Talk:No Surprises/Archive 1

Archive 1

The Video

I'm pretty sure that the video was filmed in real time and that Thom did spend nearly a minute under water. I saw an interview where Grant Gee said how difficult Thom found it to hold his breath for that long. It wouldn't have been difficult at all if he'd only been under water a few seconds and then had the footage slowed down. Meeting People is Easy does indeed show Thom under water with:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by 91.105.80.228 (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I know, I think people misinterpret the video showing the making - EVERYTHING is sped up, so you don't have to watch Thom try and hold it for a minute each time - he does, but you only see him trying for say 10 seconds, then failing. You can see his movements are sped up. If they did it by "speeding up the song", that makes no sense - why would they need to speed up the song? They'd just fill the tank.. wait 10 seconds, unfill it and start the song where they want him to mime from. Gradually speeding it and slowing it as shown in the 'making of' video would be much harder. 138.38.217.149 (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I know, I think people misinterpret the video showing the making - EVERYTHING is sped up, so you don't have to watch Thom try and hold it for a minute each time - he does, but you only see him trying for say 10 seconds, then failing. You can see his movements are sped up. If they did it by "speeding up the song", that makes no sense - why would they need to speed up the song? They'd just fill the tank.. wait 10 seconds, unfill it and start the song where they want him to mime from. Gradually speeding it and slowing it as shown in the 'making of' video would be much harder. 138.38.217.149 (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know who directed the video for this song? It's one of my favorites. ---> Grant Gee.

i've listened to this song numerous times and have consulted songmeanings.com, and i am 100% sure my changes to this article are correct. i said the song speaks against the fast pace of society, and it is NOT a love song. i made these changes once, and someone foolishly reverted it back to the old, incorrect statement. please check your sources before you change someone's helpful addition. if someone deletes it again, i will contact an administrator. thank you, --> the infinite

It talks about it being a love song (or a fractured version of one) on Green Plastic, and Green Plastic IS the place you go for Radiohead information.

Pinothyj (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Recording information?

From about 8:00 - 11:00, Thom discusses No Surprises in this recent interview with NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=13&prgDate=12-Jul-06) and talks about how they recorded the song at a faster speed and slowed down the recording to lay the vocals over it.

This was because No Surprises, when originally coined, was at a much faster tempo and later they decided to go with a slower tempo. I don't know the offical story but I'm sure it'll be on Green Plastic Somewhere.

Pinothyj (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)…

possible copyright infringement

this paragraph "Thom Yorke introduced the song to his bandmates and the members of R.E.M. on the R.E.M. Monster Tour. They were all gathered on 3 August 1995, in a dressing room in Oslo, Norway. The lyrics originally told the story of a man who has become fed up with the way things are working out for him and is having problems with his girlfriend. Two lines from this version are, "He was sick of her excuses / To not take off her dress when bleedin' in the bathroom." Preparing to record the song, Thom Yorke altered the lyrics, but the meaning remains essentially the same. Musically and lyrically more direct than most of Radiohead's work, this track was also seen to fit smoothly into an album as complex as OK Computer." could have been copied from another source. The Radiohead fan website Green Plastic has the exact same piece of text found here .

I have no idea who had it first but having a look at the history of this page I am leaning towards a copyright infringement on the author of this article.

please investigate, thank-you - Pinothyj 13:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)…

after looking at the link, i strongly agree with you; it is almost directly copied from it. perhaps someone should change the article, i might try sometime. --> the infiinite

Fair use rationale for Image:Radiohead - No Surprises (CD1).jpg

Image:Radiohead - No Surprises (CD1).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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 03:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Any Album cover unless specified otherwise IS fair use. I don't see why we have to bend over backwards in order to state the obvious.

Pinothyj (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)…

This issue has already been resolved. However, you can't just say that an image "is fair use" without stating the purpose of its use! It has been long established here that using an image of a CD cover to illustrate an article about that record is fair. Using the image for any other purpose probably isn't. Papa November (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Soft guitar riff?

I'm pretty sure that I read that it's a xylophone that plays the main riff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.141.108 (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, I've played a moderate amount of xylophone in my time. Willing to be disproven if you have a source though143.92.1.32 (talk) 04:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

a score of this song. it's glockenspliel AND the guitar most of the time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gXjM7ABslU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.226.24.26 (talk) 17:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense

What does "in a realistic attempt to be on the safe side of things" even mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefishnamedcarl (talk • contribs) 13:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Trivia

I removed the section about the song being played in an episode of House as it is far too trivial to be notable. Some songs, like "Don't Worry, Be Happy", have been used very extensively in dozens of films, TV shows, adverts and toys, so a section of prose (not just bullet points) about their use in popular culture is essential for the reader to fully understand the subject. On the other hand, "No Surprises" is very seldom used; occasional appearances in individual episodes of TV shows or in films aren't really significant enough. An "In popular culture" section misleads the reader by suggesting that the song has become notable for those reasons. Papa November (talk) 06:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Meaning?

The article does not explain which (non-existent?) surprises the title the title of the song refers to. Perhaps somebody could explain? --91.115.8.152 (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The No Surprises the protagonist of the song is discussing is that he hopes to complete his suicide before he is discovered. He talks of a "date with carbon monoxide". I love the song, but this is probably the most pro-suicide song released since "Don't Fear the Reaper." The article should really reflect on this element. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.85.19.175 (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)