Jump to content

Talk:Meddle/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Talk

Should it be noted that Jonny Greenwood of Radiohead lists this among his favorite albums? It's on the Radiohead or Jonny Greenwood page, anyway.Squonks tears 22:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Boy, that Jonny - he's a cutting edge dude, huh?

What's that on the album cover? -- Anonymous

If you open the cover and turn it 90 degrees you will see an ear--Madklub 09:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


Okay, how can something be reminiscent of the future? TealMan 04:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. BotleySmith 19:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Did mason write the line @one of these days im going to cut you into little pieces@, as he ssays it?

Seamus

Meddle also has the interesting distinction of having the two songs often nominated the worst and the best songs produced by Pink Floyd (these being "Seamus" and "Echoes" respectively).

Often voted one of the worst Floyd songs in fan polls, a glimpse into the band's humorous side was shown on "Seamus"

Add a reference for these polls. Otherwise I will remove them as it is extremely POV to name the best and worst songs by a band. Jhayes94 18:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone beat me to it! Jhayes94 01:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


Does anyone know if roger Waters wrote all the lyrics on this album, its just that Dark side of the moon is often refered as the first album with all lyrics by Waters.

It's possible that Gilmour or even Wright wrote some of the words to the "middle" songs on Meddle, since they're not all up to Roger's standards. I think the lyrics to "Echoes" are entirely his — they certainly seem like his style — and he still talks about the song as being part of his body of work (he doesn't often do that for the early collaborative songs). The identity of the lyricist for everything except "San Tropez" is up for debate, though. Maybe someone can locate a songbook from this period, with separate credits for words and music? BotleySmith 15:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Remix of Echoes

I have an Ambient and Ambient Techno (almost Trance) remix of Echoes (that is simply great, imho), but I havent found yet who made it. I believed, as many did in past years, that the Orb or the Orbital made it, but it has been proved untrue. See also the talk page at the Orb article. Does anyone have any clue ?--Doktor Who 15:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The KLF are sometimes credited for these releases, that's not verifiable however. BotleySmith 20:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Extremely unlikely I feel - they're too lazy! :) I've heard The Orb mentioned but I think that was debunked on the Orb mailing list? Of course, if you're a noname ambient producer and you want your bootleg to sell well, you start a rumour that it was done by the Orb or the KLF (i.e. leading lights of the genre) don't you? :) --kingboyk 18:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Echoes/2001

Wikipedia is not a rumour mill; when a section contains the words "reputed" and "rumoured" then it ceases to be encyclopedic and instead becomes internet babble. Furthermore, this kind of speculation is along the same lines as the infinite monkeys, typewriters, Shakespeare etc. Comparing the musical piece with the celluloid, several moments of apparent serendipity may be observed but the piece finishes well before the film reaches its climactic moment. There are no citations/references for the band regretting their previous denial to Kubrick, either. I suggest that unless someone can produce a few facts and credible references this section be pruned out.It is sufficient that the episode is listed as an external link. 84.13.246.35 09:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Track Listing

I noticed that the track listing box on Fearless references "You'll Never Walk Alone", but Seamus doesn't. "You'll Never Walk Alone"'s article was also edited by one user. I haven't seen a track listing that includes this song, even as an instrumental note (granted, I haven't done an exhaustive search for track listings including it). Does anyone have opinions about deleting the article for "You'll Never Walk Alone"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Siward (talk • contribs) 20:10, 17 April 2007.

Why would "Seamus" include it? "You'll Never Walk Alone" isn't listed as a separate song, it's only interpolated during the football chant at the end of "Fearless". It's not a Pink Floyd composition, either, as this article attests. The user who created the You'll Never Walk Alone (Pink Floyd song) article must have mistakenly thought otherwise. I'll delete it and correct the link underneath "Fearless" so that it points to the right page. BotleySmith 15:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Er, I said Seamus but meant San Tropez. I felt that Meddle's article got it right and the since-deleted article was wrong, but just wanted to make sure. Siward 00:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

More Track listing

I was going to edit the track listing for 'Meddle' and give one of them tables that makes it look a lot better. But I'm not too sure how the referencing works. So, if I were to keep Exactly the same infomation but to put it in a table would I have to change any references or could I just go ahead with it?

--MrHolyStickman 22:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I see you've already gone ahead and changed it. I was prepared to say I don't care for the table, and don't think it makes the article look better, and the table can be restrictive as to what information is put in (which I presume is where your question about references comes in), but you did do a good job of changing the credits to WP's discography standards, and got rid of the unnecessary and unreferenced "vocals". The only thing I would question is the use of "music" instead of "writer" parameter. "Music" is to be used when you specify music and lyrics together as two columns. If they are combined, "writer" should be used instead. It's a small point, but since you asked for comments, there it is. Anyway, good work! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok thanks for the tip, KWSN. I've changed it now from 'Music' to 'Writer'. I know this isn't strictly 'Meddle' talk but I guess you're against putting in any more tables. I do have one prepared for Atom Heart Mother. But I don't want to go against the majority. --MrHolyStickman 12:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrHolyStickman (talk • contribs)
Tell you what... consider me a minority of one until you see otherwise. Go ahead and make the change. I have been opposed to the template in the past, but I'm starting to feel the change is inevitable. My bigger concern is retaining the formatting rules for discographies, and you are improving them in that regard, so please continue! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Supposed Sycronisity with '2001: A space Odyssey

Sorry, I added the section thats mentioned above yesterday. But I realise now that I should have talked about it on here. Should this be left to stand or should it be deleted as it is just to do with Echoes and not with Meddle as an album? --MrHolyStickman 14:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrHolyStickman (talk • contribs)

I didn't know if I should say anthing, but... content has been added to various Pink Floyd articles in the past about synchronicity (note the spelling!) with various films, including this one, and it usually gets removed as unimportant and "fancruft". Some people don't like having the "Oz" claim at WP, and I suspect it only stands because some claim to believe it was done deliberately. For other films including 2001, I think it's generally agreed that nobody is claiming the music was deliberately made to sync to the film, and it's just a case where people have gone looking for films that sync (even films made after the music!) just because of the popularity of the "Oz" controversy.
Follow-up: I notice one of your references states that Internet Movie Database claims the sync is deliberate, but there is no link. I see nothing about it on their main page for the film. If it's on the message boards, I think it's a stretch to say IMDB made the claim, and message boards are not valid references for WP.
As the article stands, it has problems. It does not actually state that anyone claims to believe the sync is anything more than co-incidence, and yet you compare the two syncs and conclude that 2001 is "more realistic", which seems to be implying a "more credible" claim, without addressing the claim itself. If someone is really claiming this is deliberate, who is it, and where can this be referenced? That should be established before evaluating the claim. The explanation about turning the record over is rather long, and not relevant to this song except to compare likelihood of "claims". If you decide to remove the suggestion of a claim, then this whole explanation about length and side change should be removed. Later, you say "...suggest to some listeners..." and "some argue that there are moments..." who, and where do they claim this? Regarding "drone vocalizations", referring to the film's actual music composed by Gyorgy Ligeti, I don't think there is any "match" to sounds in "Echoes", and even if there is a similarity, what does this prove? If "Echoes" was written for this section of film, and Ligeti's music was later chosen instead, one would not expect "Echoes" to be modelled on Ligeti's composition (and Ligeti's music certainly wasn't modelled on "Echoes", having been written a decade earlier). Other things to fix: no wikilink on Kubrick or the film title; quotations or italics needed around titles including the name of a section of the film; unmatched quote in section title; "neither" should be joined with "nor", not "or". --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok I think it would be best then if I deleted the section all together. I had a go at editing out some of the bits and changing it, but the end result made the section too small to even put in there. So I guess I'll just delete it.
Oh and about the unmatched quote in the title and the other gramatical errors. If you had noticed them why didn't you change them? After all that's why anyone can edit Wikipedia. So you can change things for the better. --80.41.140.186 (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Sorry! That was me. I wasn't signed in. --MrHolyStickman 16:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't fix them because I agree the section should be removed. I didn't want fixes to imply approval for keeping the section; also some of these notes may be helpful to you in future edits. It wasn't intended as an insult, just things to fix if the section were to be kept. If you feel my remarks were inappropriate for an article talk page, feel free to remove this whole discussion, as it's no longer needed. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh I see. Your comments were fine. They weren't inaproapriate or insulting at all. I'll keep this discussion up as a reminder to anyone who wants to add a section about this. --MrHolyStickman 18:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrHolyStickman (talk • contribs)

A Couple Issues

I know I might be in over my head, but I have a few issues. First of all, while the tracklist thing works for some bands, it needs to be reworked for bands such as the Floyd (or The Eagles, or The Band, etc.) that have multiple lead vocalists to provide a spot to put who sings lead.

Secondly, I have read elsewhere (can't remember where) that "Dark Side" is the first Floyd album where Roger wrote ALL the lyrics, so, not disagreeing with whoever put it, I just think it needs a source. (And I know that some writing credits during this period are spotty at best, you're not telling me they all four wrote Seamus--Nick doesn't even play!) javascript:insertTags('PinkFloyd69 (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)',,)User:PinkFloyd69

Having been watch-listing Pink Floyd articles for about 8 months, I have seen a lot of mini edit wars over the lead vocals (and some instrument credits). There has been a trend to remove all claims of who sang on which songs, because the official album credits do not go into these details. Most vocal credits come from "I listened to the record and this is who I think sang it", or they read it in a book or on a website (usually uncited), but how do we know the author of the source didn't do the same? We have some editors who are a big fan of one PF member and an anti-fan of another, and think their favoured member did more than they really did. (We've also had this problem re. Alan Parsons, whom some think should be credited for just about every concept on the Dark Side album.) I'm in favour of removing singing credits from the few places where they remain. I think the main Pink Floyd article mentions that David Gilmour was the main lead vocalist, and we can leave it at that.
The place where you remember reading that Roger wrote all the lyrics to The Dark Side of the Moon, is in the official album credits!
As for "Seamus", the writing credits in the article are the song's official composer credit. Nothing needs to be fixed. However the article could be improved by ststing which member of the group actually owned the dog, which would imply the true author; nobody seems to know which it was? (although it's not impossible one of the other members could have been inspired to write it when dropping by for a visit). --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but a lot articles on the songs mentions who sang lead vocals. also, the "Echoes" book details some of the singing credits. And--I'm new to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure I understand this--do you have to have a reference for every fact? Does, for instance, "The Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776" need a reference? Also,does the album booklet say Roger wrote all the lyrics on this one (I downloaded through iTunes). And regarding "Seamus", I wasn't saying the article was wrong, I was just saying the band themselves might have been stretching things a little on the album credits. Anyway, thanks for your help.javascript:insertTags('PinkFloyd69 (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)',,)

The question of what needs a reference, is often a little fuzzy at WP. Obviously we don't cite every sentence. However, a "hard fact" such as which year the American Dec. of Ind. was signed, is not only something where a citation can be found, but is also an example of the kind of thing that should be cited. On the other hand, if a citation is not available, it is not against the rules to add content and either look for a citation later, or hope that someone else can find one. But when you do that, you have to accept that another editor would be in their rights to remove it, or at least flag it, the former being preferred if the editor feels it's unlikely that a suitable citation can be found. Regarding official album credits, they say "all lyrics by Roger Waters" on The Dark Side of the Moon and Wish You Were Here; aside from that, credits tend to be non-detailed, or missing altogether (I don't believe there are personnel/instrument lists on Atom Heart Mother or The Wall, for example). You're asking me about Meddle so hang on till I check...
...it says: "Pink Floyd are Roger Waters bass guitar and vocals Nick Mason percussion Dave Gilmour guitars and vocals Rick Wright keyboards and vocals All material composed and produced by Pink Floyd". The label contradicts the "all composed" by showing specific composers on certain songs. As usual for PF credits there are no details of non-standard instruments (i.e. the harmonica), session musicians (i.e. "Seamus"), and certainly nothing along the lines of makes and models of guitars and keyboards used. (I see keyboard manufacturers in our article, with no indication of where it comes from.) You certainly can quote vocals if you have a book to cite, but it might be better to do so in the body of the article, since the "track list" section (in my opinion anyway) is a copy of the credits as stated on the album, and should only be modified if proven incorrect by another source. Vocalists are already mentioned in the "personnel" section, and if it were stated that this part came from the book you mentioned, that would be an improvement, since the article as it stands implies this info comes from the albums credits, which it doesn't. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. So should I delete "All lyrics by Roger Waters?"javascript:insertTags('PinkFloyd69 (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)',,)

Definitely. I didn't realize it was already in the article. It was added 2 months ago, probably by mistake when creating the table and copying code from another article. I have removed it. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks, now I know a lot more about how to edit! And btw, I hope Roger didn't write all the lyrics, that would prove a lot of my theories about the Floyd false; but I did find a (somewhat reputable, if not completely) source that Roger did write the lyrics for "Echoes"--the 'Live at Pompeii" DVD,it has the lyrics under the bonus features and it says (Waters,Gilmour,Mason,Wright; lyrics Waters). Just thought that was interesting.javascript:insertTags('PinkFloyd69 (talk) 04:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)',,)

Rewrite

As with WYWH, I've been rewriting this article in my sandbox. Feel free to comment, but if none is made I'll copy what I'm working on over here in a few days time. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Looks good so far. Most of the stuff I noticed was related to the writing, and there weren't any major errors. With some alt text and audio samples this will be very close to featureable.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Mostly solid, only a few nitpicks
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
  • "It was released in October 1971, and is often considered to be the album which best demonstrates the band's change in genre from psychedelic rock, to progressive rock." Perhaps reword? The ""often considered to be" reminds me of "some say..." wording. Perhaps something like "Released in October 1971, the album demonstrates the band's change in genre from psychedelic rock to progressive rock."?
  • "With no clear idea of the content, or direction which the album would take," sounds redundant. How about "With no clear idea of the direction which the album would take"?
    • They literally had nothing to work with. They started with a blank page, whereas most other Floyd albums had material 'in reserve'. I think its important to state that they had no content. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
      • OK, I understand now, but I still don't like the wording if that's the meaning. How about "With no material to work with and no clear idea of the album's direction,"?
  • "Echoes" is italicized in the lead.
  • "Although each of the group's later albums would be unified by a central theme written entirely by Roger Waters," While Waters definitely dominated from DSotM to The Final Cut, the wording here implies that every post-Meddle Floyd album had Waters leading the way, which is certainly not the case for everything after The Final Cut. Also, didn't some of their later albums have songwriting by other members? Make it clear that this is lyrical content. Reword this to indicate that the upcoming trend of Waters-dominated writing was not on each of their later albums.
  • "Reviews were mixed, and although it was successful in the United Kingdom" Indicate that it was commercially, not necessarily critically, successful in the UK.
    • This is only a lead, it isn't necessary to explain in detail. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I know, but the way it's worded it almost seems like it might mean "Reviews were mixed, and although it was [critically] successful in the United Kingdom [it didn't perform (commercially) well in the states]." I don't think the intended meaning is lost, but it's just ambiguous enough that I think it should be reworded into something more clearer.
  • ""Seamus" often tops polls as the worst song Pink Floyd ever created, however the band would later use animals again, in Animals." These two things are unrelated.
    • The source used links the two, as a failed experiment later revisited. I've reworded it slightly. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
      • The "however" is the problem, because it's not made clear that Animals was considered a success. Using "but" would work better. Alternatively, if any of the members or prominent Floyd-related people refer to it as a "failed experiment" or some variation, you could reword this to something like ""Seamus" often tops polls as the worst song Pink Floyd ever created, and although [someone] considered the song's use of animal sounds a "[whatever]" the band would later use animal sounds again to greater effect, in Animals."
        • I haven't seen any band members mention Seamus with anything but a metaphorical 'wry smile', but I agree that 'but' is better than 'however' and I've changed it to suit. Personlly though I like Seamus :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • ""Echoes" was recorded almost entirely at Air Studios. It was completed in July 1971." These short sentences should be combined.
  • This is more of a FAC-level critique, but: "lacklustre publicity on the part of Capitol Records led to weak sales in the US, and a chart position of #70." How exactly was publicity lacklustre? What was Capitol's failure?
    • I think its pretty self-explanatory, however I won't really be able to expand upon this until I've completed this, which will contain much more information. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Sounds good, again I'm not really worried so much about this one.
  • "One of These Days" was released as a single." has a [citation needed].
  • Shouldn't "Reissues" be a subsection of "Release"?
  • The columns in the Personnel section seem unnecessary, and the Additional personnel subsection looks lobsided right now. I'd recommend removing them. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 04:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

disambiguation, my 2c

Call me biased, but I believe this album, as with Wish You Were Here, should be the redirect of 'Meddle', with the hatnote remaining. While the Little Boots song meets notability guidelines, being a single, it has garnered 0 reception besides spending 1 week at #97 on the UK Music Charts, compared to 40 years of critical commentary. Basically it is my opinion that most to all people who come to wikipedia and type in "Meddle" are looking for a Floyd album (and the hatnote serves the odd straggler that is disappointed not to see their favourite Little Boots song covered) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
See the chat at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Meddle Parrot of Doom 17:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Cover image

An "ear, underwater"? That's garbage, made up either here or in the book that is used for the reference. The picture is a nose, upside-down. Patsobest (talk) 08:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If that's what your nose looks like, you need to see a doctor. Parrot of Doom 08:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"(the title is the football equivalent of 'formidable')"

What does that mean? Does "fearless" not mean "fearless"? · rodii · 19:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

wikipedia tells us, in the article for that song, that in fact it means "awesome". Maybe the article intended "awesome, dude", but the dude suffix is, in this case, strangely, silent. Unlike the fans in Scotland where, of course, it's still pronounced "fearless" (jimmy). BridesheadRecarpeted (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

1970 tour?

You're quite right, the braindamage source does not say what material was toured in 1970, But if the Mason book cited says that the band toured only America and England, I'd suggest that it's wrong and should also be removed. Thanks. BridesheadRecarpeted (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

If you're suggesting that Nick Mason is wrong then you'll have to provide a contrary source. Parrot of Doom 20:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes I know. And it seems unlikely, doesn't it. My little bit of unintentional WP:OR was putting info from one reliable source together with different info from a second. If that is what Mason has indeed written (or Dodd edited), he may have good reason for forgetting or omitting the European dates. What's written is not incorrect, but seems to be only part of the truth. But then verifiability is all we want, isn't it? I've tried to avoid the problem at the main band article. Thanks. BridesheadRecarpeted (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Mason says they finished in the states and then spent the remainder of the year touring England before turning to Meddle. He appears to mention nothing about Europe, although I only speed-read the relevant pages. Parrot of Doom 20:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Well that's kinda wierd. As you can see at the braindamage link, the order they give is: Jan: England, France, Wales. Feb: England, Scotland. Mar: England, Germany, Sweden, France. Apr/May: USA. Jun: England, Holland. Jul: Germany, England, France. Aug: France, Germany. Sept/Oct: USA, Canada. Nov: Denmark, Germany. Dec: England. Maybe I should speed-read to create the required blur?! Who do think has the correct chronology? BridesheadRecarpeted (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I know which would generally be considered the more reliable source, and that's Mason's book. Parrot of Doom 22:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I quite agree. But that doesn't really answer the question. A list or tour dates seems like the sort of basic set of facts that could be easily verified by some third party source? Of course, if anyone remembers going to a gig that wasn't in England or USA and even still has a programme, that's also WP:OR isn't it!? BridesheadRecarpeted (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Release date

The Pink Floyd Facebook page run by EMI just noted that the album was released November 5th. [1] I also don't see a release date on the pinkfloyd.com site. Should it be changed?
Ulmanor (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

There's a note about this at the bottom of the article. Where sources disagree, it's best to be vague. In this case, most sources say what the article says. Parrot of Doom 18:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Meddle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Was Meddle really a 'transitional' album?

Some people would say that it was the "Syd Barret ' style album with David Gilmore replacing Syd on guitar.... We should ask the band..... Mikejbradley (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Was Dark Side the transitional album?

We were waiting for the new Pink Floyd album. When it was released, I rushed to the local record store to buy it. Took it home and invited; my best friend Danny to join me listening to it. Boy were we excited...no radio stations played Pink Floyd then, they didn't even know who Floyd was.... When Danny heard it, he said, "No!😦 they went "mersh!!" I immediately responded "I like it" , and suddenly Danny said, "me too. " 

Mikejbradley (talk) 09:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

"a transitional album"?

"... is considered a transitional album between the Syd Barrett-influenced group of the late 1960s and the emerging Pink Floyd."

This is a rather bizarre statement, given that Barrett left the group a full three years earlier, and the group had released four highly-regarded albums since that time.

Although this sentence cites a BBC review of the album in support of the statement, that review at no point describes to the album as "transitional," --and merely asserts that the group was "flailing somewhat" during the period (almost certainly a minority opinion, given that all four LPs reached the UK Top-10).

Peezy1001 (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Meddle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Meddle/Archive_1&oldid=1137001004"