Talk:Kate Bush discography

Lyra

(continuing the discussion from Talk:Kate Bush#Lyra):

I don't think it [Lyra] should be removed from the discography. It's a released song written and performed by Kate Bush. The fact that it was released on media with other works doesn't change that. Although I think you're right, maybe it shouldn't be in the "Singles" table. Let's continue this discussion at Talk:Kate Bush discography#Lyra. TJRC (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there could be a new section of other works - film scores, appearances on other artists albums, B-sides etc. In fact, I'm surprised it doesn't already really. We just need to sort out ordering and format. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "minor" single?

Why are these separated? Even tho they were released in certain territories, that doesn't mean they were not singles, right? I also question the release of "Room for the Life" and "Be Kind to My Mistakes" (both red links and capitalized wrong, I don't know who put them there). I think those two should be removed and this section blended in with the full singles list. Thoughts? - eo (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the editor meant Promotional singles?? Novice7 | Talk 13:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that too, but two of the songs were top-three hits in Japan. Would a promo-single do that? I wouldn't call a number-one single "minor". - eo (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But, it is not sourced. I searched on the Oricon website. There is no information on these singles. I'm not sure about the reliability of the number one single source too. Novice7 | Talk 04:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kate's charts numbers

I really try to visit Kate Bush's discography page on wikipedia to keep informed about chart numbers, which I'm very interested in. But, i don't know for what reason, some people are editing the page with fake numbers. For example, Kate's There Goes a Tenner has not debuted on uk single chart, it barely missed the top 100 [reached #101]. However, the page says it has reached #93. I'm updating the real number (again) and decided to keep wikipedians informed about it. Thank you. (I'll also look for another numbers, it's really awesome to fulfill wikipedia with nice information and a legend as Kate needs her page to be the best!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.90.57.130 (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two different UK peaks most likely reflect the fact that positions 76-100 were subject to exclusion rules. Singles inside the top 75 recording a sales drop of 20% for two consecutive weeks (from memory) are excluded from the top 100 once they fall out of the top 75 (but may re-enter again if their weekly sales figure increases). So 93 probably reflects its peak on the compressed chart with exclusions applied below #75, and 101 may be its 'uncompressed' peak (with no exclusions applied). I've added 93 back to the table, with a reference. I haven't as yet seen a reliable reference for its 101 peak, though (and only the full top 200 was available to industry then, I believe).Nqr9 (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Director's cut

I don't mean to be a douche bag or anything but even though Kate considers "Director's Cut" a new album (and it is) it isn't a new album of original and new material it is a compilation of reworked tracks from previous albums so surely it really belongs in the compilation album section? If you look at most other people's discographies remix albums (which this essentially is) are usually in the compilation section or a seperate remix album. Again i'm not trying to be fussy, I am a huge Kate fan and bought the album today but i just think we should stick to the facts which are that this is not an album of new material so it shouldn't be in the studio album section with all her other albums of original material. --Duphin (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) A compilation is merely the cherry-picking of songs from other albums (usually singles) and putting them together onto a new album, as in "Greatest Hits of So-and-so." If an artist goes back into the studio and spends two years re-recording, from scratch, several songs, changing the lyrics, changing the key of the songs, re-titling one (as in The Sensual World now being called Flower of the Mountain, which also has non-Kate Bush lyrics now, but rather the text written by James Joyce)--in other words, completely re-making the songs so that they are no longer recognizable, then it's a new album. These songs were carefully chosen by Kate (not a studio, as is usual with compilations) because she wanted to do them over.

2) The songs on Director's Cut do NOT appear on other albums--in other words, someone hearing Moments of Pleasure on Director's Cut and then thinking "Oh, that song is from The Red Shoes--I'll go get that album and hear it in context," is NOT going to hear the same Moments of Pleasure when she puts on The Red Shoes album. She'll hear an entirely different song. Make sense? Calling it a Compilation Album is very, very misleading.

3) Remixes use the same individual tracks as the original song, they're just rearranged, ommitted, lengthened, shortened, etc., but no new recording is done.

4) If the artist says it's a new album, it's a new album. Kate didn't spend the last two years of her life making this record just so it could be mistaken for a compilation of already-extant songs.

I agree this is a tricky one, but when dealing with someone like Kate Bush, life gets more complicated and interesting, and it's not so easy to just slot things into the usual categories. People are going to have to deal with the fact that this album is unique and if that makes things less tidy, so be it.--TEHodson 22:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are actually completely right, once i actually listened to the album i completely got that this was a whole other album and deserves to be listed as one, and actually who am i to go against what Kate says anyway? Anyway it's an amazing album :D --Duphin (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does actually say on the back of the album that "the copyright in this COMPILATION is owned by Noble & Brite LTD.' Don't know if this means anything but it sounds to me like this is a compilation. Although i do have the collectors edition so it might be different on the standard version. To be honest i don't really think it matters that much where the album is categorised on wikipedia as long as it is on it. Furthermore Joni Mitchell did a similar album where she re-visited some of her old songs and that album is listed as a studio album.--Masterofthespoons 11:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noble & Brite LTD is Kate's publishing company. It just means she owns the publishing rights to the songs (which is different from owning the performances of the songs), and the word "compilation" simply means a collection of things, in this case, songs. You can compile a list of things, or things themselves. In any case, there have been traditionally three types of albums in the pop world: the studio album, which means the songs were recorded in a studio; the live album, which means the songs were recorded on a stage someplace; the compilation or "greatest hits" album, which often includes both live and studio recordings together, or the odd b-side, but rarely, if ever, contains anything new (Kate's The Whole Story is illustrative of her refusal to do things in the usual way--she re-recorded one vocal specifically for the album, but just that one element wouldn't be enough to call it a "new" album). Since this album consists of songs that were re-recorded in a studio, it's a studio album. It's just not a typical studio album. Joni's re-recorded (with orchestra) album of her classics is a good parallel example.--TEHodson 00:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely spot on. Snoop God (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've been unsure whether to call Director's Cut a studio album or a compilation but that explanation makes it pretty clear.--Masterofthespoons 13:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Kate's The Whole Story is illustrative of her refusal to do things in the usual way--she re-recorded one vocal specifically for the album, but just that one element wouldn't be enough to call it a "new" album"
The Whole Story contains a completely new song - "Experiment IV" as well. It's still a compilation. Most officially-released compilation albums will contain at least one new song. It's only the budget priced record company ones that don't. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 12:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Short pieces that go with 50 Words for Snow

What should we call these mini-vids? They're not music videos in the usual sense of the word. What is Kate calling them? We should consider a new category for these. Ideas?--TEHodson 07:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On her Official YouTube channel, they're called "Segment Animation": (http://www.youtube.com/KateBushMusic). The Wild Man one is 2m33sec, less than a third the length of the song. Maybe we should just put this info into the text of the 50 Words and Wild man articles? Not sure how to handle it.--TEHodson 08:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone make a new box underneath the videos section for the three "animation segments" that accompany 50 Words for Snow? Details of the three pieces can be found on the album page (I don't know how to make a box, and don't want to screw it up). Thanks.--TEHodson 12:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eat the Music EP

The discography on the Kate Bush official website defines Eat the Music as an EP, not a single. What say the wiki community members? Should we move it to that section? See: http://www.katebush.com/discography 69.250.207.88 (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and at four tracks per the single's article, definitely an EP.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change made. 69.250.207.88 (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that Eat the Music seems to have been released as an EP in some locations and a single in others. I think it should be listed under both categories. Jchq (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only as a promo, it was never officially released as a single.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was released as a single in Australia as the third single from 'The Red Shoes' (and charted outside the top 100), complete with a unique scratch 'n' sniff card wallet sleeve - see http://www.discogs.com/Kate-Bush-Eat-The-Music/release/1871729 .Nqr9 (talk) 03:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian EPs

There are a couple of Brazilian EPS, red-linked, no sources. Should these be included ? -- Beardo (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kate Bush discography. 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:

Added archive http://www.bpi.co.uk/certified-awards.aspx to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certified-awards.aspx

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kate Bush discography. 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) 01:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kate Bush discography. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070626050454/http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH to http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH

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) 12:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Re-charting

I find that updating the US chart peak for "Running Up That Hill" as has currently been done is misleading; while it's technically correct that the song peaked at #8 on the Billboard Hot 100, that was in 2022, not 1985 (it was #30). Without clicking through to the main article on the song, you neither understand that the song was only a moderate US pop hit in the 1980s nor that it had a major resurgence nearly 40 years later. I understand that we typically list singles by order of release, but this reads to me as an opportunity to list the song again as a re-chart.

I think this is currently done right (even if a bit wordily) on the discography section on Chubby Checker; it makes clear that both chart runs for "The Twist" were separate. Does Wikipedia have a policy on this? Mhavril39 (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be listed separately for easier user understanding. The only example that I can think of is Lizzo, who had a resurgence of singles a few years after their original release. The only difference though is the singles (Truth Hurts and Good As Hell) were re-released officially.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lizzo_discography TDI19 (talk) 03:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based off the aforementioned Chubby Checker page and the Whitney Houston page, I think there's enough grounds to mark this as a separate entry and I have just done so. I think this works for now unless more singles rechart, in which case it might be appropriate to break out into a separate table. Mhavril39 (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Running Up That Hill actually is being rereleased officially. It's being served to radio again, in the US at least. Caity180 (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be listed twice. Even if it wasn't officially re-released, some chart rules were bent to enable the song to reach No 1. But since it is listed twice, the first listing should mention the original UK peak position (#3), otherwise it's misleading. Not only does it misrepresent the chart history by making it look like the song hit the No 1 spot twice, it makes Bush's chart feat, which is detailed in the Running Up That Hill article (longest wait to reach No 1, longest wait between No 1 singles, etc) pointless. I've changed it accordingly. Leoseliv (talk) 10:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]