Talk:Pablo Honey/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
sued by Hammond and Hazelwood...
the article states that "Songwriters Albert Hammond and Mike Hazlewood sued and received cowriting credits and a percentage of the royalties", however theres no actual evidence of a lawsuit ever happening. According to various interviews, Hammond's publishing company simply asked radiohead for credit after radiohead talked about the influence on the radio, and radiohead immediately complied with the request. In hammond's own words, one day he just got a piece of mail that stated that he owned 30% of creep and he began receiving royalty checks from then on.
source: watch the video called "Albert Hammond - The Air That I Breathe (The Hollies) | The Story Behind The Song | Top 2000 a gogo" starting around 4 mins in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.42.242 (talk) 08:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing this up. I did find a Telegraph article where Hammond says ""The publisher of the song, Rondor Music, felt [Creep] was a steal from The Air That I Breathe, and he sued Radiohead and they agreed." I'll clarify it in the article anyway. Popcornduff (talk) 09:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
"Lead guitarist Jonny Greenwood has expressed the opinion that the album has been somewhat underrated since release"
I've read the article that supposedly states the above (Kening, Dan. "All Grown Up". Daily Herald. 29 March 1996), and i think there is a mistake. it is not Johnny that is interviewed but Colin. Also, the quote is different: "Pablo Honey' was a good album," Greenwood said. "I'd give it a seven out of 10 - not bad for an album recorded in just two and a half weeks." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.8.204.32 (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- Fixed. (Two years later.) Popcornduff (talk) 09:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Assessment comment
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Pablo Honey/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
| Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
|---|---|
| ==Re-assessment==
Start class:
C class:
B class:
| |
Last edited at 15:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 02:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
One of the best debutalbums ever recorded?
This isnt true at all. Radiohead are widely acclaimed but it is also widely agreed upon that their debut album Pablo Honey was dreadful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.44.231 (talk) 07:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- A number of IP's and a username now pushing this agenda. Obvious OR-laden vandalism; all material in lede fully cited. Jplarkin (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- User:N-HH the latest to push this angle, and vandalise Jonny Greenwood. Boring. Jplarkin (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please do not accuse other editors of "vandalism" - or indeed bizarrely accuse them of having an "anti-Radiohead agenda", whatever that is - for removing content like this "retrospectively named as one of the best albums of recent years, as well as one of the best debut albums ever recorded." I'm sure you can find a review that says as much, but equally there are many reviews that say the opposite. Why prefer one interpretation to the other? I didn't remove it because I disagree, I removed it because it reads like crap and is an utterly banal and pointless observation, just as a claim that it is "the worst debut ever recorded" would be. This is an encyclopedia, not a fansite or blog.
- User:N-HH the latest to push this angle, and vandalise Jonny Greenwood. Boring. Jplarkin (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- The content you are referring to on Jonny Greenwood did at least have sources attached, but remains subjective, selective and trivial. I mean, while Greenwood's guitar style is on occasion "aggressive", it's no more so than 101 other guitarists, especially on most recent releases. As for the "best guitarist" polls, Virgin Media and Gigwise are hardly authoritative sources, and with these random "best of" polls, come back in 10 years and you get totally different results. They're of passing significance. N-HH talk/edits 12:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Removing fully cited material because you don't like it is unacceptable. And the fact that you've done it to this article and Jonny Greenwood pretty much reflects an agenda against the band. Jplarkin (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, I just dislike crap content, and the cherry picking of random sources so that pages say how great - or equally how awful, in some cases - something supposedly is. You have no idea what I think of the band, and it doesn't actually matter anyway. Yes sourcing matters, but that doesn't mean you can just go round digging up selected sources that you happen to agree with, and write content around them while ignoring others. That's just basic policy per WP:NPOV, and doing that isn't much of an improvement on outright original research in the end. Do you seriously think the quite bold suggestion that any album is "one of the best debut albums ever recorded" is writing suitable for the lead of an encyclopedia article? And where is the source - in the main body or elsewhere - that actually backs up that statement in this case? And has it not occurred to you that if you are the only editor constantly reinserting this material, when several others, myself included, have spotted it and removed it, that rather than you being a bold crusader against vandalism and people with an agenda, those people might have a point between them, and you are editing against consensus? N-HH talk/edits 14:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've lost energy for this. As for the "slightly more informative, neutral and representative" summary, I've included a sentence about the fully supported later acclaim without explicitly stating what that acclaim is. Jplarkin (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- You didn't lose energy, you lost the argument and you know it. Your edits were ridiculous and so was your conduct here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.70.1 (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- I've lost energy for this. As for the "slightly more informative, neutral and representative" summary, I've included a sentence about the fully supported later acclaim without explicitly stating what that acclaim is. Jplarkin (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, I just dislike crap content, and the cherry picking of random sources so that pages say how great - or equally how awful, in some cases - something supposedly is. You have no idea what I think of the band, and it doesn't actually matter anyway. Yes sourcing matters, but that doesn't mean you can just go round digging up selected sources that you happen to agree with, and write content around them while ignoring others. That's just basic policy per WP:NPOV, and doing that isn't much of an improvement on outright original research in the end. Do you seriously think the quite bold suggestion that any album is "one of the best debut albums ever recorded" is writing suitable for the lead of an encyclopedia article? And where is the source - in the main body or elsewhere - that actually backs up that statement in this case? And has it not occurred to you that if you are the only editor constantly reinserting this material, when several others, myself included, have spotted it and removed it, that rather than you being a bold crusader against vandalism and people with an agenda, those people might have a point between them, and you are editing against consensus? N-HH talk/edits 14:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Removing fully cited material because you don't like it is unacceptable. And the fact that you've done it to this article and Jonny Greenwood pretty much reflects an agenda against the band. Jplarkin (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- The content you are referring to on Jonny Greenwood did at least have sources attached, but remains subjective, selective and trivial. I mean, while Greenwood's guitar style is on occasion "aggressive", it's no more so than 101 other guitarists, especially on most recent releases. As for the "best guitarist" polls, Virgin Media and Gigwise are hardly authoritative sources, and with these random "best of" polls, come back in 10 years and you get totally different results. They're of passing significance. N-HH talk/edits 12:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Genre
Post-grunge? How? This isn't on the same category as Foo Fighters or (on a personal note, God help us) Creed... any reliable source? --186.87.18.30 (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- A user has opened a discussion about this issue at WT:ALTROCK#Radiohead's Pablo Honey. Please join in! Papa November (talk) 10:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to state this to you,186.87.18.30, Radiohead has the highest amounts of the post-grunge or the "Grunge sound" on this album, or any album in their entire discography. On their second album, The Bends, they have elements of it, and that is it. They do not show any signs of what would they expect on their landmark 1997 album "OK Computer" or their 2003 album "Hail to the Thief" obviously; however, I think that their next attempt in 1995, "The Bends", had made some attempt to make their music more complex but it at the same time, they were trying to make it simplistic. I do not think that Radiohead on this album was even being remotely technical (not one note) and play easy, not even trying to their ability (this album was just so that they can cash out and be on MTV), and they admittingly note this, but it is a pretty decent album, I suppose. Even if "Pablo Honey" is just inspired by U2, Nirvana, Jane's Addiction, The Pixies, and among other "grunge" and Britrock bands (at period of time). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.152.101.134 (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Jerky Boys Sample
Article states that the song "How Do You" contains a sample of the Jerky Boys "Pablo Honey" skit, but when I listened to the song on YouTube, I didn't hear it. Is the information correct, or did I miss something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JZelazny (talk • contribs) 03:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Track Listing
This format is in the guidelines and is what should be used from now on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulConnolly (talk • contribs) 03:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
dab
Should 'Scott Walker' link to the disambiguation page or the singer's page?
This seriously needs citations.
"The album's reputation among music critics (in contrast with Radiohead's subsequent albums, which have been highly praised by most critics)." is not a complete sentence and should be changed.
Japanese Version
There was a version released in japan that contains several bonus tracks (demos) and two live recordings; creep and ripcord. I think this ought to be included in the article, here's a source link: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:fiftxqwkldse thanks 80.2.60.47 (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
2008 Limited Edition Vinyl
This version appears to have the same track layout as the original CD, but there's a bonus track 7 on side B (unlisted on the jacket) which is a repeat of Creep. I'm not sure if it's the same version as on side A tracks 2. Does anyone know for sure? KingTor (talk) 05:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- There was a clean version of Creep as a hidden track on the US pressings of the album. So it's not really limited, but I don't know if it was on vinyl or only on CD. They replace the line "Your so ****ing special" with "Your so very special" and have four drum stick hits at the beginning on the clean version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.116.140.74 (talk) 01:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)