Talk:Rattle and Hum

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Colour footage shot on a soundstage?

Hey folks!

I have heard rumors that SOME of the colour footage in Rattle and Hum was not usable, so they had to set up the stage again indoors somewhere, bring the band back in and re-shoot those songs.

This makes sense for several reasons:

1. 1 The Sun Devil Stadium shoot didn't afford as much prep time as the director and crew needed, and that was a VERY ambitious shoot

1. 2 Many of the clips in that section seem to be much better exposed, and or shot on different film stock. These clips all seem to be from different angles than the clips that are not as well exposed, AND the 'lesser' clips often feature crowd/wind/atmospherics that the better exposed ones seem to be free of.

1. 2A None of the better exposed clips show the stadium, or large steel structure supporting the stage.

I'll admit that this is all speculation on my part, but it all seems logical from the reasons I've stated above.

Can anyone shed some light on whether in fact this is what U2 and crew did?

thanks!

I believe it is correct. I remember reading something at the time with Bono "waving to the imaginary crowd". It wasn't a big secret or anything from memory.--Merbabu 02:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Split into two articles

I think that the article should be split into two articles - one for the album, and one for the film. Since the film was released in theaters, I think it deserves its own article separate from the album. At the same time, the album deserves its own article as it is an album on its own, and not a soundtrack from the film. The album and the film are equally important, so the main article Rattle and Hum should become a disambiguation page, with links to Rattle and Hum (film) and Rattle and Hum (album). I would NOT say the same for Under a Blood Red Sky because its video release was not a mainstream film and should not be differentiated so much from its album. --Crashintome4196 01:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. No absolutely unnecessary. Keep album first on the page, followed by film. --Merbabu 02:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I concur with "Crashintome4196". I feel it would be much better if these were two distinct pages. We need more opinions. I have posted this as a topic on atu2.com to see what those people think.--MikeUMA (talk) 03:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be split too. For a similar example see Let it Be and Let it Be (film) ~DC _{Talk To Me} 03:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I’m never much one for blindly following precedents, but perhaps in theory it should be two, but in practise is there that much to gain? How about we try a split – we can always reverse it. :-) --Merbabu (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Eh, I dunno really. I don't like it. It sounds good in theory, but so much of the information will be the same. All of the Development and Background will be identical, and that's what is the real meat of any article. Splitting because the tracklistings and reception are different? Those are the only two parts that will be significantly different between one and the other, and reception can easily be condensed into one section if given the proper layout and wording. Which basically leaves the tracklisting as the sole reason to split. I don't think it will work. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Melicans is right – while it might make sense in theory, and precedents can be found, does it actually help? I was looking at info on this topic a few months back, and as Melicans points out, it all goes hand in hand. Either way can be done, and while I’m not so adamant as I was in 2006 (see above), I certainly lean towards one article. --Merbabu (talk) 05:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Origin of "rattle and hum" term

I was recently reading Brave New World, and Huxley speaks of the "... hum and rattle [of machinery]..." (Chapter III). Is it possible this is what inspired the album title (or at least the phrase in Bullet the Blue Sky, from which it comes)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.100.55.108 (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

I think it comes from Bullet the Blue Sky. but you never know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Malcolmedge (talk • contribs) 04:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

That's right, Aldous Huxley stole it from Bono. ;-) Merbabu 04:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

A number of songs from this album have been tagged for merging here. These articles fail WP:MUSIC:

Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.

If any of these songs have charted, received any awards, been featured in major films or TV shows or anything else that makes them notable according to WP:MUSIC, please update these articles (with references) and remove the {{tl:mergeto}} tag. Otherwise, please merge them into this article for the album.

Could you please list the songs from this album that you would like to see merged? MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Silver and Gold (song)--Rtphokie (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Although it was featured in both the film and on the album, I'd suggest merging it into Where the Streets Have No Name instead, since that was where it made it's first appearance. It would be similar to how Slow Dancing was put into the article for Stay (Faraway, So Close!). MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Would you mind taking care of that? You are far more knowledgeable about the subject that I--Rtphokie (talk) 01:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll just give it another day or two in case other editors would like to express an opinion about it first. MelicansMatkin (talk) 03:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Merged — MelicansMatkin (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Genre - why just "rock"?

"Rock" doesn't seem to do the sound of the album justice. "Rock" seems like an acceptable word to use when you cannot categorize the music or place it into a genre, but it seems to me like like roots rock is a perfectly acceptable way to define this album. Roots rock is defined by Wikipedia as "style of rock music that draws material from various American musical traditions including country, blues, and folk." I'm not sure there's a better definition of this album's sound. U2 recorded these songs and made efforts on their Joshua Tree Tour and Lovetown Tour to pay tribute to American music legends. If you need proof that the songs exhibit the above influence, just listen to them: "Desire" has a bluesy-Bo Diddley sound to it, "When Love Comes to Town" is about as bluesy as U2 gets. "Heartland" is very much folk-inspired. "Angel of Harlem" has tinges of gospel - heck, even the live version of "I Still Haven't Found..." features a gospel choir in the background. "Love Rescue Me" sounds like an amalgamation of blues and country. I think "roots rock" is the perfect way to describe this album. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I originally reverted since genre changes within the infobox can occassionally be seen as opinionated. In U2's case, the genre seems to change from album to album. The reason I reverted was so that a discussion on the possible genres could be held where necessary. But having read your above comment, I certainly have to agree with you that it contains roots rock. MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a reference to support my edits: http://www.allmusicguide.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:wcfexql5ldde Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Soundtrack

The album is actually the soundtrack (technically) to the Rattle and Hum film. That's what it's all about. They wouldn't of put live versions of older songs on their other albums, because they are proper non-soundtrack studio albums. Almost every song (not exactly every one, but most) on the album was also in the film. In one way, it's a soundtrack to a great extent, seeing that other soundtracks like Obscured by Clouds are indeed studio albums but soundtracks. --92.235.128.38 (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Rattle and Hum

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 Rattle and Hum'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 "Christgau":

• From Introspective: Christgau, Robert (14 March 1989). "Christgau's Consumer Guide". The Village Voice. New York. Retrieved 29 April 2013.
• From The Joshua Tree: Christgau, Robert (5 May 1987). "Christgau's Consumer Guide". The Village Voice. New York. Retrieved 27 May 2013.

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⚡ 16:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rattle and Hum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130731124635/http://www.nvpi.nl/nvpi/pagina.asp?pagkey=61112&documentid=1236160&zoekform=60463&formposted=yes to http://www.nvpi.nl/nvpi/pagina.asp?pagkey=61112&documentid=1236160&zoekform=60463&formposted=yes

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Rattle and Hum. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100218105703/http://www.infodisc.fr/Albums_ChartRun.php to http://www.infodisc.fr/Albums_ChartRun.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nvpi.nl/nvpi/pagina.asp?pagkey=61112
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716233541/http://www.swisscharts.com/search_certifications.asp?search=Rattle+and+Hum to http://www.swisscharts.com/search_certifications.asp?search=Rattle+and+Hum
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6DaMNbmDo?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bpi.co.uk%2Fcertifiedawards%2Fsearch.aspx to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5hFf8iFDu?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishcharts.ie%2Fsearch%2Fplacement to http://www.irishcharts.ie/search/placement

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 03:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rattle and Hum. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120604151738/http://www.musiccanada.com/GPSearchResult.aspx?st=rattle%20and%20hum&ica=False&sa=&sl=&smt=0&sat=-1&ssb=Artist to http://www.musiccanada.com/GPSearchResult.aspx?st=rattle%20and%20hum&ica=False&sa=&sl=&smt=0&sat=-1&ssb=Artist
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120629095406/http://www.disqueenfrance.com/fr/pag-259165-CERTIFICATIONS.html?year=1995&type=8 to http://www.disqueenfrance.com/fr/pag-259165-CERTIFICATIONS.html?year=1995&type=8
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.theofficialcharts.com/archive-chart/_/3/1988-10-22/

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) 08:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of my contribution regarding LP Records track listing

I have posted the details of track listing on LP record format, after looking photos and album details from www.rateyourmusic.com and www,discogs.com, but the user Y2kcrazyjoker4 has deleted all those track listing, saying that these sources are not reliable. But I have linked with such pages which has track listing details with front & back covers, inside lyric sheets and label photos. So why that user have deleted all my contribution from this page?

If those track listing details with front & back covers, inside lyric sheets and label photos are not reliable, so which source will be reliable?

I will be grateful if anyone inform me. am (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know this matter is being resolved on my own talk page. – zmbro _(talk) 23:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Propose to split into two articles

I want to propose that this article is split into two seperate articles: Rattle and Hum (album) and Rattle and Hum (film). I first proposed this idea about 17 years ago (see #Split into two articles) but it didn't go anywhere. Now that the article has grown significantly since then, it's much more clear that two articles are needed. Rattle and Hum is both an album and a standalone documentary film (and I don't believe there is a primary topic between the two). There is music on the album that is not in the film, and music in the film that's not on the album. Sections like "Reception", "Track listing", and "Certification and sales" each have two subsections for the film and album, respectively. The "Charts" section only applies to the album, and the "History" section mostly discusses the film with only a brief mention of the album. Plus, the article needs a "Synopsis" section to summarize the film (which would not apply to the album). Would love to get some feedback on this. –Dream out loud (talk) 11:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I am honestly indifferent. There seems to be a lot of crossover between the 2 projects, in terms of the content on the film and album that are shared in common, as well as the process of how the two came together. But I do see the rationale behind it. There are a lot of sections of info that are particular to one but not the other. I'm probably too in the weeds on U2 articles to be the only say on the matter though. I too would like some outside input. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there is a lot of crossover between the two, but they are indeed seperate projects. If the album was simply a soundtrack or audio version of the film, then one article would be fine. But that's not the case. I'm going to post on some other pages to try and get more input. –Dream out loud (talk) 09:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, I think the album article should remain undisambiguated (with its current title). I don't see why the album wouldn't be the primary topic of the two, unless there's a lot more to expand the film article with which isn't currently in place due to size concerns. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there is a primary topic. Both the album and film are quite equally notable, and there is definitely more material out there that can be added to the film article. (The band also released a book of the same name, but it was marketed as "The Official Book of the U2 Movie"; this would obviously fit into the film article.) To put it in context, the film wasn't your ordinary 1980s concert video, but rather a big-budget documentary film that was released into theaters internationally. There is plenty of third party coverage on U2's video and film releases - see U2 3D as an example. –Dream out loud (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

It isn't necessarily always the case that two related projects always have to have two separate articles just because they're different things — for instance, if a film director releases a short film and then three or four years later releases a full-feature expansion of that short film under the same title, then they don't automatically need to have two separate articles just because they're technically two separate films, and instead it hinges on how much content we can or can't actually write and reliably source about each. (For instance, Hurricane Boy Fuck You Tabarnak! currently just has one article discussing both films, because apart from a technically NFILM-clinching award nomination the short version was otherwise nearly unsourceable until the feature came along.)
In this case, the article seems long enough that splitting could be undertaken, and obviously album-vs.-film is a logical point of distinction for that — but it isn't that they're required to have two separate articles, it's that the article is now (but wasn't in 2006) long enough that splitting is worth considering. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Bump. Per WP:SPLITCLOSE, it would normally be appropriate to close this discussion (and, if there's consensus approach on whether/how to) move forward with the split or similar action after "one week or more". It has been over 7 months since the split was first proposed. And ~6 months since the last contribution here. If there is no consensus that a split is needed (and how to do it), then I'm not sure what value there is in leaving this discussion "open" much longer. Or leaving the "split" tag in place (as it directs only to an in-active thread). From my read of the discussion above, there isn't clear (or even rough) consensus on the need for a split. Or what (if anything) to do next. As such, and unless others have other thoughts on next steps, I'm inclined to remove the "split" tag. (It's been in place now for a very long time. And doesn't seem to be serving the purpose of encouraging discussion or developing/establishing consensus...) Guliolopez (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

A further 3 months have passed. And, with no additional discussion and no apparent (even rough/broad) consensus, there doesn't appear to be any value in retaining a tag which "signposts" to an inactive discussion. So I've removed the tag. In a manner, I believe, is in keeping with WP:SPLITCLOSE norms. If felt needed, someone could also close this thread. Guliolopez (talk) 12:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)