Talk:Remain in Light/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

need a little help

"Featuring funky African rhythms, the album became an influential post punk, world music and New Wave recording". come on people. AFRICA is a CONTINENT. and like any other continent, it's home to a mindboggling range of musical idioms.

now i know for a fact that david byrne was a fan of fela kuti (originator and high-priest of Afro-beat, in nigeria, west african you could say), AND IN FACT david byrne has even said that The Great Curve was supposed to sound like a fela kuti arrangement.

and the Great Curve horn section does kind of resemble fela's afrobeat in form. except the tempo, rhythm, and instrumentation is completely different.

anyway, the "featuring funky african rhythm" passage is LOATHSOME. david byrne has even RANTED against the non-category "world music".128.119.132.42 19:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, good for David. He rants about the CIA breeding AIDS as well. Hmm. Is this the same Fela Kuti who accosted Paul and Linda McCartney in Lagos in 1973 and accused them of stealing his music? Yes, the paragraph was egregious. Fantailfan 11:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Africa is a continent? I didn't know that.

POV issue

There's a whole paragraph here which seems badly written, and contains some POV issues, especially - If one plays back the LP at a speed lowered by approximately 20%, the music becomes more expressive and dancable, and for a foreigner that I am the English lyrics become understandable, but the sound of the vocals and some instruments become slightly un-natural. Cnwb 03:29, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The "…and for a foreigner that I am…" portion has already been removed. However, regarding the tape speeds etc. I'd like to know the source(s) of information for that entire paragraph. Byrne's voice doesn't sound as though it's in a different range from any of his other recordings. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 06:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I can hear the words fine at normal speed, and the music is perfectly danceable (apart from "The Overload", that is!). Whoever wrote that is probably just unused to African music. it's no more "too fast" than are Fela Kuti or King Sunny Ade. Delete, as OR and POV.Totnesmartin 16:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the paragraph in question. It's been over two years and no one has defended the text. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The album cover art description is completely bogus

The album art was done at MIT's Architecture Machine Group, since some of the researchers in that group knew some of the members of the band. (The album liner includes unexplained thanks to a group of user IDs, that being most -- see later -- of the members of the ArchMach team at the time.)

The front cover may in fact have been a concept they came in with; I wasn't involved in that particular image.

However, the back cover -- red planes over mountainside -- was a pre-existing image I created as part of a class project, writing and demonstrating an image-collage tool. The colorized planes and the mountainside were pre-existing images; I overlaid one on the other, somewhat further distorting the colors at the same time.

This is a serious sore point for me, both because they failed to tell me that they liked the image and wanted to use it -- the first I discovered this was when the album hit the store shelves -- and because, to add insult to injury, it turned out that my user ID was left off the list in the liner notes.

I decided it wasn't worth either pursuing legal action or threatening to blackmail the band ("Talking Heads Rips Off Student's Art, film at 11!"), since if they had actually had the courtesy to ask I would have been delighted to let them use this picture.

The important thing here is that the description of the cover art's origin is a myth -- "not verifiable" in Wiki terms. I'm sure you don't want to include all this detail, so what I would recommend is that the paragraph be rewritten to say that the images were produced by the students and staff at ArchMach (incompletely credited in the liner notes; the userID "JKESS" should be added to that list) and _selected_ because they had this set of meanings to the band.

-- Joe Kesselman, keshlam-nospam at comcast dot net (yes, -nospam is part of the user name) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.33.1.37 (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

The paragraph, as currently written, does not cite any sources and I propose that we remove it unless/until we can verify the claims. But by the same token, if you wish to add this new information to the article, then we need some way to verify what you've described. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, someone has provided a reference for the Tina Weymouth story.[1] (Perhaps both stories are true, e.g. they picked a particular, pre-existing image based upon Tina's background) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

ISSUE RESOLVED. As per the Design section, covers created by Tina Weymouth and Chris Frantz and computerised at MIT Media Lab. Tibor Kalman did the rest. Only acronyms are present in the album liner notes. The Personnel section details all parties in name after my research and clearly notes Walter Bender's team as MIT Architecture Machine Group. RB88 (T) 18:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Need more articles, one for each song

I think this album is legendary enough for it to warrant an article for every song, explaining what they mean. Thoughts? Jbeckwith (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Go read WP:NSONG. If the song itself is worthy, make a page. If not, don't. Nezzadar (speak) 17:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Polyrhythms

There are several mentions of African polyrhythms in this article. I can't hear any anywhere on the album. It's very rhythmic, percussive, etc. but I have been unable to find a single example of two distinct, simultaneous meters anywhere. Unless someone can come up with a good reason not to, I'd like to remove any mention of polyrhythm. 85.134.222.139 (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting. I'd heard before that the album had 'polyrhythms' on it, but never thought any more about it because I don't know what that word means. I note that the polyrhythm (god is that word hard to spell) statements are all uncited, so maybe it would be better to fact-tag them instead of deleting them. Also, watch out for original research. Alexwoods (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarifying the above observation from 85.134.222.139. The Another matter of potential dispute would be "African." I don't have a specific reference (perhaps its already in the article). Byrne and especially Eno had been listening to and were impressed with Fela Kuti at the time and the polyrhythms which are on the album would probably be more accurately described as African "influenced." Also many years ago I remember reading an interview with one of the other band members who was surprised that the percussion tracks he or she had layed for the album were being called by Byrne as African influenced because the band was unaware of this when they were playing them... keeping in mind the percussion sessions were a collaborative effort among the musicians present. Unfortunately the source material here is only my own memory of the interview. The liner notes for Speaking in Tongues refer to Remain in Light as having "fluidity, ...rhythmic emphasis, ...ethnic (predominately African) influences". Curiously, this description regards what is retained in Speaking in Tongues. Speaking in Tongues doesn't strike me as primarily African, or ethnic. There are many influences audible, but I would argue with the liner notes. Byrne himself may have been influenced by ethnic music at the time, but what was created for Speaking in Tongues was more likely a unique hybrid of many then current influences. - Steve3849 ^talk 22:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding polyrhythms. I agree that they are scant, but listen to track 6 "Seen and Not Seen;" isn't the lead keyboard that comes in at 0:49 in a different time signature? Still, even if it is, this one example does not constitute the entire album being polyrhythmic. - Steve3849 ^talk 23:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted!62.77.181.13 (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. Similarly, anyone who says "syncopated" probably couldn't give you a definition or demonstration of syncopation. Washington Post reviewer J. Freedom duLac comes to mind. It's a crutch of his.

Merge proposal with Born Under Punches (The Heat Goes On)

I inserted {{merge}} because that article above is too trivial, too short, and too unnoticable to stand on its own. That song is not as notable to the whole public as to those who own it on albums, compilations, and downloads ("Once in a Lifetime" is more plugged in airwaves right now than it was before then). No one, not even I, didn't know that song until one researched it through; not even live renditions would make that song more notable to the whole public. Is it possible to merge these two right away? --Gh87 (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Christgau vs. VV

I've never seen a Christgau review rendered to its original publication, with the possible exception of RS ones and even then often both his individual review and RS are included. We do have the specific Christgau template, so obviously something about him has made him distinguished and different enough to render this. It's not a huge point of contention, but for somebody who spends a lot of time reading and editing Wiki album articles, it looks strange to me. Grunge6910 (talk) 03:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"Everybody does it" does not make it right. If we follow proper citation guidelines, then the work always has to take precedence. I don't care if Jesus himself wrote it, if the Bible publishes it then that has to be linked, regardless of Jesus scribing it on his personal rosetta stone afterwards. For a more contemporary argument, you don't see me link Alexis Petridis if he puts up one of his The Guardian reviews on his blog. Xgau is clearly mentioned, as the lead no less, in the crit section and as the publisher in the citation. RB88 (T) 03:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait. But I'm not just saying to include him in the infobox because everybody else does it. I'm suggesting it because there is an official WP template for doing so. Grunge6910 (talk) 11:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a WP template for Musicbrainz too, but if I include it in external links, people at FAC will say it does not fulfil WP:EL. Being a template does not make it mandatory or accurate use. The citation conventions are waaay more important. RB88 (T) 13:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The Infobox album template includes citation rules for Christgau.Grunge6910 (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"For reviews by Robert Christgau you may use the Christgau rating template." MAY. I choose not to because of citing conventions. RB88 (T) 14:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand that. But there is a citing convention for citing Christgau as a reviewer, so appealing to convention doesn't hold here. Essentially we're both right. How do we decide which convention to use? Can we get someone else to weigh in here? Grunge6910 (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't know, but I'm not a fan of giving individual writers undue prominence in the box. I'll always be citing the work it appeared in as is the case for every review. The template is only to help with his special symbols anyway. RB88 (T) 15:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, using your way would ruin the uniformity of all my other citations, i.e. work and publisher. I'm not up for changing them all. RB88 (T) 15:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Metacritic cite Village Voice (Consumer Guide) instead of Xgau (as should always be the case in proper citations). [2]. RB88 (T) 15:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to change every other infobox in Talking Heads' discography, all of which cite Christgau as a reviewer? Or what about Byrne's discography? Or Eno's? See my point? This looks anachronistic in the wider context of WP album infoboxes. The template only refers to his special symbols, but lends credence to the idea that it's perfectly acceptable to cite him; similarly so with the fact that he's one of the reviewers cited in the template album infobox itself. So it seems as if it boils down to the fact that you "aren't a fan" of citing him. Fair enough, I guess. Grunge6910 (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I looove Xgau, but I'm a sucker for proper citations. If it was Piero Scaruffi's website, without it being published elsewhere, then I would definitely cite the writer's name. Also, frankly I couldn't care less about the other articles. That's an other-stuff-exists argument. Majority doesn't make it right. RB88 (T) 17:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Cover versions

It's not common for an entire album to be covered, in toto, by another band, but this one has: See Live Phish Volume 15; Phish performed the entire album as one of their noted musical costume concerts, and the concert was subsequently released commercially as the Live Phish Volume 15 album noted above. Since I didn't want to botch the addition of this to a recently featured article, I thought perhaps we could work out if, and how, such information could be added to the article. --Jayron32 02:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll only say this: the article is about Talking Heads, not Phish or any other band. The information was there to begin with and was removed as it adds nothing to the article and is merely trivial. Also ultimately, a line saying that Phish covered it would not be suitable for placement anywhere even if we were to allow trivia. RB88 (T) 03:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the article is about the album. We have an article about Talking Heads, and that is clearly a different article. It is common for songs which have been done by multiple artists to include notable other versions. Why is this any different? Not trying to be combative here, just trying to understand why multiple notable versions of songs are worth covering in featured articles, but this would not be. --Jayron32 03:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure where this guideline of covering multiple notable versions is, because there isn't one. The article is totally comprehensive about the album at hand and in the grand scheme of things, frankly, a cover version by Phish is non-notable and trivial. It would not add anything to the article (or be suitable for placement anywhere without making the article disjunct). RB88 (T) 03:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Its not written into a guideline that one must or must never do so, but it certainly is established practice that a comprehensive article about a musical piece often includes information on notable performances of that piece. Some examples of featured articles about songs that include information on more than one version include:

• Smells Like Teen Spirit
• Something
• Paranoid Android
• Today (The Smashing Pumpkins song)
• The Long and Winding Road

My point is, this piece of music has multiple notable versions. It's not trivial to note that. The article on "Something" notes the existance of over 150 different versions. I am just trying to understand why those featured articles can include alternate versions by different artists, but this one must not. That's all. --Jayron32 03:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I have never and will never base my decisions on other articles. I look at the current guidelines and proceed with each article in an insular way. This meets 1b of the FA criteria as shown by the wide consensus during the nom. Adding a piece of trivia will probably lower that and also 1a. And as I've said countless times so far: even if it merited inclusion, which it does not, there is nowhere you can put it without making the article disjunct and/or ruining the flow and/or the prose. Let's stop going in circles now. RB88 (T) 03:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, its perfectly reasonable that the information not be included for stylistic reasons. It's also perfectly reasonable that you don't personally WP:OWN this article. It is an excellent article, and if there is widespread consensus among many editors that the information does not belong; thats cool too. I just thought that it may be something which could add to the article, so far you and I represent 2 opinions on the matter, I would be interested to see what others think. There's no rush here anyways. Lets see what other editors think on the matter. --Jayron32 04:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

yes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.229.159.74 (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's an interesting bit of information. It's not often that an entire record is not only covered, but effectively re-released by another group. Given that this article is about Remain in Light, surely it merits mentioning that Phish, a notable band, released their own version of it. I see no grounds for its exclusion, not in any WP guidelines nor on any common-sensical grounds. Furthermore, it may lead to the creation of an influence/legacy section? Grunge6910 (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I've put the info in the only place it could go without making the article disjunct, i.e. See also. If you fancy writing a properly-sourced, historical, and totally relevant Legacy section be my guest. I checked the sources and apart from Accolades there aren't that many things to write about apart from more critical commentary, which is already covered nearly in historical excess. RB88 (T) 19:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the information is notable enough for the article, unusual, and important in describing how the album influenced music. Secondly, Rafablu88, stop being so abrasive; it's not personal. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

A bit late to the discussion. It was resolved a month ago, by consensus I might add. See the "See also". RB88 (T) 02:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, um, that would be the second time I've felt like a complete idiot tonight. Sorry for that! Cheers! Scapler (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate Billboard chart information

This article claims "the album entered the Billboard 200 in the US at number 19" however, that is incorrect. The album entered the Billboard album chart at number 70 the week ending November 1, 1980 (see Billboard chart). The album peaked at number 19 the week ending December 6, 1980.

Also, the article claims the single "Once in a Lifetime" from Remain in Light peaked at number 91 on the Billboard Hot 100. That is also incorrect. The single "Once in a Lifetime" (Sire 49649) bubbled under the Hot 100 at number 103 the week ending February 1, 1981 (see Whitburn, Joel. Bubbling Under Singles & Albums ISBN 0-89820-128-4). A different, live version of "Once in a Lifetime" from the album Stop Making Sense was released as a single in October 1984 (Sire 7-29163). That record made the Hot 100, peaking at number 91 in 1986 after the song was used in the film Down and Out in Beverly Hills (see Billboard chart). Piriczki (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair dos. That's all you had to say and prove with references. What you did last night was just keep reverting me without reason or refs. Can you please give me the page number from the book and I'll add it. RB88 (T) 19:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Page 195 in the 1998 edition. Piriczki (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. RB88 (T) 15:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Wording and other issues

After having some small association with this article long ago, and happily (at first) seeing it as a featured article, I'm disappointed with the flow of the text. There appears to be far too much technical discussion which could have been made more succinct. Often the same words are used repeatedly, to the point of distraction, (the word "instructed" comes to mind) each time a point was being made. Also, the article focuses heavily on the recording and production process, with terms that really should have been wikified or minimalized, so the average reader might understand something about what is being said, and why Adrian Belew, Brian Eno, and others were pioneers in many ways during the period of time the album was recorded. Names of some of the extra musicians brought in weren't wikified either. "A guitarist, a drummer, and a keyboardist are performing a song, live in concert". That alt-photo caption really should be changed. When I uploaded those Talking Heads photos, I took care to note who the people in the photos were. At first, I thought it was just me. I'm a Wikignome. Mostly I copyedit, add to unsourced articles, find photos, create infooxes, etc. But after seeing the number of editors making corrections here all on the same day it's being featured, I don't think I'm alone. I just think more tweaking should have gone into this. I hope you understand that this isn't a personal attack but concern.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

About the caption, see WP:ALT. I don't share your concerns. This was one of the most faultless albums at WP:FAC ever. If you don't like it, bring it up at WP:FAR. People changing things on featured day is common. Other articles have been changed much more, even on following days. RB88 (T) 21:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The lead says it is "often considered Talking Heads' magnum opus."

But More Songs About Buildings and Food is considered by many critics to be just as good. Perhaps the text should be changed to say "considered to be one of their two best albums." Grundle2600 (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

All the critical lists and TV countdowns available have this album ahead of any other TH albums 90% or more of the time. RB88 (T) 22:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. You're right. That's a good point. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes!

The first album I ever bought and still a fave. Conga at your liaisons (say it fast) to all who got this article the gold star. Totnesmartin (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Haha, ch eers (say it fast). It's not my first buy, but definitely top. RB88 (T) 23:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

New Wave

Usually in articles about bands the genre is not in capitals, for example such and such is a heavy metal band. How come New Wave is in capitals? Portillo (talk) 11:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Because that is the way it has always been notated. See its article: New Wave music. RB88 (T) 15:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

British English?

Why does this article continue to follow British convention when the band are unquestionably American? Radiopathy •talk• 05:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Because the editor who re-wrote the article from the ground up and brought it to featured article status prefers British English. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Seeing as that person, despite their good intentions and work, was not the first major contributor, the article should be changed back to American English per WP:RETAIN Radiopathy •talk• 06:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic.". There are no STRONG national ties to any particular country. Byrne is Scottish, Weymouth is half-French, Eno is English, it was recorded in the Bahamas, some engineers were foreign, it incorporates African and Arabic music, label is US. Thus, since I prefer BrEng, it should remain that way. PRB88 (T) 12:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The article evolved using primarily American English, right from the first edit. Additionally, the band formed in New York City; one is desperately splitting hairs by arguing Eno's nationality or the location of the studio where the record was made. The Rolling Stones made several albums in France; you'll notice that the articles for those albums are not in French, they're in British English, to reflect the origin of the band.

Change back to American English. Radiopathy •talk• 18:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

How about, no. First edit is not "evolving". It's when it becomes a substantial article. I did not even do that. I wrote it from scratch, hence a new start. Your first argument is just about fine for the Talking Heads article, you second does not match the cultural and national differences of this piece of work. (I'd be surprised if the RS knew who Fela Kuti was.) Also, bear in mind that when you changed it the first time without discussion, another editor chimed in and agreed with me. So as it stands, it's staying BrEng. Deal with it. PRB88 (T) 18:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Per WP:TIES, an article about an American band should be in American English (and Talking Heads is an American band, regardless of where Byrne was born) but as I wrote, I defer to RB88/PRB88, who essentially re-wrote the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I did consider AmEng (and I have written Is This It from scratch using that). But after looking at the involved parties, locations, and content, I took an editorial decision to stick with BrEng. I'm surprised people take minor things like this and blow them up to war-size material (see the Robert Christgau thing above as well). If you like the album, then just be happy it's FA. As WP:ENGVAR says: "Editors should understand that the differences between the varieties are largely superficial." PRB88 (T) 18:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Regardless of who contributed what, no one here owns an article; it doesn't matter what your preference is - you're clearly side stepping policy to keep the article the way you think it should be. Your work, BTW, is quite good, but you don't get a trophy for contributing to an article's ascension to FA status. I still favour changing it back to AmE. Radiopathy •talk• 21:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Well then, good luck with that. It's within policy and then some, as I have explained a thousand times. And also how the editor that reverted your changes a while back explained it as well in the edit summary. PRB88 (T) 22:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:ALBUM and charts

Why? The release history section is explicitly called for by WP:ALBUM, it is sourced, and it was a part of the article when it passed FA; I see no reason to delete it. Also, I do not understand why there is unsourced information on charts where the album didn't place. What is the purpose of that? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I do NOT support the display of Charts for albums that don't chart. See WP:CHARTS, it only shows charts where there is information to display.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be a devil to verify with a source that it did not chart. Would recommend leaving off unless it's somehow notable and can be referenced. SunCreator (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I accept that there might be occasion for an extraordinary exception, but generally do NOT display a 'nothing' Peak position.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If all of you had followed the conception of this article and the subsequent review stages, you would have seen that:

1. I included a Release history, but then removed it after realising that LP pressings have one-off nuances which are impossible to source. Hence, since the FA criteria does not allow for such incomplete sections and information, the table was removed. In addition, the guideline is NOT compulsory "This information can be included in a table". The editorial and FA decision is that the Release history shall not be placed in the article. (The major releases are already covered anyway in other section.)
2. The non-charting charts were included for criteria 1b of the FA criteria or Comprehensiveness. Charts need to be included for all the major territories an album was released in, within reason and the 10 chart limit, to show this and also remove any POV structure whatsoever. You can say that the info is implicit, but I always err on the side of safety for FAs.

I will be reverting back the changes. RB88 (T) 02:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• 'Criteria' is the plural form of 'criterion'; your statement should read, "...since the FA criteria do not allow...";
• User:Koavf has a long history of rigidly adhering to template guidelines to the point of disruption, and should simply be reverted and ignored; if he edit wars, take it to AN/I. Radiopathy •talk• 02:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm worried he's gonna now add "Language: English" simply because the template has that option, for the benefit of the 2 people out of 7 billion who think this was in an indigenous Peruvian language. I joke I joke, Koavf means well, but asking first is always a better option I reckon. Wiki guidelines are often not the last word, sometimes going against even GA/FA criteria and legal standpoints. RB88 (T) 02:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: The number of charts allowed per WP:CHARTS is no longer limited per consensus at Talk there. (But component charts where it apppears on the Main chart are still not to be used.) I would argue that this article as it stands now IS showing POV by only indicating some of the regions/countries that it has not charted in. Wouldn't your 'comprehensiveness' arguement require that you list them all? You are granting a higher importance to some (showing them) and denigrating others (not showing them), also known as POV. Regarding Comprehensiveness, you could not possibly state EVERYTHING that the album has not achieved. You could say that the album did NOT receive a Grammy, and many other awards that it did NOT get. See my point?—Iknow23 (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Another UPDATE: per WP:CHARTS, "Charts should be arranged by country in alphabetical order."—Iknow23 (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) That's a fair point. That's why I said "major territories". Also, don't forget WP:SUMMARYSTYLE; even the text can't cover everything. I simply wanted to give a complete WP:NPOV to the chart positions as well, especially as there is no specific section in the main text. The non-charting positions give a rounder, more accurate picture of the chart reception. Moreover, they can be easily verified as well; I didn't choose the South African Albums Chart for example. I will put them in alphabetical order if you're that bothered. RB88 (T) 03:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

So are there many other album articles showing NON-charting 'peak positions'?? Can you show this to be an established practice?—Iknow23 (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't have to as that's an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. An article must always be taken on its own merits and in an insular way. That is the way everyone, including me, proceeds at FAC. Of course precedent has its place, say with sources being called into question, but if the editorial reasoning is sound, which in this case I think it evidently is, then there shouldn't be any need to compare and contrast. Other editors are more than welcome to proceed other ways as long as their decision-making is ingrained in the core policies as well. RB88 (T) 03:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess I covered all the points that I wanted to make. It's time for others to contribute.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Another thing occurred to me. Previously it is mentioned about 10 charts. Well I just counted them on the page, and there are TEN! I don't think there ever was a requirement that you had to show 10 chsrts? Now there is no minimum or maximum number of charts as long as they are properly referenced and do not appear on WP:BADCHARTS.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I know, but 10 is still a nice rule of thumb for WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, as I mentioned before. RB88 (T) 19:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

For Koavf

Let's bold what I said above, cos it seems you can't read:

If all of you had followed the conception of this article and the subsequent review stages, you would have seen that:

1. I included a Release history, but then removed it after realising that LP pressings have one-off nuances which are impossible to source. Hence, since the FA criteria does not allow for such incomplete sections and information, the table was removed. In addition, the guideline is NOT compulsory "This information can be included in a table". The editorial and FA decision is that the Release history shall not be placed in the article. (The major releases are already covered anyway in other section.)
2. The non-charting charts were included for criteria 1b of the FA criteria or Comprehensiveness. Charts need to be included for all the major territories an album was released in, within reason and the 10 chart limit, to show this and also remove any POV structure whatsoever. You can say that the info is implicit, but I always err on the side of safety for FAs.

PRB88 (T) 17:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Please I can read and I think you know that. There is no reason to resort to that kind of slander. FA criteria do not require you to include charts of countries where the album didn't chart and the consensus above is to delete them. There is no minimum requirement for chart positions, so it's neither necessary nor desirable to include a bunch of blank charts. The release history is sourced, relevant information that is suggested by WP:ALBUM and no one other than you is objecting to it. Your deletions in spite of consensus amount to owning this page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm tired of your petulance. I have calmly explained my efforts above through all the stages of this article's conception and people agreed with my reasoning. Read the section above. PRB88 (T) 17:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC

The dispute concerns the inclusion of placement on certain record charts and the release history section of the article. Related policies and guidelines include the nature and scope of WP:ALBUM and the featured-article criteria. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding record charts with no chart placement, I think indicating that a record did not chart in a particular country that was a significant market, or where a particular artist has charted with other records, can be useful information to the reader. However, if the "—" merely indicates that no information is available, I would not mention the chart at all since no information relevant to it is being presented.

As for release history, I think it is useful where there have been significant differences in releases such remastered or expended editions. The table, however, is a jumble of cells spanning different rows which makes it difficult to sort out. I would also caution against using allmusic.com as a source for release history. Many of their entries for pre-CD era albums incorrectly show a CD release date of 1990. I suspect that may have been a default date in their database where the actual date was unknown. In this case, the table shows the same album, same catalog number and same format being released in the U.S. in 1984 and 1990. Which one is it, 1984 or 1990? Actually, I know the answer, it's 1984 but other readers might be confused by the conflicting information. Piriczki (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I would also remove the Billboard Hot 100 column from the non-singles section since that chart was not even a possibility for album tracks. Piriczki (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Long time collaborator?

According to the intro, this album was produced by "the quartet's long-time collaborator Brian Eno." As far as I'm aware, Eno's tenure as a collaborator/producer/sessioneer with the band lasted for a little over two years, from early 78 through mid 80. Does this really qualify as "long-term?" 172.129.80.119 (talk) 01:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Compared to, say, a session musician, yes it does. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, sure. It's also long-time if compared to the life cycle of a fruit fly. Compared to the tenure of other long-time creative collaborators (which is, after all, what we're comparing here) I'm not really sure this is justified. "Long-time" collaborators would indicate to me, a relationship on the order of Billy Strayhorn and Duke Ellington, or Burt Bacharach and Hal David. I'm not disputing Eno's contributions to the band -- just the terminology used here. 172.130.213.5 (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

We're talking long-term creative collaboration in a very fast moving industry where some careers may well end within the lifespan of an insect. You are comparing the career context of performers who are arguably from a different generation. But I understand the difference of opinion and that our disagreement is more arm-chair sophistry than a real dilemma. In such cases it is common practice at Wikipedia to defer to outside sources to justify the contested phrasing. There's an article at [3] that refers to Byrne's and Eno's thirty-year collaboration that I think provides a sufficient basis for the "long-time" claim. I'll refrain from adding it to the article's references section pending your reply. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's relative. A three-album stint for a group with eight albums in their discography (and by the time of Remain in Light three out of only four total albums) seems as long term as a collaborator is likely to get. Grunge6910 (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Also IP, please refrain from making structural changes. The article's been vetted countless times and is as tight and in depth as it should be. Everything is covered and more importantly flows. RB88 (T) 01:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Photo of Eno

Perhaps a more contemporary photo of Eno should be found, instead of one nearly three decades after the fact. 70.48.248.217 (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies concerning photos essentially limit us to "free" photographs of living people. The only free pictures we have of Eno are from 2006 and 2007. If you find a picture of him from the 70s or 80s that's not encumbered by copyright, please upload it so we can use it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"eccentric, but largely conventional"?

The photo caption in "Promotion and release" says:

"Talking Heads had an eccentric, but largely conventional, rock concert set-up ...."

This is nonsense, surely? "eccentric" and "conventional" are antonyms. Something can't be both "eccentric" and "largely conventional". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.44.19.62 (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Good spot. It didn't make a whole lot of sense, so I pared it down to the part about five additional members for the tour. Grunge6910 (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011

Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:

• http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=Ake1ibkk96akc

--CactusBot (talk) 10:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Remain in Light/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Start class: Y A reasonably complete infobox Y A lead section giving an overview of the album Y A track listing Y Reference to at least primary personnel by name (must specify performers on the current album; a band navbox is insufficient) Y Categorisation at least by artist and year C class: Y All the start class criteria Y A reasonably complete infobox, including cover art Y At least one section of prose (in addition to the lead section) Y A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs Y A "personnel" section listing performers, including guest musicians. B class: Y All the C class criteria Y A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details Y A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians N No obvious issues with sourcing, including the use of blatantly improper sources. Y No significant Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 16:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 15:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)