Talk:OK Computer/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Coverage of the Minidisc leak

@Popcornduff:. As of now there have been two editors who have added segments on the recent leaks. Just in case it appears I'm trying to defend my writing for no reason, one of those was mine.

On 5 June, 2019, between 17-18 hours of unreleased material from the recording sessions for OK Computer were leaked by a third party online, to the scorn of many fans who called it "theft". The leak was purged from r/Radiohead, where it was initially published, due to fears of copyright infringement and ethical concerns. The leak contains 18 minidiscs, each being around 1 hour in length. The leaker allegedly asked for “upwards of $150,000 for the entire set” or “$800 per studio track and $50 per live track.”, but settled on trading for other tracks. The method of theft for these tracks is unknown, as is any legal repercussion. Radiohead has yet to publicly comment.

A Google Docs file by a group who claim not to be the leakers has been released under the name of "OK Minidisc", as was requested by the leaker. The file contains timestamps of each song, and marks them based on if they were unreleased, live, unmastered, or background noise. Most unreleased tracks were named by fans on Reddit.

The leak contains songs from OK Computer and OK Computer OKNOTOK, as well as Nude from In Rainbows and True Love Waits from A Moon Shaped Pool. Lift, a song remastered and released by the band in OK Computer OKNOTOK, appears in various forms, including what band member Ed O'Brien called "a big anthemic song" that would've been too close to Creep for the band to have stretched their boundaries. The version released on OKNOTOK was remixed, making this version likely to being the one referenced.

The band had previously hinted at a 20th anniversary reissue of Kid A, which some fans have claimed might be harmed by the leak.

This was my addition, and as you can see, it has numerous sources. According to Popcornduff, I have included unreliable sources, however the only such sources I have included are primary sources on the subject, which is completely fine under WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Especially since the many other sources I have provided refer to the Google Docs file and the Reddit thread. Additionally, if more than ten separate news outlets, all of whom are regarded as reliable music sources, report on an issue, why shouldn't it be regarded as news? puggo (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Yo. Here are some of the problems with the text you add:

• Reddit and Google Docs are not reliable sources. They are not covered under WP:PRIMARYNEWS, which talks about newspaper reports.
• WP:SYNTH (using sources to draw conclusions yourself) and WP:OR (original research). For example, "The version released on OKNOTOK was remixed, making this version likely to being the one referenced.[10]" The source here doesn't say anything about the leak and was published a long time before the leak happened - this is just your personal analysis.
• Too much detail. Wikipedia isn't the place to exhaustively detail the stuff in this leak. A few reliable sources have covered the leak, but not in detail. I wouldn't oppose including a sentence or two about the leak in the article somewhere, but I think some editors would consider this WP:NOTNEWS - the leak is a recent event and it might not have any lasting importance.

Brandt Luke Zorn, who has worked on this article a lot, might have more to add here Popcornduff (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Popcornduff is right that reddit and the crowdsourced Google Doc are not reliable sources for our purposes. The fact of the leak itself, and a brief description of the contents, may be noteworthy enough to be mentioned somewhere, but I have some serious doubts (more on this below). But I would exclude any speculative content, especially any speculation about the actions taken by leakers or the legality thereof.

I'm strongly opposed to any mention of the "$150,000" "ransom". It suggests that the leakers were demanding a lump sum of $150,000 from the band "or else" they would leak the music, which would be a serious crime. In actuality, the leakers were asking collectors to pony up some cash for the release of tracks a la carte. Collectors described that as a "ransom", in the same metaphorical way people will describe exploitative pricing as "highway robbery", under the ethical theory that stealing music may be dubious but profiting off stolen music is plainly unethical. So it wasn't "hey Radiohead, pay us $150,000 or we leak your music," it was "hey collectors, pay us to leak the music to you little by little, for an estimated total cost of $150,000 for everything." Then, from what I can glean, the leakers changed their mind and just released everything anyway (or maybe someone got paid behind the scenes—who knows?).

So much of what's reported in reliable sources—I'm looking at NME, Spin, Stereogum, and Paste—is just stenography of reddit comments, without any original reporting, and is too ambiguous to be reliable anyway. For example, consider these two sentences from Spin:

One post claimed that the leaker was demanding "upwards of $150,000 for the entire set." Now, with no ransom money produced, the entire 18-hour trove of OK Computer-era demos and snippets has been leaked.

As written, that describes both situations that I described above: either a literal criminal ransom that Radiohead declined to pay, triggering the leak, or the metaphorical "ransom", i.e. a scheme to price-gouge collectors (according to collectors). But even if they described the situation accurately, it would just be an accurate reproduction of a story according to a reddit comment, which is not reliable. And more importantly—who cares, at least for now, when so much about the backstory of the leak is based on anonymous comments? No reporters have actually looked into any of this themselves, they're all just aggregating content from reddit. That's why at this point, I would be OK at most with a report that the leak occurred, and a description of some of its most notable contents; at least when the reporters are saying "there's a new version of 'Lift'", that's a description from a firsthand experience of downloading and listening to the music.

But I still have doubts about mentioning the leak at all. First, there's the practical issue of where it belongs in the article; its own section brings undue attention to the leak, especially with so little to say other than "this happened", and it's too unrelated to the scope of any section. Regarding sources, it's worth considering: who hasn't reported on this leak? What outlets that normally report on Radiohead news haven't done so here? I count at least Rolling Stone, Pitchfork, and The Guardian. Their silence conveys two likely decisions: first, an ethical decision not to amplify a likely theft of unreleased material, but second, an editorial determination that there isn't enough there to report on. Wikipedia has no inherent moral/ethical obligation to overlook leaked material—we have no duty to protect Radiohead's interests—but the more I think about this, the more I feel that on balance it's not worth including. —BLZ · talk 20:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Radiohead puts the minidiscs for sale

https://radiohead.bandcamp.com/album/minidiscs-hacked Now that we have a response from the band, is it noteworthy? puggo (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@puggo, Popcornduff: Absolutely, yes. I'd still advise caution on issues like the so-called "ransom", which is now like a game of telephone. Pfork mucked it up here, suggesting (1) that the $150,000 ransom was to not release the recordings, when it seems the money was being actually demanded in exchange for leaks, and (2) that Radiohead were ransomed and didn't pay, when Greenwood's statement says "someone stole Thom’s minidisk archive from around the time of OK Computer, and reportedly demanded $150,000 on threat of releasing it"—"reportedly", as in Greenwood is relaying the same secondhand info everyone else has heard, rather than confirming the band were themselves ransomed. —BLZ · talk 23:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I've given it a start here, but there's certainly more to add. It almost certainly warrants its own article. puggo, thank you for your patience and restraint as this situation unfolded. —BLZ · talk 23:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

There's a lot of misinformation out there about this. Might cause some problems where we have reliable sources saying stuff that isn't true. Popcornduff (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Year in section title

Brandt Luke Zorn, instead of reverting with useless edit summaries, could you explain why your reason for removing the year from OKNOTOK is not "nebulous" while mine for MiniDiscs is? 185.165.241.112 (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The release year of OKNOTOK 1997 2017 is implied by its title. The release year of MiniDiscs [Hacked] is not implied by its title. —BLZ · talk 16:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Mentioning the year is useful for the reissues since there has been a handful of them, but the MiniDiscs, as you said before, are not a reissue. There's only one MiniDiscs album, there's no confusion on that. It's also, as I mentioned, consistent with the other title. 185.165.241.112 (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Why not just get rid of the years in the section headers? They're ordered chronologically, the reader can find the exact release date in the section text. Also, merely OKNOTOK seems like too much of a shortening, especially for a section header. 185.165.243.90 (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• "Mentioning the year is useful for the reissues since there has been a handful of them, but the MiniDiscs, as you said before, are not a reissue." – The year is not uniquely useful due to the quality of being a reissue; the year is useful at a glance because these are all musical releases.
• "There's only one MiniDiscs album, there's no confusion on that." – This article is not just for people who are already acquainted with Radiohead. In fact, the article is best if it serves as general a readership as possible, including people who don't know or care about rock music at all. Someone looking at the table of contents for the first time who is not intimately familiar with the details of Radiohead's history, does not know there is "only one MiniDiscs album", what that is, when it was released, etc.
• "Why not just get rid of the years in the section headers?" Why not just include years in the section headers?
• "merely OKNOTOK seems like too much of a shortening" Says who? It's a pretty common abbreviated form for the release anyway, both in text and in actual conversation. No one actually says out loud "OK Computer OKNOTOK 1997 2017 or even OKNOTOK 1997 2017—if you speak out loud to a person about it face to face, it's just OKNOTOK (or even more likely, "that OK Computer box set"). "OKNOTOK box set (2017)" would probably be the best title tbh, because "box set" signifies way more than "OKNOTOK" on its own (or any other variation on its proper title). —BLZ · talk 21:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oh, one more: "They're ordered chronologically, the reader can find the exact release date in the section text." This is also an argument against using years in headers at all, ever, because history is almost always organized chronologically and the text structured by headings typically includes further information about dates. —BLZ · talk 21:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

National Recording Registry

Binksternet, could we please discuss this here? As I said in my last edit summary, the current reference has links to acclaimedmusic.net, which is unrelated to the inclusion of the album in the National Recording Registry. DanWarpp (talk) 14:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyediting

Can we straighten this out, please?

eclectic range of influences

This is tautological, by definition. Eclectic: Deriving ideas, style, or taste from a broad and diverse range of sources"

You might as well write "three-sided triangle".

Point two:

It held the number-one spot in the UK for two weeks and stayed in the top ten for several weeks afterward; ultimately, it became the country's eighth-best selling record of the year.]

->

It held the number-one spot in the UK for two weeks and stayed in the top ten for several more, becoming the year's eighth-best selling record there.

Same information, fewer words. ("Ultimately" almost never adds meaningful information.) Why fight for this? Popcornduff (talk)

I haven't waded into the back-and-forth edits, but here's my two cents: As to the former, I think there is a case to be made that "range of" should be there. There is something slightly off about "eclectic influences". Very slight, but noticeable and articulable all the same imo: a person wouldn't ordinarily say "I'm into eclectic musicians" if they meant "I have eclectic taste in music," it sounds funny. "Eclectic" is usually attached to nouns like "taste", "preferences", "sensibility", "selections", etc., but it doesn't follow that the selections within an eclectically curated group are themselves "eclectic", i.e. the influences themselves do not necessarily "deriv[e] ideas, style, or taste from a broad and diverse range of sources"—in this case, they are the sources. By analogy: compare the phrases "diverse group of people" and "diverse people"; people are not "diverse", much less each person considered individually, because diversity is described in terms of a particular group's composition. The context is different—indeed, saying that individual persons are "diverse" is so clumsy that it could easily come off as tone-deaf or offensive, while "eclectic influences" is not similarly objectionable—but I think the underlying category error is the same.

I understand the logic here and I think it makes sense. At this point, all I can say is that "eclectic influences" reads perfectly naturally to me in a way that "eclectic musicians" does not, perhaps because a range is somehow inescapably implied. But I have to admit that "somehow this feels right to me" without any further explanation is one of the crummiest Wikipedia arguments you can make, so if two others still oppose me, I'll live with it. Popcornduff (talk) 05:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

As to the latter, I generally agree. The trimmed structure is much more efficient. However, I'm not strictly anti-adverb and I do think "ultimately" adds a subtle shade of meaning. "Becoming", by itself, suggests that it became the eighth-best-selling only on the strength of what is mentioned in the sentence, i.e. the weeks at number one and in the top ten, while "ultimately becoming" implicitly takes into account the accumulated sales even from weeks when the album was at, say, number 11 or number 99, which presumably still helped carry it to the number 8 position for the year. For another example, compare these two sentences: "The Avengers: Fall of Megatron broke all records for preorder-ticket sales and debuted at number one at the box office, becoming the highest-grossing film of all time" vs. "The Avengers: Fall of Megatron broke all records for preorder-ticket sales and debuted at number one at the box office, ultimately becoming the highest-grossing film of all time." A good copyeditor would likely want to change either of those Avengers sentences for other reasons but, if we're assuming the "becoming..." sentence structure, I think "ultimately" does serve a function; the first sentence makes it sound like the movie outgrossed Avatar on its opening weekend alone. You could also say "going on to become" or something like that. —BLZ · talk 20:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that Avengers example is a good example of where "ultimately" adds information, and you've persuaded me of its usefulness in the OKC example. Can we go with my version with that in? Popcornduff (talk) 05:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Your trimmed version of the charts sentence, with "ultimately", is a definite improvement on the original. Perhaps ironically, "ultimately" truly was a superfluous word in the original sentence (the semi-colon and "became" already signified culmination at a later date), but by tightening the sentence overall you made the word functional and even necessary.

As for "eclectic": I think it basically works either way and I don't have a strong preference, but now I think I've come around to your view. I'm glad I typed out my thoughts. When you first removed "range of" it sounded fine to me. Then, after the reversions started, I realized I could only think through why "range of eclectic influences" worked, and I could understand why "eclectic influences" might not work, how it could sound awkward, although it still didn't sound outright atrocious—as you pointed out, "eclectic musicians" does sound unmistakably worse than "eclectic influences". Now, the more I reread it the more I think you're right that "a range is somehow inescapably implied", probably because the word "influences" suggests a finite set of people/works that could have affected the influenced.

More food for thought: there are about 243,000 hits on Google for the exact phrase "eclectic range of influences" and about 206,000 for "eclectic influences". That shows "eclectic influences" is definitely out there in use, but also that "range of" is slightly more common, which wouldn't necessarily be expected for a longer phrase (not to mention all the synonyms for "range" that would only show up in other searches). Even after all of this, I don't think there's a clear right or wrong answer but "eclectic influences" might be slightly better, if only because it keeps it more aligned with the other adjective-nouns listed in that sentence ("abstract lyrics, densely layered sound and eclectic influences"). —BLZ · talk 20:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Release date

As per Template:Infobox album#TemplateData, the earliest known release date should be stated. Various sources and major streaming platforms list the May 21 date. Popcornduff, what do you think? QuestFour (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Initial reaction: no idea. Guess we just go by sources and make sure it doesn't look they're mistaken. Can you show me some sources say May 21? Popcornduff (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Billboard, Spin, Rolling Stone, Pitchfork, Stereogum, Medium, Flood, among many others. As for steaming services, Apple Music uses it. QuestFour (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

According to this very article, it was indeed first released on May 21st, in Japan. Other territories followed on later dates.

Should the infobox state the earliest release date even if it's in a foreign market (from the creators' perspective), at a time before the internet? I feel like the answer should be "sure why not" - but this is an honest question, I have no idea how infoxes work. Popcornduff (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I support changing the date per the sources above and Template:Infobox album#TemplateData. Also, altering "released" to "first released" would clarify that there are later releases, so I suggest doing that as well. QuestFour (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Since there are no objections, I will go ahead and make the changes for now; any editors who disagree are welcome to revert and give their opinion here, per WP:BRD. QuestFour (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Just chiming in to say I support the change as well. May 21 was the date used in the version of the article as it stood when I nominated it to be featured (you may have to edit the page to see the source code of the infobox). At some time later, the infobox listed three separate release dates in Japan, the UK, and the US, but then it was decided to set it to only one date, which became the UK date for whatever reason. I had even requested that it run as Today's Featured Article on May 21, 2017, but that would have been too soon after a bigger milestone: Ray Charles's song "Here We Go Again" on its fiftieth anniversary of May 20, 2017.

If only one date is listed, it should be the Japanese date. It's anglocentric to assert it wasn't "really" released until it was released in their home country. —BLZ · talk 20:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Singles chart

Although it charted, "Let Down" was never released as a single; should it be included in the table? We do not currently have any sources for "Lucky" charting in France, but it was still released as a single there...Popcornduff, Brandt Luke Zorn, thoughts? QuestFour (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm always uncertain about what counts as a single and what we should do with them, so I'll defer to the expertise of Mr Zorn here. Popcornduff (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

"Let Down" was released as a promotional CD single distributed to radio stations, enabling it to chart on Modern Rock Tracks (which tracked radio airplay rather than consumer sales.) It was never issued as a retail single for consumer purchase. I think it should be included in the table, since it charted, although it may be worth adding a footnote clarifying the nature of its release.

It seems "Lucky" failed to chart in France. I don't feel strongly about its inclusion or exclusion; either way seems acceptable. —BLZ · talk 00:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I guess it wouldn't make much sense to include a single that hasn't charted in the "charts and certifications" section. However, I support adding a footnote stating that "Let Down" was a released as a promotional single; Brandt Luke Zorn, would you do the honors? QuestFour (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Mac Randall source

This isn't a big deal, and I'm not sure how much anyone is really concerned about this, but I'm going through the Mac Randall biography, Exit Music, that this and several other Radiohead articles cites extensively. It seems like everything in it is based on existing articles. For example, I got through the entire chapter on the recording of The Bends assuming the guy had interviewed John Leckie until, through some googling, I realised he had just recycled material from a 1997 Mojo article by someone else.

For our purposes this is less than ideal because 1) ideally we should be quoting the original sources for interviews etc, not quotations of quotations and 2) Randall is filtering everything through his own editorial, and in some cases I think he is actually drawing the wrong interpretations, which will result in some inaccuracies being filtered into Wikipedia too. Perhaps this is what Nigel Godrich was complaining about.

I guess that's just a heads up, in case anyone else finds it remotely interesting.... I'm doing a major overhaul of the Bends article, so I'll be looking to dig up the sources Randall used and replace Randall with them where I can, at least. Popcornfud (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I replaced the Randall citations with the sources he uses, where I can find them? @Brandt Luke Zorn:, I believe you may have added the Randall citations in the first place. Popcornfud (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

No objections from me. I agree with your assessment of Exit Music. It's largely a synthesis of secondary sources, stitched together to form a book-length summary, rather than an original history with new research, interviews, or insight. Plus there are so many "updated" editions of Exit Music that it may be kind of a hassle to cite anyway. I have no idea how many discrepancies there are between editions—whether there are changes to the earlier text, whether the same text shows up on the same page number between editions, etc. Best to directly cite Randall's sources as much as possible to avoid a game of telephone where Randall's interpretations may distort the original source. —BLZ · talk 21:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Beato

I don't think Rick Beato's videos will meet wiki's RS requirements, so cant add as a source for the article. Instead putting this here as think it is superior analysis.[1] Ceoil (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Criticism as overrated in retrospective appraisal

Major balance issue. About 1/3 of this section is saying the album is overrated. Nearly every critic who said it was overrated is given a few lines.. And then there’s nearly every music publication that gives the album all-time great status.DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The section details how most major music publications praised the album, both in Britain and the US, and then gives two examples of criticism of the album. Would you rather there be no criticism at all? ― Tuna + 12:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

"Alternative"

@Tkbrett: As to Why have there been so many genre warriors lately? Well, maybe because alternative music, which the infobox links to, is a disambiguation page, and as such has no meaning? You can make up your own mind as to what it should link to, but I'm pretty sure it isn't alternative R&B or alternative reggaeton. FYI, until quite recently alternative music simply redirected to alternative rock and as such that is what the infobox used to link to as well. Lennart97 (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Nowhere on this page is the album described as "alternative rock". If you're going to change the genre, get a source. Tkbrett (✉) 12:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Neither is it described as "alternative music", so I've removed that unsourced info from the infobox. That should resolve the issue. Lennart97 (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Changed the genre back before reading this, so sorry about that. But come on, the album won Best Alternative Album at the 1998 Grammy's. You can find a ton of sources saying that it's alternative, the first result you get when you look up what genre it is is that it's 'Alternative/Indie'. ― Tuna + 14:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but what is "alternative music"? We certainly do not have an article to link to, as alternative music is a disambiguation page listing mostly unrelated genres of music. Now if you ask me, it is more specifically "alternative rock" -- after all, it initiated a stylistic shift in British rock away from Britpop toward melancholic, atmospheric alternative rock that became more prevalent in the next decade. Apparently that is not explicit enough, so I will see if I can find a citation that more explicitly describes the album's genre as alternative rock.

In any case, we should not link to disambiguation pages on Wikipedia, see e.g. WP:DPL or the notice at the top of the alternative music dabpage itself; it does not help and only confuses the reader. So until someone writes an article at that title about what "alternative music" as a whole is supposed to be, we should not include it as a genre. Lennart97 (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)