Talk:Crooked Rain, Crooked Rain

Silence Kit/Kid

Just to be clear, this song is called Silence Kid, not Silence Kit, despite the typo on LA's Desert Origins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.60.119 (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you show proof of this? I have checked over twenty websites, and EVERY SINGLE ONE has it listed as Silence Kit. Rate Your Music, Amazon, CDDB (Gracenote), Pitchfork Media, Matador Records, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjwells (talk • contribs) 06:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a copy of the original album (not LA's Desert Origins) and it's definitely Silence Kit. I've never heard it referred to as Silence Kid in my life. Even if it was just an error originally, you can't just change history. The track list on the back of the album says Silence Kit, everyone ever has always referred to it as Silence Kit since the day it came out, therefore the title of the song is Silence Kit. Any argument to the contrary is flawed.

The info about it originally being a typo should stay but the track list should say Silence Kit because that became the name of the song regardless.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.188.153 (talk) 07:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Gotta agree here. I think it's real revisionist history to list it as "Silence Kid," when it's printed on every record sleeve everywhere as "Silence Kit." I'm not buying the ink blot/typo theory. Pavement songs have alternate titles, and I do believe "Silent Kid" is the "original" title for the song, but they chose to list an alternate title on the sleeve, "Silence Kit," as a play on words. I'm changing it to "Silence Kit" both here and at the Desert Origins page. Leamanc (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• As mentioned above, the "inkspot"/"typo" did not fist appear on Desert Origins, it's on every copy of the album ever. And the bit about Malkmus listing it under a different title is irrelevant, because he lists "Elevate Me Later" as "Ell Ess Two" (Loretta's Scars II) in many places, but we don't put that as the title of track 2, now do we? Leamanc (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Merging

I don't think that the article should be merged, it is a separate record in it's own rights after all - 211.30.231.112 08:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC) ZEROpumpkins

• On balance, I would lean towards agreeing with the above, my reasoning being that the original album remains on catalogue as a single disc with the most recent incarnation being given an alternate subtitle distinguishing it from the original release - it is therefore a separate item in the group's catalogue. The thing that makes me feel they should be merged is that I can't see anyone searching for "L.A.'s Desert Origins" as opposed to "Crooked Rain, Crooked Rain". Ac@osr 14:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I suspect that the only reason the Pavement reissues have separate articles are because of the subtitles; which in my book isn't a good reason to keep them separate. Other albums by other artists which have received the deluxe treatment generally don't get separate articles. You can look at examples from the Fall (Live at the Witch Trials, Hex Enduction Hour, and others) or Sonic Youth (Daydream Nation, Goo, Dirty) to see what I mean. Eco84 | Talk 17:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Citing the above examples (and many more not cited here), it seems that the reissues/deluxe editions of albums are incorporated into the articles for the original album. It makes sense to me, and I've always been a bit puzzled as to why the Pavement reissues merited their own separate articles. If I think hard enough about it, I guess it's because they kind of set the standard for vault-clearing reissues in the 21st century, and there are so many bonus tracks that (along with the expanded titles) you could consider them separate records. This is a tough call, but I've still got to lean towards merging, although I won't be outraged if they stay separate articles. Leamanc (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Not merging them is silly.68.97.131.157 (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Agreed. It may have a subtitle, but it also has the same cover as the original. I can't see a user ever being upset to land on a page describing both, while as separate pages, you can land on the wrong one (essentially the same point as Ac@osr above). 142.103.235.222 (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Sesquialbum?

The article calls this a "sesquialbum" but the article on double albums states that it was Wowie Zowie, not Crooked Rain, that had three sides. Can anyone confirm? Cruzich 13:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Seems the error has been fixed some time ago, but yes this was a single LP. Wowee Zowee was a three-sided album. Leamanc (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably b/c Crooked Rain originally came with an extra 7-inch, and the sesquialbum section of the double albums article mentions other albums that came with an extra 7-inch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.167.2 (talk) 05:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

5-4=Unity

Another example of the oftentimes bizarre approach to "information processing" on the Internet...one thing I find very odd is the lack of willingness to discuss how this song is directly derivative of "Take Five." This was back in the day, so I doubt you will find it very easily through Google, but I recall reading that the band (or just Malkmus? I forget exactly) wanted to "represent for Stockton" by recording a Brubeck homage of some sort. Other than that, some things are just a little too obvious to be throwing up your "where's your source for that?" shield.RadioKAOS (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crooked Rain, Crooked Rain. 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/20140715053900/http://www.guitarworld.com/superunknown-50-iconic-albums-defined-1994 to http://www.guitarworld.com/superunknown-50-iconic-albums-defined-1994

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 18:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)