Talk:Kid A/Archive 1

Archive 1

Just a reminder about Reviewer/Ratings

Do NOT change Pitchfork, NME, whatever reviews to a "10 star" template. Very few media organisations that give scores out of 10 have ever awarded scores in "10 stars". Obviously someone created this Wikipedia template because they thought it was cool, but it actually takes up less space just to give the rating out of 10 and is also much easier to quickly read (with something out of 10 stars, it's not immediately clear how many there are, they're so closely bunched together, unlike with 5 star ratings where it is easy to read and visually good).

In addition, it's not only a poor formatting choice but leads to inaccuracy with converting Pitchfork Media reviews, since this one might happen to be 10.0/10.0, but usually their reviews are not whole numbers that could be converted into a number of stars out of 10.

Listing Japan

The first paragraph lists a Japan release date. it doesn't make the first para significantly longer. I put it there and I vote we keep it there.

why? because 1. the date is Sept 27, significantly earlier than the others, almost a week earlier and even in a different month (this is unusual and I don't think the case for other Radiohead albums) 2. listing Japan looks cool and makes it look less Eurocentric, really (not a valid reason, I know) 3. Radiohead is actually very popular in Japan, so it's not quite a random fact 4. we don't have any other part of the article listing more specific release dates (and I don't think it's needed, as these are the ONLY three dates, according to this site: http://www.indyrock.es/newalbum.htm)

September 27 Japan, October 2 Europe October 3 Canada / USA

and from that site, here's the chart positions it reached

UK - No.1 USA - No.1

      Canada - No.1 
France - No.1

Ireland - No.1 New Zealand - No.1 Australia - No.2

    Finland -No.2

Noruega -No.2

  Japan - No.3

Portugal -No.3 Italia -No.3 Suecia -No.3 Dinamarca-No.6 Suiza -No.8 Alemania -No.4 Holanda -No.6 Austria -No.5 Spain -No.23

quite impressive. but I guess Spain actually has its own music market unlike all these other countries which take the English stuff! 172.144.0.252 16:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination failed

I failed the article, though I was a main contributor to it. Is the article well written, factually accurate, broad in coverage, NPOV, all that sort of thing? Maybe. I tried for that. I don't think it's too well written but if anything it was too broad in coverage. The problem lies in the stability and the images (points 5 and 6 on GA standards), and the general focus of the article, which had yet to be perfected when it was nominated (this article has had very few contributors).

The specific reasons are:

1). I think effort should be concentrated on Radiohead at the moment, this is a newer article and that has more importance. People should be encouraged to find sources for that article. The same user nominated both articles one day apart, that is still nominated. There should not be two separate Radiohead-related articles competing for GA status just now.

2). I had some more minor improvements/edits I needed/wanted to make on this article using other sources I have, which I did not have time to make recently. It is overly specific in some ways now, and needs more sources for claims. More others should also be making contributions to Kid A before it eventually gets further up the ladder. Yes, it is quite good, but it is not at the point where its "quality" should be called attention to. Maybe next month?

3). The person who put it up for GA appears not particularly commital either, and also to have a different idea of what kind of edits would constitute "focusing" the article more (not that some of his/her edits weren't positive). I checked history, and despite them being minor-ish, I was still going to get into an edit war about a removed quote which, imo, constitutes the main subject here. The recording process, more than any particulars about the style of music or its reception (which in any case are difficult to describe objectively), is fundamental and frankly the real reason to have such a separate article, as the other aspects of the album (not that they should be removed from this article) largely apply to Radiohead in general.

Another thing is that this album's article is able to cover issues that cannot be addressed in the main Radiohead article due to the structure of that. E.g. inspirations on Radiohead lyrics and the political views ascribed to them is a subject not covered directly in Radiohead, and probably shouldn't be (nor in Thom Yorke).

The main Radiohead article works better as a factual history with minor sections on the band members, to prevent fans from adding whatever they want if it had sections on Radiohead's "legacy" or that sort of thing (like some bands do, and like people used to do with the Radiohead article and turn it into a fannish horror about a year back, it seems). The other thing is this music act has such an extensive amount of articles on singles, album releases, that there is not the need for as much non-historical stuff in the main article, it's better to cover the details besides history elsewhere where you can be more specific.

But as a result it doesn't leave room to address certain aspects of the band- image/marketing/ideals/philosophy for lack of a better word- which are noted in most reports on them. It seemed appropriate here, as Kid A received the most attention for these things, to have both a music and lyrics section here. The idea is not that all Radiohead albums would follow the same exact format in their articles, or have the same detail as this. For example there's no need for detailed information about the recording process in The Bends article, as it was largely done in a recording studio in a few weeks by playing the songs a few times and trying to get the best performances, and notable events can be summarized in trivia or individual song pages. There's no need for a detailed marketing section for Hail to the Thief or OK Computer because, while highly marketed, they were more typical albums in that regard.

It seemed a good idea on Kid A to use many band quotes on the recording process, as it was so different from their previous ones and unusual as far as typical "rock music" ideas (See Rockism if you want to have an understanding of why that quote by a lead rock guitarist was notable). This is ranked "high importance" to WikiProject Alternative Rock, and I think it's more relevant to that with a section that puts it in a context of the band's previous popularity, their songwriting and recording method, rather than just parroting back the press release that Kid A is "experimental" and leaving it at that.

Yet, all those sections- the detailed recording history, the sound and influences, the lyrics and meaning- might be challenged at a higher level and should probably be peer reviewed to see if they really fit in this article at some pt.

Anyway, I think we need more of a consensus (stability) about this article's general structure and content before it can go on. ErleGrey's relentless editing style doesn't really help. Being merciless is good, but some of the edits appear rather haphazard. Bottom line is we need more ideas and contributors to improve it.

4). Maybe most importantly, images are now a major problem throughout Wikipedia and arguments over that were coming out in this article. It seemed clear that most of the images would have to be removed to achieve a GA, and there is absolutely no "free" images to replace them with.

This is not a natural science subject or something. If there is going to be lots of text, there need to be appropriate illustrations for a (pop) culture-related article. Wiki editors advocate removing all images that are tangentially related (apparently we have no right to display Charles Mingus or ProTools in an article not explicitly all about them), and at the same time disallow all images that ARE explicitly related (I wonder why there are no photos of Radiohead where the band members' faces can actually be seen in any of their articles), both for fair use rationale. They want to have their cake and eat it too, etc. Remember ignore all rules?

5). This article should absolutely be resubmitted at such time as anyone feels it's ready. It simply should not have been submitted for a GA after a lot of edits by basically one or two people, though, and without any consensus over it. 172.135.56.93 21:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh and finally, Wikipedians need to STOP CHANGING PITCHFORK MEDIA RATINGS to the template of 10 STARS. I hate that site as much as anyone, but they don't give ratings in stars, and it's not visually clear how many stars are pictured anyway. 10.0 just happens to be representable like that. What if it was a 7.2? It actually takes up less space just to write their real rating.

Just a note. This article technically didn't fail a good article review. The use who "failed" it was not signed in to a registered wikipedia account, thus they were not able to carry out a valid review. If you wish to have the article reviewed, I'd resubmit it to the candidate page. There is a backlog, and registered good article reviewer's are doing what they can to review articles to the best of their ability. Alternativley, you could try a peer review. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know that now. That's why I changed my comment at the top. I was going to put the "GA nominee" logo back up there too from the prior version of the page, but someone else apparently agreed that the GA thing should be put on hold. So this article is technically "in limbo"?

I'm not sure who you are talking to, you may want to ask the user:ErleGrey about her/his plans for the article re:GA status, since s/he nominated it.

Peer review sounds like a good idea actually. But maybe the backlog gives time to improve the article a bit more before anyone reviews it for the GA nomination? 172.135.56.93 08:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Time for a re-evaluation?

Is it time for a re-evaluation of the article's status? I think its now met the criticisms placed on it that prevented it from getting an "A" and good article status?

It still needs a few sources. More importantly the many sources there need to be condensed, however you do that, so that when the same source is cited multiple times it can instantly jump to the same source, instead of cluttering up the footnotes with tons of the same thing. And this article might be too long for the standard... I don't know (I am NOT suggesting someone simply go in and delete tons of stuff). maybe hardcore Wiki experts would not like such a long article on this "unimportant" subject. I think it could become a very good article though, given some citation finding and minor edits by people who care, which have been sorely lacking (and not stupid deletions of trivia and things like that).

I have yet to see any other album articles with this level of factual detail and context, which if channeled into slightly better more concise writing in a few places, should be a plus. It is quite scary taht when you search Radiohead Kid A in google this is the second result. Let's try to make it live up to that. can anyone point out some other comprehensive album articles we should be using as models here to improve this?? 172.144.0.252 19:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use/Images

It's not that scary; Wikipedia is the top or near-top result for a lot of Google searches. One thing I'd like to point out is that the images, such as the one of Charles Mingus and the Talk Talk album cover, may not qualify as fair use as these are only fair use when used on a page primarily about the topic in question (or so I believe). This, for one, may prevent the article from obtaining GA status.--HisSpaceResearch 19:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that's necessarily true, as the images are adequately referenced in the text of that section and throughout the article (in the case of Mingus). I didn't put them back, but I might do it soon, regardless of the good article debate (I don't think this article should have been submitted for that, anyway. the effort should be concentrated on getting Radiohead up to standards first).

This fair-use-pictures issue in general (no offense to who removed the images-not only for this article) is ridiculous because there is nothing even close to consensus among leading editors over when and where different types of images can be used in music articles. Until there is more consensus things should not be deleted unless they are the subject of a legal complaint or it's truly a massively popular article, which is never going to be the case on this one.

Ok, on the one hand, images are supposedly only "fair use" if they relate directly to the article. On the other hand, the images that most directly relate to articles (good photos of the actual band in question- as opposed to blurry, distant, amateur shots of one member- and images of album covers for the artist in question), these are the ones constantly BANNED for not being fair use (except in the magic case of The Smashing Pumpkins, which seems to have gotten close to being a featured article, with massive amounts of beautiful unapproved images).

I don't see this article obtaining "good" status anyway, for other reasons. It is more comprehensive than is probably desired by leading editors for an article on this topic, as said already. Look at the length of the article. By Wiki standards, it is excessive. I don't see other single-album articles like this, I mean it's longer than the main Radiohead entry! Yet it's not like much of this information is a repeat of what's already there, or like there can be a spinoff topic on "Kid A Sound and influences" and "Kid A marketing and release", that would be stupid. I might be biased but I do think most of this article is justifiable wiki-worthy material and I'm trying to improve it and remove unsourced bits. But it just doesn't quite fit into the way format of album articles currently on Wikipedia, so I doubt it'd get approved as "good". It's better that it be the best article possible on the topic than a "good article" by wikipedia standards if those standards get in the way of it (And anyway: "Ignore all rules").

We should not be trying to ram relatively new (as in, not that many unique editors have worked on this) articles through Wikipedia hierarchy, but improving the articles in a grassroots process. If trying to obtain good status is going to conflict with trying to present a complete and easy to read picture of the topic, why does "good" matter? If the total number of images in the article in general is the issue, then perhaps they can all be removed. I don't understand why Mingus or Talk Talk is any less justifiable than say the image of ProTools, or Meeting People is Easy, or of Ed O'Brien in what is surely a fan picture from a concert from 2006 (not a picture of him while recording or touring for this album).

NONE of the images in the article relate directly to the article content and you know why that is? Because OF THE SAME "FAIR USE" rules that prevent us from posting any of the innumerable images, posters, or whatever of the band taken specifically for this album or its live shows. The only image that does relate, besides the album cover, is the album artwork (which will probably be removed for violating fair use) and Thom on SNL (which lots of editors have already requested for removal).

Mingus is more directly relevant to this album than a picture of Tom with a Nader sign on Saturday Night Live. But all the images are equally relevent, or irrelevant. That should be the criteria, not "fair use", which is a completely nebulous and POV concept. As far as I can tell, Jimmy Wales intentionally left it that way. The way some editors interpret it, constricts basically ALL images from pop culture related articles. 172.145.14.88 06:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

just an addendum: if it's not obvious let me explain why I added all the images. There is a lot of text, and this is not a technical sort of article. Images are really a necessity to break it up and illustrate. of course I first wanted to add pictures that would more directly relate to the article's subject. of course, such images are not allowed here (see above). I haven't been to a Radiohead concert and personally (perhaps illegally) taken pictures of the band. These are the only images of pop artists that are currently allowed under the rules, amateur poor quality pictures, because photoshoots are not allowed. Instead you have to be creative in an article such as this and find images of other things, such as those that have already been uploaded to other Wiki articles. each picture is more than justified considering its importance to the album/recording/reaction/etc, if you read the text. 172.145.14.88 07:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Genre

We have been running into a bit of minor difficulty over characterizing the genre of this album and I'm surprised it didn't happen sooner.

What are everyone's thoughts on this?

Genre labels are inherently silly, let's accept it. But if we're going to give different ones to each album, it can be helpful for those who haven't heard the material.

my thoughts

1. It's not appropriate to call Kid A alternative rock, although it was marketed to alternative rock audience. for instance in the absence of singles, the whole album was sent out to radio but only one of the songs (Optimistic) was considered playable on alternative rock radio. By 1980s standards, Kid A would be an alternative rock/post punk influenced album, as they were often highly electronic and sometimes more experimental than Kid A. but by modern standards of what this term means, it along with Amnesiac is really not, because they are too abstract and not guitar oriented enough. The meaning of alternative rock has changed drastically since 1991 (neither can Kid A be called indie rock, for obvious reasons). The band came out of the alt rock scene and their previous albums, and the later one Hail to the Thief, seem to all qualify broadly as alternative rock, although some of them could also be called art rock or just plain rock or whatever other designation someone wants. But I don't believe this can be applied to Kid A. It was rarely if ever described as an alternative rock album - despite the Grammy win in that category, which we all know is especially meaningless if you look at some of their other "alternative" nominees - and even if mostly "alternative" types listened to it, these critics or listeners would talk about its lack of adherence to the genre. Some individual songs could be called alternative rock, however.

2. Ok, the word "art rock" is practically meaningless and totally subjective and sounds pretentious, and isn't even considered a real genre by most people. In addition the band themselves (like most bands called "art rock") seem to reject this term. HOWEVER, this is true of many other musical genres, which are inherently subjective, give the appearance of similarity to diverse music, and are often rejected by whoever they are applied to, even when this application enjoys universal cultural currency. And it hasn't stopped "art rock" from being applied as the genre for Radiohead in the Radiohead article (along with Alternative rock and Electronic music, last time I checked) in the absence of anything more properly specific. For OK Computer, the application of "art rock" in addition to alternative rock is practically necessary, because of the way the album was commonly described by critics (Rolling Stone: "an art rock tour de force"), yet the lack of fit with the "progressive rock" genre. Otherwise it's best just to call it rock, but if things get more specific, "alternative rock" alone for that release would be misleading.

3. And if we were to stick with single categories, what do we call Kid A? It is electronic music, for one thing, but it is not, simply, electronic music. This refers to the form of the music (the whole mode of production is electronic, as often noted) but not the actual style (only a few songs could be described as purely electronic in instrumentation- about three or four at most). MOST of the songs in fact utilize guitars, and strings, and other "natural" instruments. Yet guitars (and voice) have been highly manipulated are not used in the typical way found in alternative rock, or even in the so-called art rock style of OK Computer where they play big guitar solos. The style of Kid A can just as easily be called art rock as OK Computer because of that term being so vague. We can combine "alt rock" and "art rock" to describe OK Computer in such a way that most will understand what is meant, and combine "art rock" and "electronic music" for Kid A to get the same general accuracy. In both cases the addition of "art rock" just lets the reader know that it is an alternative rock (OK C), or an electronic music (Kid A) album, but made from an "arty" and particularly a rock music perspective, rather than a "generic" alt rock or an album of pure electronic music.

4. If someone has a problem with "art rock" and I can see why, there are perhaps other terms that can be used. Experimental rock would seem to be the best suggestion and this is what I've used for this version of the article- Experimental rock and electronic music together give a pretty good description of this album and the ways it was usually described. If perhaps implying it is a bit more left-field than it actually is, these descriptions could still be well justified by citing a variety of reviews.

Experimental rock is pretty much another meaningless genre used to refer to acts that would not want to be called art rock or are more radically punk influenced and don't want associations with prog or other mainstream forms of "art rock". For Radiohead's whole career, though it might be nice to call them Experimental rock which they and their fans would probably prefer, it would just not be appropriate. For Kid A however, the adjective "experimental" was found in nearly every review, and the more underground experimental rock-type audience even embraced it to some extent. Evidence for this is the band appearing on the cover of The Wire (magazine) with an article about Kid A and Amnesiac by Simon Reynolds. Reynolds also called them "post-rock", as an easy way of describing exactly the distinction between the so-called art rock of OK Computer and the style of Kid A- guitars, but used for "texture". But considering that Reynolds himself invented this term in the early 90s and might have an interest in (over)applying it, and that since then it has changed in meaning (like "alternative rock") - to where it now usually means instrumental, dramatic bands with extended compositions like Mogwai and Godspeed You! Black Emperor - it doesn't fit Kid A particularly well as an official genre category without more explanation. The possible designation as post-rock is mentioned though, in the article itself under the section Sound and influences.

So I say Electronic music and experimental rock, with Electronic music and art rock (currently the Amnesiac categories) as second best possibility. I suppose all three of them could even be listed. as if it matters. 172.144.0.252 13:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree for electronic and experimental rock. Maybe new prog????? . The article says Radiohead sometimes belongs to this genre, but i never heard about it.Frédérick Lacasse 16:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

no way for new prog. if any Radiohead album fit into that, it would be OK Computer or possibly Hail to the Thief, but even those are a big stretch apart from two or three songs. Muse fits nicely into new prog with an album like Origin of Symmetry I think... it's just not the style of Kid A at all. and the press/band didn't think so either.

I can actually see a lot of arguments coming up over "experimental rock" as fans of "omgz lolz TRUE XPERIMENTASHUN!" (i.e. unknown to mainstream) come and revert this to wankier sounding genres like art rock (which wouldn't be so horrible, actually). but let's remember, the word "experimental" appears in practically every article ever written about Radiohead during this period. whereas the word "art rock" appeared more for OK Computer. many articles also call them "post rock", which is just going too far, but if we have the inventor of "post-rock" himself applying it to Radiohead, and a feature on them in the NY Times called "The Post Rock Band", a case could even be made for that, despite being totally misleading considering how different this is from Godspeed, Mogwai, even Sigur Ros (if we are talking Talk Talk and Slint era post rock, Kid A DEFINITELY qualifies though! but unfortunately it ain't '91).

while I changed the genre to experimental rock, I actually tried to minimize the number of uses of the word "experimental" from the text of this article, just keeping the bare essential ones, as it's a cliche, and completely subjective when applied to an end musical product. as opposed to, maybe, the Kid A recording SESSIONS which were undeniably experimental, in terms of songwriting/recording process for Radiohead, which I think it's safe to say anyone would concede if they read a bit about them. but, ya know maybe Rod Stewart's recording sessions to produce an album of schlocky cover songs might equally be a brave experiment in something new for Rod Stewart, in the techniques he has to use to make it. so it's ALL subjective, and certainly judging whether an end result of music SOUNDS "experimental"... well that can't be done objectively. but Wiki is written for a general audience- and in this case most mainstream critics, and seemingly most average music listeners in 2000 considered Kid A highly experimental, whether they loved or hated it.

it totally could overlap with "art rock" of course, they are just designed to convey different ideas. w/ this it worked better to do experimental rock to differentiate the style from OK Computer.

fyi, the band says they write pop songs. they deny making "art rock nonsense", or post rock, and surely want to die every time they were called prog. though Yorke has a slight sense of humour about his elitism actually:

"prog rock is sad. and krautrock is not prog rock is more punk. queen were not prog rock. they were camp and not serious or shite enough. pink floyd moved to slow to be prog rock. certain areas of electronica smell of prog occasionally, i try not to notice. those who thought prog rock was like jazz are deluded. i dont know what prog rock is. never did. just because you change time signature a couple of times doesnt mean you is singing abou the fairies in the woods does it? were genesis prog rock? when peter gabriel put a flower round his head and kicked a bass drum was that prog? i have no connectivity with anything prog whatsoever except maybe that last bit about the flower and the kick drum and peter gabriel."

in any case the genre has to work on consensus, not what a musician says about their own stuff. Yorke probably wants to kill himself when he's called experimental, too. cause he's well aware of all the earlier, or weirder things he stole from. but that in itself doesnt deny Kid A as a member of the genre, cause everyone steals, lots of experimental rockers have a pop sensibility too, and Radiohead just happen to be more famous.

note: the above is just a justification for the inevitable edit war I don't want to participate in and don't really care about actually, as electronic music/art rock is fine if it comes to that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.144.0.252 (talk) 12:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Despite the experimental nature of the album, it's still consistenly considered alternative rock. The post-rock influence in fact adds to the classification, since post-rock is an alt-rock subgenre. WesleyDodds 07:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean? It means nothing, since there is no concrete meaning for "alt rock" or "post rock", how can one be a "subgenre" of the other? I wonder what Simon Reynolds would have to say about that. The point of post-rock (which this album isn't, really) is that it's supposedly rejecting rock and drawing as much from say ambient music, or jazz or something else. So a true post-rock album would not be alternative rock, or in fact "rock" at all (without qualification). It would be like calling Revolver and Sgt. Pepper's a "blues" album, basically, just because rock grew out of blues and there is some blues influence on the albums.

As far as wikipedia is concerned, post-rock may be defined for convenience as part of the "alternative rock" umbrella, but this subjective determination relies on the wikipedia chosen definition of alternative rock, as the "true" alternative movement beginning in the 80s which spawned post rock among other things. "emo" is also defined as a subgenre of hardcore punk music, for the same historical reason. however this does not mean one could truthfully categorize any album with the genre of "emo" (like say, a Dashboard Confessional album) as being "hardcore punk" as well, due to the independent nature of the genres. just because one genre is considered a subgenre of another, having grown out of it, doesn't mean that something belonging to the subgenre also belongs to the main genre, or even, has anything in common with it.

This album may be listed as "alternative rock" for how it was marketed and Radiohead's previous brand name. That would be the only reason, because the music itself does not fit the genre category as defined for the past 20 years. However, it's definitely appropriate for it to belong to the Alternative Rock WikiProject, because of the band's history and identification with that. This is an important album for the recent history of alternative rock, without really being alternative rock. (most of the recent albums with importance for "alternative rock" are not actually called alternative rock, since as a genre, that has sort of died since the '90s, it's only the original legacy that remains). 172.165.51.199 06:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think 'rock' has any place in the description of this album's title. Sure, it was made by a group of musicians who fit the profile of a 'rock band', but the entire recording process was not representative of a rock band's, and the sound is certainly not rock music; it's almost entirely based in ambient electronica. The only track that could be considered 'rock' is Optimistic. I mean, the fact that Thom Yorke himself said that he hated rock music at the time of the recording of this album and was pretty much exclusively listening to the Warp Records back catalogue... you know where I'm going. 67.71.10.206 23:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Who removed the picture of Charles Mingus and why?

This article is quite long and could use pictures, particularly since the reproductions of Donwood's artwork are likely to be removed by someone anal at some point for copyright violations.

The pic someone posted of Mingus playing bass from an odd angle was undeniably cool looking (ok, not a valid criteria) added a lot of interest. I don't know why it would have been removed. The Kid A#Sound and influences section where the pic was placed has tons of namedropping- of Mingus and others. Each of the influenced cited can be backed up by multiple interviews, but Mingus in particular was mentioned a lot by Thom Yorke. It helps to give this section more interest for readers to have a pic of one of the key influences, and parallels the picture of the book cover of No Logo in the Lyrics and meaning section. Just as No logo was repeatedly cited by Yorke as an ideological influence on Kid A, Mingus was repeatedly cited as a musical influence, giving both of them high relevance to this article, especially in the absence of easily available "free" pictures of the band working on the album. 172.144.0.252 13:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, agree fully. Powelldinho 13:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Put it back. :) along with another pic of Meeting People Is Easy which fit well with the new text added on post-ok computer recording sessions. if anyone has a "free" pic of the band during this era (i.e. a much better one than what's currently uploaded at Radiohead) I suppose that could fit somewhere, but the Yorke on SNL is very good so long as it doesn't get removed for copyvio. 172.144.0.252 12:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sound samples

Now that we've got the article worked out decently (minus enough sources), what does everyone think about the samples chosen as representative of this album?

It says no singles were released from Kid A. Is this true? I distinctly remember hearing Optimistic on the radio. Mike Church 07:40, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Apparently there was a promo of Optimistic (and, in the UK at least, promos of some other tracks from Kid A) but no official single. --rbrwrˆ

pictures for this article?

• picture from the Kid A tent tour or one of the olde style concert posters for it, under marketing and release section

thanks, whoever added all the pictures! now it would be really nice if we could also find one of the band in this period, but it's unlikely it'd be in public domain.

Factual Inaccuracy

I have seen a video for 'Idioteque' on MTV2 a year ago. It was in b/w and showed the band playing a bunch of keyboards and drum machines. Erwin

That wasn't really a "music video" but rather a video of the band playing the track live. If it's what I think you are talking about.

^^^That's correct...It's also a totally different version of the song, done for a radio show. -themilstead

Kid 17

Has anyone tried that 17 second synching trick mentioned in the article? It sounds distinctly implausible to me. I wonder if Thom was just trying to get people to buy two copies ;o) --bodnotbod 18:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah. After further research it seems that you're supposed to synch individual tracks, not play the two albums through from beginning to end. It was the idea that 17 seconds at the end of one song would synch with 17 seconds of the beginning of another I found hard to believe. --bodnotbod 18:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I know the guy who originally came up with that (really - he runs a Radiohead fan site). Thom has not confirmed it and it's probably a coincidence. I'm changing the article.--Terminal157 06:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I've done it before with the tracks "Everything in it's Right Place", and "Kid A". It's kinda odd... they really do match up evenly, and sound a lot different, while maintaining the same mood. If you can, try it out some time. It's definately an amazing experience. Underwater 21:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

kid a in alphabet land

Is Kid A In Alphabet Land related? Some internet sources say so. Look it up on Google. Omphaloscope » talk 18:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Bizarre POV

"Kid A does have antecedents, intentional or not, in prog rock from outside Germany" What's the significance of the antecedents from within Germany? Adzz

that could be better phrased, but it's a valid point. "prog rock" as we know it or as defined by that article, is mostly an Anglo-American/Canadian thing. the bombastic long songs and all that.

at the same time, there were bands in Germany like Can, Neu!, Faust, Kraftwerk, Tangerine Dream, which formed their own culture, sharing I guess some of the ambitions of prog rock but with a distinct aesthetic. for whatever reason, maybe that they were more atonal/free-jazz influenced, more electronic, closer ties with what became punk and early hip-hop (i.e. Afrika Bambataa sampling Kraftwerk), or just that they're more elite and less popular, these bands seem to be revered to this day by people who reject other so-called progressive rock (assuming these Krautrock bands count as prog rock at all, which is arguable since "prog rock" doesnt really mean anything concrete, except the description of a scene mostly at a particular time in a particular place fitting a particular aesthetic, which bands like the German ones mentioned-- ALL of which were independently cited as influences by Radiohead during the Kid A era!-- were not a part of).

anyway, certain if not all Radiohead members, including Thom Yorke, are probably part of "that certain type of listener." They love nearly all the major Krautrock (so-called German prog rock) bands but have constantly disavowed the idea of progressive rock, and most of the (English) bands seen as the giants of prog rock, even ones that most people see as influences on them i.e. Pink Floyd. Jonny Greenwood said he loved Meddle and hated all their other stuff. Thom Yorke tries to distance himself from Roger Waters. The band made fun of Floyd for being more of a business than anything else, in the documentary Meeting People is Easy. so there is some disconnect. they detest the prog rock scene, except the more consciously avant garde one that arose in Germany.

Track Listing Times

The track listing times are off for a few songs. Are there different versions of the CD? I have 5:51 for The National Anthem, 5:56 for How To Disappear Completely, 5:15 for Optimistic, and 4:35 for Morning Bell.

I've got the same times for my songs, but I've got the limited edition of Kid A, although I doubt there's any difference to what's on the CD's, just the packaging. If nobody else has the same times as the artical then we'll change it. Underwater 00:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right there should be absolutely no difference between the "limited edition" and the regular CD as far as the music content, so go with your times. 172.135.89.118 17:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Credits

I think this article should really have a separate credits section after the track listing, as recommended by WP:ALBUM. Whilst the text describes the musicians and some of the production team, it would still be nice to have a list of major contributors to the album. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alex valavanis (talk • contribs) 10:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Yup. And it was all in there. I followed the format of a Zappa album article that had GA status, and put in a listing of the specific additional musicians listed in the album booklet, as well as the production engineers (besides Godrich). It took up quite a small amount of space after the tracklist. However in January it was DELETED, along with some other information by someone who gave no justifications and enjoys deleting things. So if you want, add it back in, I'm not gonna bother right now. 172.147.227.44 11:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Faulty CDs

Added part about a mastering error on the initial CD release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.136.94.117 (talk • contribs) 2007-05-02

Thanks. We're quite close to making this a featured article and it doesn't really need its own section, so I've shortened it and moved it into the main text. - Alex valavanis 08:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I have one of these CDs! Bought it secondhand years ago and it was only when I heard a friends copy that I realised something might be up with mine. It's got some live music playing at the start and it then cuts out, and the proper album starts. All of the track index markers are in the wrong places too, so if you try and skip forward you end up halfway through a song. I always thought it was just for extra quirkyness. Can't really find any more information on the 'net, wonder if the faulty ones are worth anything? dreamcatcher23 (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Image:Radiohead EdO'Brien.jpg

I've tagged this commons image for speedy deletion as it has a non-commercial license and is therefore being used illegally. I'll remove it from the article until a free-use image can be found. Thanks - Alex valavanis 17:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion template?!

Why is there a CSD template at the top of the article? It's not in the code. Any ideas how to get rid of it? - Alex valavanis 15:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it's fixed now. Weird error :S

Kid 17

I've removed this section from the article as I don't think it's of significant enough importance to be in an encyclopedia. I certainly don't think it needs its own section. The text is as follows

If two copies of Kid A are played exactly 17 seconds apart, the music seems to sync and blend together. Some fans call this "Kid 17" or "The 17 Second Theory", and some have used audio-editing programs to combine both instances of the CD into a single track.[86] Jeff Sparks is commonly credited with the initial discovery of this phenomenon, as his Radiohead fansite was the primary introduction of Kid 17 to the public. No one in the band has commented on this, and it is believed by some to be purely coincidental.

Please raise any objections to its removal here. Thanks - Alex valavanis 03:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I added it as a section only because it doesn't fit under any of the existing sections. It can be reduced to one brief sentence and put inside Musical style somewhere. The information is verifiable and probably of significant interest to many listeners, as supported by the source, so what's so unencyclopedic about it? –Pomte 03:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It's mainly the last sentence that I have an issue with—the fact that there's no official response. Even though there's a reference, it's still a fan theory. However, I appreciate that it's a similar situation to the Dark Side of the Rainbow, which has an entire article written about it! As Kid A is a featured article however, we should be pretty careful about what we add. As you suggest, a brief sentence in Musical style may be OK, so why not give it a go? - Alex valavanis 10:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering all the trivia that has at least a bit more importance to Radiohead themed articles and has been removed for not quite fitting into any section, I think it's ridiculous for this particular information to be here. Please take a look through some of the other removed trivia (for example, mention of the bands Radiohead has toured with or opened for being removed from the Radiohead article) and then continue to tell us "Kid 17" is important.

Ok, music is a subjective thing and Radiohead's brilliance in my opinion is making music that sounds quite chaotic and melodic at once. So what if manipulating their music results in something that a Radiohead fan might enjoy for the same reason?! that's what I'd expect anyway, it might be a nice surprise but it DOESN'T mean it's encyclopedia worthy! Someone decided Kid A sounds good with 17 seconds delay and publicized it a bit. But if I figure out that "Kid A" sounds especially great while riding up a ski lift looking at a sunset near Sarajevo, I'm not going to put it in Wikipedia.

The main question here is, how much has this been publicized? That is what makes Dark Side of the Rainbow encyclopedia worthy. Whether or not a sync of this type is "amazing" or intended or not, is irrelevant for us, all that matters is what's already been said about it before this article's mention. These things can be easily judged irrelevant unless they received significant attention. If it's never appeared outside of a fan forum, it's not allowable here. As a Radiohead fan who has participated in online sites, I think I am qualified to judge the relative importance of this- not only has it never appeared in any citable print article on the band I've seen, even on Radiohead fan forums there are only a few people who know about this, and it's not like they care much. No one believes it was intentional, and hardly anyone gets excited about it.

It's a slight possibility that in 30 years it would get to the tipping point of being a DSOTM/Wizard of Oz type thing that needed to be mentioned, but I don't see that happening. It certainly doesn't have any notability even in the Radiohead cult right now. If Wikipedia keeps it in a "featured article" judged to be of "high importance", of course what will happen eventually (besides the downgrading of the article which should happen first, if stuff like this remains in it while more relevant information does not) is that this MIGHT become more famous. Just because of Wikipedia's Kid A article. Is that what's supposed to happen? Don't think so. 172.135.89.118 17:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

credits

We know very little about who did what on this particular record. The record only lists radiohead without specifying. They have said a thing or two in interviews, and of course we can assume some things (it is very likely that most drumparts are Phil's) but we cannot say for certain that Thom played guitar on this record or that Ed didnt drum on this record. So I would propose to remove the details of the band member credits. I believe that it is standard to follow the credits on the record sleeve itself. Does anybody agree with me? --Merijn2 13:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You're correct that maybe the list isn't completely comprehensive, but I believe everything that is listed is verifiable. If there is a particular instrument that you think is listed for a band member without citation, then {{fact}} tag it, and someone else will remove it if it isn't verifiable. I think that accurate information about personnel should be included, regardless of whether it came from the album cover or elsewhere. Perhaps it would be more accurate if the title of the section was changed to "Personnel"? - Thanks, Alex valavanis 14:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The most disputable things in that list would be Thom Yorke listed as playing bass, O'Brien and Selway listed as doing programming, and the fact that Jonny and Colin Greenwood are NOT listed as either playing keyboard/synth or doing programming.

But they've said in interviews that Yorke played bass on The National Anthem recording. Someone convincingly posing as Nigel Godrich on a Radiohead message board also claimed Yorke played bass on the title track. O'Brien has said he transitioned from playing guitar to getting excited about the digital technologies and keyboards. There's no record of him saying he actually played keyboards or synth on any song that ended up on the album, but on previous albums he's been responsible for "effects" and here a lot of those were digital, so crediting him on programming as well as guitar seems to cover it. He also does a lot of that stuff live. Interviews or Ed's diary also mentioned that Selway came up with some of the drum machine patterns.

Jonny Greenwood said he wasn't into the programming aspect as much and that he's less comfortable with it than Thom. He also said he didn't remember playing a lot of keyboard on the album. Other band members said he was concentrating completely on Ondes martenot, and had to be torn away to do some scattered guitar parts. We can assume most of the keyboards were played by Thom. Colin Greenwood was previously credited with synthesizer on OK Computer but it seems Yorke handled a lot of that this time. However I could see crediting Colin Greenwood with synthesizer as well, since we don't know. 172.146.244.91 23:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Use of "modular synthesizers" on this album?

The main Radiohead article includes a picture of Jonny Greenwood on Saturday Night Live in 2000, playing what the caption identifies as a modular synthesizer. I can't verify that- I know at least some of what he played with twisting knobs, often mistaken for synthesizers, are actually the Ondes martenot. However this one does look more like a synthesizer.

Anyway, the caption in that article also says this type of synth was extensively used on Kid A. I am wondering whether or not this accurate, since this article doesn't mention it, and in fact Greenwood says he didn't play that much synth while recording the album. If the modular synth was used, maybe it should be mentioned on which songs or played by which band member. It's not included at all in the list of instruments at the bottom of the page. 172.154.111.137 05:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The Album Title

Re possible meanings of the album's title, could it be a reference to Sakakibara, or "Boy A", the young Japanese killer? Maybe Thom's reference to the 'brutal and horrible' subject matter ties in? - Juicy Lucy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.162.242 (talk) 07:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible, but it can't go in the article unless there's a reference! Papa November (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought the official word was that it has to do with the technological theme of being a prototype.. can't recall context. –Pomte 10:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that Thom Yorke comes up with a different explanation in every interview I've heard! Papa November (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

1. One writer's speculation: possibly borrowed from Carl Steadman's novel Kid A in Alphabet Land
2. Clone 1: In a recent Web chat, Yorke claimed that the album title refers to "the first human clone -- I bet it has already happened.", [1], and a few other sources referring to the same web chat
3. Clone 2: The bears first officially featured in an online cartoon strip called Modified Organisms. drawn by Stanley with Radiohead frontman Thom Yorke: now they've got a starring role in tile album artwork, "Thom's dedicating the album to the first human clone. Stanley explains, but there's a lot more to tile artwork than clones of bears: there's a real sense of apocalyptic destruction throughout.

–Pomte 11:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Kid A song articles all gone!!!

Does anyone know what happened to any of the song articles for this album? Funny how I was viewing them a few days ago, and now they're gone! Funny how some other song articles on the other albums are missing as well. Can someone please explain this? —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 23:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

They deleted it because Kid A has no singles, which is stupid because there still should be articles on technical singles, as in prominent songs released to radio. Nothing we can do though, I've tried. TostitosAreGross (talk) 11:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually brought this up to the person who originally redirected the song articles. I later realized that some of the articles were original research, while some had an adequate number of references to keep the articles in place. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 02:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha, interesting new Wiki policy. Not that I think a separate "In Limbo" article is exactly justified, but I suppose in the spirit of evenhandedness we'll be deleting things like the "A Day in the Life," "Stairway to Heaven" and "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" (not a single!) articles too, just to be fair? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.14.141 (talk) 07:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Most songs are not notable enough to warrant their own article. faithless (^speak) 07:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Optimistic is notable because despite it not being released as a single, it still charted on the Billboard Modern Rock Tracks chart, which relies solely on radio airplay. The chart peak of #10 on this chart is confirmed here. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to the guidelines at the WikiProject Songs page says, any song by any artist should have an article, provided that there are enough references to support the article. No one will believe how much articles are deleted on a daily basis because they are based on crap and original research. 70.107.112.100 (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"Horn" players in Personnel

I don't know what the liner notes say (I don't have them in front of me at the moment), but at the very least, the links for "Additional Personnel" are wrong. There are no alto, tenor, or baritone horns on this album, technically speaking. (The song in question is "National Anthem".) They're alto, tenor, and bari saxophones. Could someone tell me why they're linked that way? Does it say "horn" in the liner notes? Is this enough of a reference to fix it, at least combined with common sense and a non-tin ear?165.123.243.168 (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Changed it due to no spoked objections. Might need a citation, but changing it back, especially linking to the "alto horn" (etc) article, is incorrect.69.141.179.250 (talk) 02:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it does say horn in the liner notes, but it's just their casual attempt to sound jazz. :) They talked about Charles Mingus' use of "horns" as the inspiration and I don't think they meant the English or French horns. Aroquentin tin (talk) 05:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Persistent issue to be fixed in this article

I wrote some of the text here and found a lot of references a couple of years ago when using an anonymous IP, and then, along with many other registered Wiki users' hard work, we got it up to featured level. Sometimes I check back and the article seems to have become remarkably stable. There's just one small issue that I see and always get tempted to engage in edit wars over, because I think the newer edits have damaged the article's quality: someone or some people persistently remove any negative reviews in the top reviews navbox. These subtle edits are important because they gradually weaken NPOV, and we need to maintain the quality of the article at the time it became featured, or it will be up for another review.

The top box summarizes the critical response to a work, doesn't it? It is supposed to have only the most notable sources, but the sum of the reviews there is also supposed to give an idea of the general reception to the album. For instance, when we look up In Rainbows (featured article), we see all quite positive reviews, but that's because, agree or disagree with the consensus, there wasn't a notable or influential source who gave it a truly bad rating on initial release (even The Wire said some positive things, and some would not consider their comments on albums as "pop" as that one to be as notable as other sources, since their focus is more experimental music). On the other hand, as the text of this Kid A article well makes clear, Kid A (despite receiving The Wire's stamp of approval!) was very contentious within the music press, and received plenty of "average" or "negative" reviews, along with a lot of raves. This is the whole story which our long article tells, but our info box no longer makes clear.

Many of the influential magazines which had helped to brand OK Computer officially the best album ever (and are still at it), came to a consensus that Kid A was lacking. I strongly believe they were wrong, or I wouldn't have spent so much time editing this article over the past years. My guess is some of our other contributors are also great fans of the music, but all that should inspire us to care about the article's quality and honesty more than the presence of a few negative reviews. As the articles here must strive for NPOV, personal taste would be no justification to remove mention of reviews which provide a necessary history of the response to the album at the time. But that is exactly what has been done.

The only other reason to remove them would be that the reviews are from non-notable sources, or that the article already lists too many reviews, but neither of these is the case. In fact, there are as of now, 7 reviews, and one of them is arguably non-notable, since it's from a Rolling Stone album guide which came out long after this album, long after all the other reviews did. I think I've read somewhere that such late "reviews" are not relevant unless written by a notable critic (Christgau) or all others are hard to come by. Besides, there is already one original review from Rolling Stone in the box! I'm not sure who exactly thinks Rolling Stone are notable enough anymore to deserve two spots for their opinions. I have also not seen any justification for why that album guide score gets to be there (it's a pretty new addition) and the other, negative reviews have disappeared.

The NME is about as notable a source as there has ever been in the UK music scene, for better or worse, and it has had its 7/10 removed since the last time I looked at the page, while Q, a big selling but not that influential (they focus more on the past) rock magazine, has its 4/5 review stay. This also leaves Q as the only review left from a publication from the band's own country. All the other reviews are American, and 4 and 5 stars. I am American, but I have to say, this really does not reflect the critical consensus over a British album at the time. So, the NME removal cannot be justified in any way I can see (no, hating NME does not count as a reason! I'm sure lots of us also share that.).

The two other reviews that have been persistently removed are The Guardian and Melody Maker. In terms of reputation, The Guardian is the New York Times of Britain, and they may have more cultural relevance as well (some of their cultural coverage is grouped under their paper called The Observer). Of all the mainstream newspapers around the world that reviewed Kid A, theirs was probably one of the most-read and it turns out they even had several different reviewers give their take on it, some positive, some not. They have since praised In Rainbows. The initial main review for Kid A, however, was 2 out of 5 stars. In any case, the box is lacking for both British sources (one left) and newspaper sources (exactly none) so I feel The Guardian remains a good addition here. The other common deletion is also an addition on the UK side which may need some explanation. For a while Melody Maker was Pepsi, to NME's Coke, it was a major music magazine in Britain, until going out of business shortly after Kid A came out due to competition from NME- or maybe their sales fell off suddenly due to their laughable, negative review of Kid A... we can hope. But, in any case, they were still around at the time, and they were a more *important* source than Q or really any American music magazine of this era, as far as actually shaping the present day rock scene (they coined many genre names of the '80s and '90s). So they were certainly "notable" in 2000. More important, they represented an extreme of opinion without which, the reviews box gives a very inaccurate picture.

However, I do understand if people wouldn't consider Melody Maker's attack on Kid A notable, particularly lacking a website where we can directly link their article (it's been transcribed several other places on the Internet though, which are linked in earlier versions of the article, if you'd like to see that train wreck). I have made an edit just now, adding back NME and The Guardian and deleting the Rolling Stone Album Guide. This still leaves us with 8 sources, and gives us 3 British ones among them, and 3 less-than-four star scores among them. An improvement in reflecting the real reception of Kid A, I hope. Aroquentin tin (talk) 07:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

edit:

another possible good source which has been in the page at times, though it's another American magazine, is Entertainment Weekly. They gave it a B+. I noticed it was the same anonymous IP yesterday who deleted both NME and EW. Perhaps someone would have corrected this edit soon. However, I still decided to replace EW with The Guardian, because it is a newspaper, and it's best we have more variety in sources.

Four often-deleted sources are listed below for future reference.

• Entertainment Weekly (B+) 2000
• The Guardian 2000
• Melody Maker 2000 (note: links to a non-official transcript, link may not be allowable)
• NME (7/10) 2000

Sorry to be so negative on such a small issue- thanks everyone who has made this such a strong article.

Aroquentin tin (talk) 07:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Christgau reviews

I have started a discussion at Talk:OK Computer regarding the removal of the Christgau review templates. Please discuss the matter there. Papa November (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: archiving the page

Most of the discussions on this page are VERY old and date back to the days when the article was still unfinished in the sense of lacking sources and specifics and not having attained featured status. This may also put off new editors from making comments on this talk page or even contributing to the article. I suggest that the talk page be cleaned up soon. 70.21.58.96 (talk) 06:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

NME review: 7/10?

I noticed that the link in the infobox to the NME review does not work. I searched on the publication's site and found this. But, though the infobox says NME rated the album 7/10, the page I found has no score—and frankly, it looks far more negative than I'd expect from a 7/10. Just to double-check I checked the Internet Archive for the infobox URL and found this: the same review, still with no numerical ranking.

So whence comes this purported 7/10? --zenohockey (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I've got the November 2000 issue of Q and the review (p.96) gives it 3 stars, not 4. I've changed it, but I'm puzzled as to how this didn't get picked up before. (The error's been there ages and I've only just got round to checking.) Michael Keats (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Pitchfork best album lists

In 2005 Pitchfork named Kid A as the greatest album of 2000 - 2004, which I added to the acclaim section only for it to be removed a short while later. Just recently Pitchfork did a list of the best albums of the last decade, and once again Kid A was #1. Are these events not deemed important enough to be included in the article or something? 78.145.201.144 (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

These are both presently noted at the end of the Reception section: "In 2005, two popular indie music publications, Pitchfork Media and Stylus Magazine, independently named Kid A the best album of the past five years.^[84][85] Pitchfork would later go on to rank Kid A as the greatest album of the 2000s.^[86]" For the record, Pitchfork's comments are generally considered to be notable enough for inclusion; if these two "best album" comments hadn't already been in the article, you would have been right to add them yourself. Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 02:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Influences/Artists

I added information for the Kid A article on artists who have shown dramatic changes in musical style. I felt U2's Zooropa was a good example, but let's forgot Achtung Baby which came before it and which demonstrated how the band reinvented themselves. How is this not acceptable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DK2131 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Your contributions were removed because the information you added was not referenced; even if you "feel" that Zooropa is a good example on how Radiohead reinvented themselves (in fact, even if it is the truth), it must be first published elsewhere to be posted here (see WP:VERIFY). Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Genre part 2

It seems there's been a little fight over the genres. How about trying to create a consensus? I propose to have Experimental rock and Electronic music as the genres. It's not really an Alternative rock album (yeah, I don't have a source saying it's not, but whatever).

So, how about it? 75.135.129.175 (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

How about you get reliable sources to verify the information? --JD554 (talk) 08:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

There's one thing I'm wondering though. For ages, electronic music stayed in the genre box unsourced and no one had anything against it until you removed it. Why the sudden change now? 75.135.129.175 (talk) 10:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Electronic music isn't a genre, it's simply the way music is made. There are a myriad of electronic music genres, such as electronic rock, electropop, synthpop, etc, but electronic music itself isn't one. --JD554 (talk) 11:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Where did you heard that from? It is a genre. The other three genres you listed are sub-genres of it.75.135.129.175 (talk) 03:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it is important that we some how acknowledge that the record is primarily electronic-based. I agree with JD554, though, that Electronic music is not a genre. How about we use electronica, whose article mentions Kid A (it's unsourced though)?—indopug (talk) 11:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd go along with that. I've found a some reliable sources that describe it electronica[2][3] and Stephen Thomas Erlewine at Allmusic calls it "easily the most successful electronica album from a rock band"[4]. --JD554 (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I added it. I think experimental rock should be there too. But I wonder if there's any "reliable" sources that lists this album as such. 75.135.129.175 (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I did look, but I couldn't find any reliable sources discussing experimental rock. It's listed as such by some online retailers, but that's just for categorization rather than being discussed etc. --JD554 (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There also seem to be a fair number of sources classifying it as post-rock. I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I'm wondering why this isn't listed as a genre, considering that it seems to be regarded as such by many sources. -- Razorhead 22:51, 22 July 2010

Which sources? --JD554 (talk) 08:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Faulty CDs and Discs

Hello, how exactly are some of the Kid A CDs faulty? What is the fault? Is it that there is nothing on the disc except silence, or that index points are in the wrong place. I would like to know thank you. 213.83.125.225 (talk) 09:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.83.125.225 (talk) 09:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Details are in the reference provided, follow this link. --JD554 (talk) 09:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. 213.83.125.225 (talk) 09:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Critics and fans "polarised"?

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how an article from one publication supports this sentiment. How did they acquire and collate this information? Polarised: "to cause people to adopt extreme opposing positions." Needless to say, "fans" is totally unsupported, and cannot be supported. I don't quite understand how critics were polarised, either. MetaCritic isn't the be-all-end-all, no, but it holds an 80/100 rating for the record, with only one publication giving it a negative review. Pitchfork, The Wire (where the supposed "polarised" cite is from, by the way), Billboard, Spin, Entertainment Weekly, Allmusic, Rolling Stone and MTV gave it highly favourable reviews. NME, Q and Mojo were also favourable, if not as enthusiastic as the previous publications. As far as I can see, the album was very-well reviewed by just about all major music publications. "Fans" is out, so where's the support for the critics being polarised? Unless every single review of Kid A can be sourced, reflecting polarised opinions, this seems very weasely to me, Wire article or not. The Wire is not authoritative, and doesn't seem to have the muscle to really make comment. I propose something like: "Many critics saw Kid A as a radical departure...", which seems to ring true. This "polarised" stuff just won't do. Jplarkin (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Altered. This text is not necessarily definitive, but it's now supported. One magazine, The Wire, neither informed or authoritative enough to make such claims. It seems to have been a throwaway, badly-researched comment which someone here has taken as gospel because it's in print. Magazine writers can be lazy, too. More so than Wikipedia users, at times. Jplarkin (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

For info more than anything else, this piece adds some comment on this issue, which broadly supports the observations by Simon Reynolds in the Wire article (and I'll repeat the point I made below, that both Reynolds and the Wire are in fact pretty good sources when it comes to serious journalism on popular and experimental music, if that's being disputed at all). N-HH talk/edits 16:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice article, but the fact remains that just about all of the big-selling music publications gave the album a positive review on release. Jplarkin (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Name of album

What does the title kid a mean —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.56.10 (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The article already discusses this. See the lyrics section. Papa November (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

" ... one of the greatest albums ever recorded"

OK, I see that as Pablo Honey once did - and The Bends and OK Computer still do currently - the lead signs off with this slightly fannish and hyperbolic phrasing. It tries to get around basic neutrality rules by saying, in this case, "listed by multiple publications as ..". That still leaves us a little short on undue weight and weasel words, not least since despite this recently added note, all I can see in the main body to back the statement is that it came in at 428th in a 2004 Rolling Stone poll, and 95th out of 100 in a 2006 UK organised poll (in which Definitely Maybe came top). And please desist from claiming yet again that anyone taking issue with this assertion and phrasing is engaged in "vandalism". Actually it's simply about writing in measured and neutral language, so that the page reads more like an encyclopedia entry rather than a fansite masquerading as one. N-HH talk/edits 09:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• I agree. Even if reliably sourced we should not say things like this in an encyclopedia entry. --John (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• NPOV is neutral point of view, not no point of view. "all I can see in the main body to back the statement is that it came in at 428th in a 2004 Rolling Stone poll, and 95th out of 100 in a 2006 UK organised poll" - what about all those entries in the 'Acclaim' section rating it as the #1 album of the noughties? Or the fact that Time magazine included it on their (unranked) list of the 100 greatest albums of all-time?—indopug (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, I am calling bullshit on this. Please read WP:PEACOCK then come back to us. --John (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Done.—indopug (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Ok. Do you see why this is like the Bob Dylan example in the MoS page? --John (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The lead doesn't say "Kid A is one of the greatest albums of all-time," it says "[Kid A has been] listed by multiple publications as one of the best albums of recent years, and, more recently, one of the greatest albums ever recorded." Which is true, and attributed to reliable sources (later on in the article). Also, it is definitely pertinent; how else can you describe the album's importance and influence succinctly in the lead?—indopug (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't, but what it does say is way too close for comfort. What we can do is make specific claims, such as what so-and-so a critic/magazine/website said of it. We can't, totally can't, say what we say at the moment. I appreciate N-HH for bringing this up. It reads like a fanzine at the moment and we are not a fanzine. --John (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

And it's not as if me and John always agree on other things. Random polls by rock magazines that say it was the best album of the 00s do not allow a group statement that implies it was the Best! Album! Ever! I'm sure someone can find a poll of Smash Hits readers in 1989 - probably not online and amenable to a Google search - which would have said that Electric Youth was the same. Yes, the lead might be strictly true in its wording - according to all of two sources, which as noted place it quite low down such lists, random and self-serving as they are - but so would a lead that said "Kid A has been described as a bunch of tedious noodly dribbling". It's about judgment and writing as much as it is about finding a couple of sources that happen to agree with what you might want to say. Say it "regularly features in the best-of album lists of white alternative rock fans and critics voting and writing between 2004 and 2006", or something a little less loaded, and I'd be with you. N-HH talk/edits 07:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If it helps you, Indopug, this is an argument which takes place frequently. Fans of a band often want to make inflated claims like this about their favorite musicians or albums. The thing is, it is often much more creditable to make a specific claim (as N-HH suggests) than an inflated fannish one as you want to. --John (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

"It doesn't, but what it does say is way too close for comfort. What we can do is make specific claims, such as what so-and-so a critic/magazine/website said of it." The lead is a summary of the article, so it shouldn't be too specific. I have no problem with summarizing critical reception by saying something along the lines of "Kid A was widely-acclaimed upon release, and has been cited by numerous sources as one of the best albums of 2000", because it is true, and it's commonly-accepted at Featured Article Candidates pages (be they albums, films, televisions shows--what have you) because it is an accurate, concise summary without being too specific for the lead. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

OK guys, give me a couple of days (a little busy right now), I'll try to come up with a sentence or two that describes both how Kid A (as well as OK Computer for that article's lead) is a widely revered album, and avoid peacock-y language as well.—indopug (talk) 12:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. (Edit conflict) There are two points here - the general one that this sort of proud boast, based on polls that are simply representative the audience asked (eg western rock fans and or critics) and the date they took place (eg close to the date the album was released) is not appropriate language, even if arguably technically accurate and even if there are several such polls/lists cited. More specifically, there is the point here that the phrasing "listed by multiple publications as ... one of the greatest albums ever recorded" is in fact barely supported by the body of the article, which as noted I think lists two such polls/lists, one of which where it was 428th. As John says, either have a specific note of a specific poll or two, or keep it general but tone down the language. I note that Jplarkin, who has added or defended this wording for nearly every Radiohead album hasn't responded here, raises concerns about taking too much from individual sources only just two sections above, and deletes content on that basis. I broadly agree with that (although would say it's a little odd to describe The Wire and Simon Reynolds as not authoritative). But why impose those standards selectively? It's too easy to quote rules and editing standards when removing content you don't agree with, while ignoring them, or their strict application, when it comes to stuff you like more. N-HH talk/edits 12:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

ps: as an aside, I'd make the point that I always recall reading readers' polls in the UK weeklies that would have Oasis as both "best band of year X" and "worst band of year X". Which to choose? Equally, most reviews of most albums across a range of publications contain a mix of the good and bad. What is there really to choose between making the WP page say "Album Y garnered critical acclaim"; "some critics described Album Y as a disappointment as a follow up to Album Z"; and "Album Y saw mixed reviews". I mean all those statements are likely to be technically true for most albums. Sure it's fair to say that Radiohead see more critical respect than, say, Nickelback, and there are ways to reflect that, but we can't be too definitive in how we do that, relying simply on cherry picking such subjective things as reviews and polls of readers and critics, which change from year to year and depending on which listeners and critics you ask. N-HH talk/edits 16:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions

OK, following the above, I think it could go two ways -

• "In the years following its release, Kid A [has] frequently appeared in rock critics' and readers' Best Album polls" (a less exclamatory summary text, which makes clear broadly who might have said anything like this and when, ie without suggesting Death Metal or Jazz writers and fans might have come to this conclusion; and which also elides the distinction between "best of the 00s" and "best ever", and doesn't rely on the former to claim the latter); or
• "In 2009, Pitchfork writers placed the album at no1 on their list of best albums of the 2000s" (ie pick one from a credible source that compares it with other similar albums of its era and just highlight that. Getting to no1 seems more significant as a sample of opinion than eg getting to #428 in the Rolling Stone poll).

Same applies to the other pages as well of course. N-HH talk/edits 16:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the first wording. About the only specific critical item I see that could possibly be warranted in the lead is the Grammy info, or Mercury Prize if it was nominated for that (I don't recall). WesleyDodds (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

An IP looks to the heavens in anguish and cries,

Why the hell has Experimental Rock been removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.50.41.9 (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hidden Track?

I've noticed in the edit history that a hidden track is frequently put onto the track listing and then taken off again. I can confirm that this track is on my recording as a seperate track. I'm not sure, but I think it appears to be part of "Motion Picture Soundtrack" on some people's recordings of the album, and on other copies as an independent track. This site: http://www.hiddensongs.com/songs/kida.php appears to have some information on it, although I'm unsure of its reliability. 90.206.77.67 (talk) 12:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

When Kid A was originally released in 2000, there were several different editions and printings (some of which included a "hidden booklet," others were special editions featuring different artwork) but in each case, the musical content of the CD, tape or vinyl was the same, and a short hidden instrumental track appeared after a long silence as part of "Motion Picture Soundtrack", stretching out a three-minute song to the seven-minute range. Several years later, when the album was sold on iTunes and other commercial digital music services (in fact, it did not appear on iTunes itself until relatively late, around 2007 or 2008, due to Radiohead and many other musicians' issues with how iTunes deals with royalties, and Radiohead's original desire for their albums not to be sold as individual tracks) the hidden track was separated into its own track. But music was not sold digitally online in 2000, or for several years afterward, and all original editions of the album included the song as part of "Motion Picture Soundtrack". Fans who downloaded the album in 2000-1 from the original, legendary p2p service Napster, and from any of its successors since, however, found the hidden track included as a separate, short song after "Motion Picture Soundtrack". This song did not have a name, but was frequently misidentified back then as "Genchildren" due to tags in the original leaked mp3. "Genchildren" was actually the alias of the group or individual who leaked the album (which some have suspected was the band themselves), which was the only information in the tag on the hidden track in the leaked version, as the brief instrumental otherwise lacked a title entirely. "Genchildren" was NOT intended as the name of the hidden track. When the album has been sold digitally in years since with the hidden track separated, it has been untitled, as it was originally just a fragment added to the end of "Motion Picture Soundtrack." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.122.160 (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Still 'featured article'-worthy?

Don't have time to go through the whole thing right now, but I think this article has a lot of problems. There is no consistency in citation formats, and some of the citations are highly dubious; many of them seem to come from non-reputable fan sites, for example http://home.att.ne.jp/air/tony/radiohead/Kid_A_interpretation.htm and http://radiohead1.tripod.com/songs/album/howtodisappear.htm.

The prose also has problems. It switches from past tense to present. I am uncomfortable with POV claims like '"Kid A" is among the more unusual works of Radiohead'. And there are weird inferences that don't necessarily follow: "Radiohead have stated their lack of identification with progressive rock.[44] As such, Kid A includes no songs longer than six minutes[nb 1]" - this makes it sound as if Radiohead deliberately made the songs short in a conscious act of rebellion against prog-rock, but I doubt there is evidence for this (and the citation links to the broken URL http://www.spinwithagrin.com/answer.asp?show=all).

Frankly, I don't think it deserves 'featured article' status right now. Thoughts? Popcornduff (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Why Doesn't "How To Disappear Completely" Have It's Own Article?

It's not only very popular, but it also had a music video. It's surprising this song doesn't have an article. There is so much you could write about, such as it's ominous characteristics and how it was one of my most popular songs on Kid A. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't released as a single, and I don't think a music video was made for it, actually. So you'll need to establish the song's notability with reliable sources. If you think you can do that, go ahead and create the article yourself, but bear in mind that I (and other editors) will be looking for these things! Popcornduff (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Why did someone delete 'The National Anthem' article?

It's odd that someone would delete this, since all the other song articles for this album are up. 75.1.169.172 (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Article issues; FA status

The tags on the article need to be addressed or the article risks losing FA status. The following tags are present: (6 times), , , , , two of them in the lead. There are also link issues. --Lapadite (talk) 08:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's FA quality (see my comment from 2012 above!). Not only are a lot of the citations unreliable, but the writing isn't good enough, and speaking as someone with a very nerdy knowledge of the subject, I don't think it covers the recording sufficiently. Popcornduff (talk) 10:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

We should allow some time for editors to address these issues. I see a couple of the concerns you raised in your previous post were fixed. By the way, If you're knowledgable on the subject you're encouraged to improve what you think is lacking with reliable sources. After the tagged statements are addressed, If any editors would like someone else to copy edit the article they can submit a request to the Guild of Copy Editors. --Lapadite (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not shy of improving the article, I just can't be bothered right now. I already rewrote the Hail to the Thief, The King of Limbs, Amnesiac (album) and to a lesser extent In Rainbows pages... and now I'm tired. ;P Popcornduff (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Maintenance tags

I just thought I should go through the remaining tags and propose what I think we should do with them and open it up to comment.

"It also received praise for introducing rock music listeners to diverse forms of underground music." This is in the lead. I couldn't find any sources mentioning that specifically. I think that it should be replaced with another sentence that better sums up the praise of critics.

"The album has sold over four million copies worldwide." This statistic was nowhere to be found on the web, and yet there must be sales figures somewhere. Perhaps remove if no other sales figure can be found?

A couple fan site related problems (I'm not sure what to do with this material. Any thoughts?)

1. "I don't remember much time playing keyboards. It was more an obsession with sound, speakers, the whole artifice of recording. I see it like this: a voice into a microphone onto a tape, onto your CD, through your speakers is all as illusory and fake as any synthesizer—it doesn't put Thom in your front room - but one is perceived as 'real' the other, somehow 'unreal' ... It was just freeing to discard the notion of acoustic sounds being truer." (Jonny Greenwood quote)
2. "Radiohead drew inspiration from Remain in Light (1980) by their early influence Talking Heads…" See directly above (the source is the same website).
3. Yorke recorded it alone on a pedal organ and other band members added sampled harp and double bass sounds.

"Yorke said the album was partly about 'the generation that will inherit the earth when we've wiped evrything [sic] out' ". Surely this quote can be found somewhere else, but I couldn't find anything.

"an avant-garde music magazine that usually ignores trends in alternative rock" (this is OR. I think it should be removed)

In terms of its FA status, it's definitely not up to snuff per se, but I think these sourcing issues can be fixed. Anyone, please let me know what you think should be done about these tags. Thanks, BenLinus1214^talk 02:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Starting again

OK, I think it's pretty obvious this article has fallen into disrepair, and in this gigantic nerd's opinion (I previously got the TKOL, Amnesiac, HTTT and Tomorrow's Modern Boxes pages to GA), it doesn't sufficiently cover the subject matter. Fifteen years after its release, this album has become extremely important, and the article needs to reflect that, with more detail in particular in the recording and reception sections.

I've started this by completely rewriting the Reception section and adding a Legacy section. The visual editor has been screwing up a lot lately and I lost a lot of work in various copy-paste errors and server problems. I'd really appreciate it if someone else would take a look at what I have, especially my references; I'm sure they contains some fuck-ups. Even though I added a lot, I think the section could use expansion with more quotes and sources.

User:BenLinus1214, User:Richard3120, others - any thoughts? Popcornduff (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice job! I like the reception and legacy sections and it gives a much more balanced version of the actual critical reception. I decided to alter the critical consensus statement—I think that "Kid A received a polarized critical reaction" is more descriptive. Nice work! :) BenLinus1214^talk 02:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll have a look at it over the weekend – I think you're right to add a legacy section to try and explain the album's subsequent importance and critical popularity, I don't think it's an FA without it. Richard3120 (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Great job, Popcornduff, this is exactly how I thought the section should be laid out. I've updated featured article review of your progress.—indopug (talk) 10:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kid A. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.billboard.com/reviews/reviewdisplay.asp?ID=87891

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} 21:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Sacramento?

I tried to find anything on Radiohead recording part of the Kid A album in Sacramento, California because it seemed oddly out of place among the other reported locations. (Those I wasn't interested in verifying because they seem a bit more reasonable to me). I wasn't able to track down anything to support this. Radiohead did record a later album in California, Los Angeles to be exact, and that has been well reported. Yet I have serious doubts about this claim, unsourced from what I can see, regarding Kid A partially being recorded in Sacramento, California. Wikieditor0611 (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Good spot. I've never heard of that either, and since it's unsourced, I've removed it for now. Popcornduff (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

My edits

I don't know why everyone keeps reverting my edits on this article. You said to get sources, so I got sources. I even followed the guidelines on sources to avoid. Why did my edit get deleted? Why was part of it unnecessary? Tjdrum2000 (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I left two lengthy explanations on your user page about why your edits to Radiohead articles have been reverted. In the most recent case, on this article, here are some examples of some well-intended but unhelpful changes you made:

• The source http://radiohead1.tripod.com/disc/album/kid.htm is not reliable; it's a fan site. Reddit is also not a reliable source, as it is a discussion forum. See WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES for a list of reliable sources.
• "The sessions produced over 20 finished tracks; Radiohead saved half of them for their subsequent studio album" - Kid A has 10 tracks; Amnesiac has 11. Radiohead recorded at least another 5 tracks in the same sessions that we know of, released as Amnesiac B-sides. So "half" is not correct, and there's no reason to use it over "many". (edit: I made a mistake here; I forgot that Life in a Glasshouse wasn't recorded in the same sessions; the point still stands about the B-sides though.)
• "16 or 30-second animated "blips" or "anti-videos"" - "anti-videos" is unsourced
• typos - "lead signer and songwriter", "began suffered"
• "16 or 30-second animated "blips" or "anti-videos" set to the album's music, based on the artwork Stanley Donwood and Yorke designed for the album's packaging, were released and distributed online by Capitol Records, who designed an embeddable video player named the iBlip to stream the blips or the album itself on, and also contained additional content" - ungainly run-on sentence. Popcornduff (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, you keep saying to source edits, but you don't even have ANY sources on your version of the beginning of the page. Tjdrum2000 (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Claims are sourced in the body of the article. See MOS:LEADCITE. Popcornduff (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

My proposal for the page header

This is my proposal for the header paragraph if anyone's willing to listen:

Kid A is the fourth studio album by the English rock band Radiohead, released on 2 October 2000 by Parlophone Records in the United Kingdom and a day later by Capitol Records in the United States. Having been burnt out after touring in support of Radiohead's previous studio album OK Computer (1997), the band's lead singer and songwriter Thom Yorke envisioned a radical change in musical direction for the band to follow. The album incorporated influences from musical genres such as krautrock, jazz, 20th-century classical music and the electronic music of Warp Records-signed artists such as Aphex Twin and Autechre. Radiohead replaced much of their guitar lineup with synthesisers, drum machines, the ondes Martenot, string arrangements and brass instruments.

Radiohead recorded Kid A with OK Computer co-producer Nigel Godrich in Paris, Copenhagen, Gloucestershire and in their hometown of Oxford, England. The recording sessions that followed produced about 40 tracks, with 26 of them having been completed. Radiohead saved part of them for their subsequent studio album Amnesiac, released the following year, and saved another part of the finished tracks which would become Kid A. Radiohead did not release any commercial singles or music videos to promote the album's release. Instead, they released 30 or 16-second short animated films, nicknamed "blips" and "anti-videos" set to the album's music and based on the artwork Stanley Donwood and Yorke designed for the album's packaging. The blips were released and distributed online and were aired during commercial breaks on music channels such as MTV.

Kid A debuted at the top of the UK Albums Chart, where it went platinum in its first week of sales, and for the first time in the band's history on the US Billboard 200 chart. Its commercial success has been attributed to its unique marketing campaign, an Internet leak of the album and its anticipation following the release of OK Computer. Kid A initially gained a mixed response from critics and fans, who were surprised by Radiohead's sudden change in sound. Nonetheless, it appeared on various publications' year-end lists. Kid A won the Grammy Award for Best Alternative Album, as well as a nomination for Album of the Year. In 2006, Time placed Kid A on their list of "the 100 best albums of all time", calling it "the weirdest album to ever sell a million copies." At the turn of the decade, the publications Rolling Stone, Pitchfork and The Times named Kid A "the greatest album of the 2000s". In 2012, Rolling Stone placed Kid A at number 67 (464) on its updated list of "The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time". Tjdrum2000 (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Let me ask you this: what problems are you trying to solve with these changes? Popcornduff (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Kid A. 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/20070311024424/http://www.followmearound.com/presscuttings.php?year=2000&cutting=89&PHPSESSID=c033bc19e81ba698894f33e264541fc4 to http://www.followmearound.com/presscuttings.php?year=2000&cutting=89&PHPSESSID=c033bc19e81ba698894f33e264541fc4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206154836/https://www.followmearound.com/presscuttings.php?year=2001&cutting=121 to http://www.followmearound.com/presscuttings.php?year=2001&cutting=121
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204233756/http://www.followmearound.com/presscuttings.php?year=2001&cutting=131 to http://www.followmearound.com/presscuttings.php?year=2001&cutting=131
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070711130337/http://www.followmearound.com/presscuttings.php?year=2000&cutting=66 to http://www.followmearound.com/presscuttings.php?year=2000&cutting=66
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204233756/http://www.followmearound.com/presscuttings.php?year=2001&cutting=131 to http://www.followmearound.com/presscuttings.php?year=2001&cutting=131
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311024424/http://www.followmearound.com/presscuttings.php?year=2000&cutting=89&PHPSESSID=c033bc19e81ba698894f33e264541fc4 to http://www.followmearound.com/presscuttings.php?year=2000&cutting=89&PHPSESSID=c033bc19e81ba698894f33e264541fc4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070711130337/http://www.followmearound.com/presscuttings.php?year=2000&cutting=66 to http://www.followmearound.com/presscuttings.php?year=2000&cutting=66
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050306095656/http://www.stylusmagazine.com/feature.php?ID=1430 to http://www.stylusmagazine.com/feature.php?ID=1430
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090804123605/http://www.spin.com/articles/100-greatest-albums-1985-2005 to http://www.spin.com/articles/100-greatest-albums-1985-2005
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050306095656/http://www.stylusmagazine.com/feature.php?ID=1430 to http://www.stylusmagazine.com/feature.php?ID=1430

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) 15:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kid A/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 14:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I hope to deliver the review later today or tomorrow. Stay tuned! Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Review

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall, a very well written article. I have however made out some areas of improvement:

• I feel that per WP:CITEDENSE, at some parts of the article, for instance in the "Recording" paragraph, where you use Cavanagh quite intensly, there are more inline citations of the same source than necessary. If the sentences deal with roughly the same topic, you can simply have one citation at the end of all the statements.
• Speaking of the Cavanagh source: Why are there no page numbers here?
• Additionally, I have some problems with the KCRW interview that is used quite often as a source, since I am afraid that, it not being available anywhere as far as I can see, it fails WP:VERIFY. Same applies to the BBC interview.
• The magazines where several articles are used as sources from should be wikilinked, such as Q and Juice (is that the right one?)
• A promotional interview CD is given as a source. Again, I am unsure what to do with this in reference to WP:VERIFY. It does state that a source should not be thrown out because it is hard to access, however, in the case of a promotional CD sent to the press, this is borderline impossible to access for a regular person.

These issues with sources is really the only thing I can point to which could be improved in this article, since the writing is flawless apart from that. If you get a chance to resolve that issue, I am happy to pass this for GA. Thank you for your good work thus far! Cheers, Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Nice that you think the writing is flawless (most of it is mine), but I personally don't think the prose in this article is GA-worthy yet. Regarding the promotional CD, transcripts (and audio) for its contents are findable online: audio here, transcript here. Popcornduff (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I am quite surprised to hear that you find the prose to be lacking, considering you have worked on it yourself. I found it to be concise and enjoyably straight-forward. Concerning the promotional CD: I am afraid that while the YouTube video does make the interview accessable, it is not an official release of the interview, neither do I think can citizeninsane.eu (a fan project) be considered a reliable source... However, if the CD was produced by the record company, maybe it can be considered RS. I will ask about that on the WP:VERIFY talk page.

One thing I have forgotten earlier: Personnel needs a source. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

For reference: My question on Village Pump. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Your point about verifiability is sensible and I've responded to your discussion on the Village Pump.

My standards for prose are very high. I think this article doesn't really flow properly yet - the recording section is sort of all over the place, for example. There's a single-sentence paragraph about songs they worked on that didn't make the album floating in the middle of nowhere. I wouldn't have nominated this for GA personally, but if you think it's good enough, hey, don't let me stop you. Popcornduff (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Question, just to clarify: is anyone working on this? The nominator abruptly declared retirement in November. I can try to fix it if nobody has it yet. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 18:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@DannyMusicEditor: I am still on it. Had been hoping and waiting for more feedback on Village Pump, but that does not appear to be forthcoming. The vibe I got there was that the sources I had pointed out can be used. I would therefore be willing to accept that judgement, even though every reference that can be exchanged with one that is more accessable would be welcome. I approve of Popcornduff's edits over the past few days even though, so far, the rest of the points above have not yet been adressed. Danny, what are your thoughts on the matter of prose? Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

It's definitely not bad. I looked it over a few months ago and found few things to complain about. The only thing I found a big enough problem that needs fixed before it's a GA is the first paragraph of the Musical Style section, and I could fix that myself. Some of the rest of the article could be better, but it's not an impediment to GA in my opinion. If wants the article to go any further than GA, I might comb it a little finer, but looks mostly sufficient to me. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 23:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

FYI, I haven't been working on this GA at all as I didn't nominate it and wouldn't have considered it ready. My edits to this article were made in the general spirit of improving it, not with respect to the GA nom. Honestly, I vote to cancel the GA if the nominator isn't around to actually see it through themselves. No point doing it just for the sake of it. Popcornduff (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I do agree with DannyMusicEditor. If you would tackle these issues, I'd be delighted to continue with this review. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Question - I do not have the Q magazine. I did find this, however. Yes, I know, it's someone's independent website. But it's an exact upload of what's in the magazine article. I did this with Badmotorfinger and the reviewer found it acceptable. Do you? dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 19:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I see no reason to believe that this is not the actual article. If you hadn't said anything, I would have had to believe you that you actually own the magazine anyway (how could I prove the opposite?). I am more concerned with sources that are very hard to verify, which is not the case here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Didn't seem so hard for me to find. The date in the article is incorrect. [5] dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 20:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

But now you've actually used these links, to the fan site, as sources. Is this kosher? My understanding was that the original sources themselves (ie Q magazine) could be used as a source but not a fan site hosting scans of that source. Popcornduff (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Like I said with Badmotorfinger, I've done it before and it was acceptable. It's better than buying it and finding the actual page numbers. Without doing this, the sources would require page numbers which I don't have.

I think this is dubious. Would like to see a consensus from Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy) first. Popcornduff (talk) 04:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the "Style and influences" section still needs major work.

• Much of it simply lists artists that influenced the album, which is relevant, but not very readable or informative. Better would be to be specific about how a particular artist influenced the album (eg in a sound or idea etc).
• There are a lot of citations here. I doubt we need all of them - we should do a cull.
• Some of it reproduces information already stated in the Recording section. Popcornduff (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

What hurt does a lot of citations do? If it provides the information the section needs, then what's the problem? And the redundancy, should we list it in style or in recording? I'm fine with whatever you think. The first point I would think would be essential were it to go to beyond GA, but looks okay for a good article. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 03:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

We have lots of claims here that look like they should only need a single reference, but have several. For example, I just trimmed the sentence about Talking Heads - one source says all we need to say. Too many citations is a problem; see WP:CITEKILL. Popcornduff (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't mind if more than one source is given for one statement, even if it is not completely necessary. My bigger concern is the issue with WP:CITEDENSE that I gave above. As for the scans: I agree with Popcornduff that the scans should not be included as a source, but rather just the article itself. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Zwerg Nase, I don't understand what you mean by the above. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 12:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Which part confuses you? If it was the last sentence, Zwerg specifically means we should use the magazine article as the source, not the scans/fan site. Popcornduff (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I understand now - I thought 'article' meant the Wikipedia page when they really meant the magazine. Anyway, that would require page numbers which none of us seem to know. For all I know this information may have been taken from a scan to begin with. At first, they seemed fine with it, but their position has suddenly changed. So I guess we'll see what the community thinks. I have no reason to doubt the scan's authenticity myself. Update: a copy of the scan on that website shows the interview starts on page 96, but it's impossible to know if it's all on that page - judging from the size of the reproduction, I doubt that. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 14:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Also found the BBC interview, but it's on the blacklist because idiots post their own recordings on here as spam. It's hosted on MixCloud, is there somewhere I can ask for an exception? Nevermind, managed to get it whitelisted: [6] dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 14:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Found the promotional audio on YouTube. It is nothing more than implication - there is no concrete evidence they gave that they started in the sessions for Kid A. There's proof they at least existed by that time, but the way they talk about it doesn't rule out that they could have existed longer ago. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 17:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Check again. From that interview: "[I Will] was something, that we smashed out against the wall about 4 times during Kid A session." and "we went through several different versions, and we recorded [I Will] for the Kid A/Amnesiac sessions." We don't say that they started the songs in these sessions, only that they worked on them. Looks like "A Wolf at the Door" being worked on isn't in that source though - that's in at least one other interview, which we could cite if we could be bothered. Popcornduff (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello everyone! I am sorry for being silent so long, the last week has been incredibly stressful. It appears to me that there is still some considerable work being done on the article. I will have time to review the article in its entirety again at the beginning of next week. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Not much work has been done since I last posted here (sorry it took so long). I still see some problems I have raised above not adressed. Are Popcornduff or DannyMusicEditor able to resolve them within the next couple of days? If not, I would fail this review for now. But I see this article on a very good way towards GA, so if it fails, feel free to nominate it as soon as the last matters are taken care of. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I mean, I'd like to, but Popcornduff seems to lean towards opposing my edits whenever I offer solutions. a) If you're okay with me adding that magazine transcript, there's the solution, but I'm not paying money for one magazine page for Wikipedia. I won't do it. A more thorough consensus was requested on Village pump, but nothing materialized. b) How are we on that other MixCloud link? Is that okay? c) I know you don't like that promotional CD from Hail to the Thief, I've found a YouTube link for it, but I know those generally but not always unacceptable. What would you like on that? dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 18:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Regarding a) I think referencing the article with page numbers, but without the link to illegal scans, would be absolutely fine. Regarding b) Mixcloud appears to be a legal source, so I don't mind that. Regarding c) I am torn on this still. I would prefer it if the statements had citations from less questionable, or rather more accessable, sources. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Some additional comments: Citation #21 is broken at the moment. Concerning the page numbers of the Q interview: There are scans there, so it is quite easy to see which statement is on which page. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Then there's nothing I can do about the Q article, I'm sorry. The way it is currently has the link already there - would you like me to remove it? Also, cite 21 was broken by another editor's careless edit, and I believe I asked what he was intending to do, but got no response. Will check again. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 00:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

DannyMusicEditor, which solutions am I opposing? Popcornduff (talk) 04:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

You seemed to lean toward opposing the link to the Q reproduction. If that remains so (and it seems Zwerg Nase agrees with you), I'm out of ideas there. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 18:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, there's no problem with the Q source. We can't link to the fansite hosting the scans, but we don't need to link to scans in the first place. Zwerg only said Q should be wikilinked (ie linked to the Q Wikipedia page). Popcornduff (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Then I have entirely misunderstood the situation. That has been done already. What should we do about the promotional CD? dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 19:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The CD seems to be a grey area. Meanwhile, Zwerg's concerns are understandable, and the conversation at the village pump went nowhere. I guess it will have to come down to Zwerg, as the reviewer. (My personal feeling is that it's OK - it's very very easy to verify the source, even if technically means breaking the law, but listening to an upload on YouTube isn't going to get anyone arrested.) Popcornduff (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I have edited the Q source the way I would recommend it to be. As for the promo CD, I am leaning towards allowing it as well, and I believe WP:VERIFY leaves me the option to do so. However, I am still concerned by the WP:CITEDENSE issues. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, the personell section still needs a source. The booklet of the CD should do, I could check that with my copy tonight once I am back from work. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

You're still concerned about that? I thought I went and reduced those significantly. In some places, I believe we're required to repeat that particular reference because a citation should come after every quote, correct? dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 14:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Citedense is actually OK now. Personell is a problem though, since I just looked into it, and there are no liner notes in the album booklet, at least not in my copy. Can you find a reliable source for this section? Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 19:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, that looks good. I will go through the article as a whole again tonight and hopefully, I'll be able to promote it to GA then. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

So, I made some minor tweaks and am happy to annouce that I can pass the article for GA now. Thank you to all contributors! Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Adding Plugged In's Perspective

Hi.

I see there may be some confusion over me adding Plugged In's review to the "Kid A" Wikipedia page, so I figured I might as well get some of this cleared up with you:

OK, first, don't get me wrong here. I absolutely LOVE Radiohead. Seriously. in fact, they're practically my favorite band (if not my favorite band, period), and I'm absolutely horrified that Plugged In would even REMOTELY suggest that kind of a conclusion. However, since I've been adding different people's reviews to other Wiki pages for a long time now, I figured that I might as well add Plugged In's opinion as well.

Second, I couldn't really find any other good way to put that in there, so I went with that way. Suggestions are welcome (and highly recommended, as I'm still struggling with a good and reasonable way to put that in).

Third, just to let you know, Plugged In rates albums for content, not (necessarily) for musical quality (sort of like Common Sense Media). In fact, I wonder if they even LISTEN to the music they review in the first place based on their reviews and not just look up the lyrics (which I'm guessing they DON'T). Also, as you may have guessed from my snippets I added to the Kid A article, they are a HIGHLY Christian/faith-based website (which is the only kind of music they basically like). So yes, as you may have guessed already, their inexplicable conclusion (the one that said that "teens shouldn't waste their time on what feels like a 50-minute soundtrack from a despairing hallucination") was only because of what they felt were the dark and depressing lyrics (I have yet to listen to the whole album, although the first track is good).

So yes, to answer your question, the Focus On The Family (they are a big Christian organization, see their Wikipedia page here) based Plugged In is probably NOT a reliable (and sensible) source to cite a review from, but I felt it would be good to throw that perspective in the mix.

Here are some links to that particular review, their main page (yes, they do other types of reviews too), and their about page (all respectively, of course):

1.http://www.pluggedin.com/music-reviews/album/radiohead-kida 2.http://www.pluggedin.com/ 3.http://www.pluggedin.com/about-us

Hope this clears things up!

Sincerely, --Neateditor123 (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123

@Neateditor123: "Plugged In is probably NOT a reliable (and sensible) source to cite a review from, but I felt it would be good to throw that perspective in the mix." No. The first half of your sentence completely invalidates the second half of your sentence. Also I note that the Focus on the Family wikipage makes absolutely no mention of "Plugged In". It's not reliable for music reviews and including it at all (let alone ahead of the "widespread critical acclaim" as you did at Dookie) is completely WP:UNDUE. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: OK, OK, OK, I KNOW that there's not a "Plugged In" section on the "Focus on the Family" Wiki page. In fact, I've given a lot of thought to adding one myself, but I haven't exactly gotten around to doing it yet. And just to show that Plugged In is part of Focus on The Family, here's a link to prove once and for all that's true. However, if this whole "Plugged In" thing is a problem, rest assured. I will most definitely remove their review from the Dookie page at all costs. In fact, I most definitely agree with your perspective. It's really stupid to source your material from a website whose album reviews are solely based on the content alone. Basically, it's like citing Common Sense Media (another content-reviewing site) for the same thing. I apologize for doing that and I hope that someday, I'll be able to move past all my Wikipedia mistakes.

Yours truly, --Neateditor123 (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123

Infobox should be limited to 4 genres per Template:Infobox album#genre ?

The documentation says nothing about limiting the genres to four. It does state that if it's larger than three, it should be a list. Feel free to explain that hidden comment. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I put that there because I learned that from Mashaunix per this diff. I didn't actually read it, I just didn't want to argue. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 20:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

You've also caused a cite error with MC2 that I don't know if it was a stray typing or if you just didn't finish the job. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 20:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I vote to keep the list of genres small, as too many becomes a chore to read and just weighs down the page. The album obviously contains influences and elements from lots of genres, such as jazz, but we should stick to the primary genres specified in sources - IIRC probably electronic and/or alternative rock. Popcornduff (talk) 02:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The above sounds reasonable to me. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 18:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: The above error I've mentioned is still in place. Care to explain what the problem is? I'd fix it myself, but I don't know for sure how to correctly perform it. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 00:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I can't seem to recall why I started this. There were five genres at the time, but the hidden comment is still there, added here 2018-01-25T18:33:43 "In case anyone should ask, I think these were the best choices and presumably the reason these four are here?" We do have a general understanding that we should keep the genres simple, but the number of simple genres is not limited. Keeping the list small is also admirable, but don't blame it on Template:Infobox album#genre.

I think I have resolved the error. There were two different named references using the same source. I merged them incorrectly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Nigel Godrich is not happy about this article

See his tweets, earliest here: [[7]]

Poor Nigel. We love you mate. Popcornduff (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Troubled by new acts he felt were imitating Radiohead,[4]

The second paragraph of the "Background" subchapter starts with the above phrase. The reference should be, according to the reference note, the "Sound and Fury" article from The Observer. However, I can't find anything like that on the actual article (https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2000/oct/01/life1.lifemagazine) . I remember reading something like that somewhere, so I imagine I either missed it on the article or the reference note is wrong and the article is a different one. Anyone care to help with this one? --Sickboy3883 (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this. I know that information is in one of the sources used in the article but I can't find it yet. In the meantime I've substituted another more recent source that hopefully covers the same information sufficiently. Popcornduff (talk) 08:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Found it! it's on the Simon Reynolds' article "Walking On Thin Ice". As it is already referenced multiple times, i tried to modify the reference but this is not the kind of edit I usually do lol (I usually do minor edits of little stuff i notice, like grammar or stuff like that), and judging from the preview I kinda fucked it up :_D if you could edit it I'd be thankful (even more so if you could teach me how). --Sickboy3883 (talk) 11:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

"Worn out by the experiences documented on Meeting People Is Easy, such as touring America's infamous 'shed circuit' of 10,000 capacity, corporate sponsored venues, Yorke spiralled into a black period of confusion and creative block. His condition was exacerbated by the self-consciousness feedback syndrome induced by being over-interviewed and reading pseudo-psychoanalytical interpretations of his work. "People presume everything you write is completely personal... it feels weird, like someone walking over your grave," he says. He hated the lyrics he was writing. Even the sound of his voice made him nauseous. "Melodies became an embarrassment to me," he said last year.

"It did my head in that whatever I did with my voice, it had that particular set of associations," he says. "And there were lots of similar bands coming out at the time, and that made it even worse'. I couldn't stand the sound of me even more." Embarking on the fraught, spasmodic sessions for Kid A/Amnesiac, he "got really into the idea of my voice being another one of the instruments, rather than this precious, focus thing all the time".'

This is the actual bit of interview I found. --Sickboy3883 (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Nice job. I've restored the ref. Popcornduff (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

"50-gallon swimming pools filled with blood"

This article states that Stanley Donwood's artwork for the album was inspired by the book Brought to Light, in which the death tolls of war are "measured in 50-gallon swimming pools filled with blood". The source for this checks out, in that Stanley did say "In a book called ‘Brought to Light’ by Alan Moore and Bill Sienkiewicz the numbers of people killed by CIA-sponsored state terrorism is measured in swimming pools. The average human body holds a gallon of blood. An Olympic swimming pool holds fifty gallons." Does anybody have a copy of the book to check this number? According to Wikipedia's article on Olympic swimming pools, they're supposed to hold 550,000 imperial gallons, not 50.

--Hostagecat (talk) 00:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Hostagecat, good catch, but it wouldn't matter what the book says, as we're going by the source quoting Donwood. The simpler solution is just to cut the gallon figure, which isn't important for understanding. Popcornfud (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

How To Disappear Completely

Is there a reason why 'How To Disappear Completely' doesn't have its own page? I'm curious because in an interview, when asked if he could pick one song he wanted to be remembered by, Yorke said unhesitatingly (before the questioner had even finished her question) 'How To Disappear Completely', as 'it is the most beautiful thing we ever did':

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk6FC7_P88g at 12:00 (and partially at 0:08). The video compiler earlier said the interview was a BBC Culture Show interview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.96.203 (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what Thom Yorke's opinion on the song is. It depends if the song has been covered in enough detail by independent reliable sources to justify a separate page (and not just be covered on the Kid A article). See WP:NSONG for more information. Popcornfud (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Godrich's Quote

Godrich's quote about "How to disapper completely" (section "Tracks") is ambigious - was he talking about the other band members or the Orchestra of St. John collaborating on this track?

I can't reach the original source, so could someone please check? --84.189.84.17 (talk) 09:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Popcornfud (talk) 11:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hidden booklet

Unless I've missed it, why is there no mention of the hidden booklet underneath the CD tray? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Has it received mention in a reliable source? Popcornfud (talk) 08:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)