Talk:OK Computer
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. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||
|
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
 |
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. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] individual album pages
info should be rolled into the Radiohead page and this page should be removed. individual album pages should be EXCEPTION not RULE. i repeat - we're not CDDB. :) --AW
- I disagree - I think if every artist page had tracklistings of every album they'd ever made, it would be intolerable. I wouldn't want pages on every single album ever made (much as I'd like to write about The Fall's Dragnet, I think I'll resist), but OK Computer is a very well known album, and merits a page of its own. Of course, it needs more than is here now, but I should think it would be possible to write a pretty sizeable article about it, given what has been written about it in the press and elsewhere. --Camembert
-
- I agree entirely that artist pages shouldn't have tracklistings. There just shouldn't BE tracklistings for most albums, which is why I said we're not CDDB :). When I said "info", I meant the stuff above the tracklisting. If someone can flesh this out into a full entry, maybe...give it a while, see if it happens, I guess. --AW
There's nothing at all wrong with having an article here for every album ever made--I hope we do. What "We aren't CDDB" means is that there shouldn't be any articles that are just tracklists. We're not a database, we're an encyclopedia. Don't create an article for an album unless you actually have something to say about it: how it compares to other albums of the time or other albums of that artist; which tracks were memorable and why; what cultural effects it may have had, what awards it won, etc. And sure, include a tracklist. And maybe a short sound sample or two. See, for example, The Beatles. This particular article is a bit stubby, but otherwise I think it's a fine piece of work. --LDC
- hum - I have to disagree. This has been discussed in various places recently. I and a few others seem to agree that for the vast majority of albums there's not enough to *say* to justify a distinct article; it's more graceful and effective to quickly summarise the album on the artist's page. See Tori Amos for how I like to do this, anyway. OKC may be an exception to that, but I certainly don't think it's necessary to have, for instance, a separate entry for every Shania Twain album, or something... --AW
[edit] concept album?
I have a major issue with this assertion:
OK Computer is widely believed to be a concept album, based around the events in George Orwell's book Nineteen Eighty Four. According to the band, this is false, but the tracks retain a continuity by telling the stories of different characters in an Orwellian world.
"Widely believed" appears to refer to a single essay written by Radiohead fan Simon Curd (ext link already given).
The exercise of drawing painfully literal parallels between the book and the album tracks is interesting, but not at all plausible given that the band have talked at length about the meanings of the songs. 1984 simply does not feature, although it is certain they are aware of it and the album may share a similar theme at times.
As the Radiohead Unpackt site (ext link already given) notes, the album "examines the most harrowing aspects inherent in capitalist society: the utter absence of control, safety and meaning."
Jonny Greenwood on an album concept: "The only concept that we had for this album was that we wanted to record it away from the city and that we wanted to record it ourselves."
Jonny Greenwood on continuity: "You could tie two or three of the songs together with computers, but you could equally link others with transport and speed."--Air 13:33, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I apologize for probably seeming like a brat...but I'm the creator of Radiohead Unpackt, a website that the wikipedia article cites. I keep trying to edit the page to link to my site, but it keeps getting erased. That seems a little odd, considering that the reference to my work is something that whoever moderates the page has chosen to include. Maybe I'm going about editting the page the wrong way...but I'd appreciate it if readers could read about my idea that's cited in a little more detail, since it is apparently an acceptable reference. The address is now www.radioheadunpackt.com. Thanks! Whitewingedship 15:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hitchhiker's
Not sure if this is really worth dwelling on (not a significant feature of the album) but those references in full can be found here. Both of them. Well three at a push. --Air 13:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Recording details
This passage:
"Paranoid Android, a reference to the depressed robot companion of Arthur Dent, was an amalgamation of three equally depressing songs. Put it on the dance floor and see who gets up for it. The video for No Surprises features Thom's head in a diving bell slowly filling with water. He then looks into the camera as he holds his breath, which somehow represents Thom Yorke's view of the suffocating nature of existence."
Is largely free of useful information, totally POV and inappropriately sarcastic. I think we could use a section towards the end with recording trivia in bullet points. Will have a go. --Air 21:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] ?
why is there a 2nd and 3rd in the infobox? Gflores 18:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- Some infoboxes sequentially number the albums released by the artist to make it clear that (in this case) these were their second and third albums. It's not standard, and not part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums, but it is used relatively widely. I've added 4th, but you could remove them altogether. Gram 02:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Climbing Up the Walls
What happened to the Climbing Up the Walls article? Did it get deleted or renamed? Kate Rogers did a cover of the song on her Seconds album and I noticed the link is now red... Gram 02:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] On the Album's Name
Another story on the name "OK Computer" has to do with the fact that Thom Yorke is a big fan of Macintosh computers. There was (is?) a program for Macs that let you control the computer--which you may name--with your voice. So if a dialog box pops up and your computer is named "Harry," you could dismiss the dialog box by saying, "OK, Harry." However, if you name your computer "Computer," you get, "OK, Computer." Robert 01:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Recording History and Trivia - Let Down
"A couple of songs – "Exit Music (For a Film)" and "Let Down" – were recorded live."
This seems impossible and/or misleading. Let Down has multiple vocal overdubs making it impossible for the track to have been entirely recorded live. Can this information be confirmed?
Yeah, I have read some different articles on OK Computer and that seemed suspicious especially with Let Down (as they can't even PLAY it live, how could they RECORD it that way??). I put a [citation needed] after it, but it should probably be deleted if someone can't find justification. Btw, they may have meant that the main parts were all recorded in one take, I suppose. This actually is true, I think, for Exit Music. 172.166.129.168 17:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] i think i can settle the album title discussion
The track "palo alto" from the no surprises single and the airbag ep was originally intended to go on OKC but didn't make the tracklisting.
the track's chorus goes "i'm ok, how are you.." and the song was originally intended to be called "ok computer"
so they basically cut the title track from the album and changed its name.
voila!
[edit] teddy bears
Drummer Phil Selway performed the drum track in a room filled with teddy bears. -- Any references to where this came from? Google searches just pull up wikipedia for it and it seems like a strange fact... 69.86.104.47 05:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Acclaim section
Someone deleted the "Acclaim" section. I am restoring it. Why? Because this information is more encyclopedic than most of what's in the article - it's concrete information about awards and lists. It's certainly equally relevant as most if not any of the "trivia" found in various Radiohead articles (not that most of that should be deleted, either). And more important, SOMEONE WILL ALWAYS ADD IT BACK IN. As they should. OK Computer may be a brilliant album or a horrible one, that is not something Wikipedia can consider when deciding which subjects merit articles, but the actual main reason to justify an article on OK Computer in the first place is the enormous press attention this album received, much of it in the form of year-end lists and awards.
To leave most of this information out of an article on OK Computer especially when there is no place for it in the main Radiohead article, kind of negates the point of this article, imo. The album was not only in countless end of year lists, it also appeared AT THE TOP of "best of decade", "best of the past 20 years" and even "all time" (!) lists conducted by Spin magazine, British tv channel 4, Q, Pitchfork Media and various others. It appears on lists in various countries, not just the US and UK. The website Acclaimedmusic.net which compiles statistics on critics' lists, ranks it as second only to Nevermind in terms of most listed album of the '90s, and it's the #14 most "recommended/acclaimed" album overall (any decade). It's not "POV" to list actual awards and lists this album has won, in fact that's common in all album articles I've seen on Wikipedia, for much more obscure "awards" and recognition than this one has received. It doesn't imply that Wikipedia agrees with the opinions expressed by these lists, to mention them!
As for putting in a separate section called "Acclaim", this is something I did a few weeks ago because randomly ordered mentions of various praise OK Computer had received was clogging other parts of the article, and in that case it was POV. But we put it in a separate section, then it's simply documented fact. If someone wants to find many legitimate sources that have criticized OK Computer or put it on "Top 100 Worst" lists, and create a "Criticism" section, of course that would be ok too. I don't think it'd be easy to find that many. :)
btw, OK Computer is not one of my personal favorite albums. 172.166.129.168 17:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Removal of Acclaim sections
I removed certain mentions of OK Computer's acclaim. Specifically, I removed user generated content (Q magazine, Channel 4, etc) These are not professional reviews and as such have no merit. You will be pleased, however, to note that I did keep the "professional" reviews. Feel free to revert these changes. ErleGrey 17:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
