Talk:We're Only In It For The Money
Contents
Release date
Info box: "Released March 1968"
Release notes: "Originally released in September 1968."
What's up with that? What's the right date?
--Fishbrain 06:16, 28 January 2010 (PST)
HELP!
I have linked this release countless times in the Musicians category, only now to discover that not all of the words in the title were Capitalized - which I assumed was the convention; or, at least, it should be. Is it possible to change this article title, rather than go back and change the 65 entries I've made? Please?
Oh please, oh please, oh please, oh PLEASE!
--SOFA
The ears of the writer
Somewhere in the Wikipedia notes for contributors it requests that articles stick to facts rather than the opinions of individual contributors. Should we be aiming for the same thing?
It is too easy to dismiss something as pretentious without a full argument to support such a claim which of itself would be contentious. Surely all fashion is pretentious.
I am amazed someone actually finds the later remixes anything other than utterly moronic. There is an article somewhere that questions the extent of the alleged damage to the original tapes
should the Ruben paragraph be elsewhere?
Duncan 01:58, 24 Mar 2005 (PST)
Re Sofa & Duncan
- Sofa: I've made redirects so the ("erroneous") links you made should simply redirect to this one.
- Duncan: I read somewhere at wikipedia that if you come across an article that is too biassed/personal, don't get rid of the article. Instead keep the objective stuff from the article and get rid of the bias. So that's what I would do. I agree, as a rule of thumb, there shouldn't be room here for overly opinionated content especially when it's subject to controversy...
-- KUR
Wouldn't it be better to put track-related information on the track pages? Since a track can be on different albums in different versions, it is perhaps key to mention what track version is being documented on the track page... - emdebe
One more time for the world: wouldn't it be better to put track-related information on the track pages? - emdebe
Cover Art
If we are having the original release date (should these be original US release dates?) should we not also have original cover art?
Duncan 14:55, 3 Sep 2005 (PDT)
- Two things: (1) I only have the CD-releases and (2) it's going to be very hard scanning vynil covers as my (and most, I figure) scanner only handles A4+. I understand the desire for original artwork though - it's just a matter of how... - KillUglyRadio 23:38, 3 Sep 2005 (PDT)
My CD version has the cover the original way round. I guess yours would have the original (back to front outside inside) outside cover on the inside. Or something like that :-)
Duncan 00:34, 4 Sep 2005 (PDT)
Hi Duncan,
This new picture of the inside cover art is really cool.
However, if you don't mind, I guess it does still make sense to show the Ryko CD front cover because it's the way it is usually seen (even if a bit redundant).
Maroual 11:59, 29 October 2007 (PDT)
We could have it as well as the original version - but I do think it is worth documenting how it originally appeared. Also we do not seem to mention the cut out badges etc. that came with the original LP .
Duncan 12:27, 29 October 2007 (PDT)
Value of Background Info
Mcvaseline said...
OK, like, there's to much assumtion in all this... Jimmy Carl Black's "Indian of the group" thing is a sample, it's not different from the first time to the second time. Stop creating YOUR version of what happened at the session that you were not present at.
It is well known that Frank used to tape EVERYTHING, including everyday conversations between him and his bandmates. It seems to me this is a spliced in piece of one of those conversations.
Suggesting that EVERY FUCKING SECOND of any of Frank's albums is a planned affair is to deny the spontaneousness of the rock and roll genre, and I think Frank would probably laugh in your face for thinking otherwise.
WRITE WHAT YOU KNOW!!!! NOT WHAT YOU THINK!!!
That is what the Edit tab is for. Feel free to jump in and put it right. I do agree with you much of that stuff is factually inaccurate and/or opinion presented as fact. I have been trimming/removing chunks of it and will continue to do so. Duncan 22:28, 20 Apr 2006 (PDT)
I agree with you Duncan.
Should we also respect the Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy?
(see also Wikipedia:Citing_sources & Wikipedia:Reliable sources)
They really contain good piece of advice on how to deal with facts BUT I guess we should have our own version as some of us might have precious information that is NOT available elsewhere...
Maroual 03:11, 21 Apr 2006 (PDT)
