Talk:Sound and Vision

Fair use rationale for Image:Bowie SoundAndVision.jpg

Image:Bowie SoundAndVision.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Genre

What genre/subgenre would this be classified as. I'm thinking art pop, with some elements of new wave. Let me know if you have a subgenre that fits better, and thanks in advance. Notarussianspy69 (talk) 03:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I think you're better off looking for a source that specifies a genre. Doctorhawkes (talk) 04:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Notarussianspy69 Hi there! I'm having a hard time classifying this one as well. All Bowie's biographers primarily call it "a conventional pop song" in the context of Low as a whole. I now have a few on the page that consider it to be disco, while I've seen a few online say funk. Really it's hard to say. I wouldn't call this new wave at all, but I would say art pop (not the same vein as Hunky Dory though). Unfortunately, like Doctorhawkes said, we have to stick to what sources say. Because of that, I've changed the infobox to "pop" for now. – zmbro _(talk) 20:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I totally agree that art pop works better, i just couldn't find a good source, so I settled on art rock. Thanks Notarussianspy69 (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sound and Vision/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tkbrett (talk · contribs) 01:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Staking my claim on reviewing this article. Tkbrett (✉) 01:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• "It was later chosen by RCA Records as the first single from the album" can be made active as "RCA Records later chose it as the first single from the album"
• "the song began as an idea": as opposed to? Make this a little more specific.
• "being aided by" -> "aided by"
• link BBC
• "Critically, "Sound and Vision" has been regarded by music critics and biographers as one of Bowie's greatest songs." -> "Music critics and biographers have regarded "Sound and Vision" as one of Bowie's greatest songs."

Writing and recording

• "Sound and Vision" was co-produced by David Bowie and Tony Visconti" -> "David Bowie and Tony Visconti co-produced "Sound and Vision""
• pipe Descending fifths sequence
• link G major
• pipe Melody
• "and was described by biographer David Buckley" -> "later described by biographer David Buckley"

Composition

• pipe crooner
• link Sizzle cymbal
• pipe Bar (music)

Release

• avoid duplicating the word "presented" in the same sentence. Perhaps simply: "When Bowie presented his 11th studio album Low to RCA Records, it shocked the label."
• "The label were intimidated by Bowie, who persuaded the label to release" -> "Bowie intimidated the label, persuading them to release"

Images

• Good.

Referencing

• copyvio gives a 96.2% score due to a Wiki copycat. The next is 25.4%, indicating there are no concerns for this page.
• Checking against sources where able, the page is properly sourced.

Final comments and verdict

•  On hold: I think this was the first Bowie song I heard when I was a teenager, so I'm happy to see it get such a nicely written page. Once the few above concerns are addressed I'll be happy to give it a pass. Tkbrett (✉) 13:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Tkbrett All done. Thanks for the kind words and th quick review! Please let me know if the "began as an idea" rewrite doesn't look good. – zmbro _(talk) 18:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

pass: Zmbro, yes, I think that reads a lot better. All thanks to you for making this such an easy review. :) Tkbrett (✉) 19:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Tkbrett Thanks again! :-) – zmbro _(talk) 21:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Start of vocals?

Loved reading this page. One thing that puzzles me. In the section on “Composition” it mentions that Bowie's vocals do not start till 1 minute and 45 seconds into the track. (This is attributed to Buckley, who I think was Bowie's biographer).

On the track I have, the vocal comes in at 1.28. A minor detail, but it is a quite significant feature of this song. I know there have been many different versions of this track, but checking all the versions I can find on iTunes, they are all around the same total length, at 3.04. So how would there be a 17 second difference in the start of the vocal? The intro would have to somehow be 17 seconds longer, which seems unlikely, given it's already considerable length.

I believe I added this track to my collection by recording it off the original vinyl album. So I feel like that should be the original recording.

Could we consider amending the text to quote 1.28 instead of 1.45, unless someone has information that confirms Buckley's version? kritikos99 (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Kritikos99 I changed it to a closer 1:30 as O'Leary says. Not perfectly exact but much closer so it should hopefully be acceptable :-) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

We have to be conscious of WP:NOR but all I can find in Buckley is this " Bowie's vocals don't even appear until half way through the song ". So I suggest we change "till 1 minute and 45 seconds into " to "until half way through the trach". Graham Beards (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

O'Leary also says "the halfway point" at 1:30 so I updated it to say that instead. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Glad I was not horribly mistaken about it. kritikos99 (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)