Talk:Richard D. James Album/Archive 1

Archive 1

Song titles

Can we end the dispute over the titles of the songs?

Commonly on file sharing networks, fan sites, etc. the tracks in dispute are named the following:

• Peek 824545201
• Corn Mouth

However, Warp Records lists them as:

• Peek .824545201
• Carn Marth

They also list "Fingerbib" as "Fore Street" and "Logon Rock Witch" as "Logan Rock Witch", as well as numerous "errors". Suggest changing it to the commonly refered listing. --Insomniak 06:09, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've also seen track 3 listed as Peek 8245452,01 with a comma. I think I shall stick with common fan names for the tracks as they seem to sit better. Jontce 29 June 2005 11:35 (UTC)

The track titles are clearly as they are written in the so-called "fan" opinion. Look, this is an actual scan of the album's track listing: clearly stating Corn Mouth, Fingerbib and Peek without a dot.

I think you should also take into account listings on things like iTunes and Spotify, as shown here: [1] . No dot on Peek, Finger Bib is a seperate word, and it's Corn Mouth. CVance1 (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't rule out that there aren't other versions of the track titles on different releases, but it's ridiculous to change the titles to the less common variations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WMarsh (talk • contribs) 21:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, that album image is not definitive, but so there are three overlapping versions: the common file-sharing names, the Warp Records names, and three versions for "Peek" and "logon". It makes sense to just use the common names, but to note the rest:

1. The common names are "Peek 824545201", "fingerbib", "Corn Mouth", and "logon rock witch"
2. Warp has (in all caps, their stylistic decision): "PEEK 824542,01" with a comma, "FORE STREET", "CARN MARTH", and "LOGAN ROCK WITCH" with an "a"
3. There is also the unattributed decimal version, "Peek .824545201", and the hyphen version "logon-rock witch" as seen on the album cover

--Tarnas 21:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Write down the track names from official releases. Where there are multiple track names for one song, write each one into the article, with one short explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.32.12 (talk) 09:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the track has to be called "Peek 8245452,01" because it's a BASIC command which requires two parameters (the location in the memory to peek (8245452) followed by the value (01). Have changed it accordingly --taras 18:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The legal title for this track is Peek 824545201. Cparker 19:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

---

I don't know about the other song titles, but track 5 is definitely "Carn Marth" as in Carn Marth in Redruth, Cornwall, UK and track 10 is "Logan Rock Witch" as in the Logan Rock also located in Cornwall. Slicing 00:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

And I see that this info is already in the article. I guess I should scan the album cover and point out exactly how it spells "Carn Marth" and "Logan Rock" so we can get rid of this "Corn Mouth" nonsense. Slicing 00:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

These are 1200 dpi scans of the back cover:

• Carn Marth: original traced
• Logan Rock Witch: original traced

-- Slicing 02:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Legal titles as registered with BMI:

• Carn Marth
• Fingerbib
• Logan Rock Witch

If no one objects, I am going to change the titles for the above three songs. Slicing 02:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget:

• Peek 824545201

Cparker 19:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Album description

The album epitomizes and transcends many of the genres that are interwoven in its sound, from the very strictly proscribed drill n' bass/jungle drumming to the more general IDM and techno intonations. The songs are melodic and are borne on structures not alien to the more general rock and pop listening public, unlike much of the music of James' fellow techno artists (e.g., Autechre's driving loops or μ-Ziq's jazzy noodling).

This is a drill and bass album. It doesn't sound like IDM nor Techno. The songs are melodic (no shit! A melodic song?). "borne on structures not alien to the" What? As for Autechre and Mike P, they are friends/labelmates of Aphex Twin, but why name check them in the RDJ album article as a description of what the RDJ album DOESN'T sound like? Deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.32.12 (talk) 09:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

First of all, "IDM" and "techno" are broad terms, but of course this is an IDM album, it is music that has largely been reviewed as headphone-listening material and was released on a label that promoted the IDM genre of music, while it was also one of the first albums labeled as an "IDM" album. Forget whether IDM is a good term or not, the history of its use is there.

What? Joyrex 09:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The fact that the songs are melodic and similar in structure to many pop/rock songs is important: Autechre songs are not, and Paradinas songs also do not usually follow rock structures, and since those two artists are contemporaries of Aphex it's highly topical and makes perfect sense to contrast James' music with theirs. You "name checked" Luke Vibert and Squarepusher as influences on the album in your addition to this article, I'm referring to Autechre and μ-Ziq in contrast to the album's sound, why would you erase my note and keep yours?

Luke Vibert and Squarepusher are the main external influences on this album. Luke Vibert's PLUG EP's invented the well detailed programming version of drum and bass. Squarepusher helped develop it. It's not about name checking, it's about relevant details to the album. Who influenced the Richard D. James album is relevant.

Autechre are label-mates of Aphex Twin, but their music didn't influence this album. Richard D. James album doesn't sound anything like Autechre, and that's the reason for including it in the article? What the album DOESN'T sound like? What?

µ-Ziq is influenced by Aphex Twin, not an influence on Aphex Twin. A statement about µ-Ziq belongs in a µ-Ziq article. Who didn't influence the Richard D. James album is irrelevant. Joyrex 09:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Secondly, I'm reverting back the following to the previously copyedited version: The songs are more childish than drum and bass by playing samples of children's toys as percussion sounds, and more pastoral by having classical string sounds. A conscious decision to use the methodology of drum and bass with James's unique aesthetics.

"The songs are more childish than drum and bass by playing samples..." is poorly constructed English: things are not more of something simply by something else, they're more of something by reason of something else or because of something else... the whole sentence needs rewording. The comment about the songs being pastoral is flawed: Kronos Quartet use strings, John Coolidge Adams uses strings, yet their creations are not usually pastoral. Maybe classical string arrangements or melodies make this album feel pastoral? Please help clarify this comment. The line "A conscious decision to use the methodology of drum and bass with James's unique aesthetics." is not even a complete sentence, there's no verb! I erased it because I don't understand what the original comment was meant to be: a conscious decision was made by James to use drum and bass aesthetics? So what, and who says so? Please finish this thought for us. —Tarnas 03:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Joyrex, please don't intercut your comments in my talk thread. Instead, respond to a single set of comments after them on the page, not inside of them. Intercutting your comments is non-standard and bad form, and it makes it hard for me to respond to what you've said. As for what you've said, we obviously disagree on how a musical work should be discussed: I think it's important to mention, compare, and contrast works by contemporaries with the work at hand. That's why I want to compare RDJ Album with Autechre's and µ-Ziq's work of the same period: you're right, they aren't alike, and there was not as strong an exchange of ideas between them and James as there was between James and Squarepusher and Vibert. But since Autechre and µ-Ziq were part of the same music scene as Aphex, and often part of the same press reviews as Aphex, I think it's completely reasonable to bring them up when making a point about RDJ Album. The point I was making was two-fold: (1) that the album both honed and expanded exponentially on the drum-and-bass genre and other techno genres, and (2) that unlike many other electronic works of the time the song structures on the album tend to follow variations on pop song structures. This isn't a bad thing, I actually think it's great: Aphex has taken variations on the verse-chorus-verse-chorus-middle-chorus construction and turned out not boring and cookie-cutter stuff, but highly variegated, highly original material that stands out from both the general dance and headphone-listening techno scenes. I was referring to Ae and µ-Ziq with respect to point (2) in particular, offering up artists that also made critically acclaimed techno during the same era. I'm not contrasting RDJ Album with The Kinks or Tupac, I'm contrasting it with topically-relevant and related artists. This strategy for analysing something (finding contrasting points, not just similarities or influences) makes sense to me, but you and others who've edited this and other Aphex Twin pages don't seem to agree. As for the album being related to IDM, this AllMusic review of RDJ Album (which used the same contrasting strategy I do with respect to Orbital and Underworld) lists it as IDM, this Slate article matches James with IDM... I don't think bringing that term up, whether it's a very good term or not, is controversial, and it is topical. —Tarnas 23:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I have several issues here. First off, "Forget whether IDM is a good term or not, the history of its use is there," does not make it correct. If a everyone who isn't a physicist says that nuclear fusion is when an atom is split, that doesn't mean they're right, just ignorant or uninformed - the same with people who refer to vultures as "buzzards". The entire state of Texas minus perhaps their biologists and falconers will tell you that a buzzard is a vulture, and I'm certain that the vast majority of people in the US would tell you so as well, when the word specifically refers to raptors and birds of prey, generally of the Buteo genus. The fact that some people said somewhere this is IDM does not in fact make it IDM, and to use IDM to refer to this music in any other way than to mention that it has been mistakenly termed by some as IDM (with proper citations of course)... is foolish - this is not Urban Dictionary and "common wisdom" does not apply, except perhaps as an example of language pollution as a result of poor education, which is a different article altogether: even Richard D. James himself has criticized the use of the term according to the article on Intelligent_dance_music.

Additionally, I take umbrage with the usage of "Drum and Bass" being used to describe this album, as it really is not. On listening to be certain, off hand the only song that even approaches the 165 BPM barrier into the drum and bass genre is 'Girl/Boy Song £18 Snare Rush' which is actually of the proper tone and BPM - the original Girl/Boy Song is of proper BPM but still completely lacks the distinctive style and sound of Drum and Bass, as BPM alone does not Drum & Bass make - a Polka at 180BPM is still a Polka, and even then the "£18 Rush" mix but still more appropriately "Drill and Bass" as it does not really carry the type of sustained break-beat or percussion, nor much of the more characteristic feel of typical or proper drum and bass: experimental would be a much more appropriate term for this album, especially in light of the fact that besides the one remixed song on the US release of the album, NONE of the rest of it has anything in common with what is generally accepted as "Drum & Bass" —Besieged 06:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Horribly worded introduction sentence

Tarnas - thanks for reverting my changes to ensure that the sentence remains grammatically correct. It still reads horribly, though. Wouldn't re-ordering it a little make it sound better?

"The Richard D. James Album is an album by Aphex Twin. Released in 1996, it is one of his most experimental works, featuring novel use of software synthesizers and is often considered an archetype in the drill n' bass genre." WMarsh 11:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it does need rewording. I think you're close, the following may be best:

"The Richard D. James Album is an album by Aphex Twin. Released in 1996, it is one of his most experimental works, featuring novel use of software synthesizers. The album is often considered an archetype in the drill n' bass genre."

Your way, with "featuring...and is often considered" is a tricky verb-phrase construction, two phrases with equal sentence position but different tenses/moods. I'm going to rewrite it as above, tell me if you think it works... —Tarnas 01:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Works for me! I was originally going to suggest writing it that way (splitting the sentence into two), but didn't want to decimate it too much for diplomatic purposes. It parses much better this way, I'm happy to see it changed! WMarsh 01:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Excellent... :) —Tarnas 01:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Amen breakbeat

What is the mentioned Amen breakbeat? --Abdull 10:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah! Amen break - linked it in the article. --Abdull 11:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hm, as http://the-breaks.com/search.php?term=winstons&type=0 states, Aphex Twin - "Boy/Girl Song" uses the the Amen break, therefore the statement in this Richard D. James Album article about Aphex Twin not using this sample in his Richard D. James Album would be wrong. --Abdull 11:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

"Boy/Girl Song" does not use the Amen Break. It may sound similar, but it is note the Amen break. It is important to not that he did not use it at all on this album, since the Amen break was all the rage in drum and bass at this time of the release of this album. It would have been a cop out for him to use it, but he did not.--NickD —Preceding undated comment added 02:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC).

Yeah, that's definitely not the Amen break - 220.239.250.219 (talk) 10:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone have a source for that? It certainly sounds like the Amen ride. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.26.16.174 (talk) 08:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's the ride, but I can recognise the Amen snare anywhere, and that's definitely not it - 211.30.227.30 (talk) 08:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, so who cares then? Maybe RDJ went out of his way to not use the Amen, but in doing so he used samples that sound extremely similar, and in many places, use the rhythm of the Amen break with different samples. If it is a cop-out, he copped out. Conical Johnson (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Anti-drug commercial

"The song "4" was used in a US government anti-drug advertisement spot." Anyone know where this spot could be acquired? Thanks. Kevin143 05:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5295374346244252496 —Slicing (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Kevin143 21:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Synths Used

He did not use Native Instruments. These did not exist in 95, 96. He used a special software that was developed by a university in France and as soon as a find a citation is found, this should be changed.--NickD —Preceding undated comment added 01:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC).

I strongly doubt any software synthesizers were used on this album - this is all part of fan-distorted Aphex mythology. Some instantly recognizable vintage Roland synth sounds can be heard all over this album. From what I gather he started using computers for sampling, drum sequencing and arranging tracks (Pro Tools is cited in this FAQ [2]), and certainly not for synthesis, as nothing powerful enough existed at the time.

NickD, you mean SuperCollider I believe. No quote is available for this, and I doubt it was used extensively either, if at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.127.142.86 (talk) 06:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Computers have been synthesising sounds since at least 1957. Max has been going since the 80s. Anyway, this has no bearing on the article (it's original research). This interview with Aphex says he synthesised a lot of the album on his Mac, and that it's "native audio", i.e. audio native to the machine and not the Native Instruments software. I'm not really interested in adding that information back into the article, but it's a useful reference to keep around in case anybody starts putting their own stuff about Native Instruments in the article again. Wentomowameadow (talk) 11:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Title

Having changed the name per the Warp site and Amazon UK and the way I've seen it described in the British music press in the past, I now discover a scan of a British CD sleeve where it has "Album" and "album" as a suffix. I suppose it must be one of those interchangeable things. I'll leave it to others to decide whether to change it back then. I prefer this form but it would seem to be not as cut and dried as I thought - sorry about that! --kingboyk 13:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. Powelldinho 14:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have always seen it referred to as Richard D. James Album, and this is how it is listed on the American Amazon site (and everyone I've ever spoken to about it has called it Richard D. James Album; this is not proof that it's right, only that it is the overwhelmingly popular form). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.26.16.174 (talk) 08:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AphexTwin4.ogg

Image:AphexTwin4.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 14:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Richard d james album cover.jpg

Image:Richard d james album cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Article rework

I reworked the article a little bit, with some references and a better layout. I'm still a little new to Wikipedia, HOPEFULLY the rework is for the best. Rtyq2 (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Inside Album Cover

According to wikipedia Richard David James was born 18 August 1971.

Anyone seen inside his album cover for this particular album?

On the inside its a picture of a gravestone reading

"Richard James
Nov 23 1968  "

Can anyone explain this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.254.23.252 (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It's the grave of his elder brother, who died shortly after birth (or was stillborn; I forget which) and had also been given the name Richard James. The image appeared on the cover of Girl/Boy EP. –CapitalLetterBeginning (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Overview

Why is the "Overview" section just a strung-together list of trivia regarding the sample sources? This material is interesting, but it should fall under a different heading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.36.25 (talk) 06:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

artwork

its his most iconic image and the grinning/leering face has been used again and again in videos etc, yet who created the artwork? anyone know? its curious the article doesnt mention it 122.58.124.6 (talk) 10:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)