Talk:Voyage of the Acolyte

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Progressive Rock Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Progressive Rock, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Progressive rock on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Progressive RockWikipedia:WikiProject Progressive RockTemplate:WikiProject Progressive RockProgressive rock articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Lovers/Shadow of the Hierophant: what is the real track division? edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article states that the vinyl version of Voyage of the Acolyte has the timings of 8:59 and 5:23 for The Lovers and Shadow of the Hierophant, respectively (and "both are incorrect"), while the CD version has 1:50 and 11:44 (and it is indeed divided accordingly). But the track division was also different:

On the LP:

1. The Lovers

  ~2 minute instrumental + section with Sally Oldfield's vocals

2. Shadow of the Hierophant

  "somber crescendo" instrumental

On the CD:

1. The Lovers

  ~2 minute instrumental (only)

2. Shadow of the Hierophant

  section with Sally's vocals + "somber crescendo"

The total timings of the two songs in the two versions don't match: 14:22 on vinyl and 13:34 on CD. So, the vinyl timings may indeed have been incorrect. I don't have the LP any more to tell for sure. However, I believe the LP was right in dividing the tracks (more or less) that way. The second part of Hierophant with the "somber crescendo" (starting with the subtle vibraphone) starts at 5:55. Let's assume, as the LP did, that the real Lovers is the current one plus the first part of Hierophant, and the second part of the current Hierophant is actually the whole song, which fits their structure, sound and atmosphere better. Then the timings would be 7:45 and 5:49, respectively - closer to the LP's timings.

I concede, however, that completely different endings were not unusual in progressive rock. Take, for example, King Crimson's Moonchild, where the long instrumental ending sounds definitely like a totally different track (although it was also named accordingly: The Dream/The Illusion). So, I don't know what to think.

What do you think? Which track division was correct (regardless of the supposed timings)? Better, of course, if some source can be provided, so the article can become more accurate. --UrsoBR (talk) 05:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Assessment comment edit

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

I really dissent from the assertion done in this article "hailed as the best Genesis album ever made", not only for a mere matter of diputable opinions, but because I think a citation or a source for such a rating should be quoted.

Thank you

Yashaz 20:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Start-Class criteria:
Y An infobox.
Y A lead section giving an overview of the album.
Y A track listing.
Y Reference to at least primary personnel by name.
Y Categorisation at least by artist and year.

C-Class criteria:
Y All of Start class criteria.
Y A reasonably complete infobox, including cover art.
N At least one section of prose (in addition to the lead section).
Y A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs.
Y A "personnel" section listing performers, including guest musicians.

A casual reader should learn something about the album.
--Cdl obelix (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Last edited at 14:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 10:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Voyage of the Acolyte. 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/20110519173408/http://http/ to http://www.http/

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) 23:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add topic