Wikipedia

Talk:OK Computer/Archive 2

< Talk:OK Computer
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Popcornduff in topic Sales
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Genre

Latest comment: 13 years ago30 comments5 people in discussion

I think that using an all-encompassing term like alternative rock for this record simply because it is easy to do so is somewhat lazy and inaccurate. Ok Computer is clearly the point at which Radiohead started transitioning into the experimental and unconventional band it is today. I think that Rolling Stone's characterization at the time of this record as art rock is a very strong validation of the point I'm trying to make. That being the case, I think it's more accurate to include something beyond just 'alternative rock,' seeing as how it's being cited from one the world's most popular music magazines.Mlillybaltimore (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you think: you need to provide a reliable source for any change to an established infobox or article. Radiopathy •talk• 16:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you not read the Rolling Stone review? It very clearly describes the record as 'an art rock tour de force.' Rolling Stone meets Wikipedia's standards for reliability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlillybaltimore (talk • contribs) 16:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Rolling Stone describing it as art rock isn't good enough. For the record, Christgau calls it that too, and I'm sure a number of other critics do. In the case of RS and Christgau, they call it art rock and move on without describing how the album actually is art rock. One or two or ten publications calling Radiohead art rock isn't good enough, especially if they don't go into detail defending their assertion, because it's opinion rather than a description of the music. And that opinion will never be backed up in opinion because
"Art rock" as a defineable genre is not the same as "rock that is artistic", even though the term is loosely used to mean that by lazy critics (and the two sources I mentioned are surely using it in this sense). Art rock as a genre is a specific sound that is associated with 70s artists like Bowie and Roxy Music and genres like of post-punk and synth-pop. Radiohead does not fit well into any of those. Even in the second, lazier definition of art rock ("rock that is artistic"), which can be loosely equated with "progressive rock", Radiohead does not fit the bill.
The biggest issue is, for every critic that can be found that calls it "art rock" (and they usually use it in the very loose sense rather than the strict, descriptive sense that would be required to tag it as such) there are just as many or more disputing it. In fact, one of the most prominent critical trends about OK Computer is bickering over whether it counts as prog or art or whatever, or whether this is a mischaracterization. The controversy is mentioned a few times in the article, but the consensus is just not strong enough to call it art rock.
There's a very long section in the article detailing exactly how OK Computer sounds. Look, rock genres are really weird and nonspecific and just generally very bad descriptors. The genre box is good enough with a broad one like Alternative rock. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 01:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Just because you don't agree with the characterization doesn't mean that you can randomly delete sources considered reliable by wikipedia's standards. If you want to delete a reliable source, you need to at least replace it with a different reliable source. But the bottom line is that removing a citation from one of the biggest and most respected music journalism publications in the world just because you personally disagree with it is borderline vandalism. If you want to include a tenuous genre characterization, then find a source to back it up and put it on the page...don't randomly delete a perfectly acceptable citation. Mlillybaltimore (talk) 03:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I reverted it "Just because I don't agree with the characterization". It wasn't random, I gave very good points here drawing from the overall reception to the album and what the definition of art rock is. If you'd like to respond to any of these points then go ahead. And I actually don't "want to include a tenuous genre characterization", that's the point. I don't want to add another genre, I want to strip away one that is a weak descriptor that critics and the band have actively disputed. Calling OK Computer an art rock album is tenuous at best. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 03:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree with Brandt. "Art rock" can't be suitably affixed to this album, and a passing mention in a Rolling Stone review is not sufficient to change that. The citation is not "perfectly acceptable" because it relies on a passing phrase that can't even be specifically tied to the genre. A source describing why it's art rock in the genre sense would work (even then, that might be a minority viewpoint and has to be weighted accordingly). WesleyDodds (talk) 05:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

In a case like this where there is clearly a dispute regarding a genre, the easiest and most neutral way to resolve it is for people to simply provide a citation from a reliable third party source. I'll propose the following compromise: If either of you can find a reliable third party source that calls this record alternative rock, that also somehow is more acceptable to you than a review from one of the world's biggest music magazines (which you will have to explain), then please post it and I will cease adding the Rolling Stone article. But if you take the time to review Wikipedia's own guidelines, you'll see that my citation meets those guidelines. You're relying on conventional, popular OPINION as the basis for the argument you're making, whereas I'm providing a cited reference. Asking that you provide at least one single source that meets your own standards should not be too much to ask. Find the source and I will let this go.Mlillybaltimore (talk) 14:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The review at Allmusic characterises the album as * Alternative Pop/Rock, Britpop, Alternative/Indie Rock, Indie Electronic. Radiopathy •talk• 14:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Those are all listed under 'style,' not 'genre.' Alternative rock is also not listed in the text of the review. I don't know where you stand on the merits of allmusic.com vs. Rolling Stone, but the discussion would need to take place as to why one is more reliable than the other. Rolling Stone album reviews are cited on numerous Wikipedia pages, as are allmusic.comMlillybaltimore (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

We should just list a broad genre of 'Rock' and be done with it. Radiopathy •talk• 15:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. Wesley? Brandt? Mlillybaltimore (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No, Radiohead simply is an alternative rock band and OK Computer is an alternative rock album. I think Kid A and afterwards are disputable, but OK Computer still squarely falls in the alternative category. OK Computer is frequently mentioned as such in histories of alternative rock, and biographies of Radiohead describe OK Computer as an alternative album. It was nominated for and won the Grammy for Best Alternative Music Performance. Rock is too vague and removes them from the cultural movement and genre with which the album was and is widely associated. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
The whole point of Wikipedia is to provide verifiable and reliable information within the scope of an article. Since this has obviously developed into a point of contention, I'm simply asking that you provide a source calling the album alternative rock that is more definitive than a piece in Rolling Stone. You saying that 'Radiohead is simply and alternative rock band,' and not providing any sort of citation is not how Wikipedia works. The Grammy award is meaningless...Jethro Tull anyone? Like I said before, find and post the source and I'll leave this alone. It amazes me that it's taken this long for someone to post a reliable source on this.Mlillybaltimore (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
There is no contention. Anyone remotely familiar with the subject will know that this could never be called Rock. All Radiohead albums articles should include (especially this one) Alt Rock. Electronic music should be included in later albums such as Kid A and TKOL. Snoop God (talk) 09:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

As I've said multiple times, the way Wikipedia works is that you have to provide verifiable and reliable citations. You don't just lazily throw up an unverified and uncited claim just because that is easier to do so and because it is your subjective opinion. If it's so painfully obvious that this record is in the genre alternative rock, it shouldn't be hard to find a reliable source to include with this article. Again, all someone has to do is cite a verifiable source that meets Wikipedia's standards for reliability, and this matter can be put to rest.Mlillybaltimore (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

References are not usually required in infoboxes. Also, adding a bunch of references about genre is subjective and pointless! You could Google "Radiohead, R+B" and find someone who thinks the band are a modern day version of Marvin Gaye. Snoop God (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Adding a reference that meets Wikipedia's standards is not subjective. And if it is, it is certainly much less objective than demanding that something remain in an article with no citation at all. This whole thing started because I cited a review from Rolling Stone characterizing the album as art rock that some people took issue with, and insisted on reverting the infobox to alternative rock only, but with absolutely no verifiable or reliable sources to go along with it (which goes runs completely counter to Wikipedia's guidelines). I still stand by my argument that if it is so important to some parties that art rock goes, and alternative rock stays, there needs to be at least one citation to go along with it. I'm perfectly happy leaving both though if everyone can agree on it. I think a fair trade is that the majority alternative rock crowd gets to leave that genre in the infobox uncited, and the minority art rock crowd gets to leave the Rolling Stone review as an acceptable part of the article.Mlillybaltimore (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

What WesleyDodds said earlier about the Rolling Stone source still applies: "The citation is not 'perfectly acceptable' because it relies on a passing phrase that can't even be specifically tied to the genre." --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Well than find a source calling the record alternative rock that is perfectly acceptable based on those standards. If you can't do that, then this whole argument is pointless.Mlillybaltimore (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, you (or anyone) needs to find a source that exceeds the threshold for which the Rolling Stone article was deleted if you insist on including alternative rock at the expense of art rock. I'm begging any of the people who are so adamant about the inclusion of alternative rock to find a source that rises above the level of reliability that the Rolling Stone review did not meet. If Rolling Stone is not good enough, show me something that is. If no one can meet this most simple of requests, I humbly beg of you to stop beating a dead horse and just let both genre tags stay as is.Mlillybaltimore (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, here goes:

I could go on. Again, this is a fact that can be taken for granted. I know you say Wikipedia doesn't work that way, and to a degree you're correct. However, this is more or less like someone on George Washington's page calling him a king because they found a reliable source that says something like, say, "George Washington acted more like a king then a president", then insisting on other editors to find sources that show Washington was a president. The Rolling Stone source, though reliable, is problematic. Numerous, countless, sources can be found to show OK Computer is alternative rock. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 00:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

That's awesome, but only one of those sources meets Wikipedia's standards for being verifiable, and you offer nothing in the way of saying why The Onion is a more valid source than Rolling Stone. The Onion is not primarily a music review and journalism publication; Rolling Stone is. The Allmusic entry lists the style of OK Computer as alternative rock, not the genre. There's a link right at the bottom of this box that shows what counts as being verifiable or not, and only the last thing that you list qualifies as meeting those standards within the scope of that description. Again, even though some of you don't agree with the Rolling Stone piece doesn't mean that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards. Let's leave both and be done with it.Mlillybaltimore (talk) 01:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok...here's the thing about that Onion piece...It doesn't directly call Radiohead or OK Computer alternative rock at any point in the article. It asks about the alternative nation in the title of the article, but in NO WAY does it even approach the threshold of directly associating the album OK Computer as being in the genre of alternative rock. The Rolling Stone piece is very clear in its association; this Onion piece is not. Like I said multiple times before, I'm fine leaving an unverifiable genre tag of alternative rock in the infobox if people can just agree to leave the Rolling Stone piece alone. It doesn't matter what you think...Wikipedia has very clear standards and they need to be adhered to. Let's just leave both and call it a day.Mlillybaltimore (talk) 01:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

And don't say that this or that 'is more or less like' anything. Wikipedia has very clear standards when it comes to verifiable and reliable sources. Nothing you listed above meets that threshold. In the analogy you used above, it would be extremely easy to find a reliable and verifiable source calling Washington a president. Nothing to date has been cited calling OK Computer alternative rock that meets Wikipedia's standards. Mlillybaltimore (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this has gone on long enough. The problems with using Rolling Stone source have been made clear and you haven't responded in any meaningful way to the criticisms. Calling that an "Onion" piece is not accurate, as the AV Club is considered reliable as a source of cultural commentary and is not a satirical publication. In response to "The Rolling Stone piece is very clear in its association; this Onion piece is not." The Rolling Stone piece makes a passing reference, while the AV Club series makes extensive reference to OK Computer in the historical context of alternative rock.
It's silly how long this has gone on. The burden of proof in this case is on you, and you've distracted from the issue that "art rock" is a controversial tag, not alternative rock. Calling OK Computer alternative rock is self-evident and uncontroversial and can be backed up by numerous sources, and has been done. You have not responded meaningfully to problems with the Rolling Stone source (i.e. that it's a tossed-off reference in an opinion piece), which make it unusable for this purpose as Snoop God, WesleyDodds, and myself have discussed above. I'm going to remove art rock from the infobox. Art rock should not be put back in unless you can find a better source. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The AV Club is part of the Onion, don't pretend that it is not. And in any case, that source never calls the album alternative rock, and YOU have not made the case that Rolling Stone is a less reliable source than what you provided. Tell me the exact quotation where it does. You still have not provided a verifiable and reliable source backing up your assertion, where as I have. Include a source that meets Wikipedia's standards.Mlillybaltimore (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It has NOT been backed up by reliable and verifiable sources. You need to provide citations that meet Wikipedia's standards to have a leg to stand on here.Mlillybaltimore (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

If you believe other people agree with you, try to attain consensus here on the talk page. If you persist in reverting and waring you will be blocked, again. Thanks. Snoop God (talk) 09:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

"The AV Club is part of the Onion, don't pretend that it is not." Wrong, and it makes me feel like you're trolling.

"YOU have not made the case that Rolling Stone is a less reliable source than what you provided." Wrong. This is why I keep reiterating the problem with the RS source that you have not addressed. So, I quote again: What WesleyDodds said earlier about the Rolling Stone source still applies: "The citation is not 'perfectly acceptable' because it relies on a passing phrase that can't even be specifically tied to the genre." You still have not responded to that. Your actions have become borderline disruptive and I would strongly advise that you do not revert the page again. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

This is an absolutely flawless article. I see nothing against it to get around to making it an FA candidate. Sir Richardson (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

It does seem very close, and it would be fantastic if this important article could make it. Brandt Luke Zorn, I see that you are the main editor and that you have previously taken music articles to FA status. Have you considered taking this one all the way? --Lobo (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and it is very close. The only thing I really think it needs is an expansion of "Tracks 7-12" to match "Tracks 1-6", which I will find time for in the next two weeks. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
That's great news! Also make sure the references are perfectly formatted. There are quite a few inconsistencies right now, which FAC does not like at all. It might be a good idea to send it through peer review first, as well, just to iron out any potential problems before you get there. You want to be as prepared as possible. --Lobo (talk) 07:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Could you help iron out some of those inconsistencies and whatever other formatting/wording problems? I'd really appreciate it. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 08:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah I guess so. It's a fairly tedious job but OK Computer means a lot to me (as do Radiohead in general) so I'll do what I can to help get the page promoted. I'll wait until you've finished adding content though, because otherwise we may end up with inconsistencies again. --Lobo (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Let Down, again.

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
This song has charted in multiple lists; I think it is notable enough to have its own article. Billboard No. 29 for 8 weeks in Alternative Songs. Tokio Hot 100: No. 21. RAM Top 50: No. 30. CMJ Commercial Alternative Cuts: No. 12. One of a Billboard editors personal favorites of the year. Dave Grohl listed it as the song of the year. Additionally, it was intended to be the first single off of OKC. Named 106 in NME's top 150 songs of the last 15 years here. Various Discogs info. Promotional single artwork one and two. I am fairly certain that we can generate an article, and there would be no issue of notability. Any input? I plan to get this started in the next day or so. - Theornamentalist (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I wish they'd stop deleting Radiohead articles, it makes Radiohead look bad by saying "this song that's on a best of charted isn't important enough to have an article." I mean I'm still annoyed that my You and Whose Army article was deleted... Why can't we add information and not destroy it? If I was were you I'd try bringing it back, but don't be surprised if they pointless picky admins delete it. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 04:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not the job of a Wikipedia editor to make Radiohead look good. The job is to be picky. Content that isn't notable or properly cited will be removed. Them's the rules. Popcornduff (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Lucky Should Be Listed With The Other Singles

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

On The Bends article "Bones" and "The Bends" were shown as promotional singles and Lucky was one as well so why isn't it listed on the OK Computer singles lists. It was more popular than "Bones" and "The Bends" and it had a music video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Mrmoustache14 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Promotional singles shouldn't be there. (In addition, the music video was for its earlier release as part of The Help Album, well before OK Computer.) --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL as elsewhere

Latest comment: 10 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion

WP is an encyclopedia, not a fansite, and we have guidelines against this sort of thing (see above), which is why I removed it. "In subsequent years, the album has been frequently cited by critics as one of the greatest albums ever recorded" - what does it mean? How frequently? Cited by which critics? Greatest album ever recorded, including every jazz, black metal and grime album? Do you know how many pages make that claim about "described/cited as one of the best albums ever" and how it easy it is to find one or two reviews or listener polls where a hyperventilating music critic or random self-selecting electorate has claimed as much for most albums at one time or other? Simply saying it is reflected in the body, or that we're not explicitly claiming it is one of the greatest albums, doesn't cut it. You're lucky the equally cringe-worthy "predicted the album was epochal" was not struck out as well. There's plenty of note for the album's reputation without having this hyperbole. N-HH talk/edits 09:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you completely that Wikipedia's not a fansite and that hyperbole has no place, and I'm well aware of the policies in place. But I think that what's in the lead is fully compliant. In your post and edit summary, you seem to be indicting music journalism more than the article itself. Your big point seems to be that the phrasing "greatest ever" is over-saturated, but that seems to be further argument for why it should be used in the article. Wikipedia should accurately describe the state of reliable criticism, and just because music journalism has an obvious tendency for bluster and over-enthusiasm doesn't mean that we should adjust against critical inflation. "Greatest album ever recorded, including every jazz, black metal and grime album?" Again, sorry that music reviewers with publishers word it that way, but this reflects the sources, which is what we're supposed to do here.
You say that many other pages pull "one or two reviews or listener polls", but uh, this isn't one of those albums. Bring that up on articles where that kind of thing occurs, but this is not one of those. OK Computer's critical reputation is about as established as most of The Beatles' best albums at this point in time. I think the lead accurately sums up the body, and this is its function. "Simply saying it is reflected in the body ... doesn't cut it." Er, why not? That is precisely the lead's function. WP:LEAD says "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points." How does this not do that? --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
The point is how you summarise that info. We don't have to use language like "one of the greatest albums ever recorded" just because the music press might. Even if technically being attributed to said music press, that phrasing still has a force when plonked in the lead like that. N-HH talk/edits 16:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
For me, that's why the key to the whole thing really is that we're not saying it's the one of the best, we're saying that critics say it's one of the best. You're saying that we're not in a position to call the greatest album ever, and I agree—we're not. We're not really in a position to make any kind of original judgment calls about it one way or another. It does put the album in a rather exceptional place, but one that it (and a handful of others) are uniquely suited to occupy. I agree that there are cases in which an article lends its subject matter undue weight, but this really is an album that has had exceptional reception, both contemporary and retrospective, and it's completely justified to make note of that in the lead. We'd be remiss if we skimped on mentioning its extraordinary acclaim the same way Nevermind, Beethoven's Ninth, William Shakespeare or The Wire would be in regards to their respective fields. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, I don't agree that those entries need too much hyperbole either, whether attributed or not. Obviously some works of art have more acclaim and a more enduring reputation than others. Again, it's how you reflect and express that. More specifically here, the claim should be limited to rock albums. Also, why do we have the double-emphasis and redundant "ever recorded"? Why can't we just say "features in critic and reader polls .." which is factual, without the explicit claims about it being cited as one of the "greatest ever recorded"? N-HH talk/edits 09:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I reworded it a bit just now. I took out the "was epochal" line (didn't think it was out-of-line necessarily, but was awkwardly worded). And the other sentence now reads "In subsequent years, the album has been frequently cited by listeners, critics and musicians as one of the greatest albums of its time." I agree with what you're getting at, but I'm not as comfortable making that "rock albums", because in album lists it's usually weighted against albums that are not just "rock" but also hip hop, r&b, electronic, jazz, folk, pop, etc. etc., which is to say that it's usually not heralded exclusively for its context in rock music, but within popular music broadly. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Cheers. I agree it's not a simple rock record and music coverage these days is more eclectic anyway, so that would probably not be a precise qualification, but although it is measured against other genres as listed, equally we are basically talking about contexts where indie/alternative music has precedence. Critics from MixMag and Classical Music World are unlikely to rate it so highly. That said, any more quibbling would be down at a petty level and it's definitely in my eyes an improvement and "of its time" helps too with the context argument, I think. N-HH talk/edits 09:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
OK cool, I'm glad we could reach a compromise on this. I like the wording better now, so thanks for that. You're definitely fighting the good fight to cut down on hyperbole in music articles, so cheers! --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Essentially agree that the "rock" disclamer is unnessary. The word Album covers it. Ceoil (talk) 10:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Not that it's necessarily considered to be a reliable source by Wiki, but Acclaimed Music's aggregate (which pointly only considered non-genre-specific critics' lists by notable publishers) does indeed rank OK Computer as one of the most acclaimed albums of all time, of any genre. Offhand, I believe it's in the top 20. The acclaim for this album isn't limited to alt/indie or even rock circles. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't thing it's too "fan-site" at all to add the Acclaimed Music aggregate to the list. There's a page for it here, which means it obviously passes on notability. In addition, it does not count the lists of any fan or reader who hasn't studied much rock history. Relying on AM for an idea of the most well-received albums is relying on a highly reliable source. Can we add that back? Novice listeners who don't want to look at all these different lists at once will then have a good idea of how well-received it is by the professionals. AndrewOne (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Still there

Sorry, but "OK Computer received considerable acclaim upon release. Prominent British and American rock critics predicted the album would have far-reaching cultural impact. In subsequent years, the album has been cited by listeners, critics, and musicians as one of the greatest albums of all time" is all a bit hyperbolic, per the above comments. Not least because if one actually goes into the body, actually there are plenty of critical views cited. Equally, I can't see anything about "far reaching cultural impact". And as for "cited by ..", one has to ask which "listeners, critics, and musicians" as well as noting that most of the polls are for albums "of the 1990s" not "of all time". Even allowing for the transience of such things, and the fact that WP is an encyclopedia not a piece of music journalism, the only quoted "of all time" poll, the Rolling Stone 2003 poll, has it down at no 162. Could we look at toning this down or qualifying it again, at least a bit? We're going to reach a point where every album's WP page tells us that it is "critically lauded", "a landmark" or "the greatest ever". If you look hard enough in the archives of music journalism you can find justification for that kind of description for anything. N-HH talk/edits 10:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The "greatest albums of all time" bit was changed to that by an anon yesterday, so I've at least reverted that part back. -- I need a name (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks. When I saw the text yesterday, I must have had a blind spot when quickly looking at the edit history (even though it had only just been changed). "Its time" or possibly "the 1990s" seems better to me. I'm still not sure about "listeners" though and I'll wait to see if anyone else says anything about the other issues. N-HH talk/edits 12:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in OK Computer

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of OK Computer's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "allmusic":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Citations

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The citations for the Platinum in Argentina and the Gold in Norway are missing and should be replaced. --82.51.32.39 (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Track listing

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If someone could get the entire track listing with the Special Collectors Collection boxes back like before the modification of indopug. I don't understand the reason of indopug for removing the Special Collectors Collection boxes but these were pretty useful to get the original stuff from OK Computer. I'm not a professional to modify Wikipedia stuff (and they ask to get them back manually) so if someone more talented than me could get these 2 boxes back like before the modification of indopug, it would be nice... — Preceding unsigned comment added by MX140 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Now preserved by US Library of Congress

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Along with 25 other recordings, OK Computer has now been preserved by the LoC. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Addressing various changes to the lead: genre, release date, etc.

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I wanted to take the space here to lay out a comprehensive rationale for keeping certain parts of the lead unchanged, in light of this edit and past similar revisions by User:Tjdrum2000, and the possibility of present and future disputes along these points. A lot is written here, and it is my wish that all editors refer to what I've written here before making certain changes to the lead, in consideration of this article's featured status and high-profile subject matter.

First, I want to say to User:Tjdrum2000 that I take your edits to be in good faith. I'm not reverting your edits out of any sense of ownership of the page or belief that you aren't making earnest, thoughtful attempts to improve the article. That said, this is a high-profile featured article which has undergone a long, multi-tiered process of scrutiny in drafting. I am also aware that there has been some prior discussion cautioning certain edits you've made to Radiohead-related articles. However, I have written this not just to respond to the specific changes you have made, but to state principles that should help you or anyone else considering certain kinds of changes to this article or any album article. There is a robust consensus underlying the current draft, and so many kinds of changes should require discussion and consensus. This is especially true of the lead, which is the summary and first part of the page that any reader sees.

Sources in the lead
First, I want to talk about the fact that you're adding sources to the lead — not the quality of the sources themselves, which are generally negligible, something I will discuss further as I move through other issues. Rather, this is about the inclusion of sources in the lead, period. Generally, there is a long and respected precedent that footnotes are not required in the lead, or in infoboxes, so long as the information there is sourced elsewhere in the article. This is for a variety of reasons that are mostly stylistic, but it's not all about aesthetics: because the lead is a summary, it is sometimes difficult to identify a single source that speaks to a salient point treated in-depth in the article's body. It's a perfectly legitimate choice, and the consensus is that this page will favor that approach. Therefore, introducing any changes to the lead is premised on the idea that whatever changes you're made are supported elsewhere in the article. This is a way to maintain stability and consistency, to ensure that the lead represents what follows. The fact of bringing sources into the lead to dispute facts is itself inappropriate; further, the sources you've used are often improperly formatted, duplicative of sources used below, and marginal, unreliable, or otherwise inappropriate for the specific purposes you're introducing.
Genre in the lead and infobox, with in-depth evaluation of "experimental rock" as a label

I'm thinking here of genre in particular. The genre status of OK Computer, or many albums that take an innovative approach, is usually the subject of intense debate. Genre is not a categorical box, in or out, but a useful metaphor that develops through discussion of music in the aftermath of its release. Therefore, a few sources are not sufficient to say some release is, or is not, part of a genre. There is ample discussion of the genre debates around this album in the article. Alternative rock and art rock are broad and uncontroversial enough to serve as generic (ah, see? generic, genre) descriptors at the top. Progressive rock is often discussed in relation to this album, but the way it is discussed is fraught with hedging, comparison, etc., not simple and pat labeling, not to mention contrary commentary by the band, so it's an example of something worth treating in-depth as a facet of critical commentary but not in the lead or infobox.

I would similarly dispute your inclusion of "experimental rock," which is a narrow tendency in rock saddled with an unfortunately broad name. "Experimental rock" as such is avant-garde rock, and is best applied to an infobox or lead where the status as such is uncontroversial the same way there are no central disputes that OK Computer counts as alternative rock. It's worth remembering that "experimental" taken separately is a common adjective in music journalism and its use in conjunction with the word "rock" does not mean the source is labeling something experimental rock. As a matter of fact, experimentalism is a commonly understood aspect of what defines "art rock", which is again, more broadly appropriate. And remember: even if a source labeled OK Computer "experimental rock" in a straightforward, uncomplicated way, a single source would still not suffice for inclusion in the lead or infobox. Not all "rock that is experimental" or "rock where the musicians conducted ambitious experiments with their sound" is "experimental rock" as such; Trout Mask Replica is "Experimental Rock", OK Computer is not (or rather, is rock that is experimental).

This distinction even bears out in careful reading of the two sources you've chosen that happen to contain the phrase "experimental rock". The first source refers to the album as an "experimental rock blockbuster" — I would read this, frankly, as "a rock blockbuster that has experimental features" rather than "a blockbuster of avant-garde rock". The second use of the phrase in that source calls the album the "last truly experimental rock release to be embraced by a worldwide audience of millions". Notice the adverb! The "last truly experimental rock release" is different than the "last truly experimental rock release" — I doubt very much that the writer would have chosen such an awkward construction to make an argument about inclusion within a specific historical category of rock, but rather, is merely saying that the release's popularity is surprising in relation to its "experimental" (broadly understood) traits within the rock idiom. The same goes for your second source's use of the words: "OK Computer marks the grounding for their deviation into more experimental rock than ... The Bends." If a source said something like, say, "with their avant-garde album OK Computer, Radiohead tapped into the rich experimental rock tradition forged by the likes of outré rockers Captain Beefheart, Frank Zappa, the Velvet Underground, Can, Julian Cope, and others," that would be one thing, and depending on the context of publication it may even merit inclusion in the article body. But consider that such a source would still be so marginal and unsupported relative to the bulk of literature on the album, such an outlier, not to mention so unrelated to the band's own stated influences, that its use to affix the label "experimental rock" on the album would be wholly unuseful.
Release dates of various nations in the lead
The next big point is release date. There is no compelling reason to include the precise dates of release for any given nation in the lead. Why not Japan? That's where it was first released, and it is a major market. The issue is that there's virtually no limiting factor for what nations get included or excluded, other than presumptive bias that maybe England and the US are central. The lead is not the body, it is a summary, and thus leaving it at "1997" is fine. It becomes tedious for a reader to jump through such hurdles in the introduction when the more precise and complete information is included in the release section. Also, the sources you cited are frankly, bad compared to what is included in the body. The source cited in the body (this one) is from a scholarly book about the album and is extremely trustworthy and verifiable. Your source is a Sirius XM blog post, which is fleeting and a compendium of squished-together fun facts gathered to drive clicks and engagement with a satellite radio brand rather than a thorough research project (no insult intended at the Sirius XM blogger in question). The sources are talking something concrete, a release date, in sharp contrast to the squishiness of genre talk. A single, reliable source suffices.
The rest — acclaim and "greatest of all time", Grammys, order of sentences

The rest of my concerns are other wording changes you've made to the lead that have little to no basis in sources, usefulness to the reader, or clear rationale.

  • "It has also been considered to be Radiohead's greatest album" — by whom? So what? Kid A is also sometimes considered their best work by many significant sources — the most recent Rolling Stone Top 500 lists it highest among Radiohead albums, to take a single example. It would be duplicative to include that statement in both articles, as if the title of "best Radiohead album" was an ongoing matter of hot concern to anyone but hyper-invested nerds like me. It suffices that it has achieved notably high acclaim upon release and in retrospect.
  • "greatest albums of the 1990s." Here, we sadly must open the proverbial can of worms, because this is one of the most difficult issues confronted by acclaimed album articles on Wikipedia. I personally am not very happy with the tendency of publications to described ranked lists of albums as the "greatest" albums "of all time". Many, many others feel the same way and have expressed as much through discussions of so, so many music articles on Wikipedia. It creates all kinds of problems when reviewing prose. How can language like "greatest of all time" seem anything but hyperbolic? I am totally sympathetic to this view. It is hyperbolic, and the usefulness of such language is uncertain and varies depending on which album is being described this way. However, countering the concern that prose is suffused with hyperbole, and thus NPOV problems, is the sheer quantity of publications using the very same problematic, hyperbolic language to discuss "greatest albums of all time". I don't like that such sources are hyperbolic, but at the same time Wikipedia is in many ways bound to what sources say, even subjective sources, even if it is ridiculous, when we can make a pragmatic and careful assessment. This issue is the subject of neverending heated debate on Wikipedia, so I'm going to zoom out in a sub-bullet on this point because I want to get my thoughts on this topic out there for future use.
Rambling on the issue of what does Wikipedia do with the issue of "greatest albums of all time"
  • To zoom way out, the recorded popular-music studio album, as an idiom/artifact of musical expression, is very, very young within the history of human musical expression — maybe originating in the 40s–50s, maturing in the 60s and becoming ascendant as a cognizable medium in the 70s–present. Even now, there are a host of historical, technological, and cultural pressures that have caused many people who are paid to think about what music means to predict the decline of the album as the marker of musical accomplishment, or the hegemonic musical product in consumer/mass-media discourse. Chiefly streaming and the internet, of course. So far, "the album" in the abstract has been resilient. Musicians still pump out albums and people keep using them as a cultural referent in discourse.
  • But you can see why the medium's relative recentness, and the perennial fear that "the album" will evaporate as a method of considering musical history, make talk of "greatest of all time" troubling to Wikipedia editors. What will we say in 50 years? What have we said so far at various times? Scoping is a big problem as well: is OK Computer one of the best albums ever, or merely of the 90s, or would it be proper to say of the 20th century? Does anyone say of the 20th century yet for popular music? How do we filter recentism and hyperbole? What threshold of acclaim is appropriate? What might distinguish, and what sources are appropriate to distinguish, the ways we might talk about Nevermind from OK Computer from It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back from Getz/Gilberto from My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy from Yeezus... You get the idea.
  • Here are my current thoughts: As of right now, there are a scant handful of albums that could have featured articles that justifiably use language like "among the greatest of all time," rather than from their era/year, for Wikipedia purposes and withstand scrutiny. It's like, maybe a couple dozen to fifty, tops. This is only my personal intuition, and others will disagree. God bless Acclaimed Music (where, incidentally, OK Computer is sorted at 10), which as a web resource is second to none for compiling, and tentatively quantifying, the type of rankings that back up the use of this strong language like "greatest ever". Without such thorough resources like this, we'd be so adrift on this issue that it might be worth saying that no album could justifiably be described as "among the greatest ever" or whatever. There is no fixed rule, no bright line, no obvious threshold. Further, we must be conscious of the ways that such discourses as source material present a narrative that privileges musicians who are English-speaking, typically white, typically male, typically American or British, typically rock musicians, etc. (you could list any number of arbitrary traits that have little to do with music and more to do with access to media), as the ones worthy of "all time" recognition. This is all historically contingent, and maybe in 100 years we will be more enlightened and musical discourse will be broad enough that other narratives will ascend to not merely challenge, but topple our quaint notions that The Beatles and Radiohead are unquestionable titans, with enough written source material to then rewrite their articles. However, there is a fuzzy reckoning to be made with what words we have available, and in my view, OK Computer is one of the ones now so entrenched in the higher bounds of critical discussion that it's safely in the "all time" category.
  • Mentioning Grammys. As if cumulative consideration of musical journalism and criticism over decades isn't difficult enough... Look, the Grammy Awards get a lot of viewers and they obviously should be mentioned in any article about a nominee or winner. In many articles it will be one of the most important facts that merits inclusion in the lead. That said, this is not for the lead in OK Computer. It's a single award and has no real narrative centrality to Radiohead or the literature on the band — they won one, it's a fact, but it's really not such a big deal that it should be in the lead. Again, like the release dates, there's no limiting factor in this article for what awards get included in the lead — why not the Mercury Prize? Why not— Stop. Just leave it out and include language that summarizes and encompasses what will follow, then trust that readers who want to know about awards will find them on the page.
  • The order you've chosen to rearrange sentences in the lead is, to me, baffling. I don't see the issue with the present ordering that necessitates these changes. Now, rearranging already-present sentences is the most flexible change that I've so far discussed here. I'd be happy to consider adjustments with good reason. But so many sweeping changes without clear rationale and with no clear problems in the status quo arrangement of sentences is still strange, and I'd ask for you to at least make some affirmative arguments justifying these particular changes, with the reservation that the value of keeping the lead stable (in a version approved through strong consensus) may outweigh a subjective personal preference of the order.

I urge you to please consider these factors and reply here before making any further changes along these lines. Dozens of human beings have devoted hundreds of volunteer hours over years, in common purpose and cooperation, to think through these issues, to pore over the existing source material and to think critically about the Wikipedia community's standards, to give shape to this article the way it is today. I hope you can see why I reserved the reasons for my decision to revert for the talk page — I really did want to treat these issues in depth due to their complexity and the thought process guiding this article, undergone with feedback by many, many editors in procedural reviews, and with full and considered respect to your earnest attempt to improve the page. Thank you for your time. —Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Bravo! Well said. Dead on.
I fear this marvelous essay will not hit its target, but be assured I will remember it, and I will point people to it in the future. Binksternet (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I totally understand where you're trying to get at. So from now on I'll discuss changes that I feel should be made to album pages before actually doing them. And by the way, some of the sources that I restored on that version weren't mine. Someone added them from before, so...I'm just saying. Tjdrum2000 (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
No worries. Thank you, sincerely, for reading. I don't fault you for the sources either, just explaining why they weren't ideal, whoever picked them. I hope this doesn't discourage you from editing and improving album articles generally. You clearly have a good sense of what kind of things are important, how to source information, and other skills that Wikipedia could really use. If you ever want my help to collaborate or to review some of your work, please don't hesitate to reach out. Also know that in most cases, if something isn't already featured or, perhaps, when it's less than a top-importance article, it usually isn't necessary to go to the talk page to discuss changes. This is a special case since the changes were disputed, but by all means you should be bold and make edits where you find opportunities to improve. —Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Just to say I also agree that this is a wonderful and highly articulate post, and encapsulates perfectly a number of issues that I hold dear about stewardship and maintaining article integrity. Am delighted that Tjdrum2000 is listening and that for once on Wikipedia there seems to be a move forward. Well done all involved. Ceoil (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Restore the FAC-approved version of the tracklist section

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think we should restore the tracklist section of the version of the article that passed FAC:

  1. The tracklist template is best used for complex tracklists—think hip-hop records with their half-a-dozen writers and producers for each track. Here, a simple numbered list suffices. (This also avoids the problem of the template separating the song names and their durations right across the width of the screen)
  2. Record companies are likely to reissue popular and acclaimed albums, such as this one, every five/ten years or so. They will no doubt come with all sorts of additional baubles—demos, live versions, videos, interviews etc. None of these are worth noting; only the original album is notable, not every subsequent version of it. Otherwise, it's not hard to imagine that with every new anniversary—starting next year, the twentieth anniversary of OK Computer's release—the number of new tracklists we have to include will keep endlessly growing.—indopug (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm in favor of this. I think the simple track listing format is better. This template is obviously much better suited for complex track lists, not single-artist albums with uniform production and songwriting credits. I think there's a gradual pressure that templates like this become ubiquitous in contexts they weren't designed for — someone always wants to come along and introduce the fancy sleek template where it's not needed and maybe not even all that sleek. Probably would be best to leave an invisible note explaining that the track list template is not required and not suitable for a simple track list. —BLZ · talk 16:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Sales: 4.5 million, not 8 million

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just noticed something I hadn't before: at some time between around 2013–2014, someone changed the sales figure in the lead to "eight million" (and worldwide sales in the release section to "3", when the source says 4.5). I went to see if anything backed that up, or if there are other reliable recent global sales figures. Didn't find any newer reliable global sales. Strangely, the only two sources I could find (here and here) that say "eight million" are both from 2015 — after the unsourced edit to the lead. I think a raccoon has become an aardvark. Unless a better source comes along, we've got to avoid any circular reporting and keep it at 4.5 million, which so far as I can tell is the last genuinely trustworthy sales figure (Billboard citing the label, not a blog post citing nothing). —BLZ · talk 06:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

OKNOTOK or OK Computer OKNOTOK 1997 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm conflicted as to how to refer to the reissue as. Most people call it OKNOTOK, however it's referred to by Radiohead on its website and in the MP3 tags by the looks of things as OK Computer OKNOTOK 1997 2017. Should we change it accordingly? Also I'm wondering what people's thoughts are on making an infobox for it? --TheBronzeMex (talk) 11:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 57 external links on OK Computer. 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) 19:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

How do we cover OKTNOTOK?

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

OKNOTOK has generated a lot of press coverage, including lots of reviews. I guess the reviews should be added to the article, but part of me wonders if there's enough material to warrant a dedicated article just for the reissue. I'm really not sure, though - do we ever do that? Popcornduff (talk) 07:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll roll with that. It is getting a bit obese in the content side of things and I'd personally regard it as a major enough release for it to warrant its own article. I could be wrong but I think I've seen reissues getting their own article before, and if we haven't I see no issue in making it a first. It's gotten enough coverage and has shifted enough units in my opinion. --TheBronzeMex (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
OK, after some procrastination, I've created the page: OK Computer OKNOTOK 1997 2017. Any help expanding it is appreciated, especially in reception, which I can't be bothered with just yet. Popcornduff (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

OKNOTOK album art for digital release?

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The current cover for OKNOTOK in the article is that burnt one, but is that really the cover for the digital release? On the official website, this cover doesn't appear for the digital release (nor for any other one). I saw this image on the email that was sent from wasteheadquarters.com but that's it. Any source that this is considered the official cover? Laurent (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Spotify. Popcornduff (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
And 7digital, Amazon, Boomkat, Google Play, iTunes, Qobuz... -- I need a name (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on OK Computer. 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) 12:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on OK Computer. 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) 11:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on OK Computer. 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) 09:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on OK Computer. 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) 08:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on OK Computer. 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) 08:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Concept album

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Radiohead is on record as saying the album is not a concept album. The reason they have repeatedly made statements like this is that many observers call it a concept album. Since Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources, we should tell the reader that this is a concept album, citing the highest available sources. And then we should tell the reader that Radiohead believe it is not a concept album. Because secondary sources define a topic. Primary sources are interesting to the reader, but in this case they are not definitive. Binksternet (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Below is my argument for why OK Computer is not categorically a concept album under Wikipedia's standards—hidden because it's super-long—and a summary of the main points.
Is OK Computer a concept album? Maybe, but there's no critical consensus, so we should not put it in a category
First point, as a preliminary matter: strictly speaking, Radiohead's comments in the article are WP:SECONDARY sources. The band's statements were elicited by journalists in interviews. Radiohead are not extemporaneously remarking on whether OK Computer is a concept album, they are doing so in response to interviewers' inquiries on the subject, and those inquiries come from each interviewer's own subjective critical frame. Even if the band made totally unprompted statements on the subject—for example in a memoir, op-ed, self-published blog post, etc.—those statements would be their interpretations of their own work, and would qualify as permissible primary sources or even (imo) secondary commentary that just happen to be by the authors themselves. The only primary source here is the album itself; obviously, we can't extract a label like "concept album" by citing to the album itself as a work of art because the label is a creature of secondary commentary.
Now onto the big-picture stuff. The term "concept album" is sorta vague, subjective, and context-specific in and of itself. There are wildly varying perspectives about what constitutes a concept album, and I think the concept album article itself does a good job of defining how broad and varied these views are. Also, just to be clear about how I'm thinking about the issue of authorial/artistic "intent" here: not every "concept album" was intended as such, so I don't want to suggest that Radiohead's intent alone determines whether OK Computer is a concept album or not. For example, if Sgt. Pepper's is "the first" formal "concept album," obviously the Beatles weren't saying to each other "You know what we should make for our next album? A concept album! You know, like all the other concept albums that already exist." Artistic intention is an important factor into how these things are categorized, but it's not the full picture. Radiohead's intent is not the only reason I don't think this should be categorized as a concept album.
So given that the term is vague, when is the term most clear? In other words, what form or subcategory of "concept album" is most quintessential, least ambiguous? I would say any album that is a rock opera (or an album of any genre with characteristics such as a lyrical narrative, plot, identifiable characters) is unquestionably also a concept album. Even if Roger Waters decided to announce tomorrow that, actually, The Wall is not a concept album, I think we would tend not to believe him, given the overwhelming evidence that it is a concept album (another example to show that intent is not my sole, or even most important, criterion here). Whatever OK Computer is, it's not this type of concept album, and I don't think we're likely to see any filmic or theatrical adaptations any time soon (unless the adaptation makes some very creative, non-obvious interpretive decisions—maybe the Karma Policemen will return in the third act!).
So what else then is a concept album? I think it's fair to say that almost anything that an artist has chosen to affirmatively label as a concept album would be a concept album for categorization purposes. Even if a self-labeled concept album lacks any apparent thematic unity, we wouldn't say it's not a concept album, we just might say that it's a bad concept album. The hypothetical artist has suggested a specific critical lens or definition against which to judge the album, and maybe they even tried really hard to make it a concept album, so it is a concept album even if a listener subjectively feels that the album fails under those criteria.
Point being: an artists' statements should generally be considered definitive if they themselves label something a concept album. If Radiohead (but especially Thom Yorke as the lyricist) said OK Computer is a concept album, I'd take their word for it. Instead, they've actively disavowed that label; that doesn't mean we're done, it just means that we have to weigh their disavowal against the evidence of strong critical consensus to the contrary. If the evidence is completely overwhelming/critical consensus is essentially unanimous, then it might be a concept album anyway.
This is the direction you're suggesting when you say "the reason they have repeatedly made statements [disavowing the term "concept album"] is that many observers call it a concept album." You are suggesting that the critical evidence is in fact overwhelmingly in favor of the label. And it's true, critics are unanimous or nearly so in remarking that OK Computer is an album with an unusually high level of thematic cohesion. Some (not all; I'll get to this in a second) even describe it as a concept album. But is an album that has the quality of thematic cohesion "a concept album"? Not necessarily.
Remember, critics judge albums "as a whole," as a unified piece of art. Even in cases where an album is just a random collection of songs, they are still judged as a complete work. Critics constantly discuss things like lyrical unity or distinctive musical direction on albums that are not at all considered "concept" albums as such. If it were true that albums with thematic cohesion are concept albums, then virtually any album with lyrics would be a concept album because there are concepts and themes which can be extrapolated.
Note also that "concept album" is a very context or genre-specific term of art. Many albums have a distinguishable cohesive theme, yet are not called "concept albums"; it's not even a question on critics' lips, it's just totally absent in the critical conversation, even though there's strong consensus on the unified theme. Think of the common trope of the "breakup album": heartbreak, relationship woes, bittersweet romantic memories and regrets, all the rest of what comes with that. Rumours is a breakup album; is it a concept album? No one (or virtually no one) says so, so no. Critics have pored over the lyrics of Blood on the Tracks for decades to scrutinize its autobiographical themes, and it's a breakup album; yet it's almost never referred to as a "concept album". Doing a quick Google search, I found one Google Book referring to Blood on the Tracks as maybe a concept album: "blood+on+the+tracks"+"concept+album"&source=bl&ots=2r31Rtn7OP&sig=4ZgN9sma0CIHyups8HehVwgGyyc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjJzfL50e_ZAhUk44MKHc-ACGYQ6AEISzAH#v=onepage&q=%22blood%20on%20the%20tracks%22%20%22concept%20album%22&f=false Counting Down Bob Dylan: His 100 Finest Songs says "Although he never would admit that it was, Bob Dylan's Blood on the Tracks, released in 1975, was essentially a concept album about the dissolution of a relationship." OK, "essentially a concept album," but even here the writer's not going out of his way to prove that it is.
From the above we can conclude that critics save the term "concept album" for albums that display, at a minimum, an exceptional level of thematic unity. But not just that: in the absence of clear authorial intent, critics look to some other undefined, je ne sais quoi factors that put some albums in mind of the "concept album" label, and some not—even when there are prominent characteristics of concept albums like thematic/lyrical unity.
Returning to OK Computer; as I said earlier, you are right that critics have generally noted an exceptional level of thematic cohesion on OK Computer, and then there are also others who say it is a concept album, and then there are many others who discuss whether it's a concept album or not. However, I think you're misrepresenting the critical consensus. Yes, many have argued that it's a concept album. But not all critics go that far. More importantly, that's not the sole motivation to ask Radiohead if it is a concept album. You're assuming that a journalist's motivation for asking "Is OK Computer a concept album?" is that every journalist who might think to ask about it is already convinced that it is a concept album, that it's a totally self-evident matter. But that's not the case! Maybe some interviewers were asking the question like that: "Hey Radiohead, OK Computer is obviously a concept album, right guys? I mean, c'mon." The only purpose such a question would serve is confirmation of something already known to be true anyway, like asking "Hey Kendrick Lamar, Good Kid, M.A.A.D City is a hip-hop record, right?" You're assuming that the fact that a question was asked is evidence that the interviewer already has a foregone conclusion in mind. That ignores the possibility that most journalists are asking the question in a subtler way: "Hey Radiohead. So, many albums have thematic cohesion, but boy oh boy, OK Computer seems to have a LOT of it. Like, MUCH much more cohesion than usual. We're not totally sure yet, but this definitely raises the question, when we listen to it, of whether it's a concept album. Do you guys think it is? Because if you do, that would be a pretty clear indication that it is." Point being, the mere asking of the question does not imply that the journalist has already made up their mind.
So instead of trying to discern journalists' subtextual intent and then taking that as our definitive answer, let's look to what critics say when they discuss OK Computer as a concept album. It's amazing how many times you'll find critics carefully noting that OK Computer is almost a concept album, comparable or akin to a concept album, kinda sorta a concept album but with some reservations/caveats/ambiguity/qualifications, arguably or debatably a concept album (suggesting it depends on who you ask and is not a universal truth), or NOT a concept album. The responses run the gamut, and there's no consensus. Just for a representative sample of evidence, here are just a few Google results from the query "'OK Computer' 'concept album'" from reliable secondary sources:
  • New York Times, 2017: OK Computer "carried the band's worldview toward something like a concept album."
  • Irish Times, 2017: "At the core of such an ambitious work – not a concept album, despite its title and an Apple Mac-generated voice as used in Fitter, Happier – is a suite of threaded songs that address conjectural images of politics, technology, mental health, death and anti-capitalism."
  • Academic dissertation entitled "Coding OK Computer: Categorization and Characterization of Disruptive Harmonic and Rhythmic Events in Rock Music": "[T]he general consensus, by fans and critics alike, seems to be that OK Computer is a real album, an essential part of the near-mythical legacy of real rock albums, and for that matter can perhaps even be considered a 'concept-album(!),' despite the lack of any explicit narrative or cohesive theme that usually signals the identity of this subcategory of real albums."
  • Radiohead and the Resistant Concept Album: How to Disappear Completely at Amazon, pp. 28–32. This is a book-length argument that Kid A and Amnesiac (but not OK Computer!) are concept albums, which contains a lot of synthesized critical commentary about whether OK Computer is a concept album, is almost but not quite a concept album, etc. at the pages I cited. At p. 28, the second paragraph in the chapter on OK Computer: "OK Computer has also received a great deal of analytical attention from music scholars, many of whom have treated the work as a concept album, at least in part." This suggests that it's a significant viewpoint, but not an unchallenged or unanimous one, and that even many of those who make the case that it might be a concept album are reluctant to go all the way.
  • Noisey/Vice, article called "Radiohead Is for Boring Nerds": That's sort of the M.O. for Radiohead fans—desperately grasping at straws to believe that a band who dicks around with a bunch of computer wires and passes it off as a concept album are some sort of brilliant visionaries whose records are works of art."
  • Check out the heterodox argument here! This writer believes that Radiohead are actively trying to make concept albums, even trying to fool their fans into believing that these albums are concept albums (I guess through some intense reverse psychology and posturing), yet despite all of this overwhelming intent Radiohead have actually failed at the task of making concept albums. Just goes to show how murky, complicated and totally lacking in consensus critics are on this issue!
  • Not to mention the countless sources which merely note Radiohead's own disavowal of the "concept album" label, without strongly staking out an argument either way or attempting to summarize/describe a synthesized critical consensus of any kind.
  • Not to mention the countless sources that are silent altogether on the question of whether it's a concept album.
What are we left with? No consensus. Arguments on all sides, lots of careful consideration, no clear or overwhelming answer. To overcome Radiohead's authorial disavowal, we'd have to see extremely clearcut consensus in the other direction. For us to say "yes, this is 100% a concept album despite the artists' disavowal," we would have to see authors telling us, everywhere you turn in the secondary sources, "yeah there is no real dispute, we pretty much all agree that this is a concept album." But instead everywhere you turn, everyone admits that there's no consensus, that even those who believe it is a concept album have to argue that it is (people don't devote entire chapter of books unpacking whether or not The Wall is a concept album because it would be entirely unnecessary and pedantic, we can just take it for granted and move on to more interesting points of analysis). Sure, maybe someone out there thinks The Wall is actually not a concept album, but even then they'd clearly be making it as a contrarian, minority viewpoint.
In conclusion, or tl;dr: "Is OK Computer a concept album?" is an interesting open question and a recurrent topic of critical discussion and debate. But:
  • 1) The band rejects the label, giving us a strong starting position of "not categorically a concept album," which maybe could be overcome or rebutted if critical consensus overwhelmingly thinks it's obvious that the band is wrong.
  • 2) There is no critical consensus even after two decades. The only thing critics can agree on is the existence of the open question, the existence of the debate itself, but not that the existence of the open question itself means that the answer is indisputably "yes."
  • 3) Given how preoccupied critics are with the question itself, shouldn't we just go ahead and categorize it as a concept album anyway? No. Why not? The same reason why Amelia Earhart is not in Category:Aviators killed in aviation accidents or incidents. You don't resolve categorical/definitional ambiguity in favor of picking one viewpoint among many.
If we're going to put something in the formal category of Concept albums, then it should categorically be a concept album. Maybe to you, OK Computer is a concept album—like I said earlier, as far as my own personal subjective interpretation goes, it is a concept album to me! But if we're going to say that OK Computer is definitively, unequivocally a concept album (or any genre), we'd better have rock-solid and unambiguous consensus. We just don't on this issue. —BLZ · talk 01:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
For the sake of argument, let's say I'm wrong, and the artist is allowed to define their own work in the face of contrary views in the media. The problem with that stance is that our article about Ok Computer tells the reader that the band denies the notional "concept album" categorization without first telling the reader that many observers have said it is, or is much like, a concept album. The first part, defining the album as x, comes before the second part, denying the x definition. Binksternet (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough; the reason that probably happened is that sections about an album's contents (music + lyrics) almost always precede critical reception, analysis, interpretation, and the contents sections are usually more reliant on an artist's statements (like their conscious influences) and dry/straightforward/descriptive/noninterpretive critical commentary (like "OK Computer seems to be about technology somehow"). Usually the stuff where critics extrapolate their own interpretations ends up later in the article, if their content even makes the cut at all, since it would be way too much to try to include every critics's distinct interpretation or perspective.
That said, I take your point. I added a little bit about critics who have argued it's a concept album—and a footnote clarifying that the wider critical discourse has many different viewpoints and lacks a clear consensus—preceding the text about Radiohead's disavowal of the "concept album" label. —BLZ · talk 06:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

RateYourMusic

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

https://rateyourmusic.com/customchart?page=1&chart_type=top&type=album&year=alltime&genre_include=1&include_child_genres=1&genres=&include_child_genres_chk=1&include=both&origin_countries=&limit=none&countries= OK Computer is the most highly rated album on the rating/review site RateYourMusic, going even above The Dark Side Of The Moon by Pink Floyd. Is this worth dedicating a sentence to in the "Reception" or "Legacy" section? 178.220.205.99 (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of RYM personally, but I don't think that merits inclusion. OK Computer has been at number one on the site for a few consecutive years now, but before that iirc the number one spot tended to rotate between Revolver, Abbey Road, and The Dark Side of the Moon. Just for kicks, here's the site's list as it appeared in 2006 (Revolver at #1, OK Computer at #7), in 2003 (nigh-unrecognizable; Blood on the Tracks at #1, OK Computer at #53 [!]; Entertainment! at number 3 is awesome, imho), and 2001 (Sgt. Pepper's at #1, OK Computer at #3; artists who would probably never be ranked in the top 5000 today like Billy Joel, Sublime, Limp Bizkit, Counting Crows, 3 Doors Down, Lifehouse, Sarah McLachlan, Dave Matthews Band, Ben Folds Five).
A useful point of comparison is The Shawshank Redemption. That article mentions that the film has been the highest-ranked film on IMDb since the late 90s, but that fact has also been the subject of a lot of external commentary in secondary sources; there's the two sources they used, plus (off the top of my head) Roger Ebert's "Great Movies" retrospective review of the film. I can't find any articles about RYM that also talk about OK Computer, or vice versa. Plus, IMDb is a much bigger site than RYM. It's a household name, and RYM is not. Shawshank Redemption has received 1.9 million ratings at IMDb, compared to only 43k for OK Computer at RYM (making it easily the most-rated release on the site, and—looking at this archive from 2012—it's almost more than double the number of ratings OK Computer had only six years ago).
At a minimum, I'd like to see secondary coverage of the fact before including it in the article. As it stands, the fact is more important to RYM than it is to OK Computer. —BLZ · talk 00:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
RateYourMusic is not a reliable source because they allow users to change the information. We cannot use it. Binksternet (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Sales

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

@Brandt Luke Zorn: Do the sales figures for OKC here include the OKNOTOK reissue? Should they? Popcornduff (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Good q. The new worldwide total I added up does not include OKNOTOK at all, since the latest figures I used were from 2016. However, the final UK figure from 2017 includes OKNOTOK. Since the Music Week source is behind a paywall, I excerpted the relevant text in the citation. The paragraph I quoted from continues: "That total [1,579,415] includes 25,808 sales (1,459 from streams) in the latest frame, which see the album—newly remastered and expanded across a number of editions–re-enter the chart at No. 2. 8,987 of the album's sales last week were on vinyl, earning it pole position on the vinyl albums chart. Radiohead's most recent album, 2016 release A Moon Shaped Pool, also re-enters the chart after Glastonbury (No. 45, 2,146 sales)."
It sounds like they counted OKNOTOK as a "newly remastered and expanded" edition of OKC, rather than as a distinct release in its own right. The 1,579,415 includes ~25,000 from the week that article ran, and that ~25,000 includes sales and streams of OKNOTOK. But that last week of sales was all counted toward a grand total for OKC, so that ~25,000 also includes sales and streams of "regular" OKC (which we could also call "Not-OKNOTOK", if we want a bigger headache).
Unfortunately, there's no way to know how many of the ~25,000 were for OKC and how many were for OKNOTOK. To completely avoid counting OKNOTOK, we would say OKC has sold 1,579,415 (the total of OKC plus OKNOTOK as of 30 June 2017) minus 25,808 (sales of OKC and OKNOTOK during the first week OKNOTOK was available for sale) = 1,553,607 copies of OKC sold in the UK as of 23 June 2017.
We could also note that the final UK figure included first-week sales of OKNOTOK. Lastly—and I think most simply—would be to leave out any technical note about OKNOTOK altogether. 1,579,415 and 1,553,607 are both over 1.5 million, which is how I rounded it off in the article, so the statement remains true either way. But I'm glad you raised the point and it's worth keeping in mind all the same, because any future UK sales figure that get reported will count OKNOTOK unless stated otherwise. Then again, sales of OKNOTOK are still very low relative to overall sales of OKC, which has never been out of print (let alone unavailable to download), so I don't know if it will ever make a consequential difference.
Still don't know how many OKC copies were sold in the UK between its release and 8 April 2006, or between 8 April 2006 and 23 June 2017, meaning that any post-2006 UK sales can't be included in the new worldwide grand total. This is based on my assumption that the IFPI figure includes UK sales, which I'm 95% sure is true based on what I've read about the IFPI, although I haven't bothered to dig enough to find that explicitly stated. —BLZ · talk 01:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@Brandt Luke Zorn: Thanks for this detailed and thoughtful reply, and sorry for my slow response. Yeah, sounds like it's the right call not to go into more detail at this point. Popcornduff (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:OK_Computer/Archive_2&oldid=1151014385"