Talk:Wind & Wuthering

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Finest? Worst?[edit]

I removed the "generally considered as band's finest", as this is, on the opposite, generally considered one of the 1970s worst (though in m opinion good anyway...). Attilios. [12:33, 6 December 2005]

From the opinions I've seen of Genesis fans online, it is probably less accurate to say that W&W is generally considered one of the 70s worst Genesis albums than to say it is considered one of Genesis' finest. But probably neither claim belongs in these Genesis album articles. There's no consensus. [04:58, 15 August 2006 70.244.104.64]

One for the Vine chorus[edit]

Regarding this claim in the article, "...in the song 'One For The Vine,' the heavily-chorused, treble-heavy effect used with wild abandon in the 1980s upon Collins's voice makes its debut on the chorus": My question is, which part of One For The Vine is the chorus?? I don't think that song has a chorus. [04:58, 15 August 2006 70.244.104.64]

"Chorus" here refers to the effect used on his voice and not to any part of the song structure. (Four and a half years later ... better than nothing). Daniel Case (talk) 05:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion[edit]

I feel that this article is too opinionated, and sounds like a review of the album by a fan. I disagree that Wot Gorilla? is a weak spot on the album. To me, it shows Tony Banks' musical genius and control of the keyboard. I also object to the observation that Phil's vocals are usually hard to discern. I do admit that the Eleventh Earl of Mar lyrics are hard to discern because of the reverb and how low the vocals are mixed. Every other song sounds fine to me, and I can tell what Phil is saying.

I agree, it's more like a poncy music magazine article than an encyclopedia entry. Auximines 22:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At least a few other Genesis albums on Wikipedia have the same treatment, unfortunately. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
was going to say the same thing. It reads like a review.

Even though I agree with a lot of the praise heaped on this album. It seems to me as if it goes agains the policy of Wikepedia, which is to provide neutral and unbiased articles. Yeshead.

EXAMPLE: the article currently states that W&W "accurately met the US orchestral rock era head-on while still maintaining its essential Britishness..." First: "Huh?" Does this statement convey any information at all? Second, Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to be "reviews." Stick to facts, PLEASE!!! B. Polhemus (talk) 13:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Wind77.jpg[edit]

Image:Wind77.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Track Listing[edit]

The extension to "Wot Gorilla" and the inclusion of "Spectral Mornings" aren't on my copy of the LP (nor listed by any CD resellers that I can find). Which version was it that actually included these? The reference to "tracks 7 and 8" in the text above the track listing currently doesn't add up. (81.174.241.81 (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Merge proposals[edit]

Having looked at our articles for …In That Quiet Earth' and Afterglow (Genesis song) I doubt they are sufficiently notable to have their own articles and merely reiterate much of content which exists here. Therefore, I suggest that any additional content be merged here and those article be redirects (not that would expect anyone to search for those titles as such). Rodhullandemu 17:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No comments in 10 days, so I've done these. Rodhullandemu 14:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two favorites?[edit]

The article quotes Tony Banks as saying this is one of his two favorite Genesis albums. Did he say what the other one was? I think it's worth mentioning. ("... along with X, were his two favourites..." -- something like that.) Meservy (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other is one is "Duke", which actually IS his favorite, according to the documentary on the remastered disc from 2007. BGC (talk) 05:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wot Gorilla?[edit]

I believe that the assumed reference to Chester Thompson in "Wot Gorilla" isn't too sensible. The album has been recorded in September 1976, and at that time Chester Thompson didn't play with the band. According to Chapter and Verse Chester Thompson has been called the first time by Phil Collins in late October or early November while the first rehearsals took place sometime in November. Circa at Christmas the LP was published.

So either must Genesis have renamed the piece one month before it was released (namely when Chester was in at the first rehearsals), or they have alluded to Chester before they even wanted him to join the tour band - or the title has a different reason. --Mabol! (talk) 10:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Release date.[edit]

I am so fucking annoyed that I am going to say nothing beyond this: 1. Reverting good-faith edits is NOT vandalism. 2. When sources differ, discussion rather than reversion should ensue, per this guideline. 3. Using a non-free image, i.e. essentially a breach of copyright, as a source is specifically NOT allowed per WP:RS. 4. Reverting an Admin's edit as bad-faith is rarely going to be a good idea. I've reverted but will not edit-war. Suffice it to say that Galllo's book is a contemporaneous record of the release of all Genesis albums up to and including "And then there were three", and he spent over ten years on the road with Genesis, so you might think he is authoritative- so much so, that in fact most of what is read on the Internet about Genesis stems from his writings. If you think a hack writing liner notes for a CD release over 20 years after the event is a more reliable source, please say why or take it here. Meanwhile, I have work to do and I'd appreciate it not being interrupted. Rodhullandemu 22:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you were more polite about it (are F words necessary, especially from a so-called "admin"?), I'd add my two cents on the issue, but I'll defer. I outgrew my pacifier as a toddler. BGC (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise, but when I take time out from a 7500-edit project to find chapter and verse for a fact and am reverted as no better than a vandal, and without discussion, it rankles somewhat and makes me wonder whether my work here is worthwhile. On the point, "allmusic ((( Wind & Wuthering > Overview )))". www.allmusic.com. Retrieved 2009-10-14. would seem to be as authoritative and more easily verifiable. I accept your apology. Rodhullandemu 22:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allmusic has had loads of errors in there over the years. And the release date listed there is referring to the US release, since it's an American site. My contention is the UK release - the official one - is 1/7/77. How about this to ponder over... A Trick of the Tail, it is generally agreed upon, was released on 2/20/76. According to this UK chart archive, it entered the chart the ending 2/28/76, 7 days after its release [1]. The Lamb, which was released on 11/29/74, appeared for the first time on 12/7/74.... 8 days after its release [2], same with Selling England... (released 10/12/73, charted the week ending 10/20) [3]. Let's look at Seconds Out (R: 10/21/77, C: 10/29/77) [4], and let's go one further with And Then.... (R: 4/7/78, C: 4/15/78) [5]. It stands to reason that if Wind & Wuthering, a new and anticipated LP by a well-established act, entered the UK chart on 1/15/77 (and it did: [6]), using the pattern that was firmly followed for the other releases I've just listed, its release date would have to fall on 1/7/77. BGC (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"It stands to reason" is not a a citation. The official Genesis Music site shows this as 1976. There is no more reliable source than the band themselves. On a personal note, I bought the album in Dec 1976, but I know that's original research, so it's not a citation either. MrMarmite (talk) 23:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't talking to you, and you're probably senile anyway, so your personal anecdote is about as invalid as anything I've heard. BGC (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I care not to whom you were talking. As you have reverted to childish insults, I think you have made your position quite clear. MrMarmite (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have. "Logical". BGC (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps it is the mark of maturity that when an editor's edits and sources are questioned, they actually take some time for discussion and some due diligence rather than describing any contrary viewpoint as vandalism. As an admin, I see it on a daily basis; but rarely do I see "I'm sorry, I made a mistake in assuming that my source was the only correct one". Rodhullandemu 23:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sound point. I shall await your apologies then. BGC (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn. Wait on. Rodhullandemu 00:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nat King Cole in a Genesis sleeve?[edit]

In the French movie Peindre ou faire l'amour aka To Paint or Make Love (2005) the husband William puts on a record. The wife Madelaine goes to the record shelf, pics up the sleeve and tells to friends in the room 'This was the song they played when we met'. One can clearly see that it's the Wind & Wuthering cover she's holding in her hand. But the song we hear it's neither "Your Own Special Way" nor "Afterglow" as one may expect but Nature Boy which Nat King Cole used to sing. Change of hearts from the directors who added another song in post production? The couldn't change the sleeve though... Kiujm (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or they may not have managed to get permission to use any of those ballads from W&W, therefore had to add in Nature Boy after the shoot. 83.254.154.164 (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First Collins-led Genesis album[edit]

I think something should be mentioned about the fact that this is the first Genesis release after Peter Gabriel's departure and the implications (impact) that such event had on the band's sound and style (I'm not qualified for such task, so I just mention it in the hope someone can add some interesting stuff to the article). Alvabass (talk) 05:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Trick of the Tail was the first post-Gabriel album, though. MFNickster (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I forgot about that album. My mistake. Alvabass (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rutherford on electric piano?[edit]

Does anyone know the source re: Mike Rutherford playing electric piano on the middle section of 'Your Own Special Way'? That's a new one on me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wateroftyne (talk • contribs) 19:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wind & Wuthering. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 17:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Wind & Wuthering/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kostas20142 (talk · contribs) 19:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • By mid-1976, Genesis had survived the loss of original frontman Peter Gabriel, with drummer Phil Collins taking over lead vocals, and produced the critically and commercially successful album A Trick of the Tail and supporting tour..: Please either rephrase or exclude. If you choose to rephrase please address the following:
    1. the loss is very ambiguous and can be perceived as a lot of things.
      Changed to "departure", in a nutshell, by this point Genesis had proved they had a lasting career without Gabriel. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    2. produced the critically and commercially successful: Could you at least cite the phrase? (although I have my concerns about that phrase being used as is)
Added a ref to Bowler & Dray (also used in A Trick of the Tail). To put into context, after Gabriel left, the music press all thought "well the band leader, spokesman and only interesting person has left, so the band is toast - what, you mean the drummer is going to be the lead singer ... hahahahahaha" and subsequently all ate several rounds of humble pie when they heard the album. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Show why is this relevant to the topic.
      For those of us who aren't intimately familiar with the Genesis back-story, it provides some useful context. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed Kostas20142 (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two broken links in citations.
Six, according to IABot Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still 2 permanent dead links (the ones I meant in first place)
Ah, got them - as CD reissues of old albums tend to happen about once every ten years and then get less important than the original (with a few exceptions) it's difficult to find decent sources for them, and once newsworthy sites disappear once people have lost interest. Anyway, I've patched this up with a bunch of AllMusic sources. The stuff about the boxed set is a bit off-topic for this article, so that can be trimmed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The band worked hard: Leaning towards exclusion.
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • the first time Genesis recorded an album outside of the UK: Would be better if supported by a source.
There isn't one directly, but I don't think it counts as original research to look at where the other albums were recorded (ie: Trident Studios, Island Studios or the Island Mobile. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry much about it, wasn't really going to count it as such; if you find any such mention you can add it, otherwise ignore it --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The album's title derives from two pieces...: Could you please split this sentence? It is q bit confusing.
Done (split into three). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (question for my convenience mainly) What North American leg is?
From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/leg item 4 : "A stage of a journey, race etc. - After six days, we're finally in the last leg of our cross-country trip." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final review[edit]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.

All issues found during this review have been fixed.

1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Compliant with MOS

2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.

layout guidelines followed.

2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).

Some relevant issues have been fixed.

2c. it contains no original research.

The only thing that someone could possibly consider original research is the "first recording outside UK". However, in my opinion there is no such issue.

2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

No copyright violations or plagiarism found in the article.

3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

All main aspects of the topic are sufficiently covered.

3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

The article is neutral, some minor issues have been fixed during the review.

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

The article has is not affected by edit wars.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.

File:Genesis1976windandwuthering.jpg, which is the only image used in this article, is appropriately tagged as non-free; a valid fair use rationale, under the United States copyright law has been provided.

6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

The image described above is the album's cover, so relevant to the topic.

7. Overall assessment.

All issues relevant to GA criteria have been fixed during the review. The one noted at 2c is not in my opinion a reason to fail this nomination since it isn't really original research. However the nominator or anyone else may add the source mentioned if available and found. Closing the nomination as successful. --Kostas20142 (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also to LowSelfEstidle for doing a lot of the legwork on this article (along with much of the Genesis back catalogue). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good to see one of my favourites become a GA! Well done Ritchie333 for your efforts as always. Cheers, LowSelfEstidle (talk) 09:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quibbles[edit]

@Ritchie333 - I’ve no idea what a “sock” is. I assume it’s internet slang. Had you waited until I finished typing you’d have seen that I proposed replacing “less distractions” with “fewer distractions” as this is the more common British English construction but I added that I absolutely wasn’t going to die in a ditch about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wessexboy (talk • contribs) 22:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC) Wessexboy (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how you use "fewer" versus "less" (see Fewer vs. less for a comprehensive description). If you don't leave edit summaries, randomly revert people without saying why, and fail to communicate generally, we've got no idea if you are a serial POV pusher or not. Now go and stick "Eleventh Earl of Mar" on loud and enjoy yourself. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracies in "Side Two"[edit]

The claim in the section on Afterglow: "The ending features Collins' vocals layered and sampled" is misleading and inaccurate. The sounds are layered no doubt, but digital audio sampling had not been implemented to the point where it would have likely been an option at either Relight or Trident studios in 1976. At least I would be very surprised if it had, in which case we would need a reference with significantly more authority than a 2017 music reviewer. The source of these sounds has been a popular topic amongst musicians and audio engineers for decades, and on many internet forums, many suggesting that they were done with tape loops a lá 10cc's "I'm Not in Love", or converted to Mellotron tapes (very doubtful given the time constraint, [and recording onto analog tape is NOT sampling] or even a synthesizer setting that happens to sound like Collins' voice. I suggest omitting the sentence entirely, unless or until a better source (Hentschel himself?) can be found than a prog-rock journalist. O0drogue0o (talk) 11:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be nice to have a direct quote from Hentschel et al. but I agree that "sampled" is the wrong word. It should probably be replaced with "mult-tracked" or "overdubbed," if better information can be found. "Layered" is fine. MFNickster (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will adjust then, thx. O0drogue0o (talk) 13:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Although, we're still not sure the vox are actually Collins', but it'll have to do.O0drogue0o (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About the Earl of Mar[edit]

In the "Songs" chapter of the article, it is said that ""Eleventh Earl of Mar" refers to the historical figure of John Erskine, Earl of Mar". If you click on the link, it appears that John Erskine is not the *11th* but the *23rd* Earl of Mar. The 11th Earl of Mar is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Erskine,_Earl_of_Mar_and_Kellie_(1839%E2%80%931888)

I don't know if it was Rutherford who confused the two historical figures or if it is instead a mistake by the person who created the internal link to wikipedia (I am not that knowledgeable about eighteenth-century English history...) however, it seemed fair to point this out. 80.72.160.55 (talk) 10:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wind_%26_Wuthering&oldid=1211577546"