Talk:More (soundtrack)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Cymbeline

Anyone know what 'Cymbaline' means? I tried to look it up (while hearing the song) but it has no seperate article

No, but see Cymbeline. Andy Mabbett 16:14, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Original label is the standard

Capitol Records is NOT the original label for this album. RedWolf 16:27, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Cirrus Minor

Listening closely to the CD, at the start of the track one of the band members mutters something. Anyone know what is being said and why? ~ Martyn Smith 9 June 2006

I just listened really closely... it's a count-in: Gilmour says "three, four" before he starts to play the acoustic guitar part. BotleySmith 00:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Vocals

I've done some changes in the list of lead vocalists. It's a well known fact and documented in the Pink Floyd Encyclopedia that "More" is the only album while Roger Waters was member of the band that Gilmour sings all lead vocals. Floyd(Norway) 00:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am afraid that this is not true, indeed Waters' distinctive voice can be heard in The Crying Song, please listen to it carefully, or am I wrong?--Dr. Who 21:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry but you are wrong. Not a single song is sung by Roger Waters on the album. He may have provided backing vocals - but i doubt it. - Ummagumma23 17:56 27 February 2007.

Im sorry but you are wrong. --Doktor Who 01:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter which of you is wrong if neither one can produce a verifiable citation to prove it. BotleySmith 15:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Just listen to it.Doktor Who 01:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Not good enough, I'm afraid. The only link provided on this article says nothing about who sang what. Check these guidelines before adding un-cited information. BotleySmith 03:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Article Introduction

This is, in Thomas' opinion, not one of Pink Floyd's best albums.

Who is this Thomas? Some renowned UK music critic? Someone who wrote a book on the band? The article never gives his full name nor a link to his article, and I gave a cursory glance to some other Pink Floyd articles without finding any mention of him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smooth Nick (talk • contribs) 02:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Fake stereo

Does anyone know why the first two tracks are in fake stereo, while the rest of the album is in real stereo? Just listen on headphones – the birdsong at the beginning of Cirrus Minor pans left-right, the main part of the song is in mono, while the organ outro has some stereo reverb added; The Nile Song has the high frequencies boosted in one channel and the low frequencies in the other. Were these demo recordings, or what? (The production also appears to be somewhat rougher on these two songs.) -- 87.165.205.245 (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I presume "The Nile Song" is indeed a demo or rehearsal take that was such a compelling performance, they felt it couldn't be topped. It sounds like it was performed as is, without overdubbing. I don't believe there are any keyboards on this track, which further suggests it might have been from a rehearsal. Maybe done while Wright was in the loo?

As for "Cirrus Minor", I've never noticed before that it is mostly mono. But remember that 1969 was before the days of 16 and 24 track recording, so tracks were used sparingly, often using a single mic to record a voice or instrument with no stereo presence, while a pair of mics would have been more typical when more tracks are available. I wonder if the organ in the second half was recorded separately from the first half, which could explain why it's more stereophonic. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think by 1969 there were few studios who didn't have 8-track recording, least of all the prestigious Abbey Road. By that time, even singles were usually offered in stereo as well as mono mixes.

I guess it's no use speculating, though… Maybe someone with insider knowledge stumbles upon this page. Do you think the fake stereo thing should be mentioned in the article, or should we wait for further evidence? -- 87.165.248.144 (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point. I was the person who put the bit about the birdsong in the article as I have the original HMV sound effect record. That is from 1961 (and therefore mono) which would explain why the opening birdsong is panned to give a stereo effect. Cirrus Minor and The Nile song are listed as March 1969 on the back of the original Relics album and Gilmour has said that they "wrote the whole thing (More) in eight days from start to finish". "More" was released in the July.I've always had it in mind that it was not recorded at Abbey Road but in France, perhaps at a more basic film studio, but I can't swear to it.NH78.147.100.19 (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm… the article mentions that the music on the album was re-recorded; so it's possible that the original recordings were done quickly somewhere in France, and later redone at Abbey Road because the recording quality wasn't up to scratch – and the first two tracks were kept either due to time constraints, or because they felt they couldn't improve on them. -- 87.165.196.191 (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

After the music was recorded for the film, some tracks were re-recorded for LP. I don't know the reason for the re-recording, but this seems to be a common practice in making soundtrack albums. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Page move

I'm getting ready to do the most-needed change in the Pink Floyd discography: rename the article "Music from the Film More" to "Soundtrack from the Film More", which is its real title. Currently (and for some time), the correct title appears in the article's opening sentence.

I realize I need to change everything that links to this page, but please be patient. There are over 100 articles that may need to be changed! It may take a few days' work. I will not be changing talk pages, or things that are not really articles, but everything else will change. Redirect pages will take care of anything left behind, and articles that haven't been fixed yet.

This is my first rename, so wish me luch! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

While fixing this up I noticed that the artwork used in the infobox has no Fair Use Rational, there is a FUR for use on Cymbaline but it does not appear to be used on that article. Keith D (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, just to be really pedantic we have three titles in the article and none of them match the title of the article page. For example, is this the soundtrack to of from? Stephenjh (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It's "from". The title of the article is the title used within the article, except for the second paragraph which deals with variations on the title. I believe all issues have been addressed. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Another page move

I have raised concerns about the recent page move for this article on the Pink Floyd WikiProject talk page. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Album Cover

If the name of the article is 'Soundtrack from the Film More' and not just 'More' then wouldn't it be better to use the album-cover from the UK version? http://static.rateyourmusic.com/album_images/1031.jpg --Neic 10-01-2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.89.10.120 (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why, but the image you linked is not displaying. Anyway, I recall the article used to show both UK and USA covers, then at some point someone added a modern CD edition cover (which is the one you see now), then others removed the other covers saying they were too similar, no need to have multiple covers that show the same artwork, and the CD cover shows up better (the UK cover in particular has very dull colours). That's the history of the situation. Personally I would prefer going back to UK and USA covers, or showing all three. The artwork may be the same, but the layout of text is different on each. But if we bring the others back, they may get deleted again, depending on how people interpret the fair use rules, and interpretation as to what "matters" in choosing which cover to show, if we only show one. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

More (Soundtrack) → Soundtrack from the Film More – This page was moved without prior discussion. I oppose the move since the album sleeve clearly states Soundtrack from the Film More, and I believe the goal of an encyclopedia should not be simplification (which was the reason given by the editor for the move), but correctness. 81.83.139.130 (talk) 11:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed and  Done. Simplification simply doesn't work for proper titles. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 12:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Two points: First, both More (Soundtrack) and Soundtrack from the Film More are incorrect per naming conventions. The title should be either More (soundtrack) or Soundtrack from the film More. Second, of the two, I think More (soundtrack) is better. Wikipedia titles often do not exactly reflect the affectations of whatever "official" title might be used, but more consistently reflect what reliable sources use. In this case, reliable sources refer to the album as More [1][2] (and many others) The claim that "album sleeve clearly states Soundtrack from the Film More" is I think false. The band's web site give the title as simply More and examination of the album cover image shows it contains the following text: original motion picture soundtrack MORE played and composed by the pink floyd. I see no indication that the title of the album is Soundtrack from the Film More. As such, it is clear that the album is called More and regular disambiguation methods should be used. Considering other articles in Category:English-language soundtracks, More (soundtrack) is the correct title. older ≠ wiser 14:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If only it were so simple - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Soundtrack from the Film wasn't a part of album title, but it was written in the back cover for description. The front cover image previously showed "original motion picture soundtrack More" in most markets. [3] Remastered version released by EMI records states More as official title. [4] --Pinkadelian (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The list and scans at Discogs.com contradict your claim - until 1995 the album was called "Soundtrack..." in all markets except the US, with the full title written on the front cover.--Krótki (talk) 10:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 05:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Soundtrack from the Film More → More (soundtrack) – The current title (or other alternate title) is not commonly used by sources. And the natural disambiguation is obscure or lesser known, and too precise. George Ho (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support Current title is incorrect and clumsy (why is Film with a capital F?) Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:More (soundtrack)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs) 15:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Review

To come.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Cheers for this - it's one of the few remaining Floyd albums that isn't at GA; it's a bit sparse for content but that's all I could find under the regular collection of sources. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Anything happening with this? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about the delay! I've just been excessively busy between family and job this December. :( Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

No problem, I've been the same. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Prose / grammar

• I made a couple edits already. Almost everything I'd change now is just personal preference, so I say it looks quite good on this front! The manual of style is also followed.
• The first paragraph of the "background" section is entirely in the past perfect tense. While this is certainly grammatically correct, I'm not sure it's the best choice stylistically. Generally, the past perfect tense will be used in reference to something, but that "something" has not yet been discussed in the "background" section and is not discussed at all in the paragraph. Maybe this should be changed to just the past tense?

I've copyedited this, and trimmed the prose down a bit. In general, if the tense is being forced into a sentence, it probably means it wants a rewrite to be simpler to understand. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I like this a lot better now. Thank you for your improvements! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• The article complies with the manual of style.

Sources

• What makes "superdeluxeedition.com" a reliable source?

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• There is no source for the track listing. I'm not particularly familiar with reviewing music articles (I mostly do natural sciences and math), but is this because the track listing can be effectively sourced to the vinyl itself?

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. As is often quoted from both the verifiability policy and the GA criteria, citations are only needed for claims challenged or likely to be challenged. Since the track listing can be gained by simply looking at the album cover, I don't believe an inline citation is necessary. It might be reasonable to request one if the information was controversial or questionable (eg: whether a hidden track should appear in the main listing or not), but that's not the case here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense to me! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• In the infobox, the genre is not sourced, and I cannot find "psychedelic rock" cited anywhere in the article either.

There was a source, but I think it got removed by accident. Anyway, fixed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for these changes! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• Other than these minor issues, excellent citation work!

Images

• The article uses one image, the cover of the album, in accordance with fair use.

Other

• Spot checks for plagiarism revealed  no plagiarism.
• I don't really like the "charts" section being off by itself with just a table and nothing else. Perhaps it should be merged with the "release and reception" section?

I did a spot check of other Pink Floyd albums, A Saucerful of Secrets, Ummagumma and Atom Heart Mother. All have either a "Charts" or "Charts and certifications" section, and all are assessed as GA status. So I would say a standalone section is at least consistent. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Overall

• Great work! This is an excellently-written article, and with just a very minor bit of polish, it can definitely be a GA. Honestly, it probably already meets GA criteria, but I do have a few questions and thoughts that I've listed above. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I've addressed the above issues (though some were by explaining why I didn't think there was an issue rather than fixing the article) - how does it look now to you? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

No worries! I don't expect every single one of my thoughts or suggestions to be acted upon. In many cases, they are simply thoughts about potential improvements that I'm unsure would actually improve the article. (I'm generally not an expert in the subject matter, and I don't want to enforce my writing style on the article.) The only real concerns I had were the sourcing points you addressed above.

Anyway, I believe this article now passes the good article criteria, so I will be promoting it shortly. Thank you for your work, and apologies again for the delay! Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)