Talk:The Bends (album)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Album cover

What does the cover represent? David.Monniaux 08:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

A crash test dummy? Banes 16:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Track Listing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Track_listing_2

I'd suggest leaving the table as it tidyed the article up better. This is in line with wikipedias suggestions that tables can be used. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.202.133.2 (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Citation needed for "music to slit your wrists to" quote

This article popped up as one that needs sourcing. The only place I could find online referring to this album as "music to slit your wrists to" is on a list on Amazon.com. Amazon in not a publication and I recommend removing the quote. It was added by an anonymous user 6/17/2006 (diff link). Any objections?

I also spent some time trying to find a source for Yorke wanting to use an iron lung as the image for the album cover, but couldn't come up with anything. It was also added by an anonymous user 5/3/2006 (diff link). Perhaps this too should be removed? (As a relative newbie, I'm not sure if there's a WP "policy" about this type of thing. Are we supposed to leave these "citation needed" tags indefinitely or is there some rule of thumb for deleting unsourced statements?) Sanfranman59 03:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Personally I love Radiohead but at the time I recall quite a lot of people (in the industry) being fairly harsh about this album. I'll go look up some sources before I start making any wild accusations but (if I can find some sensible sources) would anyone object to such a section being created? Also help tracking down some of Radioheads more famous/infamous critics would be useful! Cheers Waffle247 15:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Background

I notice this article is lacking a section/much info on the background and development of this album. Are there any Radiohead-heads out there who can help out with this? That's what I came to this article for and at the moment it's failing to provide for its readers! Yeanold Viskersenn 05:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Audio clips

I've removed the audio clips from the article for now, as they were included in a list without any commentary, and no fair use rationale was provided for them to appear in this article. They can be replaced in the article inside a sample box (with commentary) once a proper fair use rationale exists. Papa November (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Track Listing

The tables look better and are allowed in the formatting guidelines.

Redirects

I can't stress enough that redirects are meant to be used when the article is one unsourced line on a non-notable song. Redirecting Planet Telex to the album page seems unacceptable. By the strictest definition Planet Telex should be its own page because it is a single, if you find there isn't enough information, then find it because as a single there probably is some information. I'll see what I can dig up on the internet, but seriously it is starting to get annoying when all these pages get redirected with little if any effort being made to actually add to the article. This isn't what Wikipedia is supposed to be. TostitosAreGross (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:The Bends (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.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Start class: Y A reasonably complete infobox Y A lead section giving an overview of the album Y A track listing Y Reference to at least primary personnel by name (must specify performers on the current album; a band navbox is insufficient) Y Categorisation at least by artist and year C class: Y All the start class criteria Y A reasonably complete infobox, including cover art Y 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. B class: Y All the C class criteria Y A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details N A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians N No obvious issues with sourcing, including the use of blatantly improper sources. Y No significant issues exist to hamper readability, although it may not rigorously follow WP:MOS Lacks a personnel section, and needs more citation. The trivia section needs to be removed as well. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Article requirements: Y Start: reasonably complete infobox; lead section with overview of album; track listing; reference to at least primary personnel by name; Categorization by at least artist and year. Y C: all of start and (1) cover art in infobox; (2) at least one additional section of prose; (3) track lengths & song authors in tracklist; (4) a personnel section including all musicians. N B: all of C and (1) most technical details in infobox; (2) technical personnel in personnel section; (3) no obvious issues with sourcing; (4) no obvious issues with readability, though it may not conform completely to style guidelines; (5) no glaring omissions of information (see some suggestions at WP:ALBUM) or extraneous information, like trivia. Higher Classes are not assigned by WikiProject Album. Please review "the perfect article" and, if already B class, consider seeking additional feedback from Wikipedia:Good articles or Wikipedia:Featured articles. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Assessment for additional information on article class. To request a reassessment from the Album project, when concerns are addressed, please see "requesting an assessment". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC) On reassessing the article seems still to suffer sourcing concerns, given the many "citation needed" tags. These are particularly important with direct quotes, as without a citation such quotes do not meet non-free content guidelines. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 03:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC). Substituted at 15:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Trivia

Trivia sections are strongly discouraged, so I'm moving it to a temporary location. We need to sort through the items, and decide which (if any) are encyclopedic enough to keep in the article. Papa November (talk) 12:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done Papa November (talk) 10:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Christgau reviews

I have started a discussion at Talk:OK Computer regarding the removal of the Christgau review templates. Please discuss the matter there. Papa November (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Why Aren't "Bones" and "The Bends" Listed With The Singles?

Promotional singles are still singles no matter if they're popular are not and should be listed with the other singles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmoustache14 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, but you need to find proof of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.116.140.74 (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I found these added to the album today. Promos don't go in the singles list, please don't add them. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 02:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Britpop

Recently I changed the genre section from "Alternative" to "Alternative, Britpop" and I think this more accurately demonstrates the sound of the album. Please don't change it. I Also did the same for Pablo Honey. Thank You. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 05:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, the genre listed in the infobox should be supported by the body of the article, and not contradict information within the article. Please see the cited refutation of this album being "Britpop" in the first paragraph of the Reception and legacy section -- Foetusized (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem about music genres is that they are somewhat subjective. Just look at the wide margin (login needed for exact figure) by which the Rate Your Music community considers it to exhibit "britpop" elements. Because, honestly, a lot of the basic sonic elements are shared, beyond just "alternative rock": most songs are built upon simple strum along patterns with extended melodic elements. Sure, it's not "stereotypical" britpop, but the elements are there. Just my two cents.

THIS ALBUM IS NOT BRITPOP THIS ALBUM IS TOO DEPRESSING AND TOO SONICALLY IMPRESSIVE, THIS IS KIND OF LIKE SAYING THE SMASHING PUMPKINS ARE GRUNGE, THEY JUST DON'T MESH.

oops, caps lock :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.116.140.74 (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Bends. 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 https://web.archive.org/20070409000921/http://blender.com:80/guide/articles.aspx?id=824 to http://www.blender.com/guide/articles.aspx?id=824

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: 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Indie rock? Um, no.

This is a hit album released on a major label by a band that had always been on a major label. How in the name of the all that is holy is this an indie rock album?

Sbrianhicks (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Despite the genre's name, you do are not required to be on an independent label to perform a certain style of music. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Bends. 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/20070810101504/http://www.westnet.com/consumable/1995/May08.1995/revradio.html to http://www.westnet.com/consumable/1995/May08.1995/revradio.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131231034303/http://www.listsofbests.com/list/13644-q-readers-best-albums-ever-2006-readers-poll to http://www.listsofbests.com/list/13644-q-readers-best-albums-ever-2006-readers-poll

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) 13:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Review scores

@Isento: How exactly are the Village Voice and Albums of the '90s the "same review"? Contemporary and retrospective reviews may happen to have identical scores and/or be written by the same reviewer; that does not make them the same. Also, per WP:ALBUMSTYLE, Christgau's review does give neutrality to the later reviews, which are of perfect or near perfect scores. Ellokk (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Have you read the reviews? isento (talk) 23:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

From the Voice column: Admired by Britcrits, who can't tell whether they're "pop" or "rock," and their record company, which pushed (and shoved) this 1995 follow-up until it went gold last spring, they try to prove "Creep" wasn't an immortal one-shot by pretending that it wasn't a joke. Not that there's anything deeply phony about Thom Yorke's angst--it's just a social given, a mindset that comes as naturally to a '90s guy as the skilled guitar noises that frame it. Thus the words achieve precisely the same pitch of aesthetic necessity as the music, which is none at all.

From the CG 90s book: Admired by Britcrits, who can't tell whether they're "pop" or "rock," and their record company, which pushed (and shoved) this follow-up until it went gold Stateside, they try to prove "Creep" wasn't a one-shot by pretending that it wasn't a joke. Not that there's anything deeply phony about Thom Yorke's angst--it's just a social given, a mindset that comes as naturally to a '90s guy as the skilled guitar noises that frame it. Thus the words achieve precisely the same pitch of aesthetic necessity as the music, which is none at all.

Apart from the words "last spring" and "immortal" (minor semantical changes), the reviews are exactly the same. Also, the presence of a negative score in the ratings box does not give "neutrality". Being neutral in this context means we give due weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in the available literature on a topic (WP:WEIGHT). There appear to be no discernable amount of dissenting or negative viewpoints on the album in the years following its release and reception, which means the sole negative score that is ostensibly a retrospective source (the Consumer Guide book) should probably not replace a positive score from a source that is actually a retrospective appraisal (Uncut). isento (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Release date

It is true that The Bends was released in the UK on 13 March 1995, but there are some sayings that it was first released in Japan on 8 March. It is difficult to find a source to confirm this, but in Radiohead's Apple Music they confirmed that the album was actually released on 8 March. Is there anyone can testify or leave a source to prove it? Tamer Gunner (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Tamer Gunner, this would definitely be good to add if you can find a source for it. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to - in my experience a lot of these fiddly bits of data are difficult to source, even when it's for something as fundamental and factual as a release date. Popcornfud (talk) 10:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Popcornfud, I kept searching since yesterday and just found this, a Radiohead fanzine, but I don't know if this kind of fanzine-thing is a reliable source or not because it is considered a non-official publication; I need your confirmation about this. I've read it and it's still great and useful for the article. Also see this, reliable but there is some difference. Tamer Gunner (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Tamer Gunner, unfortunately fanzines, fan websites, fan podcasts etc can't be used as sources. Popcornfud (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

That's bad, I'll keep looking though. Tamer Gunner (talk) 23:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Popcornfud, well, how about this? It is true that it is not reliable enough, but we can use it at least temporarily until a more reliable source appears in the future. Tamer Gunner (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Tamer Gunner, per WP:ALBUMAVOID, online trailers like Apple, Amazon etc are to be avoided for sources. I think we should probably keep this out of the article until we can find a good source. Popcornfud (talk) 10:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Popcornfud, well, Amazon is really unreliable in terms of reviews, we won't take reviews basically, reviews are not our topic in the first place, all we need is the real release date. And as i understood from this Amazon Summary, they excluded the release date as a reliable source; then said "unnecessary" or "may be unreliable". They didn't said it's "totally rejected." so what do you think?, for me I don't feel it will do any harm. Tamer Gunner (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Tamer Gunner, OK, but that's Amazon. Not sure about Apple. I think it will do harm if we are simply repeating misinformation (retailers sometimes get things wrong). Popcornfud (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Popcornfud, put Apple aside, it was just an example for confirmation, same with the fanzine and we won't use them for sure. For Amazon, you said yourself "sometimes" not always, It is impossible for all of these examples to be wrong. At least after making sure of everything and reassurance, we may take the most usable thing, which is Amazon's source. I've said everything I've got and I'll let you think, and by the way, as we speak, I remembered your problem with Amnesiac release date, and I'll solve it right now. Tamer Gunner (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Tamer Gunner, I'm a bit confused, but never mind. I don't feel too strongly about this issue. I think if you posted at WP:ALBUMS and see what the consensus is there I'd be fine with whatever people thought about the reliability of these sources in this case. Popcornfud (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)