Talk:The Dark Side of the Rainbow/Archive 1

Should alice on the wall get mentioned as sychonircty?

I saw it at a theater. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.8.189.156 (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Corresponding moments: how many and what kind to list

Because this is not supposed to be a comprehensive list, and because we are in fact linking to a comprehensive list outside Wikipedia, I propose keeping the examples section taut by listing one, or at most two, correspondences per song, and by focusing for on lyrical rather than the much-more-subjective, much-more-common-no-matter-what-movie/album-is-used, and therefore much-less-impressive tonal correspondences. (Exception: lyric-less On the Run and Great Gig in the Sky examples, plus the stunning closing heartbeats overlap.) I also propose limiting the list to first-run-through-moments only since that is the "real" Dark Side of the Moon experience and the rest is errata. As drive-by contributors are prone to adding random correspondences that don't really add value to the article, I also propose generally having a policy of directing such users to the talk pages and deleting such additions. Does anyone think that's a bad idea? Thanks for input. Archaic 02:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't be a comprehensive list - the most famous ones (heartbeat while Dorothy listens, "balanced on the biggest wave", "which is which", etc.) should be listed, but your solution for the drive-by minor correspondences seems fine to me. - dharmabum 08:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I just can't believe when talking about "The Great Gig in The Sky" it talks about how the music climaxes with the events unfolding, but honestly it also should say something about the TITLE itself..... A Tornado, "The Great Gig In The Sky"..... that is one of the factors that leads me to believe its intentional.

I never understood that the great gig was about death and rebirth untill I saw the syncup, wow, improved. HighInBC 20:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Gee, you'd think you could have just read one of any number of books about the band, and taken their word for it -- since such books are generally based on fact, rather than amusing-but-meaningless coincidences. I wonder what other random elements of your life convince you of unrelated events. If you see a lizard after September, for example, does that convince you of impending death in the family? God only knows what you must make of the occasional muscle cramp.

--63.25.251.121 (talk) 10:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal opinion time: First off, syncing the whole album to the movie is just no. But -- GGITS against the tornado scene is just inspiring. It's one of the great artistic coincidences of our time. It's enriched by the fact that I'm virtually certain Wright, singer, drummer and horns didn't intend it. Did a higher power intend it for its own chuckles? Doesn't matter, doesn't diminish the quality of the GGITS experience. One can't watch this scene properly synced without feeling the awesome power of the Universe connecting the dots just for fun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtdunlop (talk • contribs) 08:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The article should not contain guides (see "what Wikipedia is not" subsection) Just64helpin 18:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

random unsourced comment

Gentlemen, we were talking about this in high school in the late seventies. It goes way, WAY back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.143.234.230 (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"As early as 1994"?? Are you kidding? I heard about this back in 1985 in Alberta, Canada!! The idea's been around longer than that my friend!

Media coverage --> Other than the Charles Savage article, which ran in 1995, the majority of media coverage began in April 1997 and ran through May. That's when the MTV Interview ran, that's when USA Today covered it. That's also the summer that Best Buy ran their promotion with the album DSotM and the movie WoO together. Prior to that, the media coverage was restrained and infrequent. Since then, there hasn't been that much either. So that's the correct timeframe. Changed that in the article and added a link to the MTV News segment.-02:01, July 20, 2006 75.5.53.36

All totally wrong. I knew about this in 1985.

Great additions. I restored reference to the summer 2005 stuff as well, since that earlier wave was when the websites like the Synchronicity Arkive began appearing; those websites eventually prompted the Boston DJ's comments, which led to the broader wave of attention in 1997. It's all part of the timeline. On a related note, it's too bad there don't seem to be alt.music.pink-floyd archives available prior to 1997; I'd be curious to see if there was actually discussion of it even earlier than 1994. Archaic 15:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Mind games

I think this calls for a revert war! There is a wealth of information about the synchronicity in this article--examples, theories of its origins, comments by the artists--but little to suggest the synchronicity is an effect of perception. Like the moon looking larger when it's close to the horizon. Granted, my edits were a bit ham-fisted, but I think more needs to be said to suggest the only mumbo-jumbo in the synchronicity is that going on in our heads. It's still cool, though... Tafinucane 19:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey Tafinucane. I actually liked your addition to the article a lot. In editing it, my only goal was to make the writing more clear, direct, and neutral. I believe it still has the same basic volume and content as it did before I meddled with its form. Is there some particular change I made to which you object? Also, I have no objection if you want to expand on the thought in the article. It could even be a separate subsection if there's enough to say about it. Archaic 22:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I was wrong. Rather than provide content about the phenomenon and perception I just tried to use more forceful, floral language which you rightly corrected. Tafinucane 23:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Runtimes

Pigsonthewing: if you're going to revert something that is not vandalism, it would be nice if you would explain your reasoning. Here's mine: First, your one-sentence reference to different runtimes became redundant because I added a long paragraph about that issue. Second, it's a tangental technical footnote, not an opening paragraph-worthy thought. Finally, you're incorrect anyway: it's the album, not the film, that has different runtimes depending on which version is used. Archaic 21:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I pre-emptively stand to correct myself. Yes, I see now that in addition to the different album tracks, the UK Oz is 98 minutes as compared to 101 minutes in the US. Is there a chunk missing from the UK version? Surely it doesn't just get sped up by 3 percent, so that everyone's voice is slightly too high-pitched? In any case, now that there's a technical section, I (more humbly) suggest that such commentary more properly goes there than in the introduction. Archaic 04:09 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Surely it doesn't just get sped up by 3 percent, so that everyone's voice is slightly too high-pitched? Yes; exactly that.. I (more humbly) suggest that such commentary more properly goes there than in the introduction.: On the contrary, I feel that it's important to say from the outset, that it won't work for eeryone. Andy Mabbett 23:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It's really just FASTER? Why? ANd why don't they do that to every movie? Reggaedelgado 18:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes; and they do. Andy Mabbett 18:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

(Copied from my entry on Talk:The Wizard of Oz (1939 film):

The differences in runtimes aren't arbitrary, but the result of technical differences between video systems. (Tech warning! I'll try to keep it as simple as possible.)

In the USA (also Canada, Japan, S. Korea and most of S. America) television uses the NTSC system which has a scanning rate of 30 frames per second (give or take a fraction). Film, running at 24 fps, has to be converted to 30 fps video using specialised techniques to make the motion appear smooth, but the speed stays the same.

The UK, along with Europe, Australia, New Zealand and China among others, uses the PAL system which uses 25 frames per second. Transferring film to PAL at 24 fps would involve showing every 24th frame twice, which would cause the on-screen movement to jerk once a second. To avoid this film is simply sped up to 25 fps so that each frame of film corresponds to one frame of video and the movement appears perfectly smooth. Hence the shorter running time. The pitch of the sound also increases noticeably, but nowadays that's often corrected digitally. Lee M 10:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm from a PAL country, and managed to get it to work by speeding up the music digitally by 4.16% (the difference between 24 frames and 25) - suddenly, everything I had read about was happening. It DOES work for PAL countries, you just need to make the effort.

Requested move to Dark Side of the Rainbow

Voting

• Support. The title is POV.

To call the perception synchronicity is to say that only the deluded would find a similarity between the works of art. Look, no matter what you think, clearly there is some disagreement about this. Each editor's particular passion for side of the debate is completely beyond relevance. In the name of neutrality, I propose a move back to "Dark Side of the Rainbow". (That page has edits of its own, so an admin must handle the task.)

You may also think of this as a kind of harmless appeasement, if you like. Archaic presents this rationale on the old talk page, "Talk:Dark Side of the Moon - Wizard of Oz coincidences". (I'm not sure why that discussion wasn't moved to this new article.) omphaloscope:talk 08:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose

Two reasons. First, Omphaloscope, you are misreading the term "synchronicity." It does not necessarily mean a false connection that only the deluded perceive. Jung was respectful, not disdainful, of those who thought they saw connections such as this one; he believed in the collective unconscious and hidden universal forces. "Coincidences" is the non-NPOV term which subtly assumes it to be delusion, while "synchronicity" is the precise word for this thing.

Second, as Pigsonthewing correctly pointed out when moving the section originally to DSOTM-Oz Coincidences, it is better to have the names of both works in the title so that the page comes up high when people are doing searches for one or the other of them, both inside Wikipedia and via outside search engines. They would have to already be familiar with it to use the less descriptive title "Dark Side of the Rainbow."

Archaic 17:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Archaic, thanks for explaining synchronicity better. I admit I hadn't fully grasped the depth of the term when I proposed the move. According to what you say, synchronicity appears to be even more controversial than I had thought; it's a special Jungian term that reflects his whole worldview. But we're mere encyclopedists. We can't say objectively that the collective unconscious is at work here. It's a respectable argument, but not one which ought to be enshrined in the title. (Perhaps we might address it in a section.)

On your second point, I accept your rationale behind keeping both "The Wizard of Oz" and "Dark Side of the Moon" in the article title. I'm going to open a moveoptions vote.

omphaloscope:talk 18:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. There's nothing wrong with the current name (except the capital 's'); but it's a Wikipedia-invented one. Better to use a preexisting popular name, Dark Side of the Rainbow. Searches will still turn the page up because of its content; and they'll also turn up the redirect page which can be followed here. Doops | talk 19:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Several points--

• "synchronicity", as far as I know, is just a word, the noun form of "synchronize" which is just syn- ("together") + chron- ("time"). I don't think it implies anything Jungian. In this title, "synchronicity" seems perfectly NPOV -- the article will describe what things happen at the same time as what other things without making any claims to why.
• on the other hand, it shouldn't be capitalized in the article title. so, if nothing else, the article should be moved to Wizard of Oz-Dark Side of the Moon synchronicity.
• The proposed name below "claims that x & y are linked" misses the point. The article shouldn't be about the WHY but the WHAT; and the phenomenon of people playing the record while watching the movie is a well-established one. If by nothing else, the two are indubitably linked by this cultural phenomenon. Nobody denies that people associate the two together.
• If the phenomenon is actively called "Dark Side of the Rainbow" then I think that's the ideal name. Only when something doesn't have a name of its own should the wikipedia make up a name for it. The article's content will ensure that it comes up in searches, as will the redirect which will continue to exist from the old name.

Thanks for your attention. Doops | talk 19:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Other Proposals

• Claims that The Wizard of Oz and Dark Side of the Moon are linked
  • Support. NPOV. Has both titles. omphaloscope:talk 18:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Elephantine and ungraceful. Furthermore, it's silly -- the article isn't about the claims; it's about the phenomenon of the people playing the album while watching the movie. That phenomenon definitely exists, whatever its origins. Doops | talk 19:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The claims are what's notable (thus Wikipedia-worthy) about the phenomenon. They're also what the current revision addresses: all the different bits where they might be connected.

Regarding length: yes, it's pretty pachydermal. It's long so that it includes both titles, which you deem unnecessary above. I don't have any well-informed opinions, as I understand neither how the Wikipedia search engine works nor how it's used.

One last thing: associations have been made between the album artwork and the film, so let's not restrict the article to just "the phenomenon of the people playing the album while watching the movie."

Omphaloscope » talk 21:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• The Wizard of Oz and Dark Side of the Moon

• Weak support. Just another suggestion. 1. Fewest restrictions on what appears in the article, while still (2) precise. 3. Not too long. 4. Allows discussion of both the associations made and why people make them. 5. Has both titles. 6. Easiest to pronounce. Will miff the fewest, I believe. Dark Side of the Rainbow may still be best.

How about "Emerald Moon," which references both film & LP without being elephantine or commercial.

Further Discussion

Doops is right that "synchronicity" is also a NPOV noun version of synchronize that doesn't need Jungian collective unconscious to work; I was just noting its psychoanalytical context to refute omphaloscope's claim that it was a disparaging term. In any case, in the last day or two random people have been making alternate claims for "Dark Side of Oz" being more famous than Rainbow (some anonymous change on DSOTM page; I disagree with it, actually), or another one I'd never heard before in this article, "The Wizard of Floyd." It seems to me that there's no one artsy title which has a consensus, but people have been certainly been routinely calling this a "synchronicity" since 1995. I also think the other suggested names (above) are hopelessly clunky. I say the current title is fine: simple, direct, descriptive and neutral. Our energies are best spent improving some article that needs it. Archaic 04:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

As an amusing aside to this discussion, how about this paranthetical sentence [[1]] which appeared today in the New York Times op-ed pages?

"(And surely some Jungian theory about the collective unconscious explains why both Oz and Narnia are populated by four heroic characters fighting an evil witch.)"

Archaic 02:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Result

Moved. Please don't remove the move notice next time :). WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 02:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

variations on the theme

What about all the ones listed here? —alxndr (t) 18:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Fun with subjectivity

I added a line about its existence in the 1970s. There used to be a post at the Synchronicity Arkive about it but the site has since been revamped.

I haven't bothered to go through the talk page a lot to see if I'm just saying what everyone else has been saying, but a lot of stuff with DSotR is subjective. There is no real "right" way to watch it. I believe the most accepted way is to use the 1994 CD on the third roar using a copy of the VHS version that has a black-and-white (i.e., not Sepia) opening. But one may use anything they like. Grab your new remastered DVD and a 5.1 mix SACD and enjoy. Use a horribly timed copy. There is no real list of things, they're like Paul Is Dead clues. You can make up some crazy stuff, some might stick and seem fun, others might not. If you're going by someone's solid setup, and you see everything they say, good. If you're timing it incorrectly and using the "wrong" disc and the "wrong" copy of the movie, and you're not seeing anything, you're simply not using your imagination like everyone else. Eclipsed Moon 02:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

That's just it; it's a subjective experience. I can remember one time back in the mid-90's when I was listening to a Nine Inch Nails album while Riverdance played on PBS on my TV, and they looked beautifully synched, and it was hilarious. I doubt either the Riverdance choreographers or Trent Reznor intended Riverdance to sync with The Downward Spiral; it was a happy coincidence, which didn't make it any less enjoyable. So is DSotR, and it's one that every viewer can experience slightly differently, since it's just a lovely coincidence; being anal about the particular DSotM release or WoO copy only helps you recreate what other people have experienced, but there's lots of ways to enjoy the two together without having to slavishly follow certain rules. - dharmabum 09:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice to see some people talking sense. --63.25.251.121 (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Recipe

The lengthy section on replicating the effect needs to be cut down as per WP:NOT; Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Isopropyl 14:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I added a small piece a while back, explaining that if PAL users speed up the album 4.16% - by computer or otherwise - the sync works perfectly (as described, it syncs only with NTSC versions). I spent a couple of days trying and failing to get it to sync (with a PAL DVD and the 30th anniversary ed), before I speeded up the album itself, and voila, everything I'd read about fell into place.

Proposed Synchronicities

• Money begins just as Dorothy enters Oz. This is the scene where she first encounters the Yellow Brick Road and the ruby slippers. In Baum's book, the slippers were silver. One popular interpretation of Baum's The_Wonderful_Wizard_of_Oz, published by Henry M. Littlefield in 1964, is that the story is a parable concerning US monetary policy. The theory includes the proposals that the Yellow Brick Road represents the gold standard and the silver shoes represent the silver standard. The timing of the song, its subject matter and the direct parallel to the scene and Littlefield's theory are uncanny. Bsmith94 04:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• • I think that falls under no original research. --NE2 15:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • Regarding money, silver, gold & politics at the time Wizard of Oz was written, please see http://paws.wcu.edu/mulligan/www/oz.html and http://www.prosperityuk.com/prosperity/articles/wizzoz.html

When I watched this, I was struck by how well the talking at the beginning of The Great Gig in the Sky (I think it was that song) matched up on the third repeat with one of the people in the film talking. Is this well-known, and, if so, should it be added? --NE2 15:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

alt.drugs citation

I deleted the link to a February 1995 alt.drugs USENET reference to Dark Side of the Rainbow as part of an "Ultimate Stoned Movie List" because we know that alt.music.pink-floyd people were discussing it prior to then, though unfortunately that group's archives are apparently lost. So it does not have historical value, in my opinion. Moreover, its drug associations strike me as an unnecessary and potentially negative (to some folks) overtone to bring into the article; the DSOTR experience does not require an altered state of mind and arguably is better viewed sober since it requires a lot of fastmoving mental processing. Sstrader restored the alt.drugs link, noting that "I originally added this and think USENET citations are important." What do others think? Should it stay or should it go? Archaic 18:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify my opinion (beyond the short comment I left). I think that the relevance of the citation is that (1) it's the only actual reference that we have from USENET and (2) USENET is an important repository. I think we agree on (2), so the main issue is (1). Memories of the contents of lost archives, though important, have no bearing on the importance of those archives that actually survived. Copies of historical manuscripts--where the original no longer exists--are still valued. Because of DejaNews and Google, we have a wealth of history in USENET. It's not complete, but it's all we will ever have unless further archives are uncovered. With the existing archives, that citation is the earliest and is therefore the earliest documentation that exists in this domain.

As for the negative drug associations: deleting information based on where it was published (and not the value of its content) seems to me suspect. What if the earliest reference was not in a Pink Floyed related group and was somewhere else? Would a disagreeable location override its valuable content? People will make the associations they want; the USENET location has no moral position, it just is.

--Sstrader 15:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There's an earlier posting here from 1993, if someone wants to replace it. Chibi Gohan 13:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Sstrader 16:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

At this point, we see that the missing 1994 alt.music.pink-floyd reference is later in time than the 1993 alt.drugs reference. Yet alt.music.pink-floyd is provided at the beginning of the History section of the article. alt.music.pink-floyd, though relevant to its inclusion in the first mainstream media article, has become much less important w/r/t the original concerns. Archaic, above, put emphasis on who was "discussing it prior" and what has "historical value." By his measure, the alt.drugs citation should replace the alt.music.pink-floyd citation in the article.

Any opinions/objections to this edit?

Sstrader 17:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Merging (WP:NOT)

I propose that this article be merged into the Dark Side of the Moon article per WP:NOT. While this topic is important, it does not warrant an article of this length enumerating various perceived connections. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This topic should be limited to a paragraph in the Dark Side of the Moon article. All of the specifics are unimportant for collection on Wikipedia. The only important part is noting that this idea exists, a short history of when it came to exist, and links to sites enumerating details of how to view it. It does not need to be a direct copy of personal websites' summaries on the details of the synchronicity as that is mostly a matter of perception and personal opinion.--Dylan Lake 06:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the uniqueness of the cultural phenomenon justify this article? Various other phenomena get their own article separate from the event to which they refer (see Kennedy assassination and Kennedy assassination theories or The Catcher in the Rye and Cultural references to the novel The Catcher in the Rye). Dark Side of the Rainbow seems to me different enough from the original such that it would be a useless digression if integrated into the original article. What part specifically of WP:NOT would this fall under?--Sstrader 16:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe the part of the WP:NOT policy to which Dylan Lake refers, is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I think the "uniqueness of the cultural phenomenon" does warrant its inclusion in the Dark Side of the Moon article, however it seems to me that most of the details are irrelevant and should not be included, and that the subject does not require a seperate article. The general overview of the concept, its history, and its place in popular culture is important, but all of the details described are based on a few non-notable, and personal websites that do not represent the general consensus on the subject from the 70s onward. Not enough research has been done in this regard, and at the moment it is all based on few individuals' perceptions. If users are interested in the cataloged study of how certain songs may match up with parts in the movie, they are free to view that on the actual website, and I think it is appropriate that a link be provided. Wikipedia itself, is not the place to host this kind of a catalog. --Ottovonguericke 05:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea of merging a few snippits of this article into DSOTM and then eliminating the rest of it. The Dark Side of the Rainbow is inarguably a distinct cultural phenomenon, not just an eccentric bit of trivia noted on a few personal websites. There have been a number of mainstream media articles about this, an MTV News story, references in TV shows and at least one comic strip, etc. Most of the article is devoted to explaining its psychological, cultural, and pragmatic aspects. This is no different than thousands of other Wikipedia articles about topics -- some far more obscure -- that a reader might be curious about.

I agree, however, with your instinct that it is inappropriate to use Wikipedia to try to compile an exhaustive list of the more notable matchups. If you look elsewhere in the discussion page, you will see that the regular editors have agreed to limit the length of the list of examples for precisely this reason, and to that end have established a rule of deleting random additions that drive-by editors like to add. If you wanted to make the argument that the section of bullet-pointed examples should be cut in half, so that an even greater percentage of the article is discussion of the history and context of the phenomenon, I would probably support that. But the bulk of the article is totally in line with Wikipedia's mission of collecting and ordering information about subjects of general interest.

Thus, this article is useful to people and merits preservation.

Archaic 15:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

A significant event in pop culture deserves an article. Perhaps some more rigid criteria for inclusion would be a better solution. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It deserves mention on WP, but a list of purported matchups and a 'how to' on how to play the two together are not encyclopedic. Cut out those two, and too little of the article is left to merit its own page. I support Dylan Lak's proposal. -Alcuin 04:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If there are no examples of purported matchups, the whole subject becomes meaningless. A section that defines where to start the cd is just as much a how-to as a page number that defines where to find a reference. I don't know how significant and notable this subject is, but if it really is widely known, in my opinion it should be left as is. Tinus 22:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I Agree, with Tinus. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Based on the consensus in this discussion, I have removed the merger tag. Archaic 17:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Does Pink Floyd acknowledge the synchronicity?

I won't deny the fact that Alan Parsons made a good point when he said the band didn't have the means of reproducing the film in the studio when they were recording the album. Nevertheless, there clearly exists synchronicity between the album and the film, whether it was planned or not. My question is, do members of Pink Floyd at least acknowledge that there is synchronicity? I'm guessing that the only reason for them not to, is that they might think that by acknowledging it, they would make it look like they had planned it. But I think the two are mutually exclusive. They could still admit that their album synchs up with the film, even if they hadn't planned it that way. So does anyone know if band members have publicly recognized the phenomenon? Ericster08 07:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. My knowledge of the band's comments is sketchy, but apparently David Gilmour tried it and said it "seemed to bear no relation when I tried it." As far as I have seen, the rest of the band doesn't acknowledge it. As far as the intent/coincidence debate: if the band did it intentionally, obviously they don't want to admit it, so they naturally will say they could not technically do it, etc. There is room for debate on both sides, but I find it irritating when some people state it was, without doubt, impossible (thus killing the debate.) tonkytonk 17:27 17 December 2006

Why should you be irritated? To deliberately engineer this synchronicity, in 1973, wasn't impossible, strictly speaking, but it was both "nearly impossible" and "prohibitively difficult". Okay, let's say the Floyd managed to acquire a print of the film and the means to project it (at the correct speed) in the studio. Now they're faced with the daunting task of creating a work of art that synchronizes with the film. Do you have any idea how difficult that would be?

Severely difficult, but not prohibitively so. That is, not until you consider that the work also has to be a serious work of art -- well-balanced, well-constructed, with a cohesive theme, with meaningful lyrics that build upon and play off of each other, highly polished, two sides of five or six pieces each which transition smoothly together -- the best work of their career at that point.

Imagine trying to do the reverse. Imagine if someone says to you, "You have to make an Oscar-worthy film, the kind of movie that everyone talks about, something that will be watched and remembered for generations, something that touches people's hearts and changes people's minds . . . Oh, and could you make it synchronize with Heartbeat City?"

Now, having bashed your brains out to pull off this insanely difficult (yet completely pointless) feat, you have to never tell anyone, but just wait and see if anyone ever happens to notice! Doesn't this sound like a rewarding project?

Like I said, it's not "impossible" in the strictest sense of the word. But it is "prohibitively difficult", which is so close to "impossible", you might as well go ahead and call it "impossible". In practical terms -- in human terms -- it IS "impossible". There ISN'T "room for debate on both sides", as you say. Would you say there's "room for debate" regarding the existence of Santa Claus? Forgive me if I'm misreading you, but it seems that, deep down, you want to believe there's some small, slight chance that the band did this deliberately. That, to me, suggests the kind of mentality that goes on believing (or at least trying to believe) in Santa far longer than is healthy or respectable. That's the kindest way I can put it.

--63.25.23.231 (talk) 09:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not my responsibility to prove that deliberate, premeditated synchronicity is impossible. If anybody wishes to allege that it isn't impossible, let them show how an English band in 1973 deliberately designed their album, if played on a CD technology that hadn't been invented yet, to synchronize in a strange way to a 1939 film, if played on VHS technology that hadn't been invented yet. For any perceived synchronicity to be deliberate it would have to involve the most astonishing series of coincidences in the known universe. --75.172.61.48 (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory?

This article was listed in the Category:Conspiracy theories. I'd hardly call this a conspiracy theory - it certainly doesn't meet the definition in the CT article. I'm removing the category. If you readd it, or think it should be readded, please post your reasoning here. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 09:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if a category could be created that would group this article with Paul is dead, the Stairway to Heaven "backmasking controversy," and similar rumors related to music recordings. These rumors make for great parlor games regardless of what one believes about the artists' intentions. Richard K. Carson (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Video clip

Should the article include a link to the video and album synched up such as here so readers can make up their minds themselves? Gcrossan 01:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Be bold. --Sstrader 22:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Variations on the Theme

That entire section smacks of "original research". By which I mean off-the-top-of-the-head writing. --Miketaba (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Most ridiculous thing ever (IMO)

"A presumably report states that in the 1930's MGM owned a time machine for employees to use. Allegedly one employee traveled to the future and brought back a copy of the album and the movie was intentionally made to match the album and not the other way around." Doesn't sound very true to me. Plus I corrected a spelling error in "traveled". 68.205.129.63 (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

are you an idiot, or are you being super-duper-sarcastic, because that doesn't come out so well in text - its a joke dumbass! 86.138.209.148 (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

People will believe whatever they want to!

Come on, people will believe whatever they want to! The only reason people see a similarity is because someone told them it exists, they thought "oh cool!", then tried it for themselves, heard something and told someone else. It's the same thing with playing 'Stairway to Heaven' backwards, the only reason people hear satanic messages is because they think it's there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.209.148 (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Dark Side of the Nerd

Would the synchronization between the Angry Video Game Nerd's Wizard of Oz review and the Dark Side of the Moon soundtrack be relevant to this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.164.192 (talk) 04:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it will be nice to say that, since other pop culture references are made in the History part. Plus, this wasn't just a little reference but alot of effort. And by the way, maybe a Pop Culture References part should be better than having them in the History thing. --Pascalbg (talk) 08:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Article name

My Google hacking skills tells me that "Dark Side of oz" is the more popular and more used name, rather than "Dark Side of the Rainbow" JayKeaton (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Green Adzem (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to argue something like that, you might as well make it "Pink Floyd and The Wizard of Oz Synchonicity", since there really is no official name of the sync itself.Father McKenzie (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what's the greater sign of delusion; the topic of this article, or the belief that doing a Google search demonstrates "Google hacking skills". (If Jay is reading this, I'm joking, buddy!) :) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Videotape

"On an MTV special about Pink Floyd in 2002, the band dismissed any relationship between the album and the movie, saying that there were no means of reproducing the film in the studio at the time they recorded the album."

Although I don't put any credence in the synchronization being intentional, reel-to-reel videotape recorders had been on the consumer market since the mid 1960s. A British website about early VTRs. They were expensive, but rock stars were the kind of people who could afford such things. The Wizard of Oz was shown on British television in the '60s and '70s. Even simpler, M-G-M had been licensing its movie library for rental on 16mm for years. — Walloon (talk) 04:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Wizard of Oz creators' opinion?

The article states that Pink Floyd band members have repeatedly insisted that the reputed phenomenon is coincidence. Is there any word on what the creators of The Wizard of Oz have said? Have they admitted to synchronizing the album with their movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Savetheted (talk • contribs) 02:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Er... The film came out in 1939. The director (Victor Fleming) and editor (Blanche Seywell) both died in 1949, long before the Dark Side of the Moon was recorded in 1972. So the film was already cast in stone long before the album was released. Therefore, the only way a correlation could have been achieved would be if the album was made to fit the film. --Oscar Bravo (talk) 12:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think they are asking if the film creators might have gone forward in time and mentally infiltrated the band to make them sync the album to the movie. I think it was the wicked witch who made this happen. it also could have been dorothy: she did have magical shoes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.193.19.66 (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh ... come on ... that's just ridiculous! Clearly it was The Great And Powerful Oz who exited the movie - somewhat similar to Arnie's character in The Last Action Hero - and then sent the film creators forward in time to work with Pink Floyd during the creation of the album. I have heard from a very reliable source - a friend of a friend of mine - that Victor Fleming and Blanch Seywell will be credited as co-writers of the album on all new releases. Furthermore you will notice that the credits of the movie in the remastered BluRay edition include the names of Roger Waters and David Gilmour under the heading of Special Thanks.FillsHerTease (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Examples and instructions?

I didn't go back far enough in the article's history to see whether it ever had any of this, but wouldn't it be appropriate for the article to mention how to sync the film and album, as well as provide some of the better-known examples of how they match up? Obviously this article is not supposed to be a how-to guide or an extensive list of examples, but I think this info could be included without things getting unencyclopedic. It seems particularly odd to me to have an article on a topic only to omit examples that demonstrate why it became a topic to begin with.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 21:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

the instructions i was given that seemed to work were start the movie and when the warner bro's lion roared for the third time, start the album. 67.182.211.64 (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)syrric

In popular culture

Are all of these needed? Surely just a few, notable examples would suffice. I'm down for pruning those mentions without citations. Icarus of old (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Value of experience

I think something needs to be realized in how this is written about: that the artistic merits or entertainment value of the phenomenon does not hinge in any way on the intent of Pink Floyd members. The historical connection (or lack thereof) is quite a separate issue from Dark Side of the Rainbow as an enjoyable and/or worthwhile experience. Also, even though there might not have been an intent on the part of Pink Floyd, there may very well be a "correct" way to do it, (or at least one could be argued for) which could be proven mathematically by counting up the number of scene changes and other events that correspond with lyrics and/or drum beats that coincide based on the various start times.

The fact that the black and white portion of the first half of the film is exactly the same length as side one of Dark Side of the Moon is notable. "Money" on side two of the record does, in fact, begin roughly when the color sequences begin and it's musical direction does contrast sharply with what came immediately before it. There is nothing subjective about this: it's a fact for which we only need to cite the album and the film as sources, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Pink Floyd intended any connection with Wizard of Oz at all. --BenMcLean (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

BTW, the way the article currently reads, it appears that someone is using the fact that the album is shorter than the film as some kind of criticism, but that just doesn't make sense. Many instruction sets I've run across recommend looping the album 2 and a half times through the film. There are less events that coincide on the second or third playthroughs, and less people are likely to line them up "correctly" but there are a few, like the winged monkeys all bowing at the start of "Breathe" and the film ending on the lines, "Home, home again" from Time. --BenMcLean (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

If both sides of the album and the movie were the same length, people would be citing that as positive proof that they were meant to be played together. Also, timing of the first side of the album coinciding to the change to color in the movie is frequently cited. Time therefore does matter and if it is going to be cited as proof for the phenomena, having it be cited as a minor detraction from the phenomena would seem to me to be includable as well. Marteau (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's not how logic works. If/then does not mean If Not/Then Not. Anyway, every person involved in the production of the music has denied any intentional part in the phenomena, which seems proof positive that they weren't meant to be played together. That does not mean the phenomena is disproven or even detracted from, especially when it's entirely a matter of subjective perception. Wikipedia isn't about proving our perceptions, but cataloging our subjective experiences of reality. WildElf (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

"Unfortunately, that's not how logic works. If/then does not mean If Not/Then Not." Unfortunately, I didn't say anything of the sort. My point was that if a correlation between the length of one album side is to be cited as evidence, the mention of a lack of a correlation of the other album side is completely appropriate. Marteau (talk) 11:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank You, BenMcLean for clarifying. Although I used a different computer to make the edit, I was the editor who stated that the time differences would cripple the theory. Thanks for making a comment and for pointing out a flaw in my opinion.71.59.202.30 (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

First Instance Much Earlier

I remember hearing about this in college around 1983. So it has been around for a lot longer than mid 1990's Robert.Harker (talk) 06:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Technical Considerations Section

This section seems to be the result of someone who believes the connection was purposeful trying to dismiss the counterarguments made in earlier sections. In particular, the line "This view is surprising since..." shows a lack of neutral point-of-view. I can imagine the section still being useful if the sentences before the quote were pared down considerably. --Basementwall (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I did make changes, but I don’t see why paring it down considerably would be necessary? Some context has to be provided so that the quote and the section itself make any sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.253.236.71 (talk) 04:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Heh. This sounds like original investigative research. It's funny, though. Viriditas (talk) 13:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The part about the technical considerations being "often discussed" makes it sound like the section is actively debating the other sections. The source used later in that section doesn't even mention the synchronicity, and the use of it and the block quote smacks of WP:NOR synthesis. I'll go ahead and prune this down, merging the citeable part about the album/film runtimes into the "Synchronicity" section. jhsounds (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

jhsounds, first, there is nothing particular about this section. Every section in this article “sounds like the section is actively debating other sections”. Second your “no original research” synthesis claim is based on the fact that you seem to think this section is attempting to prove that the synchronicity was intended; this is not the case. This section pertains to technical aspects only, and such considerations are important since it has been claimed by band members and Alan Parsons that it would have been technically impossible, or very difficult to synchronized the music of the album to the movie. Some of those claims are quoted elsewhere in the article. In the present section, a counter argument is provided by published work from Nick Mason. Please do not attribute to this section a bias it doesn’t have; it does not say that the synchronicity was deliberate. I went ahead and reverted your changes. If you want to discuss this further, please let do it over here before the section if further modified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.253.236.71 (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said, the sources used in that section do not directly comment on the synchronicity. As WP:SYNTHESIS states, using a source to push an argument (even a counter argument), when the argument is not directly made in the source, is synthesis and therefore original research. jhsounds (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

What is the argument you think this section is trying to push? Please state it clearly and then quote the part of the section that you claim is pushing that argument. We can then discuss if this is original research, or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.253.236.71 (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The argument the section is pushing is that Pink Floyd had done synchronized film soundtracking extensively and therefore could have technically accomplished a deliberate alternate soundtrack for The Wizard of Oz. Once again, the source just says that they did film scores and describes their process, nothing about his this relates to the synchronicity. On top of this, the "It is often discussed..." and "It is important to note..." blatantly reads as an editorial. Ironically the Richard Roeper source I contributed actually talks about the technical considerations directly from the point of view of the synchronicity, but this was removed in your revert. jhsounds (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

“... and therefore could have technically accomplished a deliberate alternate soundtrack for The Wizard of Oz.” I am sorry, but this is not what the section is trying to prove. The section is simply providing documented evidence from a PF band member that contradicts what other band members, Alan Parsons as well as many authors have claimed; that the synchronization was a technical impossibility, or that it would have been very difficult to achieve. If a person’s innocence rests, in part, on the claim that he(she) did not know how to operate the firearm at the time of the murder and this same person publishes a book where he explains that, at the time of the crime, he was using that very same firearm for hunting, well, that is very pertinent information to the case. This information is not original research, it is simple facts that pertain to the subject. There is no need to try to imply any further meaning to the section. If you see a kind of push to show that the synchronization was intentional, that is your own original research. Please refrain from deleting this section if you do not provide any valid reason to do so.--207.253.236.71 (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Your claim that Nick Mason's comments contradict what Alan Parsons and other band-members have said is incorrect. There is a big difference between writing music for a film which is still in production and writing music for an already completed movie. In the former it is possible for the editor to ensure that the film and the music cues line up. It is much easier to cut and splice film to line up with pre-recorded music, than it is to line up music with a completed film. Pink Floyd had worked with, to use the quote you refer to, "a rough cut of the film" and that is nowhere near the same as taking a completed film and writing a score to suit it. That isn't how it's done. Aside from that Abbey Road was not set up and configured for writing film scores until 1980. In the early 1970's you couldn't buy a DVD of The Wizard Of Oz and play it on a HDTV. As the band has stated and is quoted in the article, "there were no means of reproducing the film in the studio at the time they recorded the album." The fact that they went to other studios which DID have means of reproducing the film does not contradict the comments about not being able to do it at Abbey Road. Think of it this way; if it was possible to write a film score at Abbey Road then why did they pack up their gear and travel to another, unfamiliar studio when they had very limited time? Surely it would have been better to just record the score at Abbey Road? Especially if they were already recording a new score for The Wizard Of Oz and therefore supposedly had the necessary film equipment set up and in use! The reason was that it wasn't possible to write a film score at Abbey Road at that time and they DIDN'T have the necessary equipment for writing a film score. It simply wasn't possible for them to write a new score for The Wizard Of Oz at Abbey Road and that is not contradicted by the fact that they recorded two film scores at other studios where it WAS possible. To correct your gun analogy, if a person's innocence rested on the fact that they were 1000 metres away from the murder victim, on a very windy and foggy day, and only had a .38 special - thereby making the shot impossible - then it would NOT be pertinent to the case if the same person later published a book in which they explained that they had once shot a target at 500 metres using a sniper rifle with a sight, inside at a controlled gun range.FillsHerTease (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

You're claiming that no editorial argument is being made, yet one is still indirectly implied. Rather than delete this section outright, I'll just reword the framing context, which is ultimate culprit here. I'll also expand the Roeper analysis, which was again removed without explanation, in the hopes that a point of view can be clearly established. jhsounds (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this conversation is turning into a court drama. The point is that providing information as "evidence" (whether correct or not) without a source specifically framing that information as evidence, skews the neutral point of view and can be seen as synthesis. Since I already removed the editorial segment and put in an actual sourced assessment in its place, this is no longer an issue. jhsounds (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Dark Side of the Rainbow. 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:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://members.aol.com/rbsavage/floydwizard.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/pinkfloyd/articles/story/5937469/dark_side_at_30_alan_parsons

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dark Side of the Rainbow. 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/20110608213213/http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2009/jul/22/dark-side-moon-and-wall-e-sync-fans-claim/ to http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2009/jul/22/dark-side-moon-and-wall-e-sync-fans-claim/

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: 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dark Side of the Rainbow. 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/20060505004534/http://members.cox.net:80/stegokitty4/sounds/dv_dsotmwo-oz.mp3 to http://members.cox.net/stegokitty4/sounds/dv_dsotmwo-oz.mp3

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: 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

More explanation needed on Clemons source

@Jbheaton: The recently added text needs some clarifying:

A legal commentator has analyzed Dark Side of the Rainbow as an instance of trackjacking" What is "trackjacking"?

that might raise issues under United States copyright law What issues? Why?

while acknowledging that the band denies any intentional link. OK but so what in this context? Is this source saying they could be lying?

I can't find a free copy of this source online. Popcornfud (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)