Talk:Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd album)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd album). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Comment

Is it true that this can be listened to as an accompanyment to Its a Wonderful Life and Wizard of Oz? Mark Richards 17:39, 26 April 2004 (UTC)

Yes, for its a wonderful life for sure. It can also be played to Wizard of Oz AFTER Dark Side of the moon has played along side it once through - Fizscy46 22:05, 26 April 2004 (UTC)

Might be worth mentioning

Legend has it that during the recordings Syd Barrett stumbled in the studio. No one recognized him, at least not right away. That might not be that awkward: Barrett's appearance changed a lot (grew fatter, for instance) since he played with the band. I always thought this was a rumour, a myth invented by Pink-fans, but in at least one interview David Gilmour confirms this story.

Already in the article. He did indeed show up. All four members of Floyd mention that he did show up in the studio, but they forgot what song they were working on at the time. Also please sign yr comments. Doc Strange 17:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Connections to Apollo-Soyuz

I seem to remeber reading or hearing that there was some connection (maybe very slight) between this album, or one of the songs on it, and the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project which had occurred in July, 1975, just two months before the albums release . Memory is such a tricky thing and this could easily be an urban legend. I thought some wikipedia Pink Floyd fan might leave a post here clearing this up for me. I will thank you ahead of time for any info that you might have and for the time that you take to post it here.MarnetteD | Talk 15:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

In light of Nick Mason's account

It was a technician Phil Taylor and not Rick Wright who ducked down in his car because he "wasn't sure he could handle the conversation" according to ''Inside Out''. I have fixed this inaccuracy. (Lynchical 07:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC))

Neutrality?

From the article: "An angry Waters strengthened his grip on the band's output, and this increasing pressure and hostility would eventually tear Pink Floyd apart." This seems like an oversimplification to me, not to mention unverified research.BotleySmith 19:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I heard that the album cover was ahead of its time

in terms of the graphics on the cover -dragong4

That's POV Doc Strange 19:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Concept?

Is WYWH a concept album? No-Bullet 23:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No one answered, I'll remove it. No-Bullet 02:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is, and I'd say the concept isn't primarily the music industry, as suggested; it is explicitly about absence and detachment (hence 'Wish You Were Here'), as well as 'the end of relationships', hence the cover of a man burned by contact Ezy Rider 13:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

tribute to Syd Barret

I think it flows better to say "the album pays tribute to " rather than "the album is partly a tribute to". There is no question that it pays tribute, but the use of the word "partly" requires the parts to be defined, which is not something that you need to do in an introduction. Trishm 22:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Tracklist info box

Sorry but i dont like the new tracklisting infobox. The type is too small, i hope that this isnt a new trend - could we consider removing it? - Ummagumma23 11:54 24 February 2007

ok,--Doktor Who 17:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Introduction, bit on lyrics

Were the lyrics only composed by Roger Waters as the intro suggests? This seems to contradict the'Track Listing' section, where the writing credits include Gilmour and Wright as well.

 **Writing credits also include the music, so it would be Lyrics:Waters, Music:Gilmour/Wright.  
 **Quite a common practice.  Rob Golding (robert<dot>golding<at>gmail<dot>com)

Also, the introduction, as stated, gives the impression that the primary message of the album is about "the music industry, question the market-oriented record companies' lack of understanding and interest for musicians", where none of the 3 major songs in the album (Shine On I and II, and WYWH) are about that. I find this very misleading. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.68.56.29 (talk) 05:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

It's written in the booklet "All lyrics by Roger Waters". Same for Meddle, The Dark Side Of The Moon, Animals, The Wall and, of course, The Final Cut.Marc Navatier 09:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"where none of the 3 major songs in the album (Shine On I and II, and WYWH) are about that." Well they actually are, "caught in the crossfire between childhood and stardoom" [can] mean that the music industry isnt the place for his type of character, and he'd have to sacrifice one over the other/the opening lines about a change of character show that the industry has messed him up/and the second verse of WYWH about exchanging bilge is about how the industry tried to make him (again) sacrifice his real personality for the lead role in a cage[although he actually didnt, they just tried, it was Waters (as he admitted himself in the ITAOT interview) who actually succumbed to it all]/the whole "steel breeze" metaphor as well in Water's words has something to do with becoming a cold personality. However the lyrics have multiple interpretations, thats the whole point of this album, and the industry one is, just one. I don't personally follow this, and yeah i agree with you that this should not be the primary message put forward. Also, anyone notice how Syd's life is actually what all "rock people" say they want to do, but are too scared to, because they dont actually want to lose the fame and money. He didnt become a recluse, or go insane, his sister made the most outstanding point ever, he was just not giving people what they wanted. Its quite an interesting social statement to make, its far more of an interactionist view than a functionalist view on what his situation should be. Think about it, thats ultimately all he was doing, we just wanted so much from him. And I dont see any of his songs as the ramblings of a madman, jugband blues, vegetable man, and dark globe all make clear points that are quite fundamentally present to all of our lives, youve just got to read into them. Well there we go, this is how I interpret it all, my 2 cents...

Addition of Electronic Music to the list of genres

Several of the songs have a lot of synthesisers on Wish You Were Here, including Shine On You Crazy Diamond, and Welcome to the Machine (Those tracks together take up about 60% or so of the album). Therefore, I think "electronic music" or a genre of that like should be added to the genre list. Sittingonfence 01:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Unproven concepts

Waters saw Syd in Harrods? Can someone verify this?

The Syd's Theme appears in every song? Welll I've listened to the album about 7 times trying to hear in WTTM/HAC/WYWH and I really doubt it, can someone say how and when it appears in the middle three song medley? Merci

Roger recalls he saw Syd in Harrods on the documentary film The Pink FLoyd and Syd Barrett story. Appparently Syd was buying sweets! It was the last time Waters saw him - Ummagumma23 10:22 26 June 2007 (UTC).

In the timeline in the bank of Another Brick in the Wall: The Story Behind Every Pink Floyd Song (this book is the source for several facts that have been disputed by Wikipedia - including Syd playing on "Corporal Clegg" and the "1 in 14 people in the US own DSOTM" facts)...Apparently, Syd was spotted in Harrod's with a large bag full of sweets (US: candy) and proceeded to drop it and run upon being spotted. Doc Strange 18:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Artwork (Changes dated 02:19, 25 October 2007)

The "Wish you were here"/"Early Singles" hybrid mentioned in the article is not a genuine release. I've seen it, and while it's an elaborate fake, it still is a fake. For starters, it uses the black "robotic handshake" motive, which was never used as the printed booklet cover for any CD releases (an anniversary edition actually had that cover, but in the same style the original LP had, i.e. as a plastic wrap around the jewel case, which had the usual "burning man" cover). Also, the robotic image got further treatment - it is enlarged, contained in a white rectangle and "amended" by the band name and album title - none of which were ever done on any official release of any Pink Floyd album. Secondly, large record companies - such as those that Pink Floyd are signed to in different parts of the world, i.e. EMI and Sony Music - do not put out high-profile albums by high-profile bands (such as Wish you were here by Pink Floyd) with bonus tracks on it without making a big fuss about it. Moreover, such record companies do, as a rule, not append an album's worth of completely unrelated material to well-known records. And moreover still, Pink Floyd is inlikely to ever allow such delution - EMI actually put the 1967 singles onto a separate disk in the limited edition of the 2007 40th anniversary re-release of The Piper at the Gates of Dawn, even though the material could be considered quite related. To put things into context even more: we're talking about a compilation of 1967/1968-era singles and b-sides that was tucked onto the end of a 1975 concept album. No Sir, Pink Floyd and their record company/companies would never do that. Lastly, and that's the final straw, the WYWH/EarlySingles CD does not have an IFPI code (also see here) on the inner ring of the CD itself. That code is present on virtually all official releases worldwide (except for some self-released CDs by unsigned artists) and identifies the plant at which a CD was produced. No IFPI code is usually a damn sure sign for a fake CD. So - the "Wish you were here"/"Early Singles" hybrid is clearly a fake, which is why I deleted mention of it and its deviating artwork from the article as such mention would otherwise lend undeserved legitimacy to an illegitimate release.--afromme 01:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirection?

I think that when people look up 'Wish You Were Here', they should be directly taken to the album page. After all, they were the first to use 'Wish You Were Here', and I think they deserve it.--FloydZeppelin74 01:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael Mantler and "Syd's Theme"

I'd like to mention that in a certain Michael Mantler composition, called "Folly Seeing All This", Syd's theme repeats for a small number of times starting from 18:25. I don't think this would be all that notable if it weren't for the fact that Mantler worked with Nick Mason in 1983, and that the album this work is from was issued 10 years after that collaboration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.233.114 (talk) 09:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The Location of the Album Cover

Does anyone out there know where abouts the album cover photo was taken, the one with the man on fire. If someone could add this then that would be great. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.113.66 (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

studio visit part

and i quote: "Barrett sat motionless; he is sometimes quoted as saying, when someone asked to play it back again, that this would be pointless as they had already just heard it"

questions:

1. what part is the quote, i see no quotation marks(other than the ones i used). 2. what is the point of the quote, it does not add anything to the article. Kas0809 (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Quotation

The quotation part of the artical is too long for wikipedia, I'll carry it to Wikiquote, and objections? Damaged brain (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a fan website with a lot of quotes for each Pink Floyd album. A long time ago, someone copied all those quotes over to Wikipedia articles, and most of them remain. Presumably, since they are quotes, they do not belong to the fansite and were not copy vio. I think some articles have been trimmed, but nobody seems to want to weed them out. If you are willing to do so, take a look at other PF articles and see if they can be fixed. I don't mind quotes used to illustrate a point, but these "quote farm" sections should have been left at the fansite, in my opinion. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Spelling/Grammar

WebHamster kindly reverted my corrections to "alternate cover" twice. Many sources (see http://www.cjr.org/resources/lc/alt.php, http://trc.ucdavis.edu/bajaffee/SAS90B/Course%20Content/Grammar%20Syllabus/alternative.htm, Partridge - Usage and Abusage: A Guide to Good English, Fowler's Modern English Usage, Swan - Practical English Usage, etc.) explain the difference between the two words and the OED mentions the erroneous use of "alternate". For more detailed discussion, see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1995/07/msg00037.html. Clearly in the interests of clarity and accuracy - vital for an encyclopaedia - the confusing error should be corrected. I hope that my edits will not be reverted without compelling evidence against the position I've adpoted here. Turkeyphan^t 21:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, please refrain from making snide edit summaries such as "try looking in a dictionary first" when clearly the issue wasn't whether the spelling was correct for some word, rather whether the meaning of the word matched the intended usage. It is a common mistake but one that should not be perpetuated. Turkeyphan^t 21:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should recall your own edit summary when you originally changed it. You're the one that edited it for spelling. Either way "alternate" is used in a grammatically correct way, there was no need to change it. I'm glad you took my advice to check the dictionary, it's shame you didn't check the definition as well as the spelling. As for compelling reasons for reverting, you made the change to the status quo, therefore the onus is on you to give a compelling reason. --WebHamster 21:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the spelling is incorrect. The correct spelling is "alternative". Read my last comment carefully: "clearly the issue wasn't whether the spelling was correct for some word" (emphasis added). Most respected dictionaries and style guides give correct definitions for "alternate" or acknowledge that the use you prefer is erroneous. I made no change to the status quo, I corrected an error. if you wish to revert that, please provide references as justification whilst keeping in mind the authority of the references I have already provided. Turkeyphan^t 23:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The spelling of "alternate" was correct, the usage of "alternate" is correct, the instructions for the template specifically state that the wording is correct, but yet you come along and unilaterally change it to something that is incorrect. As it was already correct you therefore changed the status quo. Now be so kind as to change it back to the recommended wording. Thank you. --WebHamster 23:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"the usage of 'alternate' is correct" - not so as I have illustrated above. If you want to dispute this, please provide some evidence. "the instructions for the template specifically state that the wording is correct" - I cannot see any explicit statement about the use of "alternate" vs "alternative". Could you please quote the relevant sections? You assert that the onus of proof is upon me and I have proved that your preferred usage is incorrect using multiple reputable sources. If you want to revert my corrections, the onus is upon you to find opposing sources. Good luck with that. Turkeyphan^t 00:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, do you have a single shred of backing for your claim that I changed it to something that was "incorrect"? Turkeyphan^t 00:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, check out the wording of Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover 2. You may find it illuminating. --WebHamster 21:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

A third opinion on a couple of points here: I agree that "alternate" is inferior because its primary meaning is related to the verb "alternate", i.e., it's to do with things coming one after the other by turns, or every other time. I'm therefore happy to see the article using "alternative", also noting that Template:Infobox_album#Advanced_usage shows an illustration using "alternative".

As a side note, I also agree that the edit summaries for both Turkeyphant's original revert and Turkeyphant's next revert clearly refer to the issue being one of spelling, and I also see that the word "spelling" forms part of the title of this talk page section. No doubt the introduction of this unfortunate word was inadvertent (merely a case of random imprecision!) but this was perhaps one factor in the escalation of the disagreement. Hopefully the matter can now be closed. PL290 (talk) 07:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Singles

I noticed that someone recently added the singles to the infobox, but Wish You Were Here was included. To my knowledge, it was never released as a single other than the live single in 1995. Should it be removed? --Will Mak 050389 16:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Covers

Does anybody know why there are two different flaming man covers? The one we have up as the main image on the article page is the more widespread image (at least with a google image search), but my LP has a different flaming man (see this image). Does anyone know if there was a different cover for the US version than the UK version? Or did the release with the bag have the alternate cover (this is my guess, but can anyone confirm it)? Or is there some other explanation? --Will Mak 050389 03:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This is covered in the Artwork section. You could upload that photo to Wikimedia, if it's yours (or if you have permission), and then include it in that section for readers to compare/see. Jimcripps (talk) 04:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to address the two covers that I am talking about. There are two different "flaming businessman" covers out there, but all it says is that the scene was photographed "twice, as with the first attempt the wind was in the wrong direction". This doesn't seem to be talking about the two covers that I have compared. --Will Mak 050389 13:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

But, further on, it says, "Beneath the outer cover, which on the US release was dark blue, Columbia originally released the LP with a slightly different sleeve, using an alternative picture showing the burning man standing up straight (instead of leaning toward the other businessman) and taken from a lower angle. Columbia started using the more familiar EMI photo in 1982 for their first CD issue and kept using it in subsequent reissues, the only exception being the "SBM MasterSound Collector's Edition"." I know it seems a little vague, from the standpoint of wanting to know why, but it does address that differences do exist (record companies do things that don't make sense anyway). Should there be more info? Is there more info than that? Jimcripps (talk) 01:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I am blind. No, that seems to be adequate explanation. I was really trying to use the talk page to find out info (I know, Wikipedia isn't a forum) and thought we should add the info if it wasn't there, but it is, so nevermind. Thanks for clearing that up! --Will Mak 050389 02:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Re-edit

I'm going to completely re-edit this article in my sandbox. If anyone has any comments to make please feel free, once I've got it to a stage where its noticeably better I'll ask for input before copying it across. DSotM is at FAC now with a few minor issues, it shouldn't take me long to get WYWH to GA now I have the sources. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Almost ready now, if there are no further comments I'll copy it across in the next day or so. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone got the original Q magazines for these?

In 1998 Q readers voted Wish You Were Here the 34th greatest album of all time.^[1] In 2000 the same magazine placed it at number 43 in its list of the 100 Greatest British Albums Ever.^[2]

^ Q Readers All Time Top 100 Albums, rocklistmusic.co.uk, 1998, retrieved 2009-08-15
^ The 100 Greatest British Albums Ever, Q Magazine, hosted at rocklistmusic.co.uk, 2000, retrieved 2009-08-15 {{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Identified as part of the FAC. The source above may be unreliable, and may also be a copyright violation, so it would be better to use the magazines themselves. Hopefully somebody here will be able to fulfil this request and they can go back into the article at a later date. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I emailed the magazine on this matter and this is the reply:

"It was Q137, February 1998 and Q165 June 2000 for those Wish You Were Here placings. Thanks for the interest."

I'm therefore reinserting this text, and updating the citation accordingly. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Syd Barrett image

Did anybody nominate the Syd Barrett image for deletion or did an admin just come by and instantly delete it at their discretion? Did the image not pass fair use (it must have for the article to be features)? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't the only one, the main Pink Floyd article had its image deleted. I'd like to know the answer to this question also. Parrot of Doom 18:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

So would I. Graham Colm ^Talk 19:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that their deletion was unwarranted Parrot of Doom 19:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. I would have been really pissed if that wasn't left on the article, because it contributes so much to it. Glad to see it's here to stay. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

hatnote

I restored the removed hatnote, but thought I'd explain why in more detail here.

Wish You Were Here (album) redirects to this article (since the Mark Willis and Badfinger albums have by comparison, zero critical acclaim and are essentially unheard of). WP:NAMB states that when an unambiguous title redirects to an ambiguous one, that a link should be provided to the other uses. In this case, there are other albums that a user may have been expecting when they put in Wish You Were Here (album).

The other option is redirecting Wish You Were Here (album) to the disambiguation page. However, I'm fairly certain that 99 out of 100 times it is the Pink Floyd album being searched by users. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Q and Mojo

I removed an edit here, as it wouldn't stand in an FAC review. I wondered if anyone could tidy up the citation with dates, publisher details, pages, etc, and clarify the sentence (I'm uncertain what it means) so it can be replaced? Parrot of Doom 20:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

packaging

Didn't the album include a postcard of the diver at Mono Lake? That is not mentioned.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sejtam (talk • contribs) 07:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Cover art

Hasn't the cover art been parodied for various things over the years, like the fight scene in Anchorman? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

New material for article

here. Nov 8th release of another remaster. Heard Wish You Were here on the radio this afternoon, they restored Stephane Grappelli's violin. No mention of that in the source above, but I'm sure it can be found, will look tomorrow if no one else does. Tarc (talk) 05:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Concerts prior to album release

Evelyn1974 (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC) During the British winter tour of 1974 the band performed Shine On You Crazy Diamond as a single 20 minute piece. By the 1975 Nth American tour http://www.brain-damage.co.uk/concert-dates/1975-tour-dates-concerts.html beginning in Vancouver in April “Shine On” had been split into two sections as it was recorded on the album. The only other finished song on the tour was “Have a Cigar”.

There are many bootlegs recordings of the set with incomplete Wish You Were Here album, notably:

http://www.harvested.org/MAIN%20PAGE/CDR026-CruelButFair/CDR026INDEX.html

http://www.harvested.org/MAIN%20PAGE/CDR013-SteelBreeze/CDR013INDEX.html

Harvested matched old film with a bootleg recording of Pink Floyd in LA in 1975 performing ‘Have a Cigar” and parts of "Shine On": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsR9_kpcXXU

The Vancouver date (known as Azimuth Coordinator http://www.pf-roio.de/roio/roio-cd/azimuth_coordinator_1.cd.html ) and Boston June 18 1975 date are also notable bootleg recordings.

The Knebworth performance was the last date of the 1975 tour but not the premiere of the material and contained the same songs from Nth American tour.

The Knebworth concert was the album's premiere in Britain so I've altered the wording to reflect that. I've yet to find a source which mentions explicitly that the album was premiered elsewhere; until someone does, I think it best to generalise. Povey has some good detail but I'm wary of synthesising anything from his entries. Your links above constitute original research and aren't usable here. Parrot of Doom 21:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not strictly true to say the Knebworth concert was the album's premiere in Britain as the set list comprised: "Shine On Parts 1-5"; "Have a Cigar"; and "Shine On Parts 6-9". It is correct that this format of song order was close to the final album and the first and only time it had been played before the September release of the album.Evelyn1974 (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As a complete album played in concert with every song played in album order, it was played for the first time on the 1977 tour as the second set of the In the Flesh tour and premiered at Westfalenhalle, Dortmund, West Germany, 23 January 1977 http://www.brain-damage.co.uk/concert-dates/1977-tour-dates-concerts.html Evelyn1974 (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That is why the article says "much of". By the way, I doubt that brain-damage.co.uk is considered a reliable source for an FA. Parrot of Doom 09:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Brain Damage is one of the best and comprehensive Pink Floyd sites online. The test on this issue is song order of the bootlegs from that year and they have been provided by Harvested run by Ron Toon, a known Floyd expert, especially on all PF bootlegs, their origins, materials recorder sources etc. Evelyn1974 (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

If Ron Toon would care to write a book and have it published by a decent publishing house then I'm sure his findings would be acceptable here. Until then, I very much doubt his findings or Brain Damage would be considered suitable for an FA. Parrot of Doom 21:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"Shine On You Crazy Diamond" writing credits

Is it really necessarily to have all the different variations of Gilmour, Waters, and Wright's names for all the different parts? At the end of the day it's the same three songwriters for all parts, except part 9, which is solely Wright's, so surely with the exception of part 9 it only needs to be noted once who the composers were? I'm sure there's probably reason why they are listed differently for each part, but all the "music" section is interested in is who the composers were, no ranking required. Thoughts? Burbridge92 (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It's done this way to be consistent with other Floyd albums, which have writing credits that are more varied. Parrot of Doom 16:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

cover art, reissues

The explanation of the different cover art versions is a little confusing to me, as are the reissues explanation a little bit.

Re-recording of piano

I don't feel confident enough to do it myself, but it should've been mentioned somewhere that Rick Wright in 2007 re-recorded a piano part for the SACD mix at British Grove Studios. http://www.pinkfloydz.com/missingpiano.htm 62.102.167.136 (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Album artwork by

I have posted this query Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide#Album artwork by. Any and all comments please. Mlpearc (powwow) 16:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at The Dark Side of the Moon that has had "Album artwork by" longer than this article and no one's raised a query. yeepsi (Time for a chat?/OVAR 9000!) 16:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I see, hadn't noticed that before. I don't question the mention, just thought it would of already had a MOS protocol established. Something like I mentioned at the link above. I'm going to read up on the subject and see if it can be brought back up or if it's long dead, at this point I have no idea where it stands. There are some links to older discussions at that same link above.

see where it goes. Thanks for your reply. Mlpearc (powwow) 23:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The album credits Hipgnosis with the design, if we're to have such captions they should reflect the album credits. Parrot of Doom 08:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

A semicolon

In "Reception", it says "This contributed to a delay in the setup of the band's sound system; a pair of World War II Spitfire aircraft were due to fly over the crowd during their entrance, and the performance could not be delayed." I'm not convinced of the punctuation: a connections seems necessary to me--"...sound system, problematic since..." or something like that. Also, there was a delay but it could not be delayed? So, was it or wasn't it? Drmies (talk) 07:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a look at the sources later on and clarify that section. Parrot of Doom 10:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see now how that other sentence worked. Thanks for reverting. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to deal with this. Harper's behaviour meant the band couldn't spend as much time as they normally did setting their gear up. They couldn't delay their performance because of the Spitfires. Parrot of Doom 20:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Track listings of Wish You Were Here

I have tried countless times to fix the track listings of the Wish You Were Here album to the original September 1975 vinyl release. These efforts have been in vain as someone keeps reverting the listings to the December 1975 re-release. I would like to continue fixing the listing but now have received warnings from Wikipedia that I will be blocked if I make revisions without discussing. So please let me fix the album listing! LirkMclean (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Fix them on what basis? Parrot of Doom 20:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The songs "Have A Cigar" and "Welcome To The Machine" were excluded in the original release. They were added 2 months later. LirkMclean (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC) The original listings are Side 1: Shine On You Crazy Diamonds (Parts 1-5) Side 2: Shine On You Crazy Diamonds (Parts 6-9) Wish You Were Here. LirkMclean (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, at least a reference should be provided for that, since most of the releases (including the 1975 vinyl I have at home) feature the track listing currently shown at the article. If almost half the songs were originally excluded, there must a reference (physical or online) confirming the information. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 21:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I've just checked p346 of Glenn Povey's book and there's no mention of a vinyl edition sans those tracks. Parrot of Doom 08:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I have the original vinyl in my hands right now. There is no mention on the album sleeve or the actual record of the tracks "Have A Cigar" or "Welcome To The Machine". Victor Lopez, I don't really know what you want me to do. How can I prove that there are only three songs on Wish You Were Here. (btw: You are assuming that my editing has been vandalism. This is not true. I am trying to fix the listings based on my copy of the original vinyl. Please don't make accusations like that again. Also, you say I was 'warned' many times about editing the track listings. This is not true. The only warning I received was from you. And once I read the warning I stopped editing and went to this talk page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by LirkMclean (talk • contribs) 09:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC) And Parrot of Doom, I don't know who Glenn Povey is or what book he wrote. I doubt that has anything to do with this issue. And really? You think using the French translation of 'without' (sans) makes you look smarter? All it does is make you look arrogant. LirkMclean (talk) 09:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, don't be ridiculous -- sans is a perfectly useful term most English speakers know and understand. It's not like whilst, which is wholly inappropriate, and really does make its users look like pretentious douchebags in every single case. --Ben Culture (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

You could have a piece of green cheese and claim it's a moon rock for all I care. Until you cite your claims to a reliable source, they will be removed without discussion. Parrot of Doom 15:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Lirk, just as Parrot said, the only way this information will be added to this page is by supporting it with a source. What if I said all bass parts in this album were actually performed by Gilmour, and not Waters? Wouldn't you doubt it, and ask for a proof? And yes, you were indeed warned. Actually, if you take a look at your talk page, there was a warning just above mine, and many others in the history of this article. I assumed your edit was vandalism once I realized you just didn't care about discussing, so don't take it as an accusation, but as a more energetic way to stop this edit war. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 18:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I know this 'edit war' was awhile ago but I happen to have the vinyl of Wish You Were Here. I never did like Pink Floyd and I just found it while cleaning out my garage. It seems that LirkMcLean was right. There are only 3 tracks on the album (at least the one I own). I really don't know how that can be proven, but if two people say they have the album with only 3 tracks, I think it should at least be acknowledged that this alternate album does exist. I searched online for it but didn't find anything. I would suggest to Parrot of Doom and LirkMcLean (They seem to be the main two editors in this issue) to come to an agreement about the track listings. I would suggest that the listings that Parrot has put up remain as the main listing and the alternate listings be put in another section under something like "Rare 1975 vinyl edition with tracks Have a Cigar and Welcome to the Machine omitted" Drederek101 (talk) 06:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Take a photograph of your album, including the catalogue number (it will orbit the label), and we'll see. Parrot of Doom 08:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, seriously! This would be an interesting addition if there is such an edition, missing the two tracks. I have read a fair amount of Floyd books and articles and never heard of this, but yes, if two unrelated people have this rare edition, there must be more, and this needs looking into.

As long as I'm commenting . . . I disagree with classifying LirkMclean's edits as "vandalism" in any case, although certaintly a reliable source is needed for his substantial claim. I have seen the term "vandalism" thrown about a lot lately. I think there is a very narrow definition of the term, and plenty of other terms to use for undesirable editing, in all its various forms. And to say "Don't take it as an accusation" is completely unreasonable, and must be quite maddening on the receiving end.

--Ben Culture (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Resurgence in Drug Culture

I think a part of this article should include the massive resurgence in importance of this album especially from 2011-2012 as a result of the drug culture primarily in the United States. Previously to this the album was recognized as good by fans if not by the public at large however with the new base of people listening it has reached unexpected heights for reasons due to marijuana and or other factors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoruweiNoMori (talk • contribs) 09:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Can this resurgence be attributed to a reliable source or is it your own conclusion? Parrot of Doom 10:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I find your suggestion rather difficult to decipher. First of all, has there indeed been a truly "massive" resurgence in importance of the album? And what does it mean to say its "importance" has resurged? Perhaps you mean "popularity". You could look into its sales figures for 2010-2012 as compared to 2007-2009. Maybe the "resurgence" has not been so "massive", maybe it has -- you'll have to prove it. Then, you'll have to determine IF the resurgence is, indeed, "a result of the drug culture". I don't even know how you would go about proving that!

One thing I can assure you that you're incorrect about is that the album was not "recognized as good" by the general public prior to 2011, or 2001, or 1991, for that matter! I feel like you might be projecting the events of your own personal development onto the nation.

Over close to 40 years now, Wish You Were Here has been part of the personal lives of millions of individuals. In some cases, a very crucial part -- it's a powerful work of art! The same can be said about marijuana, a powerful drug. I don't wish to piss on your parade, but there's nothing new about getting high while listening to Pink Floyd. I was doing it in the 1980s, and it wasn't a new thing to do then!

No disrespect meant to you . . . .

--Ben Culture (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

So in other words, the answer to my question is no, yes. Parrot of Doom 07:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

BBC4 documentary on Wish You Were Here

This was broadcast last night, not sure if it was the first showing [1]: it might be of some use for the article (it doesn't seem to have been referenced in the article as far as I can see). Stronach (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Cover art explanation doesn't make sense

This is a case where even if it is referenced from a source, doesn't make it true. The article states "The two stuntmen changed positions, and the image was later reversed." because of a cross-wind. However, when you look at the album cover it is clear that the numbers on the buildings behind the actors are not in reverse. They read "20" and "17". This whole explanation becomes suspect due to this fact alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.136.205 (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Some interesting facts about the making of the album

Some interesting facts (not sure how to put these in the entry; source: Various books talking about the making of this album I have read over the years):

Pink Floyd had to re-record a large portion of the album because a studio engineer made an error causing (as I recall) unwanted drum sounds to be on all of the tracks of the original recording.

"Welcome to the Machine" was an interesting way of recording a song for Waters; he felt it was different to use just synthesizers and a multitrack to make a song. This, of course, became standard procedure with the new wave movement of the 1980s. Waters also felt that the synthesizer could not be effectively recorded on a tape deck at the time; a tape deck could not capture the full sound of a synthesizer. He was able to somewhat work around this limitation by directly connecting the synth to the tape deck, bypassing the mixing board.

Way too vague, guy, and unfortunately, you can't cite "various books I have read over the years" as a source.

Every bit you mention can be found in interviews with Waters and Gilmour in the Wish You Were Here songbook. No offense, but they're tired old things -- and most are in the article already anyway.

The bit about recording synths, you've got all screwed up, which is why "various books I have read over the years" doesn't cut it as a source. The quandary about recording synths was whether or not to use AMPLIFIERS, as they must do onstage. You could plug the synth into an amplifier, point a microphone at the amp, and plug the microphone into the mixing board -- OR, you could plug the synth directly into the mixing board. Bypassing the MIXING BOARD was never considered. They chose to plug the synth sraight into the board. They call it "direct injection". And this, incidentally, comes from the interview with Gilmour, not Waters. All good reasons not to use your memory as a source.

--Ben Culture (talk) 05:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Singing problems

Our article currently states:

[Roger Waters] struggled to record the vocals for "Have a Cigar", requiring several takes to perform an acceptable version. His problems stemmed in part from his limited vocal range, but also from the stresses placed upon his voice while recording the lead vocal of "Shine On".

I wouldn't argue with the generalization that Waters has vocal limitations (though not in range -- he has sung some incredibly high-pitched melodies; almost nobody has ever managed to duplicate his performance of the climax to "Hey You", for one example). But thanks to the "Experience" and "Immersion" editions, we've heard a version of "Have a Cigar" with Roger singing lead and Gilmour backing him up with a lower harmony. (Note: Lower harmonies have not worked well for Pink Floyd, neither on this song, nor when Rick Wright used to sing a lower harmony on "Time" with David Gilmour on the lead. However, higher-pitched harmonies have worked wonderfully on "Wish You Were Here" and "Comfortably Numb", among others.) Anyway, on this version, Roger's voice sounds surprisingly good to me. He hits all the notes correctly -- it's Gilmour who can't help with the chorus, and should have been mixed out of the verses! Roger's vocal, alone, would have been good enough for the final version, IMO. I hadn't realized Roy Harper was just singing a copy of what Waters had been doing all along; I imagined Harper had invented some of the melodic details.

So, this doesn't really seem like a case of "Oh, you know, Roger Waters, not really much of a singer" to me.

--Ben Culture (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Additional packaging of initial pressing

The initial pressing included a postcard insert with the "diver" image on one side, and the standard postcard markings on the back side. The edges are scalloped. I have one and could scan it if needed.

Tom McCool 22:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolzstuff (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the offer but it's a copyrighted image, and we're only allowed to use those in articles under exceptional circumstances. Parrot of Doom 07:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

In any regard, mention of the postcard insert may suffice. Tom McCool — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolzstuff (talk • contribs) 17:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Vocals

I deleted the part talking about Waters' "limited vocal range" because the person clearly didn't know what they were talking about, as Waters possesses a 5-octave range of B1-B♭6 which is higher than both David Gilmour and Roy Harper and a multitude of other male vocalists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.210.52 (talk) 02:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who's listened to Roger Waters singing cannot arrive at any other conclusion than he's not a particularly great singer. I've reverted your changes as they were based on personal preference rather than reliable sources. Parrot of Doom 10:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is you who is basing it on personal preference. You are referencing his tone, not his range. Stating that he has a limited vocal range is completely untrue. Tone and quality of the voice has nothing to do with range. http://therangeplace.forummotions.com/t15-roger-waters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.210.52 (talk) 10:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I base nothing in this article on personal preference. If you read the sources cited, you'd realise this. That said, your most recent change is fine. Parrot of Doom 10:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

"Crazy diamond"?

What is the reason for this section title? It doesn't summarize the section at all, it doesn't elaborate on the content the readers will be looking at (the visit of Syd Barrett to the studio), and for readers who are not fans of Pink Floyd and don't know that Syd Barrett is the eponymous "crazy diamond", it will be completely out of context. This is an encyclopedia article that should aim for accessibility (see WP:ACCESS#Headings: "Headings should be descriptive"), instead of trying to avoid "spoiling" the revelation that the mystery man who wandered into the studio was Barrett. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 23:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. A terrible section header. Meters (talk) 02:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The new section header is much better. -- Calidum 03:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

What this boils down to is that you prefer your version and think people should talk here if they object (while constantly reverting), which isn't how WP:BRD works. But I'm also forced to ask, who was visiting from Syd Barrett? Or do you mean "Visit by Syd Barrett"? Parrot of Doom 07:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Whatever, copyedit the section title from my version how you like. It still is infinitely better than "crazy diamond", which provides no value whatsoever to the reader. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone can say with any objectivity that one preference is better than another. And that's all this is...preference. My choice is based on the fact that this album refers heavily to Barrett's condition. I consider it a more fitting heading. But what I really object to is people who flounce in with poor English, decide they know what's best for an FA, and then proceed to edit war while complaining about how unfair it all is. Parrot of Doom 18:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Your choice of section title doesn't adequately introduce the content that follows to your reader, nor does the title summarize the section. Is "crazy diamond" referring simply to the song? The actual person to which the phrase is a reference? Barrett's triple-box set of the name? Some stone with mental illness? If you can honestly say it's a more fitting heading, that pretty much proves you aren't thinking of the uninformed reader who has no familiarity with the subject. Perhaps you ought to review Help:Section or MOS:HEAD. I still haven't heard one good reason for the section title "crazy diamond" - just because it is remnant from the article when it was passed as a featured article 5 years ago doesn't mean it can't be improved. Oh, and by the way... if your idea of a discussion is telling someone they have poor English (one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard, FYI), then this is going to be a pretty short discussion. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 05:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

More poor-quality English. I'm not going to repeat myself, especially in the face of nonsense like the above. Perhaps you ought to come up with a more convincing argument than "I think this is better and my opinion is more important than yours". Parrot of Doom 12:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

You're clearly grasping for straws now. There's nothing wrong with my English (are you that kind of person on the Internet that insults people because you think you're more fluent in a language?). And you still can't offer a reason why your version is better, other than the same one you are accusing me of. Sounds to me like someone thinks they own the article. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Packaging - two things

1. The last sentence of the overly long first para under the Packaging section states that the image (of the gentlemen shaking hands while one is on fire) was "later reversed". This is clearly not the case as it can be seen with even a cursory examination of the album itself or any of the myriad of photos of this event on the web that the building numbers are not reversed. The cited source has either been misunderstood or it is incorrect.

2. This section includes some discourse on the themes of the cover artwork but fails to mention that each of the 4 main photos reference one of the 4 classical Greek elements (fire, water, air, earth) and that the photos are each also seen to "effect" the album cover according to the element that they represent - cover photo is burned at photo's edge, water and sand leaking out through holes in the cover, photo being wafted in the breeze.

I would make the changes myself but find that these types of edits on FA's by unreg's IPs get reverted pretty quickly, seemingly without much thought. 106.68.167.65 (talk) 06:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Sales figure

The article quotes a figure of sales of 13 million copies as of 2004. Is there a more updated figure? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Packaging

Didn't the album package also contain a postcard of one of the pictures? I thought that deserves mention? ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sejtam (talk • contribs) 14:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd album). 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) 23:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd album). 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) 11:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd album). 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) 09:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

CE

Split overlong paras, joined overshort ones, rm dupe wikilinks, rm a few mad commas; auto edded. Keith-264 (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Packaging

The Packaging section could be improved by including a description of the four elements theme (fire/air/water/earth) in the artwork. See for example the German language Wikipedia page for Wish You Were Here, which does include such a description. Tom239 (talk) 06:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

While we cannot use the de.wikipedia.org text or write our own interpretation, we certainly can use the source cited there, an archived article from Mojo. If anyone would like to write it (including you, Tom239), have at it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

This is just written poorly

needs to be rewritten completely to fix awkward grammar poor or inappropriate word choices and awkward sentence structure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.219.125 (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

For example? Popcornduff (talk) 06:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

WishyouwerehereUSA.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

[1] Q Readers All Time Top 100 Albums, rocklistmusic.co.uk, 1998, retrieved 2009-08-15

[2] The 100 Greatest British Albums Ever, Q Magazine, hosted at rocklistmusic.co.uk, 2000, retrieved 2009-08-15 {{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[1]

[2]