Talk:Echoes (Pink Floyd song)/Archive 1

Please go to

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 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 05:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done -Verdatum (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

For some reasons, I was sure that they used synths in Echoes, right the drone sound that in the article is reported to have been created by Waters with his bass. Anyone has any clue? Brian Wilson 20:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll look for an exact citation, but I've heard Gilmour comment that Obscured By Clouds was the first Pink Floyd album to use synthesizers. BotleySmith 20:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

obscured by clouds was for sure the first use of the VCS3 synth. i think it is unlikely that any synth was used on echoes. --

G0zer

20:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe in the "Main theme" off the 'More' album they use a synth (I guess a minimoog) for those notes resembling a sort of wha-wha, which was an oscillator with a ADSR modulated cutoff frequency. Possibly the same occurred in 'Let there be more light' from "A saucerful of secrets". Earlier synths didnt have any keyboard, so when musicians are interviewed, they use to refer to "oscillators" but actually they mean such kind of synths. I cant believe that they didnt use even some self-made oscillators in Ummagumma's "The narrow way"; maybe they just want to keep "confidential" such info, I am a musician myself and I can understand/agree with this policy. Brian Wilson 22:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the sounds you mentioned on More and Saucerful are just pedal-filtered Farfisa organ. As for the oscillators on Ummagumma... well, if you want to call THOSE synthesizers, then Pink Floyd were using synths as far back as their first album, because the ascending sine wave during the refrains of "Bike" (You're the kind of girl...) was produced by an oscillator made to change pitch with varispeed. But that's really not what we'd consider a synth nowadays, just an electronic pulse altered with tape effects — same thing with "The Narrow Way". Watch "Echoes Pt. 2" from Live At Pompeii: you'll see Roger playing the bass with Dave's metal slide bar to make the noise in question. BotleySmith 20:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

So, Pink Floyd have NEVER used minimoog? hmmmmm...... The pedal you mention could have been just a wha-wha, sort of phasing effect that is controlled by the potentiometer inside the pedal and not by its oscillator. To me it seems a synth envelope-controlled sound, but I need to listen on a great Hi-Fi equipment, that I don't have for now :( Brian Wilson 22:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

There no such envelope-controlled oscillators (ie. none that aren't simply phased or varispeeded with tape effects/pedals) in the Floyd catalogue until O.B.C. — there are sources, which I will attempt to dig up, that back me up here. However, Richard did use a Minimoog onstage — from the 1974 tour until The Wall shows. BotleySmith 03:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's a source for the claim that the first time they used synth was on Obscured by Clouds, about halfway down the page. - dharmabum 20:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

With regard to the above comment

the ascending sine wave during the refrains of "Bike" (You're the kind of girl...) was produced by an oscillator made to change pitch with varispeed. But that's really not what we'd consider a synth nowadays, just an electronic pulse altered with tape effects

please note that there is no need for a varispeed or a tape effect to change the frequency of an oscillator, it is done by mean of a simple potentiometers.--Doktor Who 19:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note also, that Botley Smith is right when he correctly states that the rising and descending tone on "Bike" is exactly what he says. You, however, are wrong when you try to assert that the Farfisa/Wah combination on More's Main Theme is a synth.NH79.121.143.143 (talk) 03:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the bulk of the composition section is

Hi, Verdatum. I'm quite sure that I and others can provide ample sources for the material you mentioned, but I myself can't do it within "a few days" -- real life obligations and all that. OTOH it could still use some copy-editing, and I agree the section could be shorter. Could you focus more on the copy-editing for now, and then nudge us as necessary to get things referenced? Goldenband (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If you claim to need more time, I'm in no hurry. Out of curiosity, could you give me an idea of what these sources would be? I'd love to find a musicological type analysis of this and other Pink Floyd songs. Further, if you know of any sources, I'll happily get them and cite the thing myself. Arguments about what note it starts on, and replies describing figuring it out by trying it on my piano rather alarm me. -Verdatum (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I agree that the composition section is rather waffly (no offence to whoever wrote it!) and reads rather like a review. However, I would disagree about the importance of the pitch of the opening note. On the studio version it is definitely a "B". However, in the Pompeii version it is a semitone higher on "C". The reason for this is the difference in frame rates between film and video/DVD when it is transferred. On part two, Wright can be seen playing a B minor chord on the Farfisa, yet it comes out as C minor for this reason. Perhaps I'm being too pedantic but when I first looked at this page I think it was stated that the "ping" was C# which is clearly wrong! Regarding the middle "seagull" section, I think it is important to make the point that NO synthesizers were used on it. Gilmour has said in interviews that the first album they used Synths on was Obscured by clouds and that they didn't actually realise that the VCS3 had to be set up to play musical notes, hence it is only used for "drones" on that album. All the sounds on that section are produced by the instruments themselves (except for the rook squawks) as described. The only way I can think of to show this is by doing a video on Youtube with the Grand Piano going through the Leslie and with the Vox Wah-wah plugged in back to front etc! Whether that would be acceptable as proof is another matter. All the best. NH79.121.143.143 (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the obvious solution to this is to not mention the key of the piece at all. I don't see how it adds much to the understanding or appreciation of the song to know what key is struck. It can instead just say "a key on the piano". As a stretch it might be acceptable to discuss notes in relativistic terms (e.g. "Up a minor third", or "modulates to the dorian scale a perfect fifth up") unless such language unreasonably bogs down the article

I think the Gilmore interview you're talking about may be from the live from pompeii video. I think I'll rewatch it sometime this week and see what facts can be used from it.

Your idea for a video on youtube demonstrating the sound production is unfortunately classic Original Research. Any time you have to put together an experiment to prove something, it's OR. The proper way to support facts regarding the production of something is through things like production notes and interviews. If secondary sources do not exist that discuss like music production techniques of a song, then it is generally not appropriate for a tertiary source such as Wikipedia to discuss it. Still, there is enough floyd fanatasism out there, that it wouldn't surprise me at all if such sources existed. But as an example, look at the article on Revolution 9 by The Beatles. It links to websites people made that discuss the song second-by-second, but since it's not reliable info, it doesn't bother to discuss it within the article. -Verdatum (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I must admit I would personally rather see no information than wrong information. The Gilmour interview which I mentioned was not from Pompeii but from a magazine article years ago which I have...somewhere! It would take a month of Sundays to find it but I realise information needs to be backed up. I'll probably do the Youtube video anyway as I had intended to even before I looked at Wickipedia. Just for fun. I've got nothing better to do!NH79.121.143.143 (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I approve. Likewise, I think I'll rewatch Live at Pompeii just for fun :) -Verdatum (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thought I'd watch it again too. It's indisputable that the entire film is running fast. In the Us and Them section Gilmour asks Wright if he's "doing the rundown from D to B...in the middle eight" Wright then plays this and again it comes out a semitone higher. NH79.121.143.143 (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that Pompeii is running fast, by about a semitone, as a result of converting film to PAL by speeding the film up from 24 to 25 fps (and then doing a PAL to NTSC conversion for the American release). I was quite annoyed when I noticed that the DVD has the same problem (as my old VHS tape did), there's really no reason for that at all. Goldenband (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah! I taped the original hour long Pompeii (different intro and audio mix) off the TV on a Betamax tape in 1983 and that's a semitone high too. I suppose I got a little perturbed when I saw that someone had put on Wickipedia that PF played Echoes in a different key live! At least they've returned The Wall to its original key on the DVD, though the picture jerks on my copy. But that's another story! NH79.121.143.143 (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I removed the interpretive content. I left the claims that describe specific facts about music production, though they should ideally have citations so the claims are verifiable. I tried to leave the facts and still keep the paragraph flow as coherent as possible. I'd still love to see a musicological evaluation/critique of the piece, I just don't know if such content exists as a reliable source. -Verdatum (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

See my comments in the "plagarism" section. I just want to re-iterate this: "Echoes" is NOT in tweleve-eight time! Roger Waters, in his comments about Andrew-Lloyd Webber, states that it is, but he is simply mistaken (he said several other things in that interview that don't entirely make sense). The main body of "Echoes", just about whenever there is a steady drum beat, is in "Common Time", 4/4 time. In fact, the very riff Waters believes was plagarized is a sequence of straight sixteenth notes! (This isn't the first time a member of Pink Floyd was mistaken about time signatures -- see the "Money" Talk page about Gilmour erroneously saying "Money" is in seven-eight time, instead of seven-four.)
I'm 90% sure this comment wasn't necessary, but I'd hate to see someone get a bug up their butt and provoke an edit war, just because Roger Waters had a bad night's sleep one night before an interview (with a nasty, small-minded British journalist who thought a good way to open the interview was, "So, where's Syd?").
--63.25.104.164 (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This has been removed three times by one editor and replaced by two different editors. It would thus seem that there exists currently a consensus that it should be in the article, and I suggest that any editor seriously seeking to change that consensus should discuss it here. I will advise

I think the problem might be that the image itself at Image:EchoesDynamics.png doesn't have a detailed fair use rational or a source as required by the licence used. --JD554 (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)It has much the same rationale as for the similar graphic in

Featured Article and passed its last review in 2006. At that time there was no comment beyond its caption. But the FUR can be fixed if necessary. --Rodhullandemu

14:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The fair use rational doesn't follow the guidelines at

WP:NFURG. There is a template there which can be of use when writing a rational. --JD554 (talk

) 14:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing there says a template is required, but I have added one, which contains exactly the same information as before. --Rodhullandemu 15:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If you find the image problematic, you may wish to consider discussing it at Wikipedia:Non-free content review, which was established precisely to resolve such disputes. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

non-free issues aside, I personally have always felt the image to be a bit over the top in terms of

Original Research, regardless of the relaxed view of OR issues in terms of images. I just never felt strongly enough about it to try to get the image removed. -Verdatum (talk

) 14:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean by this; its provenance is now established, the exercise is repeatable, so it satisfies

WP:OR? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodhullandemu (talk • contribs

) 14:44, 29 September 2008

It is certainly verifiable, but demonstrating dynamic variance by converting the song into a waveform and displaying that waveform is

WP:RS) has to create a source that discusses the dynamic variance and do so specifically by discussing the graphical representation of the track. -Verdatum (talk

) 18:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I disagree.

WP:OR, in my view. --Rodhullandemu

18:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I expected others to have a position like this, which is again, why I didn't press the issue sooner. I believe both opinions are valid. I personally don't feel the waveform image adds to the article, but I don't feel it particularly detracts from the article either, so at this time, I'm fine with whatever happens. -Verdatum (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

the problem is not of fair use or OR but a technical problem - the data shown is a static representation of the amplitude of the piece, with no frequency or time data included. the OP does not seem to grasp that in this form it may repesent any number of sounds - as an analogy, it is comparable to describing(for example) a lamp to someone who has never seen one by using only its colour or its height! similarly, if you gave a frequency spectrum of 'echoes' commenting on its range (in pitch) it would be equally meaningless given any number of sounds (not even music!) could have a similar representation. why not use a short audio clip of one part of the the piece? (as commonplace elsewhere) you can also argue aesthetically that the dynamics of echoes are nothing compared to many pieces of classical music - yet such comment is not made in those cases. I think it adds nothing to the article and is potentially misleading, so removed Jw2034 (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

With regard to what the image represents, it's no different from my above analogy to uploading a photograph of a shopping centre and asserting that this image is of the shopping centre in question. It's equally as

consensus rather than bully our way to what we want. OK? I won't revert for now, but it's customary to allow time for consensus to develop. --Rodhullandemu

23:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I must agree with Rodhullandemu's rebuttal here. The timeframe isn't needed because the article gives the track time. Frequency is not present in low resolution waveforms, but that is not the point. The point is to show the dynamic variation between the softest point (silence) and the loudest point through the progression of the song.

However, I don't think the comparison to the usage in Layla is appropriate. In that article, the waveform is presented to depict the two different movements. The concept of the two different movements in the piece is supported by a reference in the main article. This article merely presents the waveform and sorta says, "here it is, just in case you were curious." It is not being used to support any verifiable statement about the song's dynamics beyond the primary reference (the song itself). I believe at one time, the caption was different and made some more definite claims, and I edited them out because they came off as blatent OR, to the point of looking like someone's personal opinion. Find a reputable source that goes into detail about what aspects of the usage of dynamics in echos are worth noting, or make the song special, and I'll be more than fine with the image. (Excellent find on the layla article, btw. Thanks for that!) -Verdatum (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't want to overplay the reference to the graphic in

policy as part of their review. Meanwhile, if I put a sine wave or white noise on an oscilloscope screen, photograph it and upload it, it's a useful graphical representation of the subject of the article regardless of whether its form is mentioned in the article. However, I will seek out sources for the dynamics to underpin the usage of the image even more strongly. --Rodhullandemu

17:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

my objection still stands that the dynamics of echoes (and layla for that matter) are less dramatic and really nothing special when compared to many classical pieces (eg: Serenade for Strings (Tchaikovsky) - Serenade for Strings in C major, Op. 48, see [10]) yet no such discussion is undertaken on such pages. Jw2034 (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Just because other articles "don't do things" doesn't mean that we shouldn't here; in the

Oxford University musicologist and ask him to scan and send me some stuff. --Rodhullandemu

21:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I have been trying to remove a dubious and uncited claim that Gong recorded a song that is intended as a parody of "Echoes". The editor, an anon IP, claims he has seen verification of this on another website, but has yet to insert a link. I posted the following on his talk page: "Regarding your comment that the claim about a connection with Gong should never have been removed from "Echoes": The claim read like someone's guess, and certainly should have been removed without any statement that anyone from Gong ever stated this connection, with appropriate citation. Things are not added or removed from Wikipedia because they are true or untrue, but because of whether or not they are properly sourced. If you have a citable source, please insert it, otherwise the claim will be removed again. I haven't seen the citation you refer to, but if it is not clearly attributed to someone from the group, it may not be acceptable proof. If you want to be doubly sure, post a link to it on the article's talk page and solicit an opinion on whether it's acceptable." I did not remove the text, because I presumed he was going to add the citation, but I did put a "fact" tag on it.

Instead of using this talk page as requested, he removed the tag, and used this edit summary: "Sorry but you just need to hear this Gong's piece to see the clear pitch and tempo signature of Echoes. If you heard it and are not certain, that's one thing. But you acting as a censor is not acceptable. If you delete it again, it will be added again." So now I'm taking the discussion over here.

Well first of all, I've known about that track since 1977 when it was released on the album Gong Live Etc. There is only a co-incidental similarity. You say they have the same "clear pitch" and "tempo signature"? What is the pitch, and what is the tempo? This section we're referring to (in the Gong track) is a rising tone (and has no pitch to speak of), and has no tempo. If you're thinking the rise in pitch follows the same rate as it does in "Echoes", check again; the raise in "Echoes" is even and consistent; the raise in the Gong track is fast at first, and then slows down. Also, the raise in pitch in "Echoes" is an illusion, as new low voices are added as the high voices fade out, so overall the pitch remains the same throughout, which is why it never reaches an end. There is no duplication of this trick on the Gong track. There is another point which you're overlooking: Gong copied this effect from an earlier track of Daevid Allen's, called "Est-ce Que Je Suis" which also appears (in a live version) on Gong Live Etc.. The original version of this song was released in 1971 (not certain what month), and "Echoes" was released in November 1971. Did Daevid really hear the track and release a "parody" version so quickly? It seems unlikely.

But all of this guessing by analysis is irrelevant. The claim does not belong in the article if there is no cited quote from a member of Gong stating that this similarity was intentional. You said you have a quote that proves it, and I invited you to add it. You also said, in a previous edit summary, that Nick Mason's production association with Steve Hillage (6 years later?) proves this connection, which I just can't see as valid. Removing an uncited claim is not "acting as a censor". And as for threatening to add this claim again (presumably without citation), if you keep doing it, you may find yourself blocked. The best thing to do at this point, is find the citation and add it. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Response to Knight: Knight, I do not want to engage in a confrontational conversation about this Gong song issue, and I regret if I gave this impression. The reference I added and was mentioning (don't know why you did not see it) was a reference to the Gong's song entry on Wikipedia. I admit it would be circular referencing and hence I can not claim it as fulfilling the verifiability criteria. The reason I added back this section was that you originally removed this section without first asking for a reference - which I found to be non courteous. I added the deleted part back with the "if you delete it again I will add it again" comment, after which you indeed asked for a reference - which I admit I cannot provide beside the circular pointing to the Gong's page.

It is indeed a a guessing by analysis. We clearly disagree on the coincidental or voluntary nature of the similarity between the finale in these tow things - and about the very existence of this similarity. The only version of "Est-ce que je suis" that I know (Live at the Fridge) does not contain anything like this final glissando, but I do not know the very version you are mentioning. I maintain my analysis, we could go on on the discussion - and it could actually be interesting - but in the absence of a verifiable link I again admit that the Wikipedia's criteria were not met originally.

Thanks for the response. I didn't ask for a reference when I removed it the first time, because I was not removing it immediately after it was inserted, and assumed it was not likely that the original person who added it would still be around. (And since you restored 5 months after the fact, that seems like a reasonable assumption.) Whenever something is removed as uncited, it's always an invitation to restore it with citation. The proper way to do challenge material is to put a "fact" or "citation needed" tag on it and wait a while, but Wikipedia also invites us to "

be bold" and immediately remove claims that are unlikely to be supportable. It was a judgement call on my part, but again, if you had a reference, you would be free to put it in again, so I don't agree that anything non-curteous was done. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk

) 14:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The Pink Floyd used oscillators dating from their first album, a Moog or Minimoog is used in Main Theme, from album More. With all due respect, they seem not even capable to remember in which The Wall songs Wright played, so I am not surprised that they deny to have ever used simple oscillators or synth before 1972.--Dr. Who 01:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The technique described is visible in Live at Pompeii IIRC. —

fgs

04:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

With regard to live performances in general, Pink FLoyd didn't use to take with them the whole arsenal of instruments that they used in recording studios, at least not before DSOTM. "One of these Days" is played very differently in Live at Pompeii: along the first part, Waters plays the same notes that he plays on the original LP, but Wright doesn't plays almost any chords on his organ, indeed such chords are played by Gilmour, that uses a technique similar to many Allan Holdsworth's works, and even to David Sylvian's in Gone to Earth 2nd CD. That technique changes guitars' sound so that it seems a keyboard: the signal enters a volume (loudness) pedal, then goes into an echo unit, the guitarist keeps the volume pedal on "mute" before and while he plays the strings, soon after the attack-delay stage, he increases the loudness on the pedal. The echo is added only to a attack-less sound, the metallic attack-decay of the guitar strings is not heard at all. The result is a sort of synth-like sound. I am not sure if Waters did the same with Echoes, but I am sure that in recording studios they used synths more often than they are willing to admit. Cheers to everyody. :-) Dr. Who 21:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, seeing as the live bootlegs from the early 70's (unadorned with overdubs, unlike Pompeii) sound EXACTLY the same as the LP, with no sign of synths in the lineup, I'm reluctant to admit that they went out of their way to produce on regular instruments what could easily have been done on synths. However, I recently come across someone (Danny Carey of the band Tool) who claims to have replicated the "eerie" patch on VCS3 used in the making of "Echoes". Maybe he knows something that I don't. By the bye, Gilmour personally went through the Wall multitracks to confirm who played each note of that album. You can find the result of his search here. BotleySmith 22:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is that synths and effects were VERY HEAVY and BIG those days! Maybe only Kraftwerk and Keith Emerson dared to take almost everything with them in live performances. I have myself recorded a whole minisuite almost 15 years ago featuring my Cimar-Ibanez bass guitar (Fender Precision like) treated with a digital reverb (Boss RV-1, 12 bit) and played by mean of .... it's a secret! So, I am not saying that it is impossible, just that there are some subtle differences that I noticed, between those methods. Gigs shouldn't be regarded as a source of information in reference to studio work and techniques. What do you mean with this:"I recently come across someone (Danny Carey of the band Tool)..." ?Dr. Who 22:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

this sound could be a taped effect from the doctor who serial 'inferno' about 18 minutes into the first episode, the doctor is transported into an alternate dimension via the tardis console and there is an extraordinary resemblance between the sound effects used in that sequence and this part of the song in question. Since pink floyd has used the doctor who theme song 'one of these days' it is entirely possible that this is a tape effect not instrumentation, pedal effect or synthesizer.Lassiriven (talk) 04:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Which sound, specifically, are you referring to? All the sounds in the "sound effects" section are produced by the band using their instruments in an unusual way:

Waters - "bowing" the strings of his bass with a metal slide then going through the Binson Echorec

Gilmour - plugging his guitar into the output of his Vox wah-wah pedal and the input into the amplifier via another binson

Wright - holding down one note on the Hammond organ, whilst pulling out and pushing in each drawbar on the Hammond.NH78.147.100.19 (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't it make sense to use another person that was there at the creation of Echoes? Nick Mason wrote that it was from "inadvertently plugging in a wah-wah pedal back to front". Moreover, prior to the "whale scream" the sounds of bass strings could easily been done to make that sound.V Schauf (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have read this article and have been impressed with the article for awhile. I especially like the way that editors here have explained the development of the song from start to finish. I have discussed this article with krobertj and we agree this article deserves Good Article Nomination. There are other reasons why I think this article is deserving of Good Article Nomination: 1. Very good work on Composition section. 2. There are very few grammatical errors, if any. 3. There are some disputes, but there are not editing wars as far as I have been able to check and see. 4. The discussion about the varying arrangements of lead and accompanying vocals is both insightful and very interesting.

Is the article great? No, it does need more referencing, but that can easily be done by someone with a Pink Floyd book. It's not considered a Good Article yet; it's not A quality yet, but with some editing, it certainly could BE!! V Schauf (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I DELETED the part at the top of the "Composition" that stated the section needed additional citations. There are currently NO SECTIONS where it states that it needs to be better referenced or cited. V Schauf (talk) 01:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to thank the reviewer, Wasted Time R for the remarks. I agree with the reviewer saying to the effect that it definitely isn't a great article (& I said that before) . There were good points made. I would agree that we need to get rid of dead links. I have gotten rid of one already. There are 2 points I would like to make: 1. I don't agree with the statement that this article is "poorly referenced". In fact, the article is referenced quite a bit, but it could use more. There is a danger of referencing/footnoting so much that the article is not so much a compilation of editors coming together and writing the article but rather a compilation of books' and magazines' points of view. There needs to be some original thought as well as referencing. 2. I don't agree with the last remark of "not close to being ready". That sounds more like subjective spite than it does objective analysis of what's wrong with the article.

However, I still say "thanks", and I don't think the idea of passing this as good article should be reconsidered until more editing is done (as I started to already). I hope that other editors that care about the article will help in referencing and making the article more consistent in the MOS, Manual of Style that was indicated. V Schauf (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as what defines a good article, I'm afraid it is indeed intended to be a compilation of books' and magazines' points of view. This is an encyclopedia's job as a tertiary source of information. Good articles must stick to secondary sources for all information except extremely non-controversial claims. This is to satisfy

WP:OR. I've always had my reservations about the fan-page references, even though, I suspect some of them contain better information than many of the published sources. -Verdatum (talk

) 16:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Like Verdatum said. A "good" WP article is, at this point, a heavily footnoted regurgitation of what mainstream books, magazines, and newspapers have already said (even when they've got it wrong, which is especially true of newspapers when popular music is involved). That can be frustrating, and I've walked away from working on music articles several times as a result. If you do something that is solid but involves some original thought, it's actually best to avoid bringing it to GAN or FAC, and keep it more under the radar instead. As for "subjective spite", I can assure you that none was involved. I don't care much about pre-Dark Side or post-Wall Pink Floyd one way or the other, and have been uninvolved with the editors here. But I've done a lot of GA articles and GA reviews, and I can tell you that this one wasn't close to be ready. The good thing however is that you can submit it to GAN again and get a different reviewer and a different perspective. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

ok, Wasted Time, you make good points on Dec 1, and showed some empathy, so guess what? I think the best plan is to continue to rework the article and would like nothing more than for you to say later, "there's enough improvements that the article qualifies as a Good Article". Now I've seen in Wikipedia where it says to write and edit boldly; there should be some room for creativity b/c this is after all the writing process. But I know that we can split hairs til the "cows come home", and I do agree, there needs to be more research. I predict that within 6 months, you'll like this article better than you do now. 05:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC) V Schauf (talk • contribs)

The Composition section was slightly rearranged tonight and addresses 1 remark made when the article was up for Good Article status. I moved the graphic of the opening notes of the song. It was at the top of the Composition section. The problem was that it left an unsightly gap between the title and the first paragraph of Composition. I think it now looks better, and ends the criticism of this gap that came up earlier. V Schauf (talk) 04:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Can someone find a better source for this? Sure the source has all of the facts in it, but it is a very insulting and biased form. It says things like "SO HOW'S Syd these days?" and describes Roger Walters as "Roger Waters. He's the one who invented giant inflatable pigs, the one who tortured schoolyards of children by making them sing his catchprase ("We dahn nee nur edercayshun, we dahn nee nur fort corntrawel") This whole part of the article before isn't even intelligent enough to be considered gossip, much less a well written article on the matter. 207.191.210.136 (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Echoes (Pink Floyd song)/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wasted Time R (talk) 13:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This article has many shortcomings.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   There are numerous MoS violations. Footnotes go immediately after a period, not before and not after with an intervening space. Use "second" not "2nd". Several album and DVD names need to be italicised, and the song title itself always needs to be in double quotes, not italics or unquoted as it sometimes is. The formatting of citations is mostly very poor – bare references or titles, no publisher, date, access date, author, etc. See any FA or solid GA article for what these should look like. The lead section does not summarize the article well and contains too much minor detail about song length comparisons.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to

   reliable sources): c (OR

   ):

   The sources used in this article are of generally poor quality – fan pages, faq pages, deadlink blogs. There have been many books published about the group – see Pink Floyd#References for a list of them – and surely many of them have written something about "Echoes". Moreover, much of the article is uncited at all. Especially since the talk page and article edit summaries reveal past disagreements about some of the recording details, considerably better sourcing and citing is necessary for GA status.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   There should be a section that deals with the critical reception to "Echoes". Is this considered one of the group's best works ever? If so, by whom? If not, why not? And where does "Echoes" fit within the overall development of Pink Floyd's music and art?

4. It follows the
   neutral point of view
   policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have

   suitable captions

   ):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Unfortunately, this article is not close to being ready for GA status.

Echoes (song) redirects to Echoes (Pink Floyd song). Does this seem backward to anyone else? Shouldn't this entire article be moved to Echoes (song)?Father McKenzie (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

In the article "The drone vocalizations heard in the final scenes of 2001..." are being mentioned. Not only the practice of calling something one does not understand "a drone" and discrediting its possible meaning and importance is here at work, but the aforementioned "drone vocalizations" actually happen to be "Lux Aetherna", a composition by Hungarian composer György Ligeti (1923 - 2006), one of the most complex and demanding masterpieces of choral music ever written. As far as "drone vocalizations" are concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.81.180 (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the one who made the most recent edit changing "high C#" to "high B", but I was curious. An earlier edit summary indicates that an official tab book lists the note as C#. Frequency analysis of the first note indicates that it is within 1 or 2 cents of B.

If someone would care to analyze the other notes in the introduction, we can determine definitively whether it is in fact a B, or whether the piano is merely one half-step out of tune and it is a C# sounding B. --

To my ears, the very first note sounds like a B. But the introduction is improvised overall around the key C# minor (as is a large part of the song). Try putting the album on and playing along on piano and see what you think. It's probably more obvious on Pompeii. --Ritchie333 16:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, then I'm afraid you don't have perfect pitch and/or your piano is out of tune. I counted the cycles. It's a B. —

Yes, that's what I just said in the above paragraph. --Ritchie333 17:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I actually thought it sounded like a C, but I asked a friend who uses a tuning machine to make sure he's not out of tune. Using the machine (it's called a "C12 Chromatic", I think), he showed me that the note is, in fact, a B. V Schauf (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The first note is indeed a B6, but the verse chords for guitar are C#m - G#m - F#m - G#7, so it's definitely written in C# minor, that's the classic I-IV-V (I-V-IV-V in this case.) Then there is that funky part where it's going from a B major chord to a C#m. I know at least one of the guitar solos (the first one, not the one in the intro) is also in C#. --Markboydude (talk) 02:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Can somebody well endowed enough write a meanings section? I really want to know more about this song! Whiskey in the Jar 14:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to, but my penis just isn't large enough. --63.25.104.164 (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I forward you some spam that has the answer to your problem? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

and please add some comment to the cover, what is depicted and why? 125.24.101.22 (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The cover art is clear enough to anyone with the UK sleeve, rather than the terrible North American sleeve with washed-out colours. Why did they do that? Oh, and you have to open up the gatefold so you can see the front and back at once. It's a picture of an ear, with water ripples representing echoes. If someone wants to add this to the article, it's better to add it to Meddle rather than the song article. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope there was an unstated consensus against a "Meanings" section. That's not Wikipedia's purpose, and it would be an invitation for people who neither know or care about Wikipedia's purpose to add their own personal interpretations.
--Ben Culture (talk) 10:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Our article currently states:

The song changes to 12/8 during the riff after the chorus, while most of the song is in 4/4, 6/8 and 6/4 time.

This isn't clear enough, and may be flat-out incorrect. Let's take the first half: "The song changes to 12/8 during the riff after the chorus" WHAT does THAT mean? WHICH chorus? If the editor was referring to the "funky" section after the two choruses and extended solos, he's wrong. And no part of "Echoes" before that section is in 12/8, either.

The only part I can, at least, condone being described as 12/8 (or 6/8, for that matter), is the B minor section after all the seagull shit, when Rick's organ builds up with ||:Bmin | F#min7 | D6 | A/E :|| (Confused? Try thinking of it as ||: Bmin | A/F# | Bm/D | A/E :||, if that's easier for you.) During this section, Gilmour plays those "Good Vibrations"-style triplets, although Nick Mason and Roger Waters still seems to be thinking in 4/4.

Anyway, so what's what? What's the 12/8 refer to, what's in 6/8, and what's in 6/4? If I don't get some sort of reasonable answer before the end of this year, I might very well remove this dubious "information". As far as I can tell -- after 25+ years of listening -- is that this is a song almost entirely in 4/4, except for a short section you could call 12/8 (although only the guitar is articulating the song in that time signature.

--Ben Culture (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

   [12/8 & 4/4 are similar - but 12/8 allows for an established triplet on every beat - the Bminor section employs a triplet staccato that is best expressed in 12/8 and not 6/8 because the chord changes happen on the first beat of a bar: kind of like this - the numbers in parenthesis are quavers or eighth notes adding up to 12 in a bar:
      Beat     Beat        Beat     Beat 

Bmin 1 (1,2,3) 2 (4,5,6) 3 (7,8,9) 4 (10,11,12) F#min7 1 (1,2,3) 2 (4,5,6) 3 (7,8,9) 4 (10,11,12) D6 1 (1,2,3) 2 (4,5,6) 3 (7,8,9) 4 (10,11,12) A/E 1 (1,2,3) 2 (4,5,6) 3 (7,8,9) 4 (10,11,12)

Similar to the Dark Side of the Rainbow effect, at-large rumors suggested that "Echoes" coincidentally synchronizes with Stanley Kubrick's 1968 film 2001: A Space Odyssey, when played concurrently with the final segment (titled "Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite").

I'm not so sure it is similar. The band had communicated with Kubrick. At least one good source reports that they wanted to score 2001, but it is hard to tell if this is just a rumor. There seems to be more to this story. Viriditas (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Echoes (Pink Floyd song)/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.

To date, is the best and most extensive article about a Pink Floyd song, it even surpasses various album articles, but maybe it could be expanded a bit more so it could achieve A-Class grading, with information of its meaning, and more details on recording and instrumentation. --200.118.217.125 17:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 17:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 19:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Echoes Cover addition request

I recently made the mistake of making an addition this page without requesting it. I wanted to make an addition to the "cover versions" section to include a cover which has been doing the rounds on the internet. A YouTuber/musician who does many Floyd covers did a full cover of this song. My original edit was removed because the cover wasn't "notable". I'd like to know what makes a cover notable. This particular cover was shared by many blogs and websites and people non other than Pink Floyd drummer himself Nick Mason, receiving high praise from the main man.

I think for a Wikipedia page this detailed it should also include more covers. It looks a bit empty the way it is just now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WisemanOnceSaid (talk • contribs) 23:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@

open channel

) 23:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:COVERSONG

. It states: "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." The cover definitely meets that criteria.

@Mlpearc:I'm not trying to be hostile, I'm just trying to learn. More information would be helpful. Thanks. WisemanOnceSaid (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mlpearc: I can't seem to reply to you on your talk page so I will reply here. I still think my edit meets the criteria you referred to in a previous comment. Can't we get another editor in here to peer review the edits I am proposing? WisemanOnceSaid (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@

Wikipedia's guidelines for notability of musicians). If you can create an article about Ewan Cunningham, and get it to "stick" (i.e. not be deleted), then you might get by with this mention of his cover, but otherwise, it's just a bit of trivia that isn't really encyclopedic, even if Nick Mason liked the cover. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!!

18:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: Thank you for your helpful answer. Need more people like you in this space. WisemanOnceSaid (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I've got another source for Ewan Cunningham; it's also the top hit for "pink floyd echoes cover" on Google, so I've added it, and included Dean Ween's cover too. To be honest, this sort of stuff is borderline, like "cultural references" in films and places; some people don't mind it being there (as long as it's reliably sourced), some people think it's off-topic. I personally prefer to include it, because if you don't, somebody will come along and add it anyway, and then you'll get a silly edit war. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Thanks Ritchie, I look at it the same way. Have a good day. WisemanOnceSaid (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Cover version guideline sets a high bar for inclusion

Note that the guideline at

WP:SONGCOVER

says that "a particular artist's rendition should be included" if one of the two following cases is met:

• the rendition is discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song,
• the rendition itself meets the notability requirement at
  WP:NSONGS
  .

So it's not enough to get a reliable source about a song cover. The source should first be talking about the song itself. The following references fail this point:

• http://www.allmusic.com/artist/jana-mccall-mn0000809748/songs
• http://ultimateclassicrock.com/pink-floyd-dean-ween-echoes/
• http://www.smash.com/musician-covers-pink-floyds-echoes-playing-every-instrument-song/
• https://twitter.com/nickmasondrums/status/817780905041362944?lang=en

Since these references fail the guideline, the cover versions supported by them should be removed. Binksternet (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah,

^{semper crescis, aut decrescis}

20:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't intend to stop following the guideline in pruning these additions of not-very-important material. Binksternet (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Pink Floyd's Echoes genres

I am adding the genre "post-rock", on the page I use as a reference, Echoes is cited as the beginning of this genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:200:E800:D8C:9C99:4CC7:7FF0:18C9 (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Isn't rock an ongoing genre ? If so how can anything be "post" ? - FlightTime (open channel) 00:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Is rock, but in the source besider to be rock, Echoes is cited as a the "post-rock" starting point, obviusly post-rock doesn't exist on 1971 but this song was ahead of what would be the genre years later and Echoes could be a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:200:E800:D8C:9C99:4CC7:7FF0:18C9 (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Ridiculous chord grammar needs fixing

"with all instruments joining in for two swells of B♭/C# major, A major, and A♭sus4 which resolves to a A♭ major."

D/B minor, and E/F# minor.

1. There's no such chord spelling/chord symbol grammar that allows for Bb/C# major. Do you mean Bb/Db - in other words Bb major/C#(that's Db/C# in the bass)? Whoever has ears, or the knowledge, needs to change this to something that makes sense.

2. Whenever someone finds out what the above is supposed to mean: if you end up keeping C# major it ought to be changed to Db major. Not incorrect originally, but clunky.

3. Same as #1 for D/B minor - which almost makes sense if it weren't for the E/F# minor to follow - again - whoever knows what this section is: please change to something that makes sense!

4. "two swells of C# major, A major, and G#sus4 which resolves to a G#major" should really read "one bar each of C# minor, A# minor, A major, G#sus4 and G#major". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.8.152 (talk • contribs) 30 April 2019 ‎

Looks like this has been removed. It was all unsourced fancrufty trivia anyway. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've been cleaning up the article today, checking everything against four main book sources I have access to (Blake, Mabbett, Mason and Povey) and taking out anything that looks like fancruft, and adding some things that are in those sources. It would be nice to see if somebody can cite Dick Parry playing a saxophone solo in later tours. I can't use "heard it on a bootleg" as a source, but no reliable source specifically mentioned it anyway. Martinevans123, can you help? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Probably not, but I will look. You can never trust that Mabbett character, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

What about this? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Echoes (Pink Floyd song)/GA2

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zmbro (talk · contribs) 19:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll take this. – zmbro _(talk) 19:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'm gonna act more collaborative than I normally do. I'm noticing tons of refs that need fixing that I'll do on my own and I'll request feedback from other areas afterwards. – zmbro _(talk) 19:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Go for it, I have to confess that reference formatting makes my head hurt. As long as there is enough information to verify the claims, it should be easy to fix for those who know what's what. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Concerns

• Current audio sample doesn't give any info that necessitates it being here. Also, this song is almost 24 minutes. Per
  WP:SAMPLE
  , it could be much longer than 30 seconds.

The main use is to try and explain some of the song structure more easily, and also to break up the flow of text. This is normally done with images, but there are no suitable free ones to use in this instance. The sample was taken from the Meddle article, which was uploaded by Parrot of Doom back in 2009. It can't be more than 30 seconds, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music samples says "As a rule of thumb, samples should not exceed 30 seconds or 10% of the length of the original song, whichever is shorter."

• Damn. Well I still think the caption would be a little more relevant. – zmbro _(talk) 00:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Could we use this image with a caption like "'Echoes' is credited to all four members of Pink Floyd (pictured in 1971)."?

I think that's a copyright violation of the middle of the gatefold Meddle LP, which is owned by EMI. See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pink Floyd, 1971.jpg. I'm not exactly sure why it hasn't been deleted, to be honest.

• Covers should be in prose

Done

• Personnel isn't sourced, I'd imagine Guesdon and Margotin would have that as I've seen their Zeppelin and Springsteen books

Done, it is. The GA criteria says inline sources are only for "controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged". But it's known amongst fans that Gilmour played quite a lot of bass in the studio instead of Waters, so maybe this is controversial?

• Manning, Toby isn't used

It used to be, but it's been taken over by Povey, Mabbett, Blake, Guesdon / Margotin etc. which are more up to date and detailed. Shall I get rid of it?

• Yes, if it's not going to be used there's no point of it being here. – zmbro _(talk) 21:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Can we get more reviews? I can check out Rock's Backpages but I would search for other modern ones

I'd love to but I've struggled to find them! I went through my book sources and pulled out what I could, but trying to find a neutral review from a reliable source is like looking for a needle in a haystack given all I can get back from an online search is tons of fan sites which would never be acceptable in a GA. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'll investigate Rock's Backpages and report back. – zmbro _(talk) 21:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Where's Rock's Backpages? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Here – zmbro _(talk) 23:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Damn absolutely nothing. Few reviews of Obscured and a bunch of live reviews but no reviews of Meddle or insights. That's a bust. I would check newspapers.com but I no longer have my free trial. – zmbro _(talk) 00:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm surprised about the lack of sources for this, I expected a lot more. The only other place I could try is The Times newspaper archive, but I'm sceptical there'll be anything, and my other newspaper subscriptions have all expired too :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• This song chart at all?

No, it never charted anywhere, it was only ever released as an album track, and was commercially unsuccessful in the US.

• Are surfer.com and The Surfer Journal reliable?

Moot point, Mabbett cites everything here.

• Doing a quick look at the Pitchfork review, I found "As their fame rose and bassist Roger Waters seized ever-tighter creative control across the ‘70s, the music increasingly favored solemnity over whimsy, formalism over exploration. 'Echoes'—and Meddle as a whole—sit at the intersection of these two approaches, offering a hazy preview of Pink Floyd’s future as international stars without yet abandoning their past as visionary young ruffians." These types of things can and should be incorporated into "reception".

I did look at that source but concluded it mostly repeated information in the books, but I've dropped a bit in.

What I got so far. – zmbro _(talk) 19:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Are smash.com and johncoulthart.com reliable? – zmbro _(talk) 14:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

No mention of Smash in

WP:RSN, and it backs up a primary source (Nick Mason) so it's not likely to be contentious. For the Coulthart blog, I'm undecided. I can't find another source, but it's tangential to the song, so in the worst case we could simply remove it. Elsewhere, I've been looking for other sources, and found this, this and this, which are all typical examples of things not suitable for GA-quality sources. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

14:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Why are you putting years in brackets everywhere? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• I have found adding release years for albums/songs/films is customary for these types of articles. At least that's what I've been told for all my GAs/FAs. – zmbro _(talk) 14:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Could we add some reception to the lead? Like a summary? – zmbro _(talk) 14:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Now we've got a bit more detail from sources, I don't see why not. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

All right it look's much better. After another read through I'm happy to ✓ Pass – zmbro _(talk) 16:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank Zmbro, this is a good review, concentrating on the right things - working together as a team (I'm useless at ref formatting and infoboxes) and suggesting ways the article can be much better, far beyond what a single editor can do. FWIW I want to see if I can kick

good topic, which requires more work to get the discography past FLC and all important albums and songs through GA. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

17:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333 I actually just noticed that it seems largely inactive. In fact, I've noticed a good majority of band-based WikiProjects are inactive and were really only active between 2008–2012. I'm not sure why that is. I'd love to help out with Floyd but I unfortunately got no books for them. Nevertheless if you need assistance with Pink Floyd discography I can do my best to help with that. Don't be shy to ask. – zmbro _(talk) 17:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)