Talk:The Dark Side of the Moon/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Smooth 70s

Not sure where to add this, so hopefully someone can help here. On Friday 22 March the 1970s-themed UK radio station Smooth 70s played this album in its entirety to celebrate the 40th anniversary of its release. It is quite rare for a radio station to play an album in its entirety, and the event was publicised, so I guess it's worth a mention here. Check out the story below, and as always add any thoughts. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• "The Dark Side of the Moon for Smooth 70s". Radio Today. 21 March 2013. Retrieved 25 March 2013.

Title origin

I've come across the phrase "The dark side of the moon" meaning insanity only in one instance prior to the release of the album, in Alfred Hitchcock's film The Wrong Man. Two questions:

• Was it a common phrase to refer to insanity prior to the album?
• If not, did the inspiration for the title come from the Hitchcock film?

Grutness...wha? 14:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add a genre to the information box.

I have noticed that the only ganre that this album is classified as is "Progressive Rock".

I believe that there is another music genre that should be added to the info. I believe that this album also falls into the category of "Psyechedelic Rock".

I believe that Psychedelic rock is more symbolic of the over-all musical style than Progressive rock.

This album contains many elements of psychedelic rock. There are a lot of effects used on the album such as flanger, some instruments are put through a Leslie speaker and there is a lot of music atmosphere.

I wish to form a consensus and have Psyechedelic rock added to the info box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Mirabella (talk • contribs) 22:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Synthesizer

According to Oxford Dictionary synthesizer is spelled with a z not a second s. I´d be much obliged if a correction could be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theking2 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Then fix it, if you feel it's needed. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

He's right, I always assumed there are two spellings but the OED lists only one. I'll make the change. Parrot of Doom 22:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Recent tributes (Symphony)

On June 1st, 2013, the Orchestre Symphonique du Conservatoire de la Monteregie played a rousing tribute to the album with a 31-piece orchestra and 100-member choir. The arrangement by Peter Brennan was performed for the 1st time in the province of Quebec, Canada. Festival Classica hosted the event at it's annual music festival in Saint-Lambert. TrumpetMan25 (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Dark_Side_of_the_Moon&action=edit&section=new#

"Speak to Me"

Our article states: Mason created a rough version of "Speak to Me" at his home, before completing it in the studio.

This is a problem, because Roger Waters long ago revealed it was he who created "Speak to Me", and gave the credit to Mason as a gift, to share the songwriting royalties more equally. Can anybody find that quote from Waters?

There is no citation for this statement, either.

--Ben Culture (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think it's cited in Schaffner, but my copy had an accident with a bowl of water about 15 years ago. Yeepsi has a copy. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to dig up my copy, but it'll be Monday or so before I get to it. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 10:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Latest dispute

I notice a slow burning edit war going on. Using this diff as the main point of contention, I can offer the following third opinion on stuff:

• Receiving 43rd place on Rolling Stone magazine's poll in 2012 - I prefer something like (but not the same as) Akdrummer75's edit. We've mentioned "greatest albums of all-time" too many times in this paragraph as it is. I would go with something like "It was awarded the same position in 2012." Unless this award is of paramount importance for a non-fan to understand why the album is important, keep it simple.

• Wikilinks for personnel - go with Parrot of Doom's edit. The only contentious point for a link is the VCS3 (most people know what a guitar is, and probably what a bass guitar is, but not what a VCS3 is), but that is wikilinked earlier in the prose and in the image, so it is correct per WP:OVERLINK not to do so here.

• Credits for CD re-release. Find the CD source and use {{cite album-notes}} to cite them, including serial number and page in the booklet, then they can go in. Featured articles should not have anything less than perfect source formatting, let alone having {{citation needed}} tags, and it is a legitimate act of stewardship, not ownership to remove unsourced material. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• I actually didn't add the first edit in question, that was Progrockdude.

• "most people know what a guitar is" cannot be used as an excuse to not have the wikilinks. What if this is the first album-focused Wikipedia page a person is visiting? What if they have never seen or learned about any of these instruments before? You have to give people the benefit of the doubt. Besides, the wikilinks don't hurt anything. They can only help. I don't see the problem with adding them. Also, as I've already mentioned, this contradicts the stated views of both you and Parrot (although you seemed to have changed your mind, which I appreciate), which is that the credits should only come from the original vinyl release. If that were so then the Lead Vocals part of the Track Listing section shouldn't exist, as Wright, Gilmour, and Waters were simply credited with vocals on the original album. And actually, that's how the credits read on the 2011 Remaster as well, so a source(s) needs to be added to that table.

• WP:NOCITE states, "If a claim is doubtful but not harmful, use the template, which will add an inline tag, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time." "If a claim is doubtful and harmful, remove it from the article. You may want to move it to the talk page and ask for a source, unless it is very harmful or absurd, in which case it should not be posted to the talk page either. Use your common sense." The edits Parrot deleted were clearly not harmful, and therefore should not have been deleted. WP:NOCITE gives no exceptions about keeping unsourced material for FA's. The criteria itself for FA's does not say, "There should be no cn tags."

You have also noticeably left out another of the disputed edits. The following sentence is clearly a run-on: "The new material was performed live, in the same order in which it would eventually be recorded, but obvious differences between the live version, and the recorded version released a year later, included the lack of synthesizers in tracks such as "On the Run", and Bible readings that were later replaced by Clare Torry's non-lexical vocables on "The Great Gig in the Sky".[15]"

My edit split that into two, thereby eliminating a run-on sentence: "The new material was performed live, in the same order in which it would eventually be recorded. However, there were obvious differences between the live version, and the recorded version released a year later, including the lack of synthesizers on tracks such as "On the Run", and Bible readings that were later replaced by Clare Torry's non-lexical vocables on "The Great Gig in the Sky".[15]" That's just common sense. And yet it was reverted. Akdrummer75 (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Chris Thomas and the mixing decisions

Chris Thomas said that there were no disputes between Roger and Dave about the wet/dry mix. However, if you listen to the Early Mix of Dark Side, then "Money" clearly stands out as having definitely more echo and reverb than in the finished version (plus guitar parts that were left off as well). Could this be an indication of different mixing approaches? 89.204.154.74 (talk) 10:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

French Charts

http://www.infodisc.fr/Album_P.php (look under the drop down menu for PINK FLOYD) has Dark Side at number 1 in 1973, which seems much more likely than 94 considering their usual sales in France. 105.227.67.99 (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

94 does seem odd but I'm no expert on international music charts. Perhaps someone else can shine some light on this? Parrot of Doom 14:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Personnel credits

Can somebody explain to me where the current credits in "Personnel" come from? The FAQ above, which correlates to my own understanding, is that we use the credits on the original sleeve notes - however, as I read it now there are several credits I'm not familiar with. Why do "lap steel guitar" and "pedal steel guitar" warrant separate entries? Why is "farfisa organ" in lower case and "Hammond Organ" in upper case and wikilinked (to a redirect term)? IMHO this section does not meet the FA guidelines for prose as I look at it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

People keep adding chaff and I can't keep up with it. I suggest just reverting back to whatever was there following the article's FAC, that list will almost certainly be identical to the sleeve notes. Parrot of Doom 18:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I reverted to a version around the time of the FAC, and cleaned it up to reflect exactly the sleeve I have here (Mobile Fidelity OMR release), which should be identical to the original. Parrot of Doom 09:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. There are scans of the original LP art over the net, and first one I looked at here seems to have no obvious differences from the original vinyl release. I have a copy of that, but it's stuffed away in a cupboard behind a pile of junk. As I've said elsewhere, people keep changing genres in infoboxes to their "favourite" version in album articles all over the place, and it drives me nuts as well. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Something I find intensely irritating is people's insistence that drums are somehow separate from percussive instruments. Parrot of Doom 13:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

They can be, if you have something like Santana or T. Rex where different members play kit-based drums and hand-based congas or timbales. But the real issue is that we don't conduct original research on these things, but defer to how official and reliable documentation on the band deals with it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

track issue

I don't know how to do this or how to source it, but there should probably be some sort of note in the track listing that some CD editions combine "Speak To Me" and "Breathe" into a single track — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.67.240 (talk) 08:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• If nothing since the featured article review four years ago picked it up, it's probably irrelevant trivia, which is why you can't find a source. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

"Speak to Me" again.

Okay, I brought this up over a year ago, and nobody seemed to care either way. Now the problem is worse.

Mason received a rare solo composing credit for "Speak to Me". NOW we have an nb here which says Mason is responsible for most of the sound effects used on Pink Floyd's discography. with no source. It isn't true. I don't think even Mason himself would go so far as to say that! The cited sources (Schaffner, and Mason himself) only confirm that Mason received credit for the piece. The nb was snuck in there after the citations.

Sure, Mason has allowed people to believe he created "Speak to Me", and claimed the same thing about the sound effects on Momentary Lapse, after David Gilmour admitted Mason had not played drums on the album "at all, really".

Roger Waters created the sound collage called "Speak to Me". He then gave the copyright to Nick Mason as a gift. Which he came to regret, and has said so on the record.

Our "Speak to Me" article acknowledges this with two sources. Waters is very specific:

"God, I resent giving that to him now,” Waters said. “'Cause he had nothing to do with it... It was like a gift. It was all right at the time."

https://music.yahoo.com/blogs/stop-the-presses/pink-floyd-dark-side-40-years-later-40-205227757.html

Waters: "I thought the album needed some kind of overture and I fiddled around with the heartbeat, the sound effects and Clare Torry screaming until it sounded right." Waters has often said he gave the credit as a gift to Nick Mason - an account supported by Gilmour - though, after his relations with the band curdled, he came to express bitter regret for his generosity.

http://utopia.knoware.nl/users/ptr/pfloyd/interview/dark4.html

Since I brought this up over a year ago and nobody has said a word, I'm taking this Nick Mason myth out.

--Ben Culture (talk) 12:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The Mason claims are cited to Shaffner page 164. As for Waters' counter claims, if you can find them in a reliable source then they may appear in this article. I have reverted your edits. Parrot of Doom 12:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Shaffner is a critically acclaimed source. He admits he could not find time for Waters to interview him, but Waters nevertheless supported the work. The best counter claim beyond that would be Glenn Povey's "Echoes", but I think that's the same. We go with verifiability, not truth. (Just for having a giraffe, I found my copy of Cliff Jones "Echoes", the Daily Mail of Pink Floyd sources, so full of errors that Gilmour had to sue him. I thought of citing something from it, but that would technically be vandalism.) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Synthesizer or synthesiser?

Well, as a Brit, I always thought the British spelling was "synthesiser", but I've now been reverted twice. Am I wrong? Now I'm curious.

"Synthesiser" makes sense to me because it comes from "synthesise", and surely we agree that "synthesise" is the standard British spelling, not synthesize? (eg realize/realise, analyze/analyse, organise/organize - see American_and_British_English_spelling_differences#-ise.2C_-ize_.28-isation.2C_-ization.29). Sources: [1], [2].

It is a fairly modern word and does not appear in the Oxford English Dictionary and almost certainly did not exist when spellings were not standardised. Parrot of Doom 12:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Is the OED the final word on what word Wikipedia uses? What about other sources that contradict it? (Genuine question.)

What do you mean by "fairly modern" - 'synthesise' or 'synthesize'? Would you contend that 'synthesise' is spelled with a z in modern British English too? Popcornduff (talk) 12:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a British English article and it should therefore use British English. As far as I'm concerned, if it isn't in the OED then it doesn't exist. As for synthesise, that is also a word that does not exist. Parrot of Doom 14:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused.

Yes, this article should be written in British English. We agree on that; I'm only proposing this change because I was under the impression that "synthesiser" was the British spelling.

Is your position that the OED is the ultimate source for British English Wikipedia style? Can you back that up with a Wikipedia guideline or is that only, as you say, as far as you're concerned?

It sounds like you're basically endorsing Oxford spelling. I didn't know about this, but according to the Wiki article, OED actually uses "ize" rather than "ise" for words like "realise/realize", "finalise/finalize" etc. Presumably that's why it's spelled "synthesizer" in the OED, which other dictionaries and British style guides don't. So if you're arguing in favour of following OED, shouldn't we change all the other "ise" verbs in this article to "ize", as well? Popcornduff (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The OED lists "realise" as a form of "realize". It does not do the same for synthesiser, which, unlike "realise", does not even have a redirect. I'm sure you understand how "ize" and "ise" came about so I won't bore you with that, but synthesizer is a modern word and does not possess the same qualities as "realize". Parrot of Doom 09:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

According to the Cambridge Dictionary, "UK usually synthesiser". Radiopathy •talk• 17:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, Google "BBC synthesiser" at google.co.uk Radiopathy •talk• 17:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Then do the same for "BBC synthesizer". (In fact, wrapping the second word in quotes in both cases is better) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Order of colours on the cover

The article states in the "Packaging" section that the colours of the spectrum should be in opposite order: "An actual prism would exhibit a continuous spectrum with no defined boundaries between colours, the colours in the opposite order and colour separation would be present inside the prism." The picture of the album cover shows red on top which is physically correct (compare prism). Therefore, this part of the sentence should be removed. Brogdan (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Not knowing much about prisms, I tend to agree. In fact I don't see why an explanation is even required, so if nobody objects I'll remove it shortly. Parrot of Doom 00:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Sales Section: Proposed changes Jan 2015

I'd like to propose the following changes to the Sales section:

• It fails to mention that The Dark Side of the Moon is the album with most charted weeks in the history of the Billboard 200 chart.
• The number of non-consecutive weeks on the Billboard 200 chart is out of date. It is listed as 881, but by 10 January 2015 The Dark Side of the Moon had enjoyed 893 non-consecutive weeks on the Billboard 200 chart since its release.<ref name="pfbboard">{{Citation | url = {{BillboardURLbyName|artist=pink floyd|chart=Billboard 200}} | title = Pink Floyd ''Billboard'' 200 charting history| publisher = Billboard | accessdate=10 January 2015}}</ref>
• It may be worth noting that as a result of discounted pricing in the Google Play store, the album re-entered the chart at number thirteen on 20 December 2014 having moved more than 38,000 album equivalent units.<ref name="pfbboard1">{{Citation | url = http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/6405630/billboard-200-chart-moves-pink-floyds-dark-side-returns-to-top | title = Billboard 200 Chart Moves: Pink Floyd's ''Dark Side'' Returns to Top 20| publisher = Billboard | accessdate=1 January 2015}}</ref>

Jimbilsborough (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

So long as the sources used are reliable I have no issues with this. Sales figures are bound to change over time, my only stipulation is that we be careful when writing authoritative statements like "world's second best selling" or similar, since they're contentious. Be careful also to keep things in focus - it may be more important to Billboard than DSotM that the album has the most charted weeks in that chart. Parrot of Doom 10:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Well when it comes to chart performance, I'd think Billboard itself is a pretty reliable source. Sales figures DO change over time of course, but DSOTM is so far out in front ( a significant fact in itself) that any claims of "most" or "best selling" are safe for years to come - nothing is going to change imminently, except for the absolute number of weeks (which IS currently out-of-date). And with respect, I'm sure Billboard doesn't care who has the longest charting album - but it's a credit to DSOTM and the band that this album does hold that particular accomplishment. Jimbilsborough (talk) 04:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Is Billboard magazine a reliable source?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Thanks for an easy on to close, folks, the answer is an unambiguous yes. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

---

With this edit I corrected the UK release date of the album to March 16, citing an article in Billboard magazine as the source (see "EMI Offers Special Deal to Dealers") but it was reverted to the date Saturday, March 24. The Billboard article, in the March 24, 1973 issue, states:

EMI is to offer stock on a sale-or-return basis to selected dealers taking part in a $50,000 campaign on four albums released March 16. The four albums are: Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon," T. Rex's "Tanx," the Electric Light Orchestra's "ELO 2" and Roy Wood's "Wizzard Brew." Already 100,000 copies of the four albums have been sold even before the promotion.

The article very clearly indicates the album was released (past tense) on March 16 and even states a sales figure for the number of albums already sold.

While I see no reason to question the reliability and accuracy of this source, and it is sufficient in itself to cite the release date as March 16, I will offer further corroborating evidence. The Dark Side of the Moon entered the New Musical Express album chart dated March 24, 1973 (sales week ending Tuesday, March 20, 1973) at #4. This entry coincides with a release date of March 16 and, like the Billboard article, precludes the possibility of a release date of Saturday, March 24. The New Musical Express chart in the August 11, 1973 issue (shown here) shows The Dark Side of the Moon in the chart for 21 weeks, verifying the debut date in the March 24 chart (simply count back 21 weeks). For comparisons sake, below is a table showing other EMI albums with documented release dates and the corresponding debut dates that also appear in the August 11 chart.

Album	Release date	NME debut	Music Week debut
The Dark Side of the Moon	March 16, 1973	March 24, 1973 (week ending March 20, 1973)	March 31, 1973
The Beatles 1962–1966	April 19, 1973	April 28, 1973 (week ending April 24, 1973)	May 5, 1973
The Beatles 1967–1970	April 19, 1973	April 28, 1973 (week ending April 24, 1973)	May 5, 1973
Red Rose Speedway	May 4, 1973	May 12, 1973 (week ending May 8, 1973)	May 19, 1973
Living in the Material World	June 22, 1973	June 30, 1973 (week ending June 26, 1973)	July 7, 1973

To date, recently published books about Pink Floyd have been cited for the album release dates in various Pink Floyd-related Wikipedia articles. However, those sources have been shown to be inaccurate. For instance, they show the US release date of The Dark Side of the Moon as Saturday, March 10, 1973. The album debuted on the Billboard 200 chart March 17, 1973 for which the sales tracking week ended March 4, precluding the possibility of a March 10 release date. Similarly, those sources give the release date of The Wall as Saturday, December 8, 1979. That album debuted on the Billboard 200 chart December 15, 1979 for which the sales tracking week ended December 2, again precluding the possibility of a December 8 release date (the U.S. copyright registration verifies the release date as November 30). Curiously, the author appears to have indiscriminately, and inaccurately, chosen a date seven days prior to the chart date as the release date which is an impossibility. Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, "the reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content." Considering the sources have been shown to be inaccurate for US release dates, and appears to follow a similar pattern with UK release dates, it isn't unreasonable to question the reliability of those sources.

The question is, is Billboard, a respected music industry trade magazine, considered a reliable source? And should it be completely disregarded in favor of another source with questionable accuracy? Piriczki (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• I think this RFC is wrong in two aspects. 1) as it is questioning the reliability of a highly used source, it should be asked in another place rather than an article's talk page. WT:ALBUM or WP:RSN are the correct venues. 2) The question is not if "it is a reliable source", because it is (Is the NYT a reliable source? Is Rolling Stone a reliable source? Or, is EMI a reliable source?). How can a source be considered as reliable like these three examples, simple, do third-party sources speak, debate, or use such sources? In all cases the answers is yes, but we wouldn't use EMI as source for the sales of The Dark Side of the Moon, for example. If there is evidence that Billboard was wrong in one aspect, is not a reason to question the reliability of the whole magazine. Just simply ask, is Billboard reliable for release dates (pre-2000)?. AllMusic is reliable, but we have a consensus to not use it to source genres listed in its genre sidebar. If the problem with release dates is frequent, search for the same. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 21:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood the question. I'm not disputing the reliability of Billboard, I'm relying on it as the basis for my edit but have been reverted. It is the other sources that appear to be inaccurate. My question is why can't I make a small change citing a reliable source such as Billboard? Piriczki (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I was about to write basically the same thing TBHotch said until I read his response. Same thoughts here too. Sergecross73 msg me 00:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

So Billboard is or isn't a reliable source that I can cite for this change? Piriczki (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't have an answer for you. I personally find it frustrating that it can even sometimes be hard to nail down the exact release date for albums released as recently as the early 2000's, let alone something decades earlier. I only came to the RFC because I thought someone was questioning the reliability of Billboard on a whole, in which the response would be an obvious "Yes". When I saw that's not really what the RFC is about, I only still commented because I had the exact same confusion TBHotch did. Sergecross73 msg me 21:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I first replied here with a long comment focusing only on the first part of the discussion – the 24 March 1973 Billboard article. I've since woken up and paid a bit more attention, meaning that most of what I wrote before is now redundant. Here's the short version, though: I don't think the mention of "released" in that report from London necessarily infers past tense; it's adjectival and could equally mean "due for release on". And I wonder about that sales figure: could it be referring to sales/advance orders to stockists, rather than copies purchased by the record-buying public? (The tone and scope of the article is very industry-focused, after all.) Also – something else that makes me question whether it's past tense "released" – a 24 March issue of Billboard could well have been published on, say, 17 March or slightly before. I've found plenty of examples with music magazines from that era where a cover date, even for a weekly publication, is quite a bit ahead. As an example: The Concert for Bangladesh, held on Sunday, 1 August 1971, yet the only thing relevant to the event in the 7 August issue of Billboard is that "Record Plant East mobile recording unit will record the George Harrison, Ringo Starr, Ravi Shankar concert which is being held …" Take Rolling Stone also, where John Lennon's infamous December 1970 interview with Jann Wenner is always said to have been published (in two parts) on 21 January 1971 and 4 February 1971. Those are certainly the RS cover dates, but as written in the intro to part I, "The conclusion will be published in the next issue of Rolling Stone, on sale approximately January 20th" – referring to "RS75: February 4, 1971" obviously.

Moving on from that point (now that I've bothered to read the whole proposal), I agree that a UK release date of 24 March has to be an impossibility. I've got a book that gives UK and US release dates, and complete weekly chart placings (Billboard and Melody Maker) for all those Beatles-related EMI album releases. Not for Dark Side, but the picture would seem to be clear in the UK: it's eight days each time between an album's release and its first appearance on Melody Maker's chart (I think those two Beatles compilations should have a 20 April release date, btw = 8 days). So I can definitely see the logic behind 16 March being the true date for when EMI issued Dark Side in the UK. If the situation regarding Floyd "literature" is anything like the Beatles, Dylan, the Stones, etc, I'm thinking there has to be an author or two who's given an earlier date than 24 March … In music biography, I find, errors snowball over the decades, but there's always someone who does the job properly. (Parrot of Doom, Popcornduff, I've seen you both appearing in the edit histories for a number of Floyd articles – would either of you have a healthy collection of books about the band, maybe?)

I also think you've got a point, Piriczki, with the US release date for Dark Side of the Moon, at least judging by the performance of those other EMI albums you list. The Beatles compilations and Harrison's Living in the Material World were keenly anticipated in America, by all accounts, but each of them, like McCartney's Red Rose Speedway, wasn't listed on Billboard until a minimum of 12 days after its (widely accepted) US release date. That's a 2 April 1973 release for 1962–66 and 1967–70 followed by a 14 April chart entry (#s 94 and 97, respectively); 30 April for Red Rose, enters the 200 on 12 May (at #127); 30 May release for Material World, and chart entry on 16 June (#11). Sorry to get so Beatley about it all, but again, I find it hard to believe that no Floyd biographer or discographer offers a release date that fits what appears to be quite a logical pattern. We should be aiming to get it right if we can. JG66 (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

In short, if multiple reliable sources cite one date, and one reliable source cites another, it's best to assume that other reliable source might've written wrong information; so you cite one of the multiple sources that agree on a date. --Lapadite (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources often disagree. I see it a lot for birthdays, actors want to appear younger so they fudge their press kits that get sent to media outlets and end up in obituaries. We have a category for them. When they disagree use both "January 1, or January 2", or if there are three sources and two disagree use the agreeing ones and add a note in the reference section saying "Encyclopedia X uses January 1 but January 2 was used on their draft registration in 1918 and their passport application in 1921." That way the next 100 people who see the date in Encyclopedia X have the discrepancy explained for them and weight is given to which one is more likely to be correct. When reliable sources disagree don't flip a coin and choose one, explain to the reader why there is a conflict. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

As a Brit, I will say here that I would be very surprised if the album was released on a Saturday – until the early 1980s the most common release day for a single or album in the UK was Friday, which would suggest that Friday 16 March is more likely. Even more conclusive evidence for me is that the album entered the UK album chart w/e 31 March – the charts were collated to the end of each Saturday, so if it had been released on the 24th there's no way it would have been in the following week's chart. Obviously the way to settle this would be if I or somebody else in the UK could find the UK release date in a copy of NME or Melody Maker from the time, but at this stage I am very much leaning towards a release date of 16 March. Richard3120 (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've now had a look in the British Library at the copies of Music Week (the UK's trade paper equivalent of Billboard) for March 1973, and found this:

• 10 March 1973, p. 11: advertisement by EMI/Harvest for the album, which says, "The new album which has been nine months in the making will be available next week on Harvest SHVL 804 and on 8-Track and Cassette Tape – containing 2 special posters and 2 stickers". So it was released during the week 12–17 March.
• 17 March 1973, p. 1: article headed "EMI offers a safe-bet sale-or-return deal", which repeats word for word the Billboard article Piriczki posted at the start of this thread... "EMI is to offer stock on a sale-or-return basis to selected dealers taking part in a £20,000 campaign on four albums released on March 16 [...] The four albums are: Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon, T. Rex's Tanx, the Electric Light Orchestra's ELO2 and Roy Wood's Wizzard Brew."
• In the same issue on page 5 there is a full-page advert by EMI stating basically the same thing, and again stating that the release date for those four albums is March 16. The blurb alongside the picture of Dark Side of the Moon calls it "an album already hailed as revolutionary in the USA. It went straight into the American charts in its first week of release." Music Week comes out on Tuesday, so this issue must have hit the shops on 13 March 1973 – for EMI to know that the record was already in the US charts it must have come out about two weeks beforehand, there's no way it could have been released on 10 March in the US.

So from this I think we can categorically state that the UK release date was 16 March 1973 (seeing as Floyd's own record company twice placed advertisements in the music press confirming its release on that date/that week), and that we have more confirmation that the US release must have been around 1 March. Richard3120 (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Whereas before I was thinking 16 March was highly feasible, now, with what you've provided above, I see that date as definite. Perhaps an endnote can be added to state that certain sources give 24 March for the UK release.

Incidentally, the US release date given in the article is already 1 March. I'd got confused by mention in Piriczki's initial post that "recently published books about Pink Floyd have been cited for the album release dates in various Pink Floyd-related Wikipedia articles. However, those sources have been shown to be inaccurate. For instance, they show the US release date of The Dark Side of the Moon as Saturday, March 10, 1973." Not sure what that was doing here – the date given in this article is good. JG66 (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I did realise the article cites 1 March as the US release date – what I meant was from the wording of EMI's publicity in that second advertisement, it adds even more weight to the argument that the date in the Wikipedia article is correct, and the 10 March shown in other sources is wrong. Richard3120 (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Most advanced recording techniques of the time"

As pointed out with this edit multi-track recording by itself was not advanced for 1973. Even the 16-track recording utilized for the album was not advanced for the time. 16-track recording had been available since the late 1960s and by 1972, 24-track and even 32-track recorders were in use. Limited to 16 tracks, it was necessary to make reduction mixes to free up additional tracks for overdubs, a technique used by the Beatles at Abbey Road studios since 1966, as was the use of tape loops.

This subject was previously discussed at Talk:The Dark Side of the Moon/Archive 4#"advanced recording techniques" with no conclusion. Piriczki (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should the alternate cover in the infobox be kept or removed?

Discussion

I think both the original and 2003 reissue covers should be included. They are both significant enough to be documented in sources, and indeed the background into the later remake is covered in the article as an activity in its own right. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

According to the infobox guideline on alternate covers, an alternate cover can be included if it is either:

• "Widely distributed and/or has replaced the original [cover]" (the 2003 anniversary reissue has not done that since the subsequent reissues this article discusses were released with the original cover)
• "The subject of sourced critical commentary" (there's no critical commentary on the alternate cover in the article, just a description of it and a quote from the designer, which are unsourced)
• or "is significantly different from the original ... Covers that are essentially similar, despite differences in colouring, poses, text, etc, should not be included" (both are essentially similar) Dan56 (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Vote

• Remove because it does not meet the criteria at Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover. Dan56 (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - guidelines are not absolute dogma, and if acclaimed book sources have it, why shouldn't we? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment

@Ritchie333: boy, with a statement like "guidelines are not absolute dogma", you – anyone – gets my support, (almost) regardless of the issue …

I'd done some work on this article late last year and was slightly surprised then to see the additional cover. (No major violation, but it didn't seem essential.) Bearing in mind, though, that the original cover was/is so iconic – to the extent that any change is bound to be noteworthy – I agree it is worth having.

My suggestion would be to take the 2003 cover down to the Reissues section and add more commentary there, if possible. The text we currently have is good, but is there anything else: comments in that Povey book or other Floyd bios? from the band members? mention of fan reaction? That's what I'd be looking for. From the AllMusic review: "Original designer Storm Thorgerson contributed a new, subtly different album cover and a 20-page CD booklet that was a scrapbook of photographs and artwork associated with the album over the years." Even something as innocuous as that "subtly different" comment, sourced to a third party, not to mention reference to the 20-page booklet or other elements of the packaging, would be useful to include, because it adds to the significance of this 2003 reissue. (In other words, discussion of the '03 cover could begin with mention that it was "subtly different" from the original, before we give the details from those pinkfloyd.co.uk and Brain Damage cites.) Could be wrong, but I can't help thinking the alt cover design would have attracted a fair amount of scrutiny? JG66 (talk) 11:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Glenn Povey's "Echoes" is the one good source that covers it in detail. Nicholas Schaffner's book is too old to cover it (must get hold of a new copy, though Povey's book seems to have most of the raw facts). Time, however, has pushed Hipgnosis' revised cover into the background when compared to the original - a straight Google image search for "dark side of the moon cover" brings up the 1973 version first in abundance, with the 2003 version appearing later. Any way you cut it, the cover is discussed in sources generally accepted by Wikipedia:WikiProject Pink Floyd as good, and so I think it can stay. I'll dig around for contemporary news reports on the 2003 cover which I can't believe don't exist online, and I dare say Parrot of Doom can ferret something out too. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

"a lovely new stained glass effect cover" appears in the BBC review by Chris Jones. Fairly mundane, but critical commentary nonetheless. JG66 (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

From Thorgerson himself (so not third party) but again, with extra detail on the new cover's creation, it adds weight to the discussion: "[The 2003 album was the same music but not the same mix. A different beast, in effect, and it seemed appropriate to indicate as much on the cover by reworking the original design, which was an airbrush illustration with line work for tint lay."] JG66 (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should the alternate cover in the infobox be kept or removed?

Discussion

I think both the original and 2003 reissue covers should be included. They are both significant enough to be documented in sources, and indeed the background into the later remake is covered in the article as an activity in its own right. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

According to the infobox guideline on alternate covers, an alternate cover can be included if it is either:

• "Widely distributed and/or has replaced the original [cover]" (the 2003 anniversary reissue has not done that since the subsequent reissues this article discusses were released with the original cover)
• "The subject of sourced critical commentary" (there's no critical commentary on the alternate cover in the article, just a description of it and a quote from the designer, which are unsourced)
• or "is significantly different from the original ... Covers that are essentially similar, despite differences in colouring, poses, text, etc, should not be included" (both are essentially similar) Dan56 (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Vote

• Remove because it does not meet the criteria at Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover. Dan56 (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - guidelines are not absolute dogma, and if acclaimed book sources have it, why shouldn't we? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment

@Ritchie333: boy, with a statement like "guidelines are not absolute dogma", you – anyone – gets my support, (almost) regardless of the issue …

I'd done some work on this article late last year and was slightly surprised then to see the additional cover. (No major violation, but it didn't seem essential.) Bearing in mind, though, that the original cover was/is so iconic – to the extent that any change is bound to be noteworthy – I agree it is worth having.

My suggestion would be to take the 2003 cover down to the Reissues section and add more commentary there, if possible. The text we currently have is good, but is there anything else: comments in that Povey book or other Floyd bios? from the band members? mention of fan reaction? That's what I'd be looking for. From the AllMusic review: "Original designer Storm Thorgerson contributed a new, subtly different album cover and a 20-page CD booklet that was a scrapbook of photographs and artwork associated with the album over the years." Even something as innocuous as that "subtly different" comment, sourced to a third party, not to mention reference to the 20-page booklet or other elements of the packaging, would be useful to include, because it adds to the significance of this 2003 reissue. (In other words, discussion of the '03 cover could begin with mention that it was "subtly different" from the original, before we give the details from those pinkfloyd.co.uk and Brain Damage cites.) Could be wrong, but I can't help thinking the alt cover design would have attracted a fair amount of scrutiny? JG66 (talk) 11:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Glenn Povey's "Echoes" is the one good source that covers it in detail. Nicholas Schaffner's book is too old to cover it (must get hold of a new copy, though Povey's book seems to have most of the raw facts). Time, however, has pushed Hipgnosis' revised cover into the background when compared to the original - a straight Google image search for "dark side of the moon cover" brings up the 1973 version first in abundance, with the 2003 version appearing later. Any way you cut it, the cover is discussed in sources generally accepted by Wikipedia:WikiProject Pink Floyd as good, and so I think it can stay. I'll dig around for contemporary news reports on the 2003 cover which I can't believe don't exist online, and I dare say Parrot of Doom can ferret something out too. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

"a lovely new stained glass effect cover" appears in the BBC review by Chris Jones. Fairly mundane, but critical commentary nonetheless. JG66 (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

From Thorgerson himself (so not third party) but again, with extra detail on the new cover's creation, it adds weight to the discussion: "[The 2003 album was the same music but not the same mix. A different beast, in effect, and it seemed appropriate to indicate as much on the cover by reworking the original design, which was an airbrush illustration with line work for tint lay."] JG66 (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring over citing an unsourced statement

Parrot of Doom, this was your third revert in the past hour, and your edit summary is both an ownership and neutrality concern. "The Dark Side of the Moon frequently appears on rankings of the greatest albums of all-time" is not common knowledge as you suggested. What is your problem with citing the source I cited? Is it the wording, the source itself?? It's self-evident and reasonable to think a source is needed to prove an album has been "frequently" named one of the greatest of all time. Dan56 (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Would you agree to leaving how it was originally worded ("...frequently appears on rankings of the...") but with the Acclaimed Music citation at the end? Dan56 (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

There's no point. A single sentence followed by a long list of examples is it's own citation. It does not need some link to a dubious page filled with god-knows-what. Parrot of Doom 16:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Parrot of Doom:. Why are you being so dismissive? Acclaimed Music is the only source that can verify this claim, which is exceptional since it is an "important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources". There is no long list of examples and nothing supporting "frequently"--there are only five lists of "the greatest albums of all-time" cited, one of which was a magazine readers poll. The other few are lists of influential albums (The Observer and Rhythm magazine) and one ranking album covers. Dan56 (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It isn't a claim that requires verification. I don't know how I could possibly make that easier for you to understand. Should I write it in big, colourful words? Parrot of Doom 21:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should this sentence be cited?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus in this RFC. To few responders and not enough agreement. AlbinoFerret 20:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

---

The crux of this issue was discussed (mostly by me) in the above section, and the revision in question is this. I added a citation to a sentence that didn't have one, Parrot of Doom felt it didn't need a citation. Dan56 (talk) 23:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Vote

• Yes - It is an exceptional claim to make, that an album "frequently appears on lists of the greatest albums of all-time", and the Acclaimed Music source I cited is the only source that supports this statement. There are only four all-time critics' lists cited in that section, so the statement is neither sourced nor an accurate summary. If Parrot of Doom wants to edit war over the simple addition of a footnote (possibly to prove a point) and leave me with no other choice but to open an RfC over this, so be it. Dan56 (talk) 23:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• No - (although I don't think voting is appropriate) - The citation is redundant and the reliability of the source is questionable. The statement is already clearly supported by the citations of reliable sources that follow in the explanatory paragraph. Graham Beards (talk) 07:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• This is exactly my position. Parrot of Doom 08:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

References to four all-time lists doesn't qualify as "frequently", @Graham Beards: Dan56 (talk) 12:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Then you remove the word "frequently" and simply say "the album has appeared on lists ranking the greatest albums of all time". Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Fine, done. Dan56 (talk) 00:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Maybe Ah I've checked the article and changed my mind. What you are really asking is, because this is the lead, and ref'd further on, does it need a ref. here. Guidelines are ambiguous about reffing the lead. The claim IS ref'd further down. So I would say it is not a NECESSITY here, but it would do no harm here.Pincrete (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Produced by Pink Floyd

Multiple reliable sources state that this album was produced by the band themselves, so I am at a loss to understand why my restoration of the that fact to the "personnel" section of this article has been reverted, multiple times, and without an edit summary at that. It should of course, be there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The personnel section reflects what is written on the album sleeve. This is the case for most of the Floyd albums. I have done this to prevent these sections becoming filled with large amounts of uncited trivia, as is nearly always the case on Wikipedia. Parrot of Doom 16:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The personnel section reflects what is written on the album sleeve It does indeed, at present, but there is no requirement, much less policy, that it do so; and it is not or you to invent them. This is not "uncited trivia", and you should not be removing key, information which is verified by multiple reliable sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

There's also no requirement or policy that it contain whatever you like; your opinion is no more important than mine. You can, of course, start a long winded and boring discussion about the matter and bring in other editors to contribute - I couldn't care less. But as things stand, I'm happy with what's written now and will continue to revert you until enough people ask me not to. Parrot of Doom 18:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Let me understand: you argue that what our readers get to know is limited to what the sleeve designer cares to mention? I would be interest in a producer, and don't understand how that could be trivia. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should read the article, which tells you exactly who did what. And yes, what's on the sleeve is exactly what I think should be in that section. Parrot of Doom 18:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Singles

Is the track "Us and Them" not considered a single? 2602:304:CDC0:C2A0:482C:A7D4:897:4589 (talk) 10:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to the third paragraph which states "It produced two singles, 'Money' and 'Time'". There appears to be a misunderstanding regarding the second single as to which was the A-side. Neither single indicates which are the A or B sides so I think the assumption has been that "Time" was the A-side because it had the lower matrix number but that is not necessarily an indicator of which side is the A-side. In this case the matrix numbers on the singles taken from The Dark Side of the Moon appear to be sequential according to their order on the album, for example:

Track 3: "Time" (48029)

Track 4: (not a single)

Track 5: "Money" (48031)

Track 6: "Us and Them" (48032)

Track 7: "Any Colour You Like" (48033)

Where the A or B side is not indicated by the label or the matrix numbers, the side which is promoted can be assumed to be the "A-side." In this case it was "Money" and "Us and Them" which were promoted and appeared on the singles charts. Piriczki (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

What about the standalone release of "Us and Them"? --Krótki (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

That is a promotional copy of the "Us and Them"/"Time" single (Harvest 3832). Looking at some other Harvest Records singles, the matrix number usually has an "A" suffix for the A-side and a "B" suffix for the B-side. With each of these singles, both sides carry the "A" suffix. Going strictly by that, both "Money"/"Any Colour You Like" and "Us and Them"/"Time" were double A-side singles. Since "Money" and "Us and Them" were the sides that were promoted, the article should probably refer to the two singles by those titles. Piriczki (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, thank you for taking the time to respond with a detailed response. 2602:304:CDC0:C2A0:482C:A7D4:897:4589 (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)