Talk:Hail to the Thief

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Kim Gordon and Thurston Moore of Sonic Youth
Alternative music Portal
This article is part of the Alternative music WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Chart positions & explanation of cover art

Where are the chart positions? And I believe the cover art is all street maps of famous cities, the cover being Hollywood and I think London & Paris are in the booklet. Just wanted to confirm with someone. I just bought this album and I'm gonna listen to it for the first time in a few moments. Yeah!!! NIRVANA2764 00:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This album is connected!

[edit] Copy Protection

Is Hail to the Thief's every version copy protected? I think there should be mention of it in the article. The british version is, but is American (Capitol Records CDP 7243 5 84543 2 1) ? --84.251.129.138 14:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Release box

there is a clear inconsistency in the way the US and UK entries are listed, i.e. whether the information is repeated or omitted the second time. Which is correct? Scatterkeir 19:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Artwork

This section was deleted from the article:

"The album artwork is in the style of a road map, with words and phrases in place of buildings. Many of the phrases relate to the album itself (for example, "PUNCHUP", "WE CAN WIPE YOU OUT" and "ARE YOU FRESH?"). Although Radiohead is a British band, many of the words are American or use American spellings (such as "COLOR", "XING" and "VCR")."

What was wrong with it? Isn't it a relevant observation? RobbieG 15:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody gave an explanation, I'm putting it back in again. RobbieG 16:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Nobody ever gives an explanation here, if they are unfamiliar with the subject of the article they just delete. I think it's part of the Wikipedian philosophy "delete first, ask questions later". 172.166.129.168 17:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leak section

I have deleted the "Leak" section. It is apparently relevant because

"leak" section is relevant because IT WAS A DIFFERENT VERSION OF THE MUSIC and leak was widely noted in media, ie Billboard magazine"

Of course the leak would be noted in the media. Radiohead is a major artist and it would border on naivete to suppose that, relatively soon after Napster, the leak would go unnoticed.

"It was a different version of the music". As was the initial leak of Kid A. Besides, the changes were slightly minor (a loss of a small acoustic prelude to "I Will" and a 1m change in the length of "The Gloaming")

Feel free to revert these edits. ErleGrey 18:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I thought Kid A was complete when it got leaked. Although the changes were minor, it is significant that the album was leaked in an incomplete form. Surely the fact that it was widely noted in the media is enough to make it notable. Wikipedia aims to be comprehensive (within reason). This is the sort of important information we ought to include. RobbieG 21:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the section would do better as a paragraph in the trivia section. ErleGrey 21:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Kid A was was incomplete at the time of leak, as Motion Picture Soundtrack was cut off into two parts and the final minute of silence was also deleted. ErleGrey 22:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
True, but all the mixing was finished and the songs were basically the same structure - probably the leakers (apologies for the Bushism) just wanted to save time by deleting the silent bits. Also, please forgive me if I'm wrong, but I always thought trivia sections were to be discouraged. RobbieG 18:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Almost every major article has a well-endowed trivia section. ErleGrey 20:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I don't have a problem with them, but see Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. It's a guideline, not a policy, but I think since it's possible to phrase this particular piece of information in a way that doesn't extend the trivia section (and since the section is, IMHO, reasonably important), I think it belongs in the main prose section of the article, rather than as a bullet point. RobbieG 16:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miscellanea

Again, Christgau has an odd review system, and his stars are not out of 5.--Weebot 30 June 2005 06:20 (UTC)

What the hell is with everybody trying to connect this album with the 2000 US Election? Radiohead is from freaking England, for one. For two, they have already stated that the album has nothing to do with the election or Bush. It seems to me like a bunch of crazy left-wingers are trying to twist facts again, and if I don't see a reply to this in the next week, I think I'm just going to get rid of these crazy accusations, since they aren't FACTS, which Wikipedia is SUPPOSED to have. --Captain Cornflake 22:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

theres an interview with thom yorke on youtube where he says that the album had to be called HTTT cos of the obvious fact that the most powerful country on earth is run by a guy who stole an election, so yeh its got something at least partly to do with the election, just search for thom yorke interview on youtube and click the one with three parts, hes interviewed by sum hot german chick, i think shes german


Actually it is a fact that many people since the launch of this album have questioned whether the title refers to George Bush stealing the US election in 2000 makes this a valid comment whether to band confirm this or not. The fact that they are from England makes no difference to this at all, Everyone in the world has the right to comment, criticise or defend the US president as they like due to the fact that US government policies and decisions can make such a diffence to the whole planet and in turn have a direct influence on our lives, especially the UK. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Murphyweb (talk • contribs) 22:30, April 3, 2006 (UTC)

I suppor the first comment. Noboddy in the UK cares about the US elections, apart from a half-arsed hope that Bush doesn't win. --Scarfo 22:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Not true at all. Lots of people in the UK care about the US elections, and particularly Radiohead. Witness singer Thom Yorke's "Let Ralph debate" placard on Saturday Night Live in 2001, and Ed O'Brien's passionate expression of his feelings interviewed on MTV at Red Rocks in 2003, and many other examples. Scatterkeir 03:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Can someone tell me why the articles for A Wolf At The Door and Where I End And You Begin were deleted? I feel they're more worthy of an article than Sit Down Stand Up. Tkotse (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalisation of Initial Letters of Tracks

I've noticed and corrected a bunch of capitalisation errors in the track listing section of this article. These are as follows:

  • "Is" in "Backdrifts. (Honeymoon Is Over.)", "Where I End and You Begin. (The Sky Is Falling In.)", and "We Suck Young Blood. (Your Time Is Up.)". "Is" is a verb and should therefore be capitalised.
  • "Being" in "Go to Sleep. (Little Man Being Erased.)". Here 'being' is a verb and should be capitalised. In fact, its only other function would be a noun, in which case it would also be capitalised.
  • "Our" in "The Gloaming. (Softly Open Our Mouths in the Cold.)". "Our" is a pronoun and so should be capitalised.


There's another couple of uncapitalised initial letters which I'm not entirely sure of but might be worth considering:

  • "No" in "A Punchup at a Wedding. (No no no no no no no no.)". Here, "no" is an interjection, so should this be capitalised? The tricky thing about interjections is 99% of the time they're the first word of a sentence and consequently always capitalised. Here, however, we've got repetition. To put it into another context, consider "Hey, Ouch, That Hurt". Here, "ouch" is an interjection mid-sentence, and I personally would capitalise it. Your thoughts?
  • The two "as"s in "Scatterbrain. (As Dead as Leaves.)". It is my understanding that the "as"s are working together as a single correlative conjunction, I may be wrong though. The word "as", on its own, is a subordinating conjunction, so maybe it should be capitalised?

Cheers, Tredicity (talk) 13:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't be capitalised, because that's not how they are on the album. 3fingeredPete (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)