Talk:Trans-Europe Express (album)/Archive 1

Archive 1

<^>v!!This album is connected!!v<^>

• All song titles serve as redirects to this album, have their own pages, or have been placed at the appropriate disambiguation pages.--Hraefen ^Talk 21:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Re-write

Hi everyone. I totally re-wrote this article, as it looked quite dated and unsourced. It probably needs some good copy-editing, so I've pasted it here from my sandbox to get that information going from other users. Hope you dig it! Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

you appear to have removed all info on the Vako orchestron :(--feline1 (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually you have removed quite a lot of important and reference information on the technical side of things, such as the Synthorama Sequencer. And in it's place is factually incorrect opinions from journalists such as "TEE contains a synth melody" (no it doesn't, it is played on a Vako Orchestron). I think much of this technical material should be reinstated into the article.--feline1 (talk) 10:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

We can remove the information there if you believe it to be incorrect about the synth. I saw the citations from http://www.elektropolis.de/synthanorma.pdf that were there before but only one part of it was cited and well, I can't read German. And I'm not sure what makes http://www.elektropolis.de/ a valid source. Is there any more information we should re-instate? I'd like to get this article up to a GA-status soon hopefully. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I took at look at the PDF about the Synthorama Sequencer on electropolis.de - it is written by Dirk Matten, who built the sequencer!! It is therefore probably the most reliable source that could exist about it :) There is nothing unreliable about it whatsoever.--feline1 (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The information that you cut from the article which I think should definately be reinstated is: 1. that Kraftwerk's music evolved on this album more towards to 'song' format - all but one of the pieces have lyrics or at least vocoded voices (cf. early albums were entirely instrumental, 1 song on Autobahn, half'n'half on Radio-Activity) 2. the information on the Synthorama Sequencer, and how this more powerful piece of equipment directly shaped the form of the music they were able to create. The fact that the source for a German piece of equipment used by a German band is written in German frankly increases its accuracy - no dodgy translations required. It is also discussed in Bartos autobiograghy & the Bussy book, which are already referenced. 3. mention of the Vako Orchestron instrument, which is used to play the majority of the melodies on the album. Again this is discussed in Bartos' book. 4. the reference to the composer Franz Schubert. As you cut all this material out, I hope you don't think it unreasonable if I suggest you should also be the one to put it back in :) Incidently, I see you have nominated the album for Good Article status yourself. Is that good etiquette, to re-write an article yourself then nominate it yourself? --feline1 (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Lyrics are mentioned in this article now with mentions of the processed vocals so That is mentioned. I mention already the movie away from the traditional krautrock sound from the previous albums as well.
2. Provide a cite for good source and this can be written again in the article. I don't think the fact it's written in German makes what was written there and more notable. Who wrote it? For what? I can't say it's notable enough, Kraftwerk didn't even say what equipment they used in the linear notes.
3. I don't have Bartos's book (although I'd really like to own it!) Do you have it? If so add the cited information! :)
4. I do want to write more about the Franz Schubert piece, but there's not much written about it. Does anyone know what piece of Schubert's the song is referencing? Because I'd like to write more about the piece other than just explaining the title.
5. Most Good Articles are self-noms so Ain't No Shame in My Game. ;) Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: material from the Allmusic review from a writer called 'Mason' - a lot of this is, well, bollocks ;) The problem with using a source like Allmusic is that reviews there are usually subjective and may be factually inaccurate, as Allmusic is not an encylopedia. Side 2 of the album is not a continuous 19 minute suite. "Trans-Europe Express" and "Metal on Metal" are a continuous segué, yes (and in fact on German and live editions, the segué between them is given its own title, "Abzug"); there is a reprise of TEE after Metal on Metal. The main melody is not a "synth melody", it is played on a Vako Orchestron (a crazy ass analogue sampling instrument, the sound in question being real violins), and the track is not built up in the same way as Autobahn: Autobahn contains nearly half a dozen different sections with entirely different rhythms, but that in the main verse is built up from a (manually played) moog bass riff with echo on it, where the riff is played syncopated against the off-beat of its own echo (if that makes sense ;) ... TEE is built against a electronic percussion beat in the style of a train, quite possible sequenced - they are not the same techniques. The two tracks "Franz Schubert" and "Endless Endless" are a separate and different segué. They are built around a 32 note sequence on the Synthorama Sequenczer. This is not a reprise of Europe Endless's sequencer, it is not dissimilar.--feline1 (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll remove the part about the synth. I'm glad you are passionate about this article as I am Feline1! Feel free to remove the information you feel is incorrect about Mason's things, but I think opinions on the tracks should stay such as the tone of the vocals and such. So feel free to clean-up the following parts.

1. the synth part (re-add the Vako part when we get a good citation for it)
2. the fact it's full suite (as on listening again, you are correct. it changes when it gets to the third song.
3. Information form the German album could be useful, if we can cite it. Most writers on the topic of Kraftwerk sort of ignore the information from the German albums.

Thank you for pointing out the problems with the article. let's work on it together to make it much better! :) Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate the work you are trying to do, but unfortunately (as is often the way with the wikipedia project) I personally do not have the time right now to reinstate the information you have removed and track down the references for it all, whereas you seem to be firing on all cylinders so I am hoping you can attend to it :) The "Synthorama Sequencer by Matten & Weithers" (or something like that) *is* explicity referenced on the TEE album sleeve, one of the very few times when Kraftwerk namechecked a piece of equipment they had used, which gives you some idea of how important it was. You are certainly working at a disadvantage when editing a Kraftwerk article if you do not possess Bartos' autobiography! It is one of the primary sources of information about the group, and as yet the only autobiography by one of its members. I would caution you against deleting material from the article on the basis that it is unreferenced, when the info most likely came from Bartos' book - if you don't have that book you will remove valuable material. I personally think that if you are going to tackle these articles it would be better for you to get a copy of that book first, rather than just delete lots of stuff because you otherwise cannot reference it and then not earn a "Good Article" badge.--feline1 (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The references are still available for view on the "previous version" of the article page. Nothing like this is every truly deleted from Wikipedia, just removed. I double checked and you are correct! Those machines are mentioned but other than regurgitating what it says in the album sleeve, I really don't have any information on how they used it. In terms of removing the information, i'm going to leave it with this quote.

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information...

–Jimmy Wales

The information we had there was good and I honestly do trust you it's from the book. But this is not how wikipedia works, you need citations. I trusted your opinion on good faith and removed some information that is not factual, but I'm not going to add it until we get specific sources from Bartos's book. Let's take into consideration the definition of good articles as well. Once you or I (or someone else) gets ahold of Karl Bartos's book, we can improve the article further (possibly to Featured Article status). Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I am not going to argue with Jimmy Wales. But I will again just caution you: don't let your desire to win some Good Article badges for your userpage lead you to do overzealous editing on an article where you not an 'expert' in the subject. A copy of Flür's (not Bartos', sorry ;) "I was a Robot" book will go a long way to making you an expert :) The information was not False, it was just Inadequately Referenced, so I personally am sad see it Zeroed. And as I specifically noted further up the page, the PDF about the Synthorama Sequencer that was referenced in the earlier version of the article is an extremely reliable source - it is written by the man who built the sequencer!--feline1 (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, those GA signs don't really mean anything other than if anyone has any questions with the factuality of the article, I did a lot of work on it, so they can check it out with me. I don't claim any ownership over articles other than I want ones of topics of interest to be up to good standards. The article wass missing that info from before and now contains a lot more information in other fields as well and I think that's a great plus. On that note, I've heard that the new re-issues of the albums have more information with in the linear notes. If anyone knows has that information, feel free to describe the information supplied from those to add to the article. Cheers! Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of the information you have added is from sloppy subjective journalistic reviews published on Allmusic.com. They are not factual, and if you or I had typed such rubbish in the article ourselves, it would be quite rightly deleted immediately as unverifiable original research. I fail to see why the fact that someone said it on Allmusic makes it any better or more notable. Sorry, that sounds rather grumpy, I've not had a good morning so far ;)--feline1 (talk) 11:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Music#Resources, Allmusic is considered a valid source for this type of information. So if you have issues with Allmusic being used as a source, I suggest bringing it up with the higher ups at WP:Music rather than on this article. Staff members of allmusic have written for several linear notes for albums a wide variety of musicians and artists, not to mention publishing their own books on these topics. Allmusic has been used as a cite on several Good Articles and Featured Articles on wikipedia. As stated before, when adding information, try to include a citations even if you telling the pure truth. This is how wikipedia works. Hope you have a better afternoon! Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

With your current addition, I'd like to note when citing books, page numbers are generally needed. That would be like me citing just a magazine without telling you what issue it's in. And you did not get back to me before on what makes that pdf you've cited a reliable source. When this album comes to be reviewed, do not surprised to find this information removed. Do you actually have that "I Was a Robot" book? In all this time of arguing, you could have found the page number. Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have added two page numbers. My computer is not in the same location as my paperback copy of the book! I have already said about twice now that the PDF on the Matten & Weichers sequencers is an excellent source - it is written by Dirk Matten himself, the manufacturer! Did you miss my mention of that, or is it that you don't think that is an valid source? I don't agree that the sort of material you are inserting from Allmusic is given the thumbs up by Wikipedia:Music#Resources - the policy page you refer to says it is a good place to look up and check facts such as track listings of albums. These are factual things. That is not the same as subjective non-factual musings and opinions.--feline1 (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the page number! I missed your information on that being the publisher of the article, so I'll assume good faith on it for the time being. What specific allmusic items do you disagree with? I've changed the phrasing so do not suggests synthesizer use. Thanks for co-operating to make this article better! Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is an example of the kind of material from Allmusic that I am uncomfortable with: Steve Huey of Allmusic refered to Trans-Europe Express as a concept album with two different themes. The first being the disparities between reality and image with the songs "Hall of Mirrors" and "Showroom Dummies" and the others about the glorification of Europe. These are pretentious statements of subjective opinion and original research on Huey's part. The phrase "glorification of Europe" is particularly overblown to the point of having unpleasant political overtones. To discuss the concept of the album, the article should use quotes from Kraftwerk themselves. I have read many pages of thoughts from Hütter and other bandmembers about the conceptual side of the album (for example in Bussy's book, Tim Barr's book, and Flür's autobiography) and Hütter has never said such a thing as "this album is about the disparity between reality and image". It would be much better to find to quotes from Hütter & co rather than some waffle someone put on Allmusic.--feline1 (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Kraftwerk barely talk about the album lyrics. It's personal opinion yourself to say whether they are pretentious or not. A cited opinion from a valid critic is fine. If you disagree with them, find evidence stating otherwise that they are not about these themes. To be fair, Hutter saying the song "Hall of Mirrors" is auto-biographical makes less sense to me then Huey's statement.Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, Slant Magazine also refer to these themes such as "Europe Endless’ is a utopian hymn to a Europe without borders that has its source in another of Kraftwerk’s apparent daydreams: a 20th century without the scar of Nazi Germany scored into Europe’s heart." [1]. Slant also refer to it as "Kraftwerk's meditative T.E.E. is a sonic poem to Europe"source. Feel free to re-phrase these as you see fit if you feel they bring on strong political overtones. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

On another quick point, I think the note about how the group clearly did not enjoy the political statement related to them such as Nazism. So I do not think any political affiliations by saying the songs are "praising Europe" are bad. This album isn't Volk. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Your quote said "glorifying", not "praising" ("celebrating" might be more apposite). Pardon me for asking, Andrzejbanas, but is English not your first language? or are you just typing very quickly? ;) I do not understand at all your point of view here. You are claiming you have no good verifiable sources to hand regarding Kraftwerk's own ideas on the conceptual side of the album, and even the ones you do have, you do not like, so you are pressing to use the subjective opinions of bloggers and magazines? Here is Steve Huey http://www.answers.com/topic/steve-huey he looks like an idiot! lol Has he ever even met Ralf Hütter? No. Why on earth should an encyclopaedia article feature his arbitrary opinions on TEE?--feline1 (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

English is my first language. I'm just typing fast. ;) Steve Huey claims his favourite producer is Eno and favourite songwriter to be Nick Drake in that link, so he can't be that bad. Claiming he "looks like an idiot" isn't going making good points on why he should be included. Don't judge a book by it's cover. ;) I still posted Kraftwerk's statement even if it made no sense to me. Critics and music historians opinions are important. I don't think there's any proof that he has or has not met anyone in Kraftwerk. Opinions from the All Music Guide have been referenced in several publications ranging from newspapers to books. Plus, the article here does not state "this is what they are" and "this is what they are not". It gives an opinion of valid notable critics. Critics opinions on lyrics, styles, are all present in various Featured and Good Articles on wikipedia, including Curtis, Black Cherry, One Hot Minute, Superunknown and Silent Alarm. If you think this is a serious issue, please address it on WP:Albums or WP:Music. Otherwise, you are beginning to not look at the article with a neutral point of view.

Forgive me, but the not all the opinion you have inserted from all music is in the "Critical Reception" section of the article. I fully agree that a "Critical Reception" section is an essential part of a good music album article, and that section can list to its heart's content the opinions of whatever pirate-costumed music writers it wants. But we are talking about other sections of the article which ought to be factual.--feline1 (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

They are factual. They are an expert's opinion, and I've now related it opinions from other music writers and critics. Find me writing that Kraftwerk have said that they are not about these themes and we can continue from there. Musicians aren't even experts on their own pieces. Several bands for example could claim "oh we don't consider ourselves a heavy metal band" when it is the popular opinion of experts that they are. You could write that the band doesn't agree, but the music is still labeled heavy metal or what not. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

(re-indenting) - that is a slightly different thing - bands often dislike being pigeonholed as part of a genre, for instance, but that does not mean that an encyclopedia should not cite them as being widely-regarded as a good example of that genre. I had such a situation arise on the krautrock article, when an editor insisted that Faust (band), were not krautrock, and cited quotes by the band themselves insisting this. But as you rightly point out, that is not the issue, because a genre label is decided by consensus amoungst the listening public, not by the artist. However I disagree that the intended concept behind an album can be decided in this fashion. The article could state "the album was widely perceived to be about..." or a phrase along those lines, and cite some notable journalistic opinions as to what it was about, but that is not quite how it is phrased at the moment - the article as currently written presents the subjective opinions of pirate-costumed allmusic bloggers (though they call themselves "writers") in a way that makes it read as if it has factual weight.--feline1 (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with you on Faust being Krautrock. That's a term that doesn't really exist in Germany so I see why Faust would disagree. Anyways, the article is currently phrased that "Steve Huey of Allmusic referred" . You can't say the album is "widely perceived" as that would be against WP:WEASEL. I think it's phrased alright now. I've asked members of WP:Albums to chip in their opinion on this topic as well. A reader is free to draw his or her own conclusions from what these critics and historians opinions are saying. A reader doesn't have to agree with this staff writer's opinion about a song, but I still think the opinion is notable and not totally inaccurate. Also, I looked into more sources for Mr.Huey. Who has been cited in several books, including The words and music of Frank Zappa, Vibe magazine, The sound of Stevie Wonder: his words and music, 101 Albums That Changed Popular Music and so forth.[2]. He's also a pirate which makes him even more notable. ;) Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think one of the problems is the intended audience that someone like an Allmusic blogger is writing for. If someone like Steve Huey writes about an album on Allmusic, because the site is aimed at music fans and designed to entertain and please them, the writer will deliberately try to say striking and original things about the album. They will be opinionated and original and insightful. There is no need for them to reference anything. As you can see, such writing immediately violates just about every important wikipedia policy going! :) I feel it thus problematic to grab chunks of Allmusic reviews and paste them into wikipedia. And I also tend to suspect it is a common occurrence because Allmusic content is available for use in these terms (copyright-wise) and easy to reference. Thus is is appeals to the bureacratic side of wikipedia, but not the quality side. But this discussion is moving way beyond one Kraftwerk album! :)--feline1 (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if this is really a problem. I suggest bringing it up with either WP:Music and WP:Albums rather than this individual article. I'm quite busy tonight so I can't go on with you about it further. Tackle it over there and let's cool both our own jets for now. Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

On an unrelated note as well. The staff at allmusic are not "bloggers" and blogs aren't considered valid sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Allmusic is widely considered to be a perfectly reliable and notable critical commentary resource on Wikipedia. And that's that. However, I will say that critical commentary should be kept in sections that deal with critical reception. Unless we are citing the band biography, we are quoting a review, and the primary purpose of a review is critical opinion, no matter how well'informed it may be. After all, since when has an album review ever listed its sources? They don't have to because they are intended as opinion, and you should be seeking hard factual information elsewhere. When trying to find sources for details about the music, you want sources that analyze and explain those details, like a book or a musician magazine (my typical example is Guitar World, which obviously doesn't apply here). For example, try looking up info at the Sound on Sound website about this album (I forget the exact URL, forgive me); that site has very informed knowledge about record production. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I broadly agree, although when you say Allmusic is widely considered to be a perfectly reliable and notable critical commentary resource on Wikipedia. And that's that. I would counter that any wikipedia policy and practice will have been arrived at by a process of consensus and reaching a group opinion on the basis of considering various facts and ideas, not just "And that's that"! :) So I should go and do some reading on the various policy pages and find out how the current position was arrived at. (As it seems a bit dubious to me). For example, are Allmusic "staff" on salaries? If not, then why are they "writers", rather than "bloggers".--feline1 (talk) 11:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

They are staff on salaries. Do your research. I've talked with Ned Raggett of allmusic before.Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I did read their "About Us" page ( http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=32:amg/info_pages/a_about.html ) which says "The AMG editorial staff, along with hundreds of expert contributors (all music fanatics in their own right)" which implies to me that they most likely have a core salaried staff, with a large amount of content supplied by "expert fans". I've been reading WP:Albums too and I don't really see anything there to endorse including lots of subjective unreference opinion from Allmusic.com into wikipedia articles - it simply suggests Allmusic as a good place to pinch album cover art from, and to check facts like album track listings and release dates (although surely album sleeves themselves are far better as a primary source?) Am I missing a particular policy page or paragraph about Allmusic? --feline1 (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in that field. Mostly I just try to emulate other Good and Featured articles which I've mentioned above that have suggested sources from allmusic in more than just the critical reception section. As stated before, discuss this with WP:Albums and WP:Music.Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't really feel I need to, as I don't see anything in WP:Albums and WP:Music that advocates inserting non-factual opinions into articles, outside of the provenance of giving examples of professional critical response to an album. Such opinions are neither verifiable nor notable. The onus is on you to explain who you think WP:Music justifies such material. I don't see that "well lots of other articles have the same flaw" is a valid counterargument.--feline1 (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let's make a deal for this. I think allmusic's descriptions about describing how a song sounds are fine, such as containing "slow elements" and "simple melodies" are fine as these are not really opinions, but they would give the audience a description of the song without having to hear the album. References I assume you are arguing about are these.

• "Steve Huey of Allmusic refered to Trans-Europe Express as a concept album with two different themes. The first being the disparities between reality and image with the songs "Hall of Mirrors" and "Showroom Dummies" and the others about the glorification of Europe.[1]"
• "Critic Sal Cinquemani of Slant Magazine described the album as a "a sonic poem to Europe".[7]"
• "that the lyrics were "slightly paranoid".

I really don't see anything to demanding on the others, as it's a description of a song. Do I need kraftwerk to tell me that their song is "melodic"? No, I do not. That's music theory, not matter of opinion in most cases. If you have any more specific statements you'd like removed, please feel free to add them and we'll discuss it. I've discussed with other editors about their opinions on the article, and most have suggested you bring up your claims on WP:Albums or WP:Music which you keep feeling it's not worth doing. If you feel strongly about it, I reccomend you do it. If not, I don't feel the need to keep debating with you further on such topics. Cheers.

Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

yet on our discussion about Taking Tiger Mountain (by Strategy), you took the view that we could not simply state that a song contained something objectively defined by music theory (rhythmic phasing, in that instance), and that it required citation! :-p In any case, on what basis are the melodies "simple"? I would contend that the melody for TEE, for instance, is actually rather modal and unusual, using quite distinctive scale intervals, and not the sort of melody typically found in pop music.--feline1 (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

My preference would be to remove the contributor names from the main body text (so "Slant described", rather than "Sal Cinquemani of Slant described") but keep their names available in the minutiae of the citations. I feel otherwise it is over-emphasizing the importance of these particular reviewers relative to the sites that actuallty publish their work (especially if they happen to be unpaid amateur contributors to a site managed by handful of salaried staff). The exception would be if the reviewer is someone of notability themselves. Ricadus (talk) 02:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd certainly agree with this. Occasionally Kraftwerk have been interviewed by someone notable enough to have their own wikipedia article (e.g. Lester Bangs) but usually not. It's also a bit of myth/truism that "Kraftwerk seldom give interviews"—if you read Bussy's book, you'll see that they gave quite interesting interviews for pretty much every album/tour that they ever did. Adding to that Flür's autobiography, there is a excellent range of material from their own mouths.--feline1 (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

One quote caught my attention: children who were born straight after World War Two. So, we had no musical or pop culture of our own, there was nothing behind us there was the war, and before the war we had only the German folk music. In the 1920s or 1930s melodies were developed and these became culture that we worked from". Initially it was because there is either some missing punctuation or something has been removed mid-way though the 2nd sentence, so I checked the source and found the error is there too! More importantly, the Allmusic review attributes it to Flür, whereas this wikipedia article claims it as said by Bartos (!), yet because Allmusic didn't give a source for that quote who really knows which of them actually said it? It's just bad copy at the moment that either needs repairing or cutting. Ricadus (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll update those names from the reviewer things, if they do not have a wikipedia article. (so people like Christgau stay). My bad on the cite from allmusic, I keep mixing up Bartos with Flur! I must have problems. ;) I'd simply assume the quote is from his book as Kraftwerk barely ever give out interviews, and when they do, they barely say anything in them. I'll look through the phrase and see what could be cut to make it make more sense. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems familar somehow, perhaps it's from a documentary I have seen recently. There are two: an hour-long one made by the BBC, which was broadcast last week; and a DVD "Kraftwerk & the Electronic Revolution" that I saw a momnth or so ago. If I get time I will check. If someone was hastily transcribing something off a TV it might explian the mashed sentence. :/ Ricadus (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be good. One of us should check it out. Cheers! Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

2009 album cover

I'm not sure if we need an image of the 2009 album cover. I'm not sure it meets Wikipedia:NFCC 1 as the image is such a simple image that it can easily be described by text. I think I'm already pushing it with the other German album cover as well. What does everyone else think? Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally I am slightly outraged by the new cover in any case, as it seems yet another attempt by Hütter to pretend that Flür and Bartos never existed. --feline1 (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's I figured they did it, or they didn't have the rights or something since they left the group. But then again, why didn't they change the cover of Electric Café then? But let's stay on topic of the article. Should this image be kept or not? Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The revisionism is precisely why I think it should get a mention and be kept. It's really a part of the continuous reappraisal the band (and this album in particular) has been getting since the mid-1980s; when the album came out in 77 hardly anyone knew who they were. I also suspect someone will otherwise replace the main infobox image with it at some point, though I believe the guidelines suggest that the earliest version of an album's cover design should be the main image. Ricadus (talk) 14:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The earliest should be the one used, but these are ignoring the point. The image on the new cover is simple and other then having an image to "show what it looks like" we don't have commentary on this image that we can't explain through text. That's why I'm not sure we should still use it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick comment about the US cover caption: the first vinyl pressing seems to contradict what's written – see http://www.argiers.com/jmps/lps/usaB/sw11603a.jpg and http://www.argiers.com/jmps/lps/usaB/sw11603b.jpg – so perhaps it was a later reissue where this happened? All the mainland Europe versions of the album use the monochrome Seymour photo version of the cover, with UK, Australasia and USA (the Anglo-American territories) having the colour Stara photo on the front. Apart from the German one, they all have English typography, so there are a number of variations – my POV guess is it's reference to the multiple reflections of the Hall of Mirrors – but anyway... Ricadus (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand your hall of mirrors statement, but I re-phrased some of Bussy's quote to help reflect that the album wasn't on the inside sleeve, but the outside sleeve. My CD version is the same way as well. If there are no further comments about the 2009 album cover staying, I think it should be removed as we've got three album covers already and are pushing critical commentary on it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Bussy's book is a good history, but it does contain a few errors regarding some of the discography. As for the 2009 cover, it is a radical change from the original outer cover, so it ought to be in the info box as an alternative design. If the wiki-police object then a 'bot will tag it for attention. Ricadus (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Intro

I have taken an editorial hatchet to the article's intro summary: it seemed to be a jumble of trivia and unimportant factual tidbits, obscuring the most important key facts. It now is much leaner, just saying what the album is and why it is notable today.--feline1 (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted this. Per WP:Lead the introduction to an article should try to encompass the information within the article. See articles such as Remain in Light for an example. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:lead supports this - can you give examples of what you mean?. I see numerous issues with the intro as it stood. Trans-Europe Express is an album with two major themes: the Trans-Europe Express as a symbol for glorification of Europe and the disparities between reality and image. This is unreferenced and falls foul of WP:OR. Musically, the songs on this album differ from the group's earlier Krautrock style with a focus on electronic mechanized rhythms, minimalism, and occasional manipulated vocals. This is a poor description of why TEE is such a celebrated and notable album. Krafwerk had already made major moves away from their earlier Krautrock style by "Autobahn", two albums previously. The summary does not explain to the reader about the significance of the instrumentation (synths, sequencer, drum machine, vocoder) which was a template for what became an entire genre (synthpop).......under the working title of Europe Endless. - trivia, doesn't belong in intro. The album's production was influenced by musicians such as David Bowie and Iggy Pop and friends such as Paul Alessandrini who suggested that Kraftwerk write a song about the Trans-Europe Express to reflect their electronic music style. Maxime Schmitt encouraged the group to record a French language version of the song "Showroom Dummies" which lead the group to later record several songs in French. Again this are bits of miscellany and trivia, they are not the most important things to summarize in the intro. Trans-Europe Express charted at 119 on the American charts and was placed on the Village Voice's 1977 Pazz & Jop critics poll. Giving a single US chart position (when the US wasn't the band's primary market), without even noting how poor that position was, is not good writing; the later half of the sentence doesn't even make sense....

Two singles were released from Trans-Europe Express: "Trans-Europe Express" and "Showroom Dummies". "Showroom Dummies" charted on the UK Singles Chart in the 1980s. This again is not really focussing on the most important facts. The singles weren't hits and it was more the album as a whole which influenced so many subsequent bands. Mentioning about the chart performance many years later of one single in one territory is not something to put in the intro, it is a detail.--feline1 (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"Musically, the songs on this album differ from the group's earlier Krautrock style with a focus on electronic mechanized rhythms, minimalism, and occasional manipulated vocals." I've re-written this intro. It no longer is against WP:OR, not that it did really before.

"Musically, the songs on this album differ from the group's earlier Krautrock style with a focus on electronic mechanized rhythms, minimalism, and occasional manipulated vocals." I've re-written this intro.

"This is a poor description of why TEE is such a celebrated and notable album. Krafwerk had already made major moves away from their earlier Krautrock style by "Autobahn", two albums previously.

The summary does not explain to the reader about the significance of the instrumentation (synths, sequencer, drum machine, vocoder) which was a template for what became an entire genre (synthpop)." I'm trying to give the general idea of what the album style sounds like for the reviewer who has no idea what it may sound like. Nothing is mentioned about it's "template for synthpop" (as there is no citation to support that except critical reception at the bottom. The suggestions of these vocals make it clear that his album probably does not sound like another electronic albums of the era such as Tangerine Dream or whatever.

under the working title of Europe Endless. - trivia, doesn't belong in intro. This section suggests the intro of the album and is mentioned in the article. It's part of the production history which I myself and I'm sure others find more interesting then if a certain obscure electronic musical instrument which doesn't even warrant it's own article was used or not.

The album's production was influenced by musicians such as David Bowie and Iggy Pop and friends such as Paul Alessandrini who suggested that Kraftwerk write a song about the Trans-Europe Express to reflect their electronic music style. Maxime Schmitt encouraged the group to record a French language version of the song "Showroom Dummies" which lead the group to later record several songs in French. Again this are bits of miscellany and trivia, they are not the most important things to summarize in the intro. How they came up with the ideas for this unique album I think are interesting. As you see in the reviews critics do not praise this album because of a synthesizer choice, they praise it for it's unique themes and style. I've edited this to make it shorter, but I do believe this information is important, and the GA-review from Cavie78 hasn't spoken otherwise about this either.

Trans-Europe Express charted at 119 on the American charts and was placed on the Village Voice's 1977 Pazz & Jop critics poll. Giving a single US chart position (when the US wasn't the band's primary market), without even noting how poor that position was, is not good writing; the later half of the sentence doesn't even make sense.... I'll rephrase that (it should say list instead of poll). But as this is the English wikipedia, I think it's success in this market would be of interest to people who's native language is English. The Pazz & Jop poll is a survey taken by several critics for a strong "end of the year list". I think this is a good way to summarize it's reception on the album's initial release. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Andrzejbanas, please don't use edit comments to insinuate I am vandalising the article. You put the article forward for 'good article' status and the comments you got back were that it was well referenced and factual, but the writing style was below par. I agree with that criticism. I am trying to improve the writing style. I feel similar improvements could be made to the rest of the sections of the article: there is a lot of good information there but it does not flow well, it is not well-structured and presented in the best way. At the moment it reads to me like a lot of sentences cut-and-pasted together without a good overall flow and framework to present them in a sensible readible order.--feline1 (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You are vandalizing it as you have unconstructively added to other articles before. here and here. You reverted again without letting any time for a user to reply and added information to the article which is again not cited which goes against WP:RS. If you think my additions are poor, I do not think adding a sentence in brackets to the end of a paragraph is good style. With your current style of the lead, it goes against WP:LEAD#Length as the lead should be at least two paragraphs due to the articles size. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not vandalising the article. I rewrote the intro paragraph in response to a Good Article review which criticised the writing style. You reverted my changes without comment within minutes, and I responded by calmly giving you an almost sentence-by-sentence breakdown of the reasoning for all the changes I've made. I am happy for you or any other editor to improve the text still further (but not particularly happy to have it reverted without comment). I cannot see how you can characterize the work I just did there as 'vandalism', and I do not accept your comparison with the two edits you cite. (Those edits, were, I fully confess, satirical interjections to prove a point, which I know is frowned upon, but I was growing exasperated by your uncritical selection of quotes from AllMusic reviews, and had already tried to discuss it with you at length, and you still did not seem to understand, so I tried a little satire.)--feline1 (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Andrzejbanas, with all due respect, you often seem to quote policies and guidelines, but when I consult them I do not find they back up your reasoning at all. For instance WP:LEAD#Length: The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs. The following suggestion may be useful: lol Honestly! This is a piece of rule-of-thumb advice, whose main admonition is to do with *maximum* length. It is not a prescriptive rule about how long the lead section MUST be. It is certainly not a reason to pad it out with unimportant or badly written sentences!! The primary function of the lead section is to give a concise summary of the most important points of the article, so that those skimming it can get the gist without having to read the entire thing. That is what is most important, and if it can be achieved in fewer sentences rather than in more, then that is good. I also looked at your example of Remain in Light and I do agree that it has a well-written lead section, but I don't see how that means the TEE intro in question was any better.--feline1 (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Your version is worse. The lead should give a summary of the article and not skip entire sections and paragraphs (which your version currently does). Mine contains information on the production history, reception, and release of the album (as does the Remain in Light one), it's already been reviewed positively from the current GA reviewer Cavie. The introduction to this article is now really stubby looking. I've fixed the errors in my intro while yours is much less complete and does not overview of the contents of this article, and as I stated before, add some things against WP:OR. (such as your synth pop comment). I've fixed the sentences to make them more concise. Your lead is very stubby and would not engage any reader on what the article entails. You didn't trim the intro, you gutted it. The lead does not HAVE to be that long but I think it would be best to follow WP:LEAD as close as possible.

Since my cleaned up entry follows WP:LEAD better then yours does, I suggest we take it back. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, I don't think we'll achieve consensus between us, Andrzejbanas. We should get some input from other editors. I appreciate of course that a lead section should ideally summarize the entire article, but that does not mean it should just pick an example fact from each topic covered therein: rather, it should condense and provide an overview. For example, if the lead section is to provide mention of how the TEE album fared in the charts, it should summarize the overall picture (which I tried to do in my version, noting the albums lack of sales on its release), not pick one single chart position in one territory and quote that. --feline1 (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You say it has a lack of chart success, but how many other German acts cracked the American charts in the 1970s? I can't imagine there were too many. It's pretty important, as is the individuals who suggested the themes of the album. Without them, the album would not be the same. We can take out information on the previous title, but I think information on the album's themes and style that is referenced by critics and historians should stay as they are important too. Sound good? :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You say it has a lack of chart success, but how many other German acts cracked the American charts in the 1970s? I can't imagine there were too many. - I don't really see what you are getting at here. I do not "say" it had a lack of chart success, that is a matter of fact. If Kraftwerk's lack of chart success in the US was just as poor as that of every other German band, then it would not be notable in any case. (However Krafterk *did* have a US hit with their "Autobahn" single, and we beginning to look like a one-hit-wonder-novelty-act there, not revered technological pioneers) And I do not agree with your earlier contention that the English-language version of wikipedia should only be interested in the US charts in any case. I think information on the album's themes and style that is referenced by critics and historians should stay as they are important too Well, I agree that the strong thematic and aesthetic cohesion Kraftwerk presented in their music was an important aspect of what they were about. However be careful of over-emphasizing that cohesion (is "Showroom Dummies" actually anything at all to do with Europe and trains for instance?). And be careful of attributing the whole thing to a colleague of theirs (Allessadrini) who claims in an interview that the whole thing was his idea (stick a dictaphone in front of individuals and they will often claim that the output of a group was "all their idea" - be wary of this!) My feeling is that the lead section should note that the album had a strong conceptual/artistic theme, and more detailed discussions and explorations of the elements and origins of that theme should be contained in the body of the article. In any case, who the hell is Paul Alessandrini? lol it is daft to have his name in the lead section as the casual reader will never have heard of him and it doesn't explain who he is. Ditto for Maxime Schmidt.--feline1 (talk) 12:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Were they viewed as a novelty act with Autobahn? What are you basing this on? If you read my intro you would see It's not just the Europe theme but also "disparities between reality and image" which fits Showroom Dummies just fine. I did not attribute their ideas to just their friends, I said it was influenced by them. That's quite a different thing. Unless you can provide citations otherwise, I don't reccomend attacking it. I can remove their names and simply say their friends suggested these themes if you feel that's more apt. I suggest this is the new intro:

"Trans-Europe Express (German: Trans Europa Express) is the sixth studio album by German electronic music band Kraftwerk. Released in May 1977 on Kling Klang Records. The album was produced by members Ralf Hütter and Florian Schneider who also wrote all the album's music. Critics have described the album as having two major themes: the Trans-Europe Express as a symbol for glorification of Europe and the disparities between reality and image. Musically, the songs on this album differ from the group's earlier Krautrock style with a focus on electronic mechanized rhythms, minimalism, and occasional manipulated vocals.

Trans-Europe Express was recorded in mid-1976 in Düsseldorf, Germany with it's production being influenced by musicians such as David Bowie and Iggy Pop and friends who influenced Kraftwerk to write songs about the Trans-Europe Express to reflect their electronic music style. Trans-Europe Express charted at 119 on the American charts and was placed on the Village Voice's 1977 Pazz & Jop critics poll. Two singles were released from Trans-Europe Express: "Trans-Europe Express" and "Showroom Dummies". "Showroom Dummies" charted on the UK Singles Chart in the 1980s. The album has been re-released in several formats and continued to receive acclaim from modern critics who praise the album as one of the greatest and most influential records of the decade."

How's that? Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, again, I would suggest getting the input of other editors, as we clearly do not have much in common in our writing styles and I think it will be difficult to find consensus between ourselves. Regarding specifics: That "Autobahn" was regarded as a one-hit-wonder novelty record in the US is something I have read several times, it is not my own invention (I don't have page refs to hand, although doubtless it is mentioned, for instance, in Pascal Bussy's book). Released in May 1977 on Kling Klang Records. - this is not a full sentence. Are you sure "Kling Klang Records" was a proper record label in 1977, and the album was self-released? IIRC they were still working with EMI. glorification of Europe - we already discussed that phrase above in the talk page, it seems an unnecessarily emotive phrase to use with a German band post-WWII. "celebration" would be more apt & neutral IMO. I also still am a little uncomfortable with the sweeping nature of that whole sentence. As I said before, I think it should be noted that the album *did* have strong conceptual themes, as this is not usual in pop music, and was one of Kraftwerk's notable traits. Also it would be more down-to-earth to note that most of the tracks fitted the celebration of Europe theme (with the band having picked the TEE as a good symbol for this), with two other songs (Showroom Dummies and Hall of Mirrors) dealing with the other idea - "disparities between reality and image" is too pretentious a phrase, and it makes more sense if the two song titles are mentioned, as the metaphor then becomes clearer. I have already explained why I disagree with songs on this album differ from the group's earlier Krautrock style with a focus on electronic mechanized rhythms, minimalism, and occasional manipulated vocals about twice already. It does not differ or break from their previous two albums, it refines them and progresses from them. And it would be useful to mention sequencers, synthesizers, electronic percussion and vocoders here, as they are key to the sound. "Manipulated vocals" and "mechanised rhythms" are imprecise, non-technical descriptions that may confuse. In the next para you have a grocer's apostrophe in "it's", and you repeat "influence" twice in succession. I cannot see how Bowie and particularly Iggy Pop *influenced the production* - Kraftwerk influenced THEM, not the other way round. What aspects of Ziggy Stardust, Young Americans or The Idiot are present in TEE? :) None. The pair are namechecked in a lyric, that is all. They were not influenced ...to write songs about the Trans-Europe Express to reflect their electronic music style - Alessandrini suggests the TEE would be a good symbol/metaphor/tite to represent their theme/celebration of Europa, not their "electronic music style". It also ties in to the transport theme of Autobahn. The notable thing about the singles is that they did not chart at the time, and that one charted later in the 1980s is significant because it indicated that Kraftwerk were ahead of their time, and by the 1980s an entire genre of music (synthpop), directly inspired by them, was enjoying chart success.--feline1 (talk) 14:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Any other editor who is watching this article is free to contribute and none have at the moment so let's continue with what we have. Fine, we'll change glorification but I think that's minor. I don't think the other description of the style is pretentious and we do not have to name what songs are those as that's mentioned in the article. If we aren't mentioning who influenced this album, we don't have to pinpoint which songs have these themes either. If you really feel the phrasing is confusing, why not re-write what I wrote while still retaining the information I have given? Also, that synthpop message can not be in it as we have no cite for that. Besides, what makes this album the template then a more successful album such as "The Man Machine"? I'd say that their music was a template for a synthpop belongs in the Kraftwerk article itself, not this album. If you are really unhappy with my re-phrasing then re-do my version. I'm sick of re-typing it out to see that you are unhappy with it. haha ;) Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Certainly "The Man-Machine" album was a template for synthpop too. I am sure we can find references for Kraftwerk influnencing "synthpop" - there must be dozens of quotes by acts such as OMD, Depeche Mode, The Human League, etc etc, about how much they were fans of Kraftwerk. It's practically a truism.--feline1 (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That's why I think it's more important to have that information in the article on Kraftwerk as you said, those artists were fans of Kraftwerk and having that on this album would be going . Not on this article. So are you going to give my intro a re-write based on mine? Cause I'll be busy today so take your time! Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Andrzejbanas/Feline1. Just to let you both know that I'm happy to keep the article on hold for a few weeks until you sort things out. If one of you could message me on my talk page when you've come to a consensus I'll take another look. Cavie78 (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm busy christmas shopping today :) I still think we should get input from some other editors to help achieve consensus. TEE has been around since 1977, I'm sure it can wait a few days for us....--feline1 (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay I'm back again. I still do not see what your problem is with this:

Trans-Europe Express (German: Trans Europa Express) is the sixth studio album by German electronic music band Kraftwerk. Released in May 1977 on Kling Klang Records, the album was produced by members Ralf Hütter and Florian Schneider who also wrote all the album's music. Critics have described the album as having two specific themes with the exaltation of Europe and the disparities between reality and image. Musically, the songs on this album differ from the group's earlier Krautrock style with a focus on electronic mechanized rhythms, minimalism, and occasional manipulated vocals. Trans-Europe Express was recorded in mid-1976 in Düsseldorf, Germany with it's themes being influenced by friends of the group who suggested to write songs about the Trans-Europe Express to reflect Kraftwerk's electronic music style. Trans-Europe Express charted at 119 on the American charts and was placed on the Village Voice's 1977 Pazz & Jop critics poll. Two singles were released from Trans-Europe Express: "Trans-Europe Express" and "Showroom Dummies". The album has been re-released in several formats and continued to receive acclaim from modern critics who praise the album as one of the greatest and most influential records of the decade.

The intro DOES need to be longer. This is not a mere suggestion as you mentioned above. I do not want the article to have a Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup#Introduction struck upon it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Andrzejbanas, I can only refer you to the very extensive comments (criticisms) I have already made above, and repeat my suggestion that we seek input from some additional editors.--feline1 (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright. I'll post a discussion about it at WP:ALBUMS, and see if anyone can contribute to it. Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Good plan.--feline1 (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead change

To clear out the waves of :'s, I've moved the conversation here. I've changed the lead text on the following grounds.

1. Per Wikipedia:LEAD#Relative_emphasis specific information should not be in the lead that is not covered in the article. Stating the genre's influence on simply synthpop is limiting. The article below clearly states it influential on hip-hop, pop music, and alternative music. Synthpop is not even mentioned within the article itself so this should be changed.
2. The lead needs to expand on "states that the the album sales were low". This does not state in comparison to what? Some local band? Where did it sell low (Germany? US? What?). And it wasn't so low that it did not chart in the United States. This was the group's 4th highest charting album, so this statement is not appropriate.
3. WP:ALBUMS suggests to make note of both modern reviews and older reviews for older albums. The fact the album placed on the Pazz & Jop poll is important to show that critics did like the album on it's initial release. The modern reception is also important if people do not want to go into details and simply want to read the lead.
4. WP:ALBUMS also says the lead is to "include basics such as title, artist, release date, record label, and a word or two about genre and critical reception. Describe history, themes (musical or lyrical), a consideration of its specific influences, specific followers, where it fits in its genre and what leanings it may have toward others, reasons for the order of tracks (if any), etc.".

I've given a week's time for other editors to come to discuss this from WP:ALBUMS with no help so I've decided to be bold and take this on. Please discuss this edit before and further reverts. Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

/sighs/ You really won't be told, will you? I have better things to do that edit war with you. But I think your intro, to be blunt, sucks... as I detailed extensively and politely at great length above. Yet still you put in, for instance, stupid phrases like "the exaltation of Europe" /shakes head/ --feline1 (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what the cite says and you haven't placed anything better. Your lead was also bad for wikipedia standards, not just Point of View. Can we perhaps leave it up to the GA reviewer? Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I find you interpretation of wikipedia standards here to be quite erroneous, as I have detailed at length above. The subjective claim of a reviewer does not make his opinion factually accurate nor an appropriate way to summarize the theme of the album, no matter how accurately you cite it. Furthermore, unless the GA reviewer has an expert knowledge of the subject matter, they cannot really assess much more than general writing style and adherence to such matters as citation guidelines. To write a good article you need to combine good information with good presentation.--feline1 (talk) 13:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You can find it any way you want but you have yet to correct me or link me to anything prove me wrong other than you consider rules to be "opinion". So what is the song "Europe Endless" about? You haven't found a citation to suggest otherwise and it is not incorrect to say critics representation of it. Have you found any better sources? No. Have you used added any further citations to suggest otherwise? No. Have you made any attempt to get anyone else's opinion but your own? Only through me! You call me erronous, but you do not correct me either! If you feel strongly on this article, invest time in trying to add cited notations to it. Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have corrected you - you can see this by reading the words I wrote with your eyes and joining them up into sentences. For example your misunderstanding of the style guide about the length of an article intro. I don't really see what is confusing about what I wrote there. Regarding the song "Europe Endless", it (or any song) does not have to be "about" anything. Have you looked in a dictionary to see what the word "exaltation" means? Dictionary.com says things like "elation of mind or feeling, sometimes abnormal or morbid in character; rapture" - you really think Ralf Hütter sounds like he is *elated* and experiencing religious *rapture* when he gently deadpans "real life and postcard views... promenades and avenues"?! and a moderate tempo understated 4/4 synthpop backing tracks coasts along? Even if you did manage to present an argument for such a view, it would violate WP:OR. I suggested the word "celebration" instead as more sensible.--feline1 (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've spoken about the deadpan vocals in the article and it's definitely in admiration of Europe. Celebration reminds me too much of "Celebration". The vocals seem positive about what they are singing about, even if it is deadpan. It's not dissimilar to Beach Boys singing about how they like the United States so I do not see your big problem. I will change it to celebration if you really feel that's a big problem. So is that all? Can we move this on to continue the review now? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

How can you ask me "is that all"?!? I have typed hundreds of lines above explaining problems with your intro! I have no wish to be uncivil to you, but I find my patience sorely tried. I find your suggestion that the English word "celebration"'s primary connotation is a Kool and the Gang song to be silly. The pro-European imagery Kraftwerk embrace on the album, using the TEE as an symbol for them, are longstanding political and social ideals (e.g. International Paneuropean Union, through to the EEC.) These ideals were/are not an "exaltation" of Europe, but they did include a positivism, enthusiasm for, celebration of a certain pan-European spirit and set of cultural values.--feline1 (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

So yeah, I've changed it, is that all? Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Read this talk page and you will see that it is not all.--feline1 (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This whole page is large mish-mash of arguments and some resolved and unsolved arguments. I've cited sources, checked with others, and read over rules. I'm not going through what you see wrong with it again unless you put a little effort into it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

→Andrzejbanas/Feline1 - I have passed this article as GA after a lot of thought. I'm a bit concerned about stability given your disagreements although, to the credit of both of you, no edit war seems to have taken place. I definitely think more work is needed if you're going to go for FA but overall well done! Cavie78 (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Well as I explained to Andrezejbanas, there are two ways for us to proceed: 1. we get more input for additional editors 2. we have an edit war. Since the second option will only see me getting an editing block, I persist in advocating the first. This should not be taken to mean that I don't think most of the proposed edits suck. And quite frankly saying "I'm not going through what you see wrong with it again unless you put a little effort into it" sucks as well. It basically reduces to "there's been so many flaws pointed out in my writing that I can't be bothered reading it all! So I'll just ignore it". /smh/--feline1 (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

How Things Appear To Be And How To Proceed

It's quite obvious that Andrzejbanas has a special need to have such authoritarian power over this article. Maybe it's a writing sample used for another job; perhaps he is trying to be a part of the Wikipedia staff since they're now looking at hiring. Maybe it's for another web site. It could be personal issues. Who really knows? He must have his cake for whatever reason. We can dispute their iron fist with the community leaders, we can leave it all alone, or we could possibly create another page for the album and have this page replaced. What do the rest of you think? What shall the next course of action be? Electrokinesis (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. If you are more specific I've let several changes take place to the page, but I've removed some that have either no citations or poor sources. This page has been accepted as a good article form information I've added and I intend information not tampered with. Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Oooh drama. I like. "we could possibly create another page for the album and have this page replaced" - must admit, I've never heard of that one before.—indopug (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Well it seems like the only thing we can do to stop my wave of terror. ;) Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011

Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:

• http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=Ajc91z8bajyvj

--CactusBot (talk) 10:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Overstatement or POV

The intro text ends like this:

The album has been re-released in several formats and continued to receive acclaim from modern critics who praise the album as one of the greatest and most influential records of the history of music.[1][2][3]

- It is a bit of an understatement, and the three sources does not say that TEE is "one the greatest and influential records..."

I'm going to change this... Just thought I should clarify before doing so. --Soren84 (talk) 10:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Trans-Europe Express (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: 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: 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: Y All the C class criteria Y A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details Y 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 Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 02:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 09:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Trans-Europe Express (album). 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/20130804070224/http://open.spotify.com:80/album/0HHRIVjvBcnTepfeRVgS2f to http://open.spotify.com/album/0HHRIVjvBcnTepfeRVgS2f

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)