Talk:Vol. 4 (Black Sabbath album)

Name

Shouldn't this be Black Sabbath Vol. 4??????????????? Lee M 01:57, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it should. Can someone change the header and alter the links to the page? I can only do the former. Al —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.96.164 (talk) 03:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It should remain Black Sabbath Vol 4. That's the title on the cover. Joe routt (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The official name of the album is Vol 4 (as can be seen on the official website),the black sabbath on the cover is to state the name of the band as many albums do otherwise we'd be calling albums nirvana nevermind,beatles please please me etc could soemone please change the top title to Vol 4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.65.188 (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This is what I agree with. Just because the band's name is on the cover of an album, it doesn't make it a part of the title. Jthm guitarist (talk) 07:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Been a while since anyone commented on the name of this album, but I'd like to stick my 2 cents in. Surely the name of the album is Vol 4 or even Volume 4. No way is it Black Sabbath Volume 4. I have no idea how to change it myself else I would. So could someone change it. If it doesn't get changed I will try and contact someone here who can change it. Roger and out. JSL595 (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Allmusic and Rolling Stone both refer to it as Black Sabbath Vol. 4. I would be against moving to 'Volume 4'. J04n(talk page) 20:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

black-sabbath.com refers to it as "Volume 4" "[1]" and I would imagine (here's me guessing) that the Sabs themselves would refer to it as Vol/Volume 4 as do the many Sabbath fans I've chatted with over these past 30 odd years. Never in all those discussions has anyone said something like "Ooh yeah I love the outro to Under the Sun on Black Sabbath Vol 4". I've just taken a wee look at Toto IV and Led Zeps II and III and they include the name of the band in the title of the album too (although whether or not they should I have no idea, not being a Toto or Led Zep fan)... We'll see if anyone else can offer some sage words on this. I'm not a big contributor or uberknowledgeable editor on here but it strikes me (ow!) that calling this album "Black Sabbath Vol 4" is incorrect and is done to satisfy people who don't like inconvenient names for things... Led Zep's 4th album being the perfect example of this, although the arguement there is that that album didn't have an official title so Led Zeppelin IV is OK and I can accept that. My arguement here is, like the guy above said a while back, that just because the name of the band is congruent with Vol 4 on the album cover, it doesn't mean that it is all part of the title of that album. Is there a naming conventions guide on here somewhere? There must be... I'll go have a wee look. Rock and roll JSL595 (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

There is one counter-arguement to this dilema though. If you bought the album and checked on the side of the album where it would name the album it reads "Black Sabbath/Black Sabbath Vol. 4" which means they mentioned the band name and then the album name. Websites usually disagree with the actual releases, but I trust the releases more than I trust the websites, because websites are usually controlled by a third party who understands the technology more than a band that's been around before CDs existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.213.7 (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The label on the vinyl Vertigo LP also shows the title as "Black Sabbath Vol. 4" with the band name repeated under it. The label has the period at the end of Vol, which the cover art does not. I don't see any justification for writing "Volume" in full, since that isn't on the cover or the label.--Walor (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The band itself refer to this album as Black Sabbath Vol. 4 (even on their website). Vinyl and CD editions also use this name. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

If i remember correctly the spine on the LP read "Black Sabbath/Black Sabbath Vol 4" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.192.245 (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

<^>v|This album is connected|v<^>

• All song titles serve as redirects to this album or have been placed at the appropriate disambiguation pages.--Hraefen ^Talk 17:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge and other changes

I merged stub articles for "St. Vitus Dance (song)", "Supernaut" and "Snowblind (song)" back into Black Sabbath, Vol 4 — articles aren't really needed for each song. Hopefully this doesn't enrage anyone.

Yes, it DOES enrages me, because these are some of THE BEST FREAKIN' SONGS IN THE HISTORY OF MUSIC. They DO deserve their own articles. Yeah, enragement is the best word, I guess... 85.89.184.212 (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"Changes (Black Sabbath song)" still has its own page not because it's great or anything but because it was released on 2 (non-Sabbath) singles, one becoming a hit for Kelly Osbourne. / edg ☺ ☭ 05:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to the merge but anyone looking for Supernaut (band) may not have found it as a result of changing Supernaut to a redirect. I've switched it to a disambig page which should fulfil all requirements. —Moondyne 06:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this! / edg ☺ ☭ 06:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

recording information

in this article it's stated that vol 4 was "...recorded in California, the first time Sabbath had recorded a studio album outside the United Kingdom. [1]"

the article for Master of Reality states that it was recorded at the same place in california, which one is wrong? 74.216.44.229 (talk) 05:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not sludge metal

Please, journalists are not the best source for metal subgenres. Where are the hardcore punk influences here?

Forgot to sign:Gothbag (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Cover Art Variations

Does anyone have any info as to why there are so many variations of the color on the cover art? I've seen hard orange, yellow, and somewhere between the two. Which one is supposed to be the right one? zappafrank2112 (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Depends. My original LP is more orangey, my CD (not the remastered one) is more yellowey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.44.248.3 (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Genres

I don't know who put this album as stoner and doom metal, but you're totally wrong. Yes it has traces of stoner left from MOR, but it's not a stoner metal album, nor is it even close to doom metal, no sabbath album is doom. It is hard rock/heavy metal and keep it that way please. 74.183.34.16 (talk) 05:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation format

Hi User:ChakaKong can you please explain what the objection is to the open text citation format. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

You are citing books as sources and this is the preferred citation style. I've never seen anyone place entire paragraphs from a book into an inline citation like you're doing. Also, why are you adding a source to a song title? It's not necessary. ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 02:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

We do it all the time in articles where it's needed to check the content. How does anyone know what the cite says and source say are the same? i.e. What harm is it doing to let readers see the original source? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

How does anyone know what the cite says and source say are the same? They read it! They actually verify it by reading the book you're citing, which is exactly what we are expected to do. No offense, but how do I know what you typed in is what the source actually says? I don't. ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 03:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Please do not deleted sourced content. I have changed copy to agree with your (correct) interpretation of the sourced ref. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

If it's wrong, I'll revert it. Sourced or not. You seem to be in agreement that your edit was inaccurate, so anyone can revert it at any time. ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 03:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

And what exactly does your line The song "Under the Sun" is an experiment following the play with eclectic structures in "Wicked World" even mean? That sentence is going to confuse anyone who reads it and should be reverted. ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 03:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It means the same as it means in the book source which you deleted. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Singles

The statement by Tony Iommi that Black Sabbath did not release singles between Paranoid and Never say Die is clearly false and maybe due to the fact that those singles did not chart. As also reported in Black Sabbath discography#Singles, Black Sabbath released three singles through Vertigo Records, WWA and NEMS in the UK and Warner Bros. Records in the USA, between 1972 and 1976. They are Tomorrow's Dream / Laguna Sunrise (Vertigo 6059 061, September 1972) [2], Sabbath Bloody Sabbath / Changes (WWA WWS 002, December 1973) [3], Am I Going Insane (Radio) / Hole in the Sky (NEMS 6165 300, December 1975) [4]. The count is limited to British and American editions, because more singles were produced in other European countries and Japan. A good list can be found here: [5]. For printed sources on Black Sabbath discography I suggest the books The Great Rock Discography by M.C. Strong (ISBN 9780862415419) and Black Sabbath by Chris Welch (ISBN 0711917388), but other biographies of the band have a reference to the cited singles. Lewismaster (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you source your edits reliably rather than edit warring on the subject, as you have been doing thus far. I'm not seeing any sources here which can trump Iommi's assertion that his band did not release these songs as singles. That is a reliable source. Your sources show that photos of potentially limited edition promotional records exist. That's all that I'm seeing; no proof that the songs were officially released as singles. I have my doubts that "metal-archives.com" will pass as a reliable source. I have the Chris Welch book in my hands right now... which page confirms that Tomorrow's Dream / Laguna Sunrise was released as a single? I can't find it. ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 16:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Discography, page 93. I own a couple of those singles and they are not promo copies. By the way, in this singles collection there are at least two of them: http://www.allmusic.com/album/singles-box-set-mw0000461824. How many sources do you need against only Iommi's word? here are a couple: [6] [7] Lewismaster (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The snowblind.no sources cannot be used because they don't meet the criteria for reliability. I would like to see some better sources because there is obviously contradictory information on this subject out there. Please don't re-ad the material until it can be proven reliably. ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 17:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Peace sign

@Nigel C. Fortune: I don't see a peace sign on File:Black Sabbath Vol. 4.png as you claim, you also "The first two fingers of both hands are extended making the sign. Its very obvious" first of all I don't see "two" hands at all and it's not even "obvious" that the image is even a person. Put all that aside I don't see the importance of mentioning the peace sign at all anyway. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 22:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Please explain to me what you do see on the cover then. If i add a reference proving he is throwing the peace sign in this photograph will you still keep reverting my information? You cannot delete Wikipedia information just because its "your opinion". Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigel C. Fortune (talk • contribs) 23:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Nigel C. Fortune: If an edit is not sourced, anyone can revert it based on their opinion or knowledge. Your claim will have to be sourced to stay but, it will probably be reverted anyway do to relevance or WP:NOBLE, it's not that important to even mention. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 23:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Progressive rock?

Why did someone put progressive rock there? There is no progressive rock in this. TheEarthboundFan2001 (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Vol. 4 (Black Sabbath album)/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.

==Start class== Reassessed as start class in line with WP:ALBUMS criteria. Please expand the article significantly, adding at least a full section of relevant information and full production credits before submitting for new assessment at WP:ALBUMA. Thanks - Alex valavanis 00:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Substituted at 18:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vol. 4 (Black Sabbath album). 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/20090218075013/http://www.cria.ca/cert_db_search.php?page=1&wclause=WHERE+artist_name+like+%27%25black%25%27+ORDER+BY+cert_date%2C+cert_award+&rcnt=60&csearch=20&nextprev=1 to http://www.cria.ca/cert_db_search.php?page=1&wclause=WHERE+artist_name+like+%27%25black%25%27+ORDER+BY+cert_date%2C+cert_award+&rcnt=60&csearch=20&nextprev=1

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) 13:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Tomorrow's Dream (song) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbm1058 (talk • contribs)