Talk:Aerial (album)

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 Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents 1 Pi 2 Reviews? 3 So why a 2-CD version anyway? 4 Pi link 5 Aerials 6 Concept

[edit] Pi

I found a website dedicated to finding a pattern in the "missing digits" in the song "Pi." However, I wasn't sure if it belonged on this wiki or not. I'll leave the link here and let you decide: [1]

I took the Pi link out because links are for the text part of the album. WHEN the album comes out, you can say, "Pi is Kate reciting the digits of the number", or whatever. That's why I said "link taken out for now. Stev0 15:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

When was agreement reached that links are for the text part of the album? (I note that you removed the link BEFORE discussion could take place.) I am going to re-insert the link as it is perfectly reasonable to link to an explanation of what pi is. I would ask you to leave it there unless you can provide a better explanation for removing what is a perfectly run-o-the-mill x-ref. Csm1701 17:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

It's the randomness that bothers me. It's the ONLY song with a link, so it sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb. Why not link "The Coral Room" to the word "Coral"? Why not link "The Architect's Dream" to architecture? Etc. I would ask that you leave it out unless you can provide a better explanation for why that one song should have a random link.Stev0 21:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

btw, I started a discussion in the Kate Bush discussion page so we can get other points of view. Stev0 22:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, you have now altered a perfectly sensible x-ref on three occasions for no reason other than if offends your sense of style. Again, you have done so BEFORE DISCUSSING IT HERE. Reverting endlessly and autocratically telling people when they may or may not say something is very, very poor form - I would urge you to re-read the guidelines on resolving disputes. Csm1701 22:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC) BTW Just read your comment on the History page "(I can do this all day, you know)" no doubt true. It is also revealing.

Stev0 Wikipedia is the result of co-operative endevor and disputes must be settled co-operatively, too. Instructing contributors as to when/how they may contribute, insisting on a style you approve of, repeatedly altering someone's contribution and posting goading Edit Summaries is not the way to go. I will not revert to linking 'pi' (though IMHO the link makes sense) however I hope you will reconsider both your actions and the manner in which you choose to interact with fellow contributors. 83.217.190.69 08:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I admit I was heavy-handed in my comments (I'm still learning my way around here). However, I gave a reason why I don't think it should be linked at this time. No one has given a reason why it SHOULD be linked. It's not a question of "correct" or "incorrect" style, it's a question of doing things without rhyme or reason.Stev0 12:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Stev0. Comparing the edit times with the comment time-stamps here, you did not give a reason until it was (very reasonably) insisted upon. The reason, if you insist upon there being one, for retaining the link is that the meaning of the symbol is not immediately obvious to everyone on first reading. It certainly wasn't to me at first glance. On reflection, the link will be be re-instated for the sake of such clarity. Rather than clog up this article's Talk page any further, I'd ask you to please go through the correct procedure if you believe this action is unsatisfactory. 83.217.190.69 12:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

OK. "Clarity of the meaning of the symbol" is a perfectly good reason. I agree that the link should be there, then.Stev0 14:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reviews?

Are there any online reviews of the whole album itself yet? I'm hearing some dubious comments from people wondering if Bush is still relevant, etc. and while I suppose such arguments are in the eye and ear of the beholder (IMO I hope she isn't just doing a rehash of Red Shoes, Sensual World, etc) I think it might be interesting to link to articles that discuss this. The world of popular music has changed 10 fold since Bush last released an album and there already those who have put her in the "70s camp" because, of course, anything "old" is automatically "bad" in the minds of young people today. 23skidoo 15:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

A number of reviews have been linked to on The Homeground Board, mostly favorable. Stev0 02:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] So why a 2-CD version anyway?

Does the 2-CD European/Asian version have multimedia or other extras? It appears the single-disc North American release has the same tracks, yet they managed to get everything onto one disc. (Which I'm happy to see as it'll be available for about 1/2 the cost of the imported double.) 23skidoo 22:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Some sites have listed the length of each song, and it comes out to something like 15 seconds more than a CD can theoretically hold (I'm just repeating what I heard, I don't know if it's true or not. I'm not even sure if the track lengths posted are true, which is why I suggest waiting until the album actually comes out before posting them). My guess is those 15 seconds were trimmed from at least one song on the American version (but again, we'll have to wait for the album itself to see). Stev0 02:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I am pretty confident that this idea of a 1CD North American release is wrong. Check out other sites: towerrecords.com in the USA - many (Tower included) who state plainly that it's a 2 disc set. I think we should revert to the 1 tracklisting unless we gett better proof than this. BTW, I notice 'Pi' has reverted to its unlinked state, despite previous discussion. 83.217.190.69 17:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, just so long as the cost is reasonable. Amazon.ca was listing a price for the 2-CD version of $55 Cdn. and IMO it's commercial suicide for Bush to sell a CD at this cost in the age of downloading. The $19.99 US price cited by Amazon.com is much better though that in turn sounds a bit too low for 2 discs (although Nellie McKay managed it with Get Away from Me). I guess we'll know in about a week. 23skidoo 21:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The search on Columbia Records US site took me to the Sony Music Shop USA. The listing there for Aerial states that its a 2 CD set with identical tracklisting to the UK version. This is good enough for me, and there seems to be no confirmation anywhere to support amazon.com's claim. I've removed the 1 CD tracklist for now. 83.217.190.69 08:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pi link

I know this was discussed a bit, above, but is there a purpose to the "Missing links on Pi" link that was just added? Looks like just a lyric page. What's missing about it? 23skidoo 06:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aerials

Is it possible that this could get confused with the System of a Down song, Aerials? --Gophergun 16:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it's more likely to get confused by the Moby song Aerial from his album Hotel, considering it's also the last song on the second sort-of thematic CD of a two-CD set. Stev0 17:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concept

Although it is listed as a concept album on other pages, nothing on the page mentions that 'A Sky of Honey' is a concept, or more important, what it is about. I think this needs to be addressed in the artical. I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia yet, so I think someone more experianced many need to do it.