Jump to content

Talk:First and Last and Always

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

Genre identification in infobox

[edit]

(Cut-and-pasting my comment at User talk:Asn) Hi. I noticed you went through all of my infobox updates at The Sisters of Mercy's album articles and changed the genre from Gothic rock to Alternative rock with an edit summary saying that you were fixng a mistake. While I am sure that you have some reasoning behind the change, I'd like to point out that it was very unlikely to be a "mistake in updating" on my part, since I had to manually type in the change. I'd also point out that the article on Alternative mentions Gothic rock as a subgenre, without providing any additional information on The Sisters of Mercy, whereas the article on Gothic rock mentions The Sisters of Mercy something like seven times. I'd like to invite you to reconsider the change. Jkelly 23:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Cut-and-pasting User:Asn's response from my talk page)Hello.
With all due respect, I'd like to point out that the original change was made by you, one-sidedly, not by me. I merely returned the status-quo, and believe that you'd have to provide the arguments for changing it.
With that said, in my opinion, labelling the output of the band as "gothic" is a contraversial move, as band themselves and considerate group of their fans don't consider it gothic - as noted in both The Sisters of Mercy and Gothic rock. Both sides probably have solid arguments, and the best we can do is try and remain neutral - which is exactly what the Alternative rock tag does. - ASN 09:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to first mention that it didn't occur to me that it would be a "controversial" edit, but this isn't the first time I've been surprised by what is controversial, and I am sure it won't be the last. Sorry if I seemed abrupt. With that said, I'd like to discuss the matter a bit more. We've both noted that the genre identification is discussed at both The Sisters of Mercy and at Gothic rock, the latter of which I want to point readers to. I'd suggest that this is a reasonable amount of coverage of the issue. Beyond that, I'd point out that in the album descriptions, we note in several places that our secondary sources describe them as producing Gothic music (see here "Gothic album" - Q magazine, here "Gothic rockers" - Alternative Press, "draconian Goth zombie" - Rolling Stone mag, Robert Christgau notes that there is "dumber Gothic", etc.). I hold that we are doing a better service to the reader of the article by directing the link to Gothic rock, where The Sisters of Mercy are extensively discussed amongst their contemporaries and peers, than by directing them to Alternative rock, where they are not (and probably shouldn't be) mentioned. If you think that Andrew Eldritch's objection to the label deserves mention in every album article as well as in The Sisters of Mercy article and in Gothic rock, I'd suggest that as a reasonable compromise. Perhaps we can include it as a footnote to the genre listing. What do you think? Jkelly 02:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

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:

--CactusBot (talk) 10:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted information from article

[edit]

I just restored some information that was previously deleted from the page:

== Different editions of the album ==

=== Commercial success of the album ===

* The original vinyl album was released in March 1985 in the UK, the USA and Europe.

* In July 1985 Warner-Pioneer Corporation in Japan released a version of the album that contained different mixes of some tracks ("Black Planet" is some 10 seconds longer,

"A Rock and a Hard Place" features additional guitar tracks, while "First and Last and Always" features a totally different drum track as well as a totally different arrangement and has an intro which is 15 seconds longer; the remaining tracks are identical to the standard vinyl release).

  • In March 1988 the album was released on CD for the first time, but it was the Japanese version that was used.
  • In May 1992 a digitally remastered version of the CD was released, again using the Japanese version.
  • In October 2006 a remastered version of the original vinyl album was released for the first time on CD. This CD edition featured some bonus tracks such as an early version of "Some Kind of Stranger" with different lyrics, plus the b sides of the singles "Walk Away" ("Poison Door", "On the Wire" and "Long Train") and "No Time to Cry" ("Blood Money" and "Bury Me Deep").

I also added some more information while restoring some of the previously removed data. The following was added between the information I presented in the two blockquotes above:

"No Time to Cry" features different opening and ending instrumentation and sound effects,

The question is why was it deleted? It was invaluable information. Is there any more invaluable information that was deleted that shouldn't have? The revisions that I am referring to were from 2011, so they differ significantly to the current revision. And I really don't have the patience to compare every last difference that was made to the page since 2011, in order to restore removed invaluable information.

-- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 03:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First and Last and Always. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 14:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:First_and_Last_and_Always&oldid=1211184421"