Talk:Tommy (The Who album)/Archive 2

Requested move

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 move to Tommy (album) without prejudice to the proposal to split part of the article to create Tommy (rock opera). JPG-GR (talk) 03:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that "(album)" is the standard for articles on albums, I suggest this article be moved to Tommy (album).--Darknus823 (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Strong support. I was going to bring it up myself. indopug (talk) 00:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral The article is on more than just the album, however. I think that's why it resides here in the first place. — MusicMaker5376 17:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is supposed to be only about the album; the musical, film etc have their own articles. indopug (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. As mentioned above, despite your claim about what the article is "supposed to be about", the work exists independent of any particular album. It might be reasonable to spin off an article specifically about the original album (as has been done for the film and the broadway show) but there would still need to be a master article about the work itself (and there would also be the issues of covering the other versions noted here). But moving/renaming this as it is muddies the waters rather than clarifying them. Jgm (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Since Tommy was released first as an album, and subsequent works are based on that album, the "master" article would be this one. It'll work primarily as an album article, with briefs summaries of the musicals/films. So a separate master article is unnecessary. indopug (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

An album article wouldn't have a plot synopsis. — MusicMaker5376 18:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The songs of this album describe a continuous narrative (loosely), similar to albums such as The Wall and American Idiot. I can't speak for the content of the section in this article right now as it is mostly unreferenced and might significantly be the product of original research. indopug (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Neither of which have a plot synopsis as in this article -- my point being that this article should have a plot synopsis. A plot synopsis in the article would be describing the rock opera, not the album. — MusicMaker5376 18:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

A rock opera is a type of album. Tommy is the first album to be specifically billed as a "rock opera". Since this is a wiki which anybody can edit, it is possible that this article shouldn't have a plot section at all, esp. if not sufficiently covered in reliable sources. (I remember removing an entirely OR storyline from the American Idiot article.) Further: The Wall article, which is similar to this one, acts as the "master article", containing a summary of the film version while; however, it is about the album, the primary medium of The Wall. Its the exact same case with Tommy. indopug (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No, a rock opera is not a type of album. A rock opera is a rock opera. A recording containing a rock opera is an album. The work exists separately from its recording. If this article is on the work as a whole -- the rock opera itself -- it should remain titled as such. If this article is about The Who's recording of that rock opera, then it should be titled Tommy (album). It seems clear that the article is about the work as a whole. — MusicMaker5376 19:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Tommy is first-and-foremost an album by The Who. It was billed as a "rock opera", and subsequently films/musicals were derived from this (like how films are often based on novels). indopug (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

But this article is about the album. Notice the album reviews and chart positions. indopug (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

When first released, yes, Tommy was an album by The Who. At this point, it's not only that. It was billed as a rock opera, but has now fulfilled the full meaning of that term. Tommy is now a franchise. A property. Unlike a book turned into a film, the derivative works of Tommy -- the film, the musical -- are still rock operas themselves. A film based on a novel is not a novel. It's the difference between the work itself and the medium in which it is presented. This article is primarily about the work. While there is a section on the album, its reviews and charting, it's now just one aspect of a much larger concept. — MusicMaker5376 19:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

But any way you look at it, this article primarily discusses the album. It is abour the making, release, critical and commercial reception, and influence of the album. There isn't just a "section about the album". On the contrary, there are summarising sections devoted to other incarnations. indopug (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessarily true. All of those things are as easily applied to the work as a whole as the album itself. The Synopsis, the Analysis, and the Other Incarnations are describing the work itself as much as the album. The track listing is broken into how it appeared on the original album, but the names of the songs themselves describe the work. The Editions section is the only one describing the album exclusively. — MusicMaker5376 20:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Support It's an album, at the end of the day. It's cateorgized as such on Wikipedia and it's written about as an album in the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

SupportThe format this was released on is definitely classified as "album", despite what other people may call it.Happy quack (talk) 11:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Split: I agree with MusicMaker5376 above. The Tommy mythos has grown far beyond the original album. It became afterwards a movie, a musical, a ballet(!), and multiple actual pinball machines. Just like any major entertainment franchise is listed on Wikipedia, I think this article would do well to be split into a central page describing the over-arching story, and individual pages describing the separate forms this story has been realized in, whether that means moving this page, or keeping it and making Tommy (album) more than a redirect. Fractalchez (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Split, otherwise support The disambiguation of "(album)" is pretty standard. If you want an article on the rock opera and its performances, you could probably split them in two and have sufficient content in both. Note also that there is an ep named Tommy that might be split into Tommy (EP). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:35, 28 July 2008 (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.

Song pages

Is there any reason why there can't be pages for each individual song, besides the singles? They're definitely innovative and notable in the field of music as they were on one of the most acclaimed and groundbreaking albums of its time, and are important in telling the story of Tommy in its original format, the album (or rock opera).Happy quack (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

None of the songs were backed by reliable sources. They were entirely unreferenced and possibly original research. See also this AfD for "Smash the Mirror", where it is recommended to merge the non-singles into the album. indopug (talk) 11:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

First rock opera?

The idea that Tommy was the "first" rock opera is debatable. Some believe that the credit for that actually goes to The Pretty Things' S.F. Sorrow. I understand that it says "first to be classified as a rock opera," which perhaps is a way of clearing up that confusion. But could we clarify that better by perhaps including a note about S.F. Sorrow somewhere here? Beggarsbanquet (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Townshend actually started writing Tommy before the release of S.F. Sorrow. Who started writing what first is debatable. However, in my opinion neither one is the first true rock opera. The writer of the first rock opera ever is still Pete Townshend but it was not Tommy, but the mini-opera A Quick One While He's Away that came first, released two years before S.F. Sorrow and three years before Tommy. Oddfellowslocal151 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC).

The Roots of Tommy

The Roots of Tommy does not fit the definition of a "tribute album," as it consists entirely of material that existed prior to Tommy's release, and it should not be deleted on those grounds. rather, it is a source that asserts that certain songs inspired Tommy. this is a notable claim, and needs to be noted withoin the context of the claim, rather than asserting it as true, The best way is by including it in a section underneath the influences, as I have done. Unfortunately, this content dispute orphaned the image and got it speedy-deleted. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a promotional CD released by a magazine. Unless the album is noted by a number of sources independent to Uncut, it isn't notable enough to remain here. Even if it actually is notable, it only deserves a one-line mention in this article. As hinted by the first sentence, this article is about "Tommy ... the fourth album by the English rock band The Who", not a detailed discussion of the numerous albums/films/musicals associated with it. indopug (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It is 100% relevant when discussing the influences on the album, where I placed it. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe just have a one-line mention of it and then link it to its own page so as not to clutter up the main Tommy article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbamkmfdmdfmk (talk • contribs) 15:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the influences on the album, then fine. But why include a very detailed description of some commercially released CD? Besides, you still haven't added any independent sources that verifies the notability of this CD. indopug (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I support Indopug's removal of the content. As suggested... it is barely notable enough as a 1 line trivia blurb let alone the balloon of content that it is being given inside this article. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how Nirvana was able to influence the music in Tommy period since Tommy was 1969 and none of the guys in Nirvana was even born yet let alone the grunge movement even thought of. Eddieman45248 (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a different band. Nirvana was actually the name of a British prog rock group in the 1960s.

The "counter-argument to Barnes" isn't a counter-argument

Since Barnes argues that Tommy is closer to an oratorio or another musical form than an opera, the supposed counter-argument fails to engage him. It asserts that a) Tommy has several features in common with operas, and b) some companies have adapted it in a more conventional opera form. But since both of these things are true of oratorios (see the first lines of the entry for oratorio), it fails to present any evidence that Tommy is closer to an oratorio than an opera. I think this 'counter-argument' should be deleted on the grounds that an encyclopedia should adhere to basic standards of forensic logic. 75.56.141.40 (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

in pop culture?

Should there be an "in pop culture" section. There have to be a ton of movies and tv shows that mention or give a nod to Tommy. Just some examples: the opening credits in the Tenacious D movie are reminiscent of overture. In a rugrats episode, the main character (tommy) is woken up by his parents saying "tommy tommy tommy" in the same way as on the album. --67.86.120.246 (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

LP tracklisting

My version of the LP has a completely different tracklisting to that given here. Viz,

• A1 - Prologue-1945
• A2 - It's A Boy
• A3 - Bernie's Holiday Camp
• A4 - 1951-What About the Boy
• A5 - Amazing Journey
• A6 - Christmas
• A7 - Eyesight to the Blind
• B1 - Acid Queen
• B2 - Do You Think It's Alright (1)
• B3 - Cousin Kevin
• B4 - Do You Think It's Alright (2)
• B5 - Fiddle About
• B6 - Do You Think It's Alright (3)
• B7 - Sparks
• B8 - Extra, Extra, Extra
• B9 - Pinball Wizard
• C1 - Champagne
• C2 - There's a Doctor
• C3 - Go to the Mirror
• C4 - Tommy Can You Hear Me
• C5 - Smash The Mirror
• C6 - I'm Free
• C7 - Mother and Son
• C8 - Sensation
• D1 - Miracle Cure
• D2 - Sally Simpson
• D3 - Welcome
• D4 - TV Studio
• D5 - Tommy's Holiday Camp
• D6 - We're Not Gonna Take It
• D7 - Listening to You-See Me Feel Me

Danceswithzerglings (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That's the movie soundtrack, not the original album. Friginator (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Aha, that explains it. The soundtrack record is here: Tommy_(film)#Soundtrack_album. So Tommy's father is British Army in the album but RAF in the movie? Danceswithzerglings (talk) 10:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The Hawker and The Gypsy

I'm unsure about the character list. It lists The Hawker as a pimp who sells the services of "The Acid Queen." This is true in the case of the broadway musical based on the album, but I'm not sure about the original album, as the two songs are separated by a few tracks. As the story in the original album is rather loose, I think it'd do best not to incorporate details from subsequent adaptations in the article about the original album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.189.93 (talk) 08:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Synopsis

I am unhappy with the synopsis because the lyrics are meant for interpretation. Could there be citations of the lyrics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.219.22 (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)