Talk:The Chain

untitled

Wikified as part of the Wikification wikiproject! Added sections, Infobox (which still needs more info), etc. JubalHarshaw 17:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Start of The Chain

At the very start in a quiet whisper you can quite clearly hear the word "fuck". This was reverted without explanation so I have restored it. If there is a problem then please explain. Jim77742 11:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does need a reference, so please find one and put it back by all means. Bretonbanquet 11:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, firstly, you seem to have used the song itself as a reference, which is hardly encyclopedic. What is needed is an independent verifiable source. Secondly, you say it's easily verifiable, well I can't hear 'fuck' at all, having tried many times. Maybe you can help - who says it and when? Thirdly, why is this notable? Personally, I don't think it is, and there's no reason to have it in the article anyway. Note that I haven't reverted your edit so we can sort it out here rather than fight over it. Bretonbanquet 15:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with using the song itself as a reference. For example, if lyrics were quoted there would be no problem. Technically this is a lyric but just a hard to hear one. Many other articles on songs mention the lyrics and other contents of songs. You say it's not "notable" - well it was a "Trivia" section after all. Even so, I do think it is of note and people will find it interesting - for example why is it there?? The important thing is that it is verifiable. It is at the very start of the song - before the first note is plucked. It sounds like a breath, but it quite clearly isn't. You will need a genuine CD version of the song - an LP, tape or mp3 probably won't cut it. I think it is Lindsay Buckingham - but I have no proof so that cannot go in the main article. To hear it turn it up very loud and listen in the left speaker. Fortunately the song doesn't start loud. Jim77742 23:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not totally sure about using songs as a reference, because they're not immediately verifiable to the reader, unlike a website, for instance. I really don't know, someone with more wiki knowledge than me would have to clarify it. Wikipedia policy is apparently bent on removing trivia sections, so I don't know where that leaves this. If the 'fuck' is there at all, and it really must be incredibly faint if you can't hear it on certain media, it's probably someone dropping a plectrum or screwing up somehow... something fairly trivial. If it had been really noticeable they'd have edited it out. I haven't got the CD with me, only MP3, but I really can't hear it, even at full volume. I will try and get some further input from the fan community. Are you a member of any of the fan message boards? There may be precedent from someone with more info. I'm not dying to delete it, honestly, but I'd be happier if I were more convinced! Bretonbanquet 00:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be "immediately verifiable", just verifiable. If my reference was a published book and you had to pop down to the local library - then that's fine. In fact that's better than a website. Any hack can put something on a website! The reference here is the work itself. A published music track. It is verifiable - albeit with a trained ear and a good sound system. Agree with you on the fact that if it had been noticeable it would have been edited out - it was possibly deliberately left in. All here-say of course and not for the main article. But that all makes it notable in my view. Not a member of any fan clubs or boards. Just enjoy the music. With you on the trivia sections, but I genuinely think this is of interest for the article on the song - so even if the Trivia section was removed it would be notable enough to have it. If there wasn't an article on "The Chain" then I'd agree it would not be notable in the Fleetwood Mac entry itself. Regards Jim77742 02:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get how you could hear it on cd and not vinyl. Vinyl, if properly cared for, has a HIGHER dynamic range than a cd does. KWaal 15:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not. Not even close. Compare the Telarc pressings (CD and Vinyl) of the 1812 Overture if you need proof. Dynamic range is the difference between the quietest quiet and loudest loud. On vinyl your quiet bits disappear into the sound of rock scratching through plastic. And CD goes way higher on the loudest loud. Don't get me wrong - vinyl can sound good, surprisingly good actually, but it's highs are clipped, it's bass cannot go as low and it's dynamic range is smaller. Not to mention background noise. Whether a track sounds good is all in the mixing. A CD track can sound bad and vinyl good - depending on how they are mixed. Make sure you compare apples with apples. Get the best quality mixed vinyl and the best quality mixed CD and then only compare on a top notch system. Make sure volume levels are the same and just listen. Pink Floyd, Dire Straits and of course Telarc pressings are good to compare. Jim77742 22:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On verification of this subject (fuck at the beginning of the song) It took me less than 2 minutes to turn the mids all the way up on Media Player's eq, insert a set of headphones, and crank the volume all the way up, balance full left, and hear not only the clearly audible whisper "fuck", but also hear suspicious tonal noise that would be immediatley recognizable to any guitarist as "fret noise" and the reverbation similar to an acoustic guitar body reacting to light thumps. In my opinion, this identifies the speaker as Buckingham, as he possibly dropped is plectrum. The whisper occurs immediately as the track opens, in fact the first sound on the track is the fricative "f" in mid-utterance.

Further, I am of the opinion that this was left in or even inserted intentionally. The reason I say this is there is a slight, yet audible "click" following the whisper/guitar noise and just before the first note, immediately followed by a drastic reduction in background noise or "hiss" if you will. This click is so devilishly close to the onset of the first note/beat that the impression is obviously a purposeful inclusion, at least in my opinion.

As far as needing a source other than the song for verification, here I am. An avid music fan, guitarist, and proof other than the original author who included this tidbit that it does in fact exist, and exists on an anonymously recorded mp3 at that. If your stereo EQ is cutting the highs and high-mids, you are losing the frequencies at which a whisper occurs. I know that a whisper is absent of true tone, however, with attn to higher frequencies it is clearly audible. And interesting, as well. The proof of its notability is that here I am, an unbiased party, that was so intrigued by this trivial mention as to investigate it myself for the satisfaction of personal curiosity. Cedelong 67.142.130.33 16:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so people can hear it, even though I can't. I still don't see that it's even nearly notable, and the fact that you're interested in it doesn't make it notable, obviously. George Bush could be interested in it, but that wouldn't make it notable either. People say "fuck" in a hell of a lot of songs. Or is it the word itself that's somehow of note? If Buckingham had said "pineapple" at the start of "Go Your Own Way", would it get a mention? I doubt it. So what's the point? I'm not itching to take it out, but I really don't see what the fuss is. Bretonbanquet 17:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be a reliable and verifiable source. Another WP editor alone is never good enough. In fact, 100 other WP editors would not be. It has to be something that a third party can go and check for themselves. 86.132.142.246 (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lola used in the intro: I thought lola was recycled for the intro to Tusk rather than 'The Chain' - at least thats the way it sounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.126.144 (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banjo? Really?

I am aware that Buckingham plays banjo, but that really doesn't sound like a banjo to me (Note: I have played a banjo several times). Can someone cite a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.8.146 (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another cover

Would just like to add that one of the bands at Soundwave 2011 in Adelaide covered The Chain live. I believe it was Nonpoint, but I cannot be entirely sure. Was anyone else there who may have seen it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.38.243.25 (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't the rock band Tantric cover this song? If Three Days Grace's cover is listed, Tantric's should be as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.103.43 (talk) 04:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC) - I just checked, they covered the song on their album After we Go. I will add this information to this article in a week if no one objects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.103.43 (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:TheChain ending.ogg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:TheChain ending.ogg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 27 May 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:TheChain ending.ogg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325145749/http://www.livedaily.com/news/6995.html?t=22 to http://www.livedaily.com/news/6995.html?t=22

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) 21:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

fretless bass?

can we have a citation for this?

I found this post on a forum, but I can't find anything more substantial... https://www.talkbass.com/threads/the-many-basses-of-john-mcvie.1304875/

duncanrmi (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]