64helpin mentioned above, Interstella 5555 is called "an animated house musical." Douglasr007 (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very special kind of French house with heavy disco influences. But Discovery is so far out that it's almost like a new genre by itself. --Nerd42 (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Veridis Quo

[edit]

I lately heard somebody say that Veridis Quo can also be pronounced Veri Disqou, or Very Dico. Worth a mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.89.108.51 (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The observation would require a published source, since Wikipedia cannot except original research. just64helpin (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I have barely any experience in Latin, Veridis Quo looks awful Latin to me, even though I've no clue what declension any of that's in. --Tpk5010 (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

French house?

[edit]

Is the "French house" label really necessary? It doesn't really add anything to the alredy-existing house label, and it is not included on any of their other albums. "American house" and "British house" aren't even things. Awesomebriks (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there even a view by any critics that this is a house album? I've looked through the review sources, as well as searching Google (News, Books, etc.) for "house" w/the album title, and if anything, came up with critics saying it is not so much house as it is disco. The only source that explicitly calls Discovery any genre ("a [genre] album"), it is Stylus Magazine's review, which calls it a "disco album". Dan56 (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A primary source that I can think of from the top of my head would be the Interstella 5555 DVD cover, which refers the film as being an "animated house musical". jhsounds (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Third-party sources are more appropriate, and the work citing "house" should explain the "side" it takes regarding the genre, like the quotes from the reviews I recently added. Especially for subjective and aesthetic labels like genres, these should come from professional critiques. Dan56 (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

French house not garage house

[edit]

Yes, the album is a house album and has various disco influences as critics mention. Also, the label garage house is not right as the record was produced by a french duo and it's style has nothing to do with American-styled house patterns (that's why garage house is not the correct genre to label it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.237.1.202 (talk) 06:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Have a look here: http://www.last.fm/user/MacTonight/journal/2006/11/26/9w8e1_journal_%232_-_five_albums_that_shaped_french_house and here http://rateyourmusic.com/release/album/daft_punk/discovery/ If you see the word garage house somewhere, then excuse me for being wrong, but I don't think so.[reply]

Sorry for any inconvenience my resources/references may have caused. I guess a moderator could categorise them better.

Those aren't reliable sources (WP:QS). We don't accept dubious self-published posts or obscure music websites as credible sources. Genres are subjective categorizations, please cite a professional critique (WP:SUBJECTIVE), and don't change the cited material in the infobox if "garage house" is verified by the review source that is cited. And sign your comments here by typing four tildes: ~~~~. Dan56 (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for expansion

[edit]

While reviewing Random Access Memories for Good Article status, I noticed that this article is not yet at Good Article status. Thanks to all the hard work of the editors so far, I think it is capable of becoming rated as a Good Article, but if I may, a few suggestions to help prepare the article for nomination:

1. Is there more information on the duo at the time that they started to create the album? Was this started straight after Homework, or was it not until a few years afterwards?
2. The "Recording" section could do with expansion with some additional information. When and where was it recorded?
3. Is there any information on the commercial performance of the album outside of the US, UK, and France?

I've also moved the paragraph on Interstella 5555: The 5tory of the 5ecret 5tar 5ystem into its own sub-section. I'm a new reviewer, so please take my comments with a pinch of salt, but I hope that they are helpful. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and changed the Interstella 5555 header to make it consise and to clarify what the subsection is about. One of the issues I had in trying to expand the Discovery article is that Daft Punk rarely talked about the album regarding the nuts and bolts of how it came together. In contrast, the duo have been very open about the sessions of Random Access Memories -- so much so that they've even shared insight on the Discovery sessions retroactively. In any case, I'll see if I can piece together more info. jhsounds (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, jhsounds; seeing your work on Random Access Memories, I know I can count on you for good work on Daft Punk articles. I do remember Discovery being quite hush-hush at the time, but I was hoping more information would be available now. In any case, I've gone through the B-class checklist and feel that the article satisfies all aspects more than sufficiently, so have re-rated it for all three WikiProjects. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 08:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Discovery (Daft Punk album). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

High Life sample video

[edit]

So there is a video that shows how High Life was sampled using the song Break Down For Love by Taveres and I heard that it has been attempted to been added into the article except it's been removed and Daft Punk claim that they did "not" sample the song despite it being clear that it is. Here is the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5uMctGxJwI I'm not sure if this should be added on the page as it does confirm the song that High Life sampled which is unfortunately denied by Daft Punk themselves even though it is quite clear (as shown in the video). --73.240.105.185 (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm sure most people would agree, the sample has only been demonstrated through original research, which is not allowed by Wikipedia guidelines. The claim needs to be stated by a reliable source in order to be added. TarkusAB 14:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So I made a mistake, I accidentally posted the wrong video (which was the song itself) and I corrected my mistake, but anyways I heard fans found the sample however I found a forum post (which was posted a year before the video was made) on a Daft Punk fansite that someone thinks is the song "The Boss" by Diana Ross, even though it is believed to be the song by Taveres that is mentioned here. I know fans are considered original research but according to them, the sample was uncredited and it took a long time for the fans to find out what the uncredited sample was. I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything, I just think that even though it isn't allowed by the guidelines I think the fans are responsible for finding the uncredited sample. When it is confirmed by the DJs, I think the debate will rest. --73.240.105.185 (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Discovery (Daft Punk album). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA push

[edit]

I'm planning to bring this article to GA status. It will involve a complete rewrite. If anyone has any sources or would like to assist, please let me know. TarkusAB 02:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking I'd do this one day. Good to see someone else has the ambition. I think the lead needs expansion too, but other than that, a copyedit should do it. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 02:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably just going to salvage the sources and start from scratch; it's easier for me to write it that way. The lead and first few sections should just be nuked and completely re-done. The Reception section is pretty thorough but needs a serious copy edit because right now it's mostly quotes in "he said...she said..." form. The only pieces I don't care to work on much are the track listings, personnel, charts, and certifications. TarkusAB 14:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK I made a bunch of edits, and I think this is where I'll leave it. There are still tons of sources out there to rummage through. If people want to collaborate towards GA, I might be inclined to work on it some more but it's a lot for me right now. I have a whole list of sources I compiled, if someone wants it just ping me. TarkusAB 23:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TarkusAB: Do you still have that list of sources? – electricController 14:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, here you go: User:TarkusAB/sandbox/Discovery. The sources are listed at the bottom. You can see I started pulling information but gave up. TarkusABtalk 14:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I incorporated all of the informations you've compiled to the article. Thanks! – electricController 17:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Discovery (Daft Punk album). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Discovery_(Daft_Punk_album)&oldid=1194200039"