Jump to content

Talk:OK Computer/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Album's influence

I feel that this sentence is misleading: 'Several rock bands which later became popular, ranging from Coldplay, Muse[32] and Bloc Party[33] to TV on the Radio,[34] have said they were formatively influenced by OK Computer'. I haven't looked at the references cited for the other bands, but the one cited for Muse seems to just be a music critic drawing comparison with Muse's sound to OK Computer's. This seems unfair considering the Wiki article claims that Muse have themselves stated the influence the album had on them, which I don't think they ever have done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.182.14 (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

individual album pages

info should be rolled into the Radiohead page and this page should be removed. individual album pages should be EXCEPTION not RULE. i repeat - we're not CDDB. :) --AW

I disagree - I think if every artist page had tracklistings of every album they'd ever made, it would be intolerable. I wouldn't want pages on every single album ever made (much as I'd like to write about The Fall's Dragnet, I think I'll resist), but OK Computer is a very well known album, and merits a page of its own. Of course, it needs more than is here now, but I should think it would be possible to write a pretty sizeable article about it, given what has been written about it in the press and elsewhere. --Camembert
I agree entirely that artist pages shouldn't have tracklistings. There just shouldn't BE tracklistings for most albums, which is why I said we're not CDDB :). When I said "info", I meant the stuff above the tracklisting. If someone can flesh this out into a full entry, maybe...give it a while, see if it happens, I guess. --AW

There's nothing at all wrong with having an article here for every album ever made--I hope we do. What "We aren't CDDB" means is that there shouldn't be any articles that are just tracklists. We're not a database, we're an encyclopedia. Don't create an article for an album unless you actually have something to say about it: how it compares to other albums of the time or other albums of that artist; which tracks were memorable and why; what cultural effects it may have had, what awards it won, etc. And sure, include a tracklist. And maybe a short sound sample or two. See, for example, The Beatles. This particular article is a bit stubby, but otherwise I think it's a fine piece of work. --LDC

hum - I have to disagree. This has been discussed in various places recently. I and a few others seem to agree that for the vast majority of albums there's not enough to *say* to justify a distinct article; it's more graceful and effective to quickly summarise the album on the artist's page. See Tori Amos for how I like to do this, anyway. OKC may be an exception to that, but I certainly don't think it's necessary to have, for instance, a separate entry for every Shania Twain album, or something... --AW

concept album?

I have a major issue with this assertion:

OK Computer is widely believed to be a concept album, based around the events in George Orwell's book Nineteen Eighty Four. According to the band, this is false, but the tracks retain a continuity by telling the stories of different characters in an Orwellian world.

"Widely believed" appears to refer to a single essay written by Radiohead fan Simon Curd (ext link already given).

The exercise of drawing painfully literal parallels between the book and the album tracks is interesting, but not at all plausible given that the band have talked at length about the meanings of the songs. 1984 simply does not feature, although it is certain they are aware of it and the album may share a similar theme at times.

As the Radiohead Unpackt site (ext link already given) notes, the album "examines the most harrowing aspects inherent in capitalist society: the utter absence of control, safety and meaning."

Jonny Greenwood on an album concept: "The only concept that we had for this album was that we wanted to record it away from the city and that we wanted to record it ourselves."

Jonny Greenwood on continuity: "You could tie two or three of the songs together with computers, but you could equally link others with transport and speed."--Air 13:33, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


I apologize for probably seeming like a brat...but I'm the creator of Radiohead Unpackt, a website that the wikipedia article cites. I keep trying to edit the page to link to my site, but it keeps getting erased. That seems a little odd, considering that the reference to my work is something that whoever moderates the page has chosen to include. Maybe I'm going about editting the page the wrong way...but I'd appreciate it if readers could read about my idea that's cited in a little more detail, since it is apparently an acceptable reference. The address is now www.radioheadunpackt.com. Thanks! Whitewingedship 15:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hitchhiker's

Not sure if this is really worth dwelling on (not a significant feature of the album) but those references in full can be found here. Both of them. Well three at a push. --Air 13:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Recording details

This passage:

"Paranoid Android, a reference to the depressed robot companion of Arthur Dent, was an amalgamation of three equally depressing songs. Put it on the dance floor and see who gets up for it. The video for No Surprises features Thom's head in a diving bell slowly filling with water. He then looks into the camera as he holds his breath, which somehow represents Thom Yorke's view of the suffocating nature of existence."

Is largely free of useful information, totally POV and inappropriately sarcastic. I think we could use a section towards the end with recording trivia in bullet points. Will have a go. --Air 21:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

?

why is there a 2nd and 3rd in the infobox? Gflores 18:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Some infoboxes sequentially number the albums released by the artist to make it clear that (in this case) these were their second and third albums. It's not standard, and not part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums, but it is used relatively widely. I've added 4th, but you could remove them altogether. Gram 02:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Climbing Up the Walls

What happened to the Climbing Up the Walls article? Did it get deleted or renamed? Kate Rogers did a cover of the song on her Seconds album and I noticed the link is now red... Gram 02:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


On the Album's Name

Another story on the name "OK Computer" has to do with the fact that Thom Yorke is a big fan of Macintosh computers. There was (is?) a program for Macs that let you control the computer--which you may name--with your voice. So if a dialog box pops up and your computer is named "Harry," you could dismiss the dialog box by saying, "OK, Harry." However, if you name your computer "Computer," you get, "OK, Computer." Robert 01:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I've heard different - that it's the lines before Marvin the Paranoid Android is introduced in the 1979 novel The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (They come actually come a little before that) Doc Strange 13:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Recording History and Trivia - Let Down

"A couple of songs – "Exit Music (For a Film)" and "Let Down" – were recorded live."

This seems impossible and/or misleading. Let Down has multiple vocal overdubs making it impossible for the track to have been entirely recorded live. Can this information be confirmed?

Yeah, I have read some different articles on OK Computer and that seemed suspicious especially with Let Down (as they can't even PLAY it live, how could they RECORD it that way??). I put a [citation needed] after it, but it should probably be deleted if someone can't find justification. Btw, they may have meant that the main parts were all recorded in one take, I suppose. This actually is true, I think, for Exit Music. 172.166.129.168 17:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

i think i can settle the album title discussion

The track "palo alto" from the no surprises single and the airbag ep was originally intended to go on OKC but didn't make the tracklisting.

the track's chorus goes "i'm ok, how are you.." and the song was originally intended to be called "ok computer"

so they basically cut the title track from the album and changed its name.

voila!


teddy bears

Drummer Phil Selway performed the drum track in a room filled with teddy bears. -- Any references to where this came from? Google searches just pull up wikipedia for it and it seems like a strange fact... 69.86.104.47 05:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


Acclaim section

Someone deleted the "Acclaim" section. I am restoring it. Why? Because this information is more encyclopedic than most of what's in the article - it's concrete information about awards and lists. It's certainly equally relevant as most if not any of the "trivia" found in various Radiohead articles (not that most of that should be deleted, either). And more important, SOMEONE WILL ALWAYS ADD IT BACK IN. As they should. OK Computer may be a brilliant album or a horrible one, that is not something Wikipedia can consider when deciding which subjects merit articles, but the actual main reason to justify an article on OK Computer in the first place is the enormous press attention this album received, much of it in the form of year-end lists and awards.

To leave most of this information out of an article on OK Computer especially when there is no place for it in the main Radiohead article, kind of negates the point of this article, imo. The album was not only in countless end of year lists, it also appeared AT THE TOP of "best of decade", "best of the past 20 years" and even "all time" (!) lists conducted by Spin magazine, British tv channel 4, Q, Pitchfork Media and various others. It appears on lists in various countries, not just the US and UK. The website Acclaimedmusic.net which compiles statistics on critics' lists, ranks it as second only to Nevermind in terms of most listed album of the '90s, and it's the #14 most "recommended/acclaimed" album overall (any decade). It's not "POV" to list actual awards and lists this album has won, in fact that's common in all album articles I've seen on Wikipedia, for much more obscure "awards" and recognition than this one has received. It doesn't imply that Wikipedia agrees with the opinions expressed by these lists, to mention them!

As for putting in a separate section called "Acclaim", this is something I did a few weeks ago because randomly ordered mentions of various praise OK Computer had received was clogging other parts of the article, and in that case it was POV. But we put it in a separate section, then it's simply documented fact. If someone wants to find many legitimate sources that have criticized OK Computer or put it on "Top 100 Worst" lists, and create a "Criticism" section, of course that would be ok too. I don't think it'd be easy to find that many. :)

btw, OK Computer is not one of my personal favorite albums. 172.166.129.168 17:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


Happy Anniversary OK Computer

I took the freedom of adding this Section in order to talk about the upcomming 10th anniversary of the Album. It has been not only one of the most characteristic Albums of the 90's but it is also a reference to most of the actual bands. Not only on the music, the whole concept, videos, commercialization, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.135.233.17 (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2007

GA Pass

Well done. Very much a good article, references are more or less perfect, prose is good, a neutral point of view is maintained (there isn't a cricitism section but then again that's not necessary as the album is one of the most critically successful of all time), goes into sufficient detail, a few too many quotes perhaps but these make it interesting and give an objective NPOV account of what the band had to say about it... all round, this is very good. Image is fair use, too. I see that it was you, User:ErleGrey, that passed my Out of Reach article, and now I've passed your article (which is doubtless a GA). I currently have King Crimson as a GA nominee; if you'd like to take a look at it that'd be appreciated. How soon can we expect Radiohead to be a featured article?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Japanese kid?

I'm sure the story about the Japanese kid is true, but the obvious fact is that the album's title is taken from the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"; the book the recurring theme of the entire album. Chapter 17:

"- I'd guessed that, - said Zaphod. - OK computer, I want full manual control now."

If you need an external source backing it up look at MTV. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? Lampman 22:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction?

This article states that "The Tourist" was recorded during the early sessions at Canned Applause but the article for "No Surprises" states that "The Tourist" was recorded very late in the sessions. Which is it? Ac@osr 17:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think maybe it was recorded early in the sessions (one of the four songs from Canned Applause in summer 1996) but only seriously considered for inclusion at the very end. Something like that. The interviews I've seen are confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.164.253.105 (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Song Articles?

May I ask why it seems every Radiohead song is deemed worthy of an article? Even "fitter happier"? It's not just the article on OK Computer that is guilty of it. 86.130.75.170 12:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Encyclopedias are informational resources, and I really don't see the problem with a song article, even if it's only a few sentences long. Simply redirecting the article to the album doesn't help much, considering information about the individual songs seems to be lacking in album articles. (71.36.3.103 (talk) 05:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC))


Zero Kilobyte Computer?

Has anyone in the band spoken about the level of intent of the title reflecting a 0K Computer? I think that the theme of memorylessness is prevalent with them (e.g. titling an album Amnesiac) so it seems like the most sensible interpretation of the name as a computer with no memory. Yet in an interview with Yorke when asked point blank about the title's meaning he doesn't bring that up (though he doesn't actually answer the question at all, just kind of says the title isn't that relevant to the musical content). I'd be very suspicious that it wasn't intended as a play on the OK/0K duality—I just can't find it stated explicitly anywhere on the web. HostileFork 17:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

that's a veyr interesting take on the title. user:mail10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.1.194 (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, indeed. It's possible. --James599 (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahum, weird, my true reply was deleted? Can anyone who has read the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy confirm the fact that zaphod repeatedly addresses the computer as follows: OK, COMPUTER, switch on the improb, drive" or whatever. Theres not a doubt in my mind that this is were the title comes from, seeing that the Paranoid Android reference was already made towards the book. -Reply dont delete. Timothy Barson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.53.18 (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


Yeah, "OK, computer" is used repeated in H2G2 and "when I am King, you will be first against the wall" is a reference as well (in a addition to oft-cited other examples). So it seems very likely this is the genesis of the title (without previding any reliable sources to back it up, obviously). Headphones22 (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thus we can conclude that Radiohead is sort of nerd, I mean come on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.94.90.243 (talk) 09:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

besteveralbums.com keeps getting added.

User:Stanleydonwood keeps referring to the website besteveralbums.com where this album is placed at the top of the charts (meaning it's the most acclaimed or something), stating that it's "further information on critical acclaim". I believe the website is neither notable nor reliable and will now revert his second edit that added it again. If Stanleydonwood keeps doing this, I don't know what to do, though. Litis (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the website does not appear to be notable. faithless (speak) 23:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is probally the most organized and well put-together greatest albums website, so i think that it is notable in that regard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.24.227 (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Anything on the BBC radioplay?

[1] ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


Criticism

Robert Christgau claims this album has no soul. He gave Soulja Boy's album an A-. An A fucking minus... [Potentially defamatory comments removed by Papa November (talk)]

So criticism is now removed. --James599 (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit, but unfortunately your point of view about the criticism is not a suitable justification for removing them. The simple fact is that Christgau (a very famous critic) criticised the album, and it is reasonable to keep that fact in the article. Also, you make no reference the other negative reviews you removed. Please do not make any potentially defamatory comments again. Papa November (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I've now removed the headlines instead. That will do. --James599 (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
It honestly seems like Christgau is simply trolling Radiohead material, and various other Alternative Rock musicians too. He is constantly giving out 1 star ratings, and his reviews are, to be honest, very amateurish. I highly suggest removing his reviews from not just this article, but all Wikipedia articles. Unless wikipedia considers any person on the Internet as a viable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.176.45 (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia's article on Christgau, not to mention the various articles in the links below it, or even the basic biographical info on his website, and you'll find that Christgau is a HIGHLY viable source. True, his style infuriates many, but he's been doing the capsule review for longer than almost anybody else you'd care to cite, and he's no amateur - he's been contributing to leading music magazines and alternative newsweeklies for 40 years. The "one star" ratings you cite are actually complimentary "honorable mentions", which certainly ought to be noted by anybody linking to them on Wikipedia but often isn't. Lastly, "trolls" are typically ill-informed, singleminded, belligerent, and under 35 - none of which describes Christgau. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.148.148.197 (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I last time I checked he gave In Rainbows an A-. Pretty generous for such a hardened critic who has admitted to having a major bias towards progressive and art rock. Even the haters secretly know that Radiohead are great. XD --Degree9 (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Embedded media

At the moment, the article only contains the album cover image, and audio samples of Karma Police and No Surprises. Can we add some free images to liven up the body of the article? Also, are the current non-free audio samples the best choices to include? What specific points are we trying to make with the samples? I've tried to clear up their fair use rationales, but I'm not sure I can think of a rock solid justification for either.

Specifically:

  • Why is there a clip of Karma Police in the "Singles and release" section? There's more discussion of Paranoid Android, so why not use a clip of that instead? Do people really need to hear an audio sample of Karma Police to fully understand the section? I'd say Paranoid Android is more deserving of a clip here: it would help to illustrate its "radio unfriendly" nature, and explain why it didn't get a lot of airplay. It's difficult to explain that in plain text.
  • Why is there a clip of No Surprises in the "Lyrical style" section? The song isn't even mentioned there! There's a whole paragraph devoted to "Fitter Happier", and an audio clip would help to show the creepy effect created by the synthetic speech, which can't effectively be described with plain text.

I'm not saying we should remove or change either clip necessarily. We should just think more carefully about how much non-free content we're including, what (and how much) descriptive text accompanies the media, what specific point it illustrates, why plain text won't do the job, etc... Papa November (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely should use a clip of "Paranoid Android", probably at one of the stylistic shift sections. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

References cleanup

A number of the web references are to copyright-violating reproductions of magazine articles on fansites. These should all be changed to credit the original source (ie. Spin, NME, Mojo) without linking to the unauthorized reproductions. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice that this was the CotW until just now! I'll help out with references, and coincidentally I just got the book Welcome to the Machine: OK Computer and the Death of the Classic Album which should be useful. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Are reader polls allowed to be included? I don't think so, only critical opinion is recommended on Wikipedia right? . . . In other news, I redirected all the (pointless, OR-tinged) non-single song articles. Beware of random IPs reinstating them and demanding to "let the articles grow". indopug (talk) 12:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that significant reader polls should be included, and both the Virgin poll and the Q poll are mentioned in the Footman book. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 04:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Finished! I've tagged a couple of refs as possibly unreliable. I'm not sure that news articles on the "At Ease" fan site (ref. 53) are a particularly great source, so it would be better to find something else. Also, do we really need the translations of Esperanto (ref. 24)? If so, I'm sure it would be better to point to an English-Esperanto dictionary. Finally, the footnote about Orwellian references (ref. 22) needs verification - this shouldn't be too hard to find. Papa November (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The Esperanto bit bugs me. Unless there's a source indicating that the language is Esperanto, we shouldn't include it. And we definitely don't need a translation. Also, specific details about the songs should generally be reserved for the individual song pages, if possible. We want to talk about the album as a whole. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
"Injektilo" is esperanto for "injection". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.85.195 (talk) 03:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Charts?

We need someone to handle the album chart placings, both in the prose and in handy table form. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a section on the exhausting world tour they undertook to support the record is pretty mandatory too. I mean, they made an awful documentary about it and everything. indopug (talk) 03:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
That documentary is awful. I can help with a section on the tour; Welcome to the Machine has a chapter on it, and Radiohead discussed it pretty frequently at the time to express how much they hated it. Also, I just made the Charts section and I have two issues: "Let Down" charted in the US, but isn't a single, so how should it be listed? Also, in 2008 "Karma Police" charted at #59 on the "Hot Canadian Digital Singles". Is that important enough to list? If so, does it affect the "Year" column at all? --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 06:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The singles placings aren't really that necessary for album articles; the discographies and individual singles articles can cover that ground. At most, I'd say we can stick with the chart placings for the physically-released singles. Also, since "Let Down" charted in the US, we should un-redirect that one. I know there's a section analyzing the song in the Classic Rock Tracks book I have. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Musical style and themes

The section is a bit of a jumble of facts. I've tried to organise things a bit more clearly, but we really need to beef up the references here. Any offers? I also think we should change the audio samples - there's virtually no discussion of either clip in this section. Papa November (talk) 11:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

A good template for the music section Loveless (yes, I wrote it, but I do think it's really good!). As I haven't listened to the album this section would be the hardest for me to contribute to, but I'll try and add what I can from Exit Music. The first priority is getting rid of all those "Fact" tags either by adding citationn or just junking the unverified info. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I can contribute to the Musical style, just not today! I'm swamped with other work in real life right now, but I'll definitely help out with the whole article over the weekend. Also, I think we should keep one of the two samples up right now because both songs are fairly representative of the album's sound on a whole, and then add either "Airbag" (for the drums) or "Climbing Up the Walls" (for the strings). Both the samples of "Karma Police" and "No Surprises" would need to kept anyway because they should be used in the articles about those songs. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 04:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
At the moment, the only mention of No Surprises and Karma Police in the whole article is "...'Karma Police' and 'No Surprises' did not chart quite as high..." in the release section. If we barely mention the songs, we can't use non-free audio samples of them as they fail WP:NFCC#8 (media must significantly enhance the reader's understanding of the topic).
I do however agree that the songs are representative of the sound of the album as a whole, so the solution is to add a decent amount of descriptive text explaining this. Papa November (talk) 08:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting comments

A few notes made while copyediting.

  • "The group asked Godrich for advice on what to acquire; Godrich eventually outgrew this role and became co-producer on the album" - no real connection between these clauses, might want to split into two sentences
  • Audio sample captions need a description of what the music you're going to hear is
  • "Yorke also said that OK Computer was not a strictly personal album and that each song on the album was a "polaroid" from the viewpoint of a different person, even inspiring him to vary his vocal style in each song" - kinda redundant to the previous paragraph
  • "The album was released on 16 June 1997 in the United Kingdom; the American release followed on 1 July" - again, see end of previous paragraph
  • "The band Travis worked with Nigel Godrich - just refer to him by surname... and you might want to say he produced Travis' album, to jog the reader's memory as to who he is
  • "Many of the newer acts used similarly complex, atmospheric arrangements" - I'm not sure if this sentence adds anything at all
  • I doubt ref 86 is reliable (I'm pretty sure DoS isn't, off the top of my head), and 88 is almost certainly unreliable
  • Ref 95 needs a publisher

Giggy (talk) 06:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Christgau templates

An unregistered editor has been repeatedly removing the Christgau review templates from the infoboxes of all Radiohead albums. This isn't worth an edit war, so please could we discuss whether to keep or remove them. My view on this is that Robert Christgau is arguably the world's most famous music critic and his opinion is at least as notable as the other reviews listed. The template provides a link to the original review, so it is clearly cited and verifiable. I see no reason to remove them. Papa November (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The links to Robert Christgau's reviews can feel very messy and disorganised, with simple sentences or even just one word. I feel though he is a professional critic, the links on the templates to his reviews can seem very confusing. 92.0.155.139 (talk) 23:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree, there is no reason to remove the template. Not only is Christgau's review significant because he is one of the most important rock critics, but he is also one of the few dissenting critics who gave OK Computer an unfavorable review. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
He's the only critic to give OK Computer an overall unfavorable review, just like he's the critic to give countless albums the only favorable or unfavorable review. In other words, he's an attention whore. Now, he falls under the category of being notable as long as there's someone willing to employ him, and indeed for a large period of time there was. Now that he's fired, however, his reviews - which are found on his personal website and unpublished by major publications - are not notable at all. 202.40.139.164 (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Did he write the review for the Village Voice, or is it original material for his website? Because his reputation is based on being the main critic for the Village Voice and if it's from the newspaper, the publication should be named in the infobox, not Christgau (the link would be the same, though). WesleyDodds (talk) 01:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The Village Voice originally published Christgau's review of OK Computer as part of his Consumer Guide while he was with the Vilage Voice (found here). The version of the review linked to in the infobox is slightly modified from the original published in the Village Voice, and is the review published in Christgau's Consumer Guide book, which is not necessarily associated with the Village Voice. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Christgau was notable as a reviewer of the Village Voice. He's not notable as an independent reviewer, except that his independent reviews have been a very frequent target of ridicule - giving Souljaboytellem.com an A-, for example. The frequent links to his personal website on Wikipedia seems to be the result of spam by a few overly enthusiastic Wikipedians. 202.40.139.164 (talk) 11:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Although I agree that Christgau's personal website is not the greatest resource, the review of OK Computer was published in Village Voice, (i.e. a notable source of music reviews) and Christgau remains one of the most famous critics in the world. I'm afraid that neither Christgau's current employment status nor your personal opinion of the accuracy of the review has any relevance, so I've restored the reference. Papa November (talk) 13:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Lucky Single

Does Lucky deserve its own article since it was a single from before OK Computer, and a charity single at that? I've found it hard to find any information about it at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.180.128 (talk) 08:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Radiohead is not dumb as shit

Someone has the nerve to change the background section title to "RADIOHEAD IS DUMB AS SH*T!". I changed it/undid this. Please, whoever did this, refrain from doing so. It will simply be undone. --BuddyOfHolly (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:RBI Papa November (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:OK Computer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I fixed several dead links, but there was one that I could not fix and I have tagged it. Try and find a replacement for it. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Progressive Rock

I think adding progressive rock on the genre list would be perfectly accurate. 01:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Revan ltrl (talk)

No, it wouldn't. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revan ltrl (talk • contribs) 22:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What's your argument that this is a prog album based on? Because Radiohead isn't a prog rock band. Their music up until Kid A was firmly alternative rock, primarily drawing from R.E.M. and the Pixies. Also, Jonny Greenwood in particular hated prog and for the longest time was unaware of music before the 1980s (he stated in the 2000 Radiohead biography Exit Music that while people would go on about how bands like The Who were great, he'd rather listen to Dinosaur Jr.'s "Freak Scene"). WesleyDodds (talk) 05:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

OK Computer's heavy use of mellotron (Exit Music, Lucky, The Tourist), Pink Floyd-like guitars (Airbag, Subterranean Homesick Alien, Karma Police, Lucky, The Tourist), interplay between instruments, being arpeggios or whatever, and, generally, the depth of sound created by keyboards, strings, effects; it's pure progressive rock to me. I'm aware of Radiohead's influences in R.E.M. and The Pixies, but that Jonny Greenwood hated prog is shocking news. I'm positive that Floyd was a clear inspiration to him in his playing (I'm also positive it says so in this article, but hey, wikipedia is only a second hand source, right?) on this album. Not to mention the concept-charged lyrics and themes on the album, them also similar to Floyd in their dark, dystopian tones. Paranoid Android's progressive structure and hugely progressive middle-part where they have choir-singing is worthy of mention, and Let Down's 5/4 melody. I'm saying that OK Computer stands on its own in Radiohead's discography, miles away from the alternative rock of their first albums, and farther away from the subsequent electronic experimentation of Kid A and onward, in that it is progressive.

I'm opposed to sourcing music-related articles, especially genres and such, a daft principle, but I know (some of) wikipedia's cravings, and here's a reviewer who's been cited on several other wiki-articles, who clearly defends this. Revan ltrl (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC) http://www.fluffhouse.org.uk/musicreviews/album.php?albumid=103

The use of mellotron isn't exclusive to prog. People ranging from the Beatles to the Smashing Pumpkins used it. Neither are odd time signatures (Soundgarden and Alice in Chains are two alt-rock bands that often used them), or "dark, dystopian tones" (see goth, grunge, and industrial, not to mention Thom Yorke has always had that streak in his songwriting). Also, "Paranoid Android" was meant as a joke by the band. Jonny Greenwood does like Pink Floyd, but he insists he hates all other prog. Thom Yorke has also been adamant about his distaste for prog. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of that; I'm talking about the manner in which the album is presented. Exit Music is clearly not a Beatles/Pumpkins-influenced song, for example, and the fact that other bands and genres have those ingredients does not, in turn, exclude that OK Computer is prog rock. This could go on forever. So, if Paranoid Android is a joke? It would sound the same if it were the result of a tragedy; it could as well be the band downplaying. They could call it a country-song, but are we labelling them as a comedy-band? OK, so Jonny Greenwood is seemingly selective in his prog rock taste, and Thom hates it allover. That doesn't change the album's sound. The shocking turn-around that is Kid A might also work as a statement against the popularity they garnered; their pomp and pretentiousness could also work as arguments.Revan ltrl (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources to back up your argument that OK COmputer is a prog album? Because aside from your own POV, so far all you've provided is a link to a self-published review that doesn't even review this album. Until you do, this argument is moot. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

He does review the album, I just chose The Bends because I thought he made the point clearer by naming it there. But it's reviewed, just check further down. Nevermind. This reliable source you talk about, wouldn't that also be a POV? Do you see the error of wikipedia policy? There's no phd in Music Genres. Revan ltrl (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

How surprising, another smug answer that relies on zeros and ones. I'm shocked and amazed. See ya around, fellow sentient. Revan ltrl (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Another review, guys. I know its progreviews but still... should be taken into account. Personally, I do think that Alternative Rock is the main genre but still there's some prog influences which can't be denied. [2] and another one which can't be said its biased or non-reliable (from allreviews) [3]. btw, a fantastic album. and calm down guys ;) Manoalorts (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think either of those can be considered reliable sources. We need reviews written by professionals and not just fans. --JD554 (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how this is alternative at all, sure there influenced by alt rock bands, but there also influenced by post-punk bands, does that make them post-punk revival? No. When it all comes down to it Alt Rock has stylistic origins in punk, new wave, post-punk and hardcore and the original Alt bands took that and expanded on it. but this is way to arty to be alt and if your saying it's alt rock you might as well change the origins of Alternative Rock to Progressive Rock, Art Rock, Experimental Rock which is definitely what this album is, the bends and Pablo honey are Alternative but if this is alternative then everything about Alternative Rock is wrong. (which I doubt). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.41.105 (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Art Rock?

Could this album not be classified under the genre of Art Rock?--Degree9 (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If multiple, independent, reliable sources have described it as such :) Papa November (talk) 08:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, so good luck with that. DKqwerty (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha, you referring to grander minds than ours? Funny how you dedicate yourselves to this second hand information-site and propagate empty fossil-sources. You not a reliable source? Me? How many do you need? Radiohead's article once said 'Art rock', a reviewer in this one says they are art rock. Need more?Revan ltrl (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point of this project. Encyclopedias only summarise what other people have written. If you can find a magazine article or book in which the author explicitly says that OK Computer is an art-rock album then it can go in this article along with a citation. If not, it can't. Our own opinions about the genre are completely irrelevant. Papa November (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"Let Down" article?

I saw that the article for that song was redirected because it failed the notability guidelines. Since it made a Billboard chart (specifically charting at #29 on the Alternative Songs chart [4]), should the redirect be undone? --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 16:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Making a chart doesn't make the song notable, it's simply an indicator that it may be notable. It would need to have been written about in depth by multiple reliable sources to meet the notability criteria at WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS. --JD554 (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Post-Britpop?

I'm aware that people are sick of discussing Radiohead genre's, but shouldn't Post-Britpop be listed on this album, since this was one of the founding ablbums of the genre, really.JohnM.Kelly (talk) 02:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

As usual, if the album has been described as such in multiple reliable sources then we can consider it. Papa November (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE let me put Prog Rock or at least Art Rock in the album's genres. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.215.222.91 (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you list your sources? Papa November (talk) 11:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Well considering most songs from OK Computer are labeled Art Rock BY WIKI I think it's should be accurate right?


Well, I don't know, but this album has more than just alternative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.9.53.25 (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:OK Computer/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.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
WikiProject Album does not use "A" class. Lacking a personnel section, this article cannot technically qualify above stub. However, it certainly has enough other elements of higher class articles to warrant better. In order to meet "B" class criteria, the article needs a personnel section with all contributors--musical and technical--to this album.

Article requirements:

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Assessment for additional information on article class. To request a reassessment from the Album project, when concerns are addressed, please see "requesting an assessment". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 01:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 15:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:OK_Computer/Archive_1&oldid=1137053116"