Talk:Hipgnosis

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Pink Floyd High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pink Floyd, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pink Floyd on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pink FloydWikipedia:WikiProject Pink FloydTemplate:WikiProject Pink FloydPink Floyd articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article was a past project collaboration. To-do list: Fair use Add free use ). Re-size large images around to 300 pixels (all "fair use" images), other than album covers (already done). Articles Expand all articles to at least Start class. Some song stubs can't be expanded and should be redirected to the relevant album article. Use the "Interstellar Overdrive" article as an example when editing a song stub. Expand all of the Floyd's studio album articles to at least GA status. See COTM for monthly collabs. Project building Add WikiProject Pink Floyd banner {{ WPFloyd }} to all appropriate Talk pages. Personally invite quality editors working on Pink Floyd articles to join the project. If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list. This article does not yet have a related to do list. If you can think of any ways to improve the article, why not create one? Progressive Rock Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Progressive Rock, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Progressive rock on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Progressive RockWikipedia:WikiProject Progressive RockTemplate:WikiProject Progressive RockProgressive rock articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Dave Simpson (25 November 2010). "Peter 'Sleazy' Christopherson: 1955-2010". The Guardian (UK).

I added a partial list of works using http://www.sound.jp/hipgnosis/yapwall/yhip.html as a reference, not truly authoritative but much better than the zilch that was here before. We need:

• links for the albums
• to fix some of the artist links (I realize I was a bit sloppy)
• verify years and spelling of the artists
• flush out the catalog
• a better history

Hipgnosis worked with some of the biggest bands of the 70's - at a time when "The Album" on the whole had a meaning. They deserve a well researched entry.

• What about illustrator George Hardie? And I agree with above. Two Halves

I just added the Godley & Creme album Freeze Frame, which came out in 1979. This is definitely a Hipgnosis cover; it makes me suspicious that J Geils Band's album of the name is also credited to Hipgnosis. Grimhim 01:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. The cover for the J. Geils Band album does not look at all like Hipgnosis's work. I removed it. -Freekee 16:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People keep trying to make "Richard Evans" into a link. The rule is that we never link to a

I thought it was good arranged by year. If you want to see it arranged by band, you could go the band's discography. -Freekee 03:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some (any?) kind of ordering is required. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been meaning to fix it, but haven't gotten around to it. I've seen a new sortable list format, which looks like it would be perfect. -Freekee (talk) 03:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the fair-use warning boilerplate text from this talk page, as it is no longer relevant, since the images were deleted. -Freekee 20:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What genius removed the images from this article? Hipgnosis was a graphic design outfit: To strip this article of examples of their work—some of which were iconic and thus notable—is to essentially gut the article. --TallulahBelle 02:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Moe Epsilon did. Maybe you should ask him about it. -Freekee 03:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't readd copyright violations, do it again and I'll start handing out warnings for such. — Moe ε 04:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, nice. -Freekee 05:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please explain why the caption, "The Dark Side of the Moon — One of Hipgnosis' most famous album covers." underneath an image of the album cover does not constitute fair use? -Freekee 05:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how famous it is, it's copyright. One sentence is not enough to apply fair use, you have to have significant commentary about the image to merit it's inclusion. Adding images here is like adding a discography to this article, which is strickly against

WP:NONFREE and has been removed all over Wikipedia. — Moe ε 06:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I disagree. I think that giving an example of the work that is responsible for an artist's stardom is good enough. I'd replace the image and suggest you take the dispute to a higher court, but I'm sure that what drives people to serve in such a group is the desire to delete. -Freekee 23:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to discuss policy changes here on Wikipedia fine. But U.S. law cannot be changed by the likes of a conversation by yourself. Sorry. — Moe ε 01:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about law. I'm talking about your interpretation of policy, which I don't believe there is broad consensus for, except among a certain group of editors who make it a point to do something according to their beliefs. -Freekee 03:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that general consensus is among the editors here at Wikipedia, and it is law, see the article on fair use, these kinds of things have to be taken seriously. — Moe ε 20:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's still not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about bias. -Freekee 21:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that's beside the point. Moe, what sort of thing could I say about the cover of DSOM, in order to make it a worthwhile addtion to the article? -Freekee 03:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There would have to be a major article section about DSOTM in order for it do make fair use applicable. A single sentence or two saying that Hipgnosis made it, and it's iconic, doesn't cut it. A paragraph or two of why the picture is iconic, how Hipgnosis came up with the design, the popularity of the album in general, etc. should be discussed. — Moe ε 20:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fair, but at this point, a major section would constitute a third of the article text. I would think a paragraph would be fine, and it wouldn't even have to be a long one, given it includes the info you suggest. I also think that the criterion (#8) is a little vague. Significance. Non-free media is not used unless it contributes significantly to an article. It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot. The article must create a need for the media such that its omission would be detrimental to the reader. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements is normally regarded as merely decorative, and is thus unacceptable. If I write it, and you disagree that it is enough, where do we go to resolve the dispute? -Freekee 21:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read up on the issue of fair use—you do not have to have extensive commentary in the caption under the image for it to be fair use. The image's mere inclusion in the specific article (together with a basic label describing what it is and its relationship to the article id est "The cover of Dark Side of the Moon, one of Hipgnosis' most famous covers") is enough to indicate that the article itself is a commentary on the image.

Moe seems to be carrying fair-use to an extreme that detracts from the very rationale of the fair use concept. Under Moe's conception of it, what would constitute fair use? --TallulahBelle 19:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His conception is described just above, in the comment that begins There would have to be. Myself, I go back and forth on it, between your opinion and his. There is a large number of editors who have feelings on the matter, and most of them feel you need some sort of explanation as to why the image is important. Unfortunately, when there's a dispute the deletionists usually seem to win. Moe seemed to think he's right because it's a matter of copyright law. But with that rationalization, I could say the same thing about my opinion. The only difference is that he's erring on the side of caution. I don't see the need for that much caution yet, and I don't see the consensus for that view that he does. Another thing that editors like him do, is delete something, forcing other editors to improve the article. <personal attack removed by — Moe ε at 06:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)> I disagree, and I think their feelings are either smugness or defensiveness. -Freekee 19:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how the removal of the "personal attack" almost makes what I'm complaining sound like a good thing. Let me rephrase it: Some people seem to think that treating other editors badly is okay if it improves articles. -Freekee 04:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It states that Hipgnosis disbanded in 1983 and Storm Thorgerson went solo from then on. If that's the case why on earth are there album covers listed on Hipgnosis' page that exceed the date of the disbandment? All off those covers and extensively covered (with better formatting) in the Storm Thorgerson page, I struggle to see why covers that Hipgnosis had nothing to do with are listed here. Pinothyj (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right. They should not be here. -Freekee (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image has a fair use tag for the 10cc album, but not for this article. I don't know if the Hipgnosis article can justify fair use of the album image, but if you can see a way how, then please add (not substitute) a fair use tag at the image page for this article. Thanks. Grimhim (talk) 05:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I've added the FUR at the image page. I think it's a good use of fair use in the article, because it is specifically illustrating the standard style of the company (and says so) in the picture caption. -Freekee (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a short list in the opening paragraph. Hipgnosis... specialized in creating cover art for... most notably Pink Floyd, Genesis, Led Zeppelin, and 10cc. Please, can we keep this from becoming a list of "my favorite bands"? Sometimes it seems like every kid who reads this, whose favorite band has a cover by Hipgnosis, adds that band to the list. Let's keep it short and to the point. I'd like to limit it to the bands with many covers, the most recognizable covers, and the ones that sold a lot of copies. Aside from the above bands, Bad Company and Alan Parsons Project might qualify, but I think four bands is enough. -Freekee (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone recently changed the caption under the DSoM album cover to Probably Hipgnosis' most famous work, the front cover of Pink Floyd's 1973 album Dark Side of the Moon. The prism suggests the light-shows for which the band's live shows were famous. [1] I've never heard that about the light shows. Can we get a reference/citation for that? -Freekee (talk) 04:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Freekee. I must admit that I was only trying to re-word what was already there into a slightly shorter and more neutral form. I certainly agree that a citation would help. Oherwise, I'd suggest that a shorter caption might do the job better. To be honest, the Pink Floyd lightshows (even from the very early days) seemed to be rather more complex affairs! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I wasn't paying close enough attention. (And thanks for watching the page, I meant to mention this on your talk page, but got distracted.) Your wording is much better than the previous version. [2] But I still think this ought to be cited. I probably wouldn't worry about it if this were common knowledge, but I don't really see a connection as described, so others might question it. However, a more important issue is that of fair use. I'm not sure this one qualifies. The caption needs to provide a reason to include the album cover. Also, the image page doesn't have a FUR. -Freekee (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll leave this one for you to pursue. I must admit, although the DSOM cover is considered "iconic" by many, I see other Hipgnosis work as more distinctive, original and provocative. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, also one small point... how come the cat-tags for this page have been hijacked by the Floydistas?! Martinevans123 (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. It's one of their few covers that don't look like one of theirs. But I guess when I think about it, I get a bit of a feeling of distance and coldness. What do you mean about the cat-tags? There's only the one Category:Pink Floyd -Freekee (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guess it's one Cat with three parts then. Not saying it's inappropriate, just seems a bit unbalanced - Hignosis had plenty of other clients? But not sure any other existing categories are appropriate. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The categories are: Albums with cover art by Hipgnosis | Graphic design studios | 1968 establishments | 1983 disestablishments | Pink Floyd | Album-cover and concert-poster artists. The first one is, more-or-less, their own category. The dis/establishment ones seem to be pretty standard, though I never thought much of them. Hipgnosis and Thorgerson were very much a part of the Pink Floyd experience, since they helped define the Floyd's image, so I don't have a problem with that one (though I'm glad the Pink Floyd navbox isn't on the article). That leaves two artist categories, that don't quite seem redundant. Or was there something else you were referring to? -Freekee (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No they all seem fine! It was the categories of this talk page! Haha. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this this page. Ha ha! I wondered what you were talking about. :-) -Freekee (talk) 04:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cover art in the discography section of this article is not an allowed usage per

I'll mention this here simply because hipgnosis is one of the most notable album cover designers: there is no place in the album infobox for the album cover artist. this is to me an oversight. ive mentioned it there, but anyone who cares about giving proper credit to notable cover designers should make a noise about this. We can, of course, add a line in each album article saying "album cover art by Hipgnosis", but adding it to the infobox is also important.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.136.242 (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I appreciate album artwork and the artists, I like to keep the infobox pretty basic. There's tons of info that people have asked to add, and it could get to the point that it's hardly worth having a real article, when the infoboxes get too big. There are already more fields in the album infoboxes than I would like to see. I'm just happy we have the categories for the artists. -Freekee (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We now have the cover of Deceptive Bends, one of the uglier, more garish covers they did.
It is also a visual pun on the Creature from the Black Lagoon. Why do we display a visual pun without saying so?
Therefore, why don't we use an image which 1) is less hideous, and 2) does not require the explanation of its pun + the verifiable source for said explanation?
Varlaam (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a bad cover. I don't think it's necessary to say that it's a visual pun on The Creature. I'm not even certain that it is, and given the lack of sources that say so, how can we assume so? Actually, I don't think it is a visual pun. It's just a similarity. If the title was something like Deceptive Creatures, then it might qualify. Either way, I do not think the image requires an explanation of this visual connection.

Is there another cover you think would be better here?

I agree that "unique" should not have a qualifier, but your replacement, "exceptional" needs some way to back up the claim that the material was exceptional. I'm changing it back to "unique", but will remove the word "more." Thanks for the tip.

-Freekee (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason why "garishness" or punniness should disqualify a cover. I agree with this choice. That said, UFO's Obsession is IMO a far more visually striking example, the kind of image that makes a clear statement that this firm was creative and daring. Dementia13 (talk) 13:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you (or anyone) could write up a decent explanation of that cover, I'd put it in at the top, and move Deceptive Bends down to the Style section. -Freekee (talk) 04:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The latest Pink Floyd record, The Endless River, mentions Aubrey Powell, Hipgnosis as Creative Director for the artwork. Has the company been resurrected? Or is this just a friendly nod to the past? Felix Atagong (talk) 10:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a large poster designed by Hipgnosis (with their name in the corner), advertising a gig by Tyrannosaurus Rex at Manchester Free Trade Hall in November 1969. (Good condition, offers welcome!) Nothing seems to be mentioned about poster design in the article. Should it be? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They say if you can remember dinosaurs in Manchester, in 1969, it means you weren't really there. But here's another rarity. Yes, I think there should be a mention. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly (to me), after putting the poster up on eBay with a starting price of £10, it eventually sold for £460. Insert smiley face here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's awesome! In answer to the original question, this sort of thing would be great to include if there is mention of it in some reputable published source. -Freekee (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hipgnosis. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120403001754/http://www.rdevans.com/BIO.html to http://www.rdevans.com/BIO.html

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.

• 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) 15:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor recently unlinked many band names in the album cover table. I don't believe this is necessary, and reverted the edit. I believe that the limiting of repeat linking is meant for prose and not lists and tables. In tables, especially sortable tables, people often go directly to certain areas of the tables, skipping over the first appearance of a subject, and may have trouble finding the link.

In glossaries, which are primarily referred to for encyclopedic entries on specific terms rather than read from top to bottom like a regular article, it is usually desirable to repeat links (including to other terms in the glossary) that were not already linked in the same entry (see Template:Glossary link).

Duplicate linking in stand-alone and embedded lists is permissible if it significantly aids the reader. This is most often the case when the list is presenting information that could just as aptly be formatted in a table, and is expected to be parsed for particular bits of data, not read from top to bottom.

On the other hand, it's not too difficult to get to the band's article anyway, however I don't see a problem with having more links than usual, since it's doesn't interfere with reading comprehension since it's a table and not prose. If you disagree, please discuss it here. -Freekee (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]