Talk:Return of the Jedi (soundtrack)

Star Wars Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Wars, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Star Wars saga on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Star WarsWikipedia:WikiProject Star WarsTemplate:WikiProject Star WarsStar Wars articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Star Wars To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : Tag the talk pages of Star Wars-related articles with the {{WikiProject Star Wars}} banner. Update the classification of articles in Category:Unassessed Star Wars articles and Category:Unknown-importance Star Wars articles.
Citing sources : Jedi, Sith
Cleanup : Remove any In-universe information at Category:Star Wars articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction.
Copyedit : Under Early Life. Fix grammar of "towns (plural) predominantly Protestant technical college" to "town's (possessive)..."
Stubs : Category:Star Wars stubs
Other : * See the things to do page
- Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Image of the Album[edit]

I just wanted to point out, the image of the album as depicted is not the original soundtrack album, but the read-along album. I did not want to remove it as I don't have the image that should be there. Nicholasm79 00:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:SW6 cover.jpg[edit]

Image:SW6 cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cues Not On the Special Edition[edit]

I edited this section by removing one track from the list. As I said in another discussion page, the page says its not in the Special Edition but I know first-hand that the info is "flat-out wrong." In the Special Edition Linear Notes it gives the description of the cues used but I don't know how to cite it. Someone please help. (~~~~) 3:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Problems with the Special Edition Release[edit]

I haven't found an online source on this matter, but I own the 1993 and 1997 CD soundtrack releases. The 1993 version is hissy but the high end of the instruments is preserved, while the 1997 version has had the hiss removed along with the high end of the instruments. I guess which one prefers depends on your reaction to hiss. It's worth noting the difference between the releases in the article, though I wouldn't say either is problematical. Why not note it among the differences between the releases, which include different titles, different editing, different runtimes, and different tracks unique to each release? 71.205.222.97 (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with this although I've no idea why it is the case. The original is noticeably crisper and is far superior. --Terrorcide (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't just drop the highs, they dropped the highs and cranked the volume up. And the adjustments they made differ from track to track. For example, the main title is mostly the same as the first CD release, only with a different mix (more bass) and really over-driven volume wise. But the Approaching the Death Star has the highs dropped considerably compared to the original CD and the mids are too high as well. It ends up sounding muddy. Some tracks like Into the Death Star and the end of Tatooine Rendezvous (which was music intended to go with the appearance of Bib Fortuna but that was left out of the movie) are really, really bad. Almost no highs to speak of and the mids are cranked way up. It seems that they did this to remove excessive hiss that came with most of the unreleased music and some of the already released music, but, man, I feel like they really went too far with it. It makes me wonder from where they sourced the new unreleased stuff. Did it come off a cassette tape that got washed in someone's pants? I mean the unreleased music from the first SW movie isn't that bad! I would really love to know the story behind all this. Anyway, whether or not the presentation of the music is "problematic" depends on the listener, I guess. Personally as a sound expert, I was really disappointed and spent a lot of time cleaning up the return of the jedi equalization. (I did some cleanup of the Star Wars and Empire too. Their equalization was a bit sloppy as well.) I have it all worked out now and my version of the tracks is pretty much as they should have been. Yeah, there is a bit of hiss here and there, but it's not terribly noticeable unless you are really paying attention while listening on ipod earbuds or similar devices with strong highs. This is all factual information, but no one has officially documented it anywhere, so how do you incorporate it into wiki article without it being original research? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.49.116 (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Trilogy: The Original Soundtrack Anthology[edit]

I don't think the section on the "Star Wars Trilogy: The Original Soundtrack Anthology" belongs within this article. The Anthology Soundtrack contains music from the two preceding films, and is hard to find in this location.

If not its own article, perhaps we could move it to the WP article "Star Wars music"?

Thank you, ~J Startswithj (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi (soundtrack) → Return of the Jedi (soundtrack) – "Star Wars Episode VI" and "Return of the Jedi" are one and the same title. AdamDeanHall (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I can see why this should be done (since the article on the movie isn't titled, "Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi"). As long as it isn't too general like it would be for the New Hope soundtrack (see my rationale here), then there shouldn't be a problem. Twyfan714 (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Flubbed Takes[edit]

The article mentions flubbed takes appearing on the soundtrack cds. On what basis did the author make this judgement? I have listened to superstructure chase and it sounds like the film version to me. Yes, it's been edited to fit into the film better, but it sounds like the same take to me. Which other tracks contain flubs? Basically, what is the source of this information? 2601:640:C101:613:14DE:A8D1:C016:6CFF (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cue List Needs Citations[edit]

Just where exactly did the music cue list come from. It lacks any citations about the origins. It also needs to have the recording dates of each cue or just the overall dates before the list begins. And what is with all the uses of "(Possibly)"? Is this because the full title for these items are not known or is "Possibly" a part of the original titles? 2602:304:CE09:F040:38EC:988C:D71B:77DB (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]