Talk:Moving Pictures (Rush album)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Prog Rock?

Is it really right to call this a progressive rock album? Certainly some of the songs have a prog rock feel (Witch Hunt, YYZ), but the three popular tracks (Tom Sawyer, Limelight, Red Barchetta) don't really seem to be prog rock at all. The review linked to on the page (the rolling stone link is broken, by the way, can anyone find that review?) calls the album hard rock. It seems to me that the album should just be labelled "rock," but I'm hesitant to change it without posting here due to the recent debate on the rush page on this topic.

-- Zarvok | Talk 19:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

We can always do both, since it did have a LOT of progressive influences (keyboards, sound effects, lyrics, etc.). Deckiller 22:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Jinzo7272 | Talk This is prog rock at its finest example.

==Red Barchetta== I am going to see Rush tonight at the United Center in Chicago. They are doing all of Moving Pictures in order... I'll let you know!

This page's description of Red Barchetta is way off. The protagonist doesn't "borrow" the car -- the crime is driving itself, which is now illegal. Also, the car is specifically described as "preserved," which contradicts "disused." The uncle deliberately did this for the protagonist, so that he would know the joy of driving. I'm reluctant to just change the existing text because my interpretation is clearly POV and "original research," but then again so is the current version. 70.95.220.131 07:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone could reasonably have an objection to your interpertation of the song, so I for one wouldn't rv such changes, however, just to keep everything above board, this thesis, which is linked on the main Rush article, should be justification enough (see page 167) --KaptKos 09:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

KaptKos knows his Rush. Interpretations of lyrics can be tricky because..as mentioned..it's OR. But in this case it would be a good thing. Anger22 10:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I wrote that bit. You're right. It's not a very accurate description of the song (sorry, I was working from memory at the time). I've removed the offending OR remark. Raygun 01:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Singles

I was under the impression that Red Barchetta should be included in the chart with the other singles. Being new here, I could be wrong, but I don't see why it is included below the chart, rather than within it. Psychiccheese (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Album available on Rock Band

I object to this information being presented in the article, much like I do for adding such information to song-articles. I don't really see how it adds any encyclopedic value. It's relevant to the article on Rock Band, not this one. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, many editors have been adding the aforementioned info to the lead of the article, which simply reads obtrusive and out of place. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I must disagree with you there. As a Rush fan (and to a much lesser extent, a Rock Band fan), I would find this information to be invaluable. It provides people with a context in which to put Rush, and their trademark album, Moving Pictures. It provides the Why in the 5 W's. It helps to reinforce the album's importance and overall praise. And frankly, you seem outnumbered in your thinking. Myself, and several other people, have added this info already, and only have have been persistent on removing it. Also, if you believe this, and truly stand by it, you would edit every other song or album page that has a song used in Rock Band that makes reference to the song's use in the game. The page for the album The Cars by The Cars has the information that it is available for download in Rock Band near the top of the page. We're not even asking for THAT much. This information is fitting in the "Miscellanea" section. A section for miscellaneous info pertaining to the album. I hope you will take these ideas into consideration. --Teddyleevin (talk) 06:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Once the album has been released a section could be addded regarding the reception or any other following stuff making actually an informational topic to cover. Fists (talk) 10:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You see, the problem I have with mentioning the album with respect to Rock Band is two fold: 1.) The value it brings to the page - how germane is it really to the article in the grand scheme of things? and 2.) I'm really not swayed by the whole WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Just because other articles contain the same information doesn't mean it should be included elsewhere. Trivia sections tend to be discouraged and the fact that there exists a miscellany section (a euphemism for trivia) doesn't mean it belongs just for the sake that it's interesting/neat information. The best way to do this would be create a "significance in popular culture section" similar to what is found in Tom Sawyer. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, as for the other editors who are editing the article and adding the content, they are mostly new users/IP addresses that are..well..excited about the recent announce that Moving Pictures is being released for download on Rock Band..hell..I know I am. Now, I'm not going to remove the content until some form of agreement can be reached. Hopefully you think about my recent comments. I really think that the section would benefit from a fleshing out. Cheers. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I added the popular culture section and moved down my version of the Rock Band info. Is this an arrangement we can agree on? --Teddyleevin (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup, good arrangement. In the next few days I'll try and expand the section. Cheers! Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wisdom89 (talk · contribs) is correct: the addition of the Rock Band passage to the lead interrupts the flow. "DLC" isn't wikilinked, and I had to search Google to figure out what it meant. In addition, the lead is currently five paragraphs long, which is too long per Wikipedia guidelines. One paragraph's gotta go, and it makes the most sense for it to be the Rock Band one. I have no problem if someone wants to create a section in the article about the Rock Band release, but if there are no objections I'll soon take it out of the lead.—Biosketch (talk) 08:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is the info box have "Untitled" on it

This page has the infobox with a large "Untitled" on top of it. This needs to be taken off. --70.173.121.18 (talk) 02:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

New interview with Neil re MP

So there's a new interview with Neil out where he discusses and analyzes Moving Pictures in detail. If no one beats me to it, I'll incorporate pieces of it into the article soon in a new section. It would be great to merge the content of the interview with some of the commentary that's out there about the album, namely books that have been published in recent years with a literary criticism angle. It would really take the article up a level. Link to interview.—Biosketch (talk) 09:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Moving Pictures (Rush album)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Verges on higher class, but some of technical personnel listed at =amg&sql=10:g9fqxqy5ldhe~T2 AMG missing.

Last edited at 13:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 15:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)