Jump to content

Talk:The Man Who Sold the World (album)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleThe Man Who Sold the World (album) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starThe Man Who Sold the World (album) is part of the David Bowie studio albums series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 31, 2020Good article nomineeListed
August 8, 2022Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Should we include Nirvana's perfomance?

[edit]

YOu guys got THREE days to do so, or I will -The Bird - unsigned comment by 66.154.192.129 on 16:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did it, but threats are not a way to contribute to an encyclopedia, so I'm deleting it. Fantailfan 21:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys. Fantail, notice you put a cover version section in then removed it - correct in my opinion. Albums shouldn't have sections for cover versions of their songs when there are entries for the songs themselves - and "The Man Who Sold the World (song)" gives prominence to Nirvana's version. A brief mention and the song link, as we already had, is all it needs here. Cheers, Ian Rose 00:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection

[edit]

When you type "The Man who Sold the World", it automatically gives the song. I know the song is "better known" but I think the album is more significant and should be the automatic destination for typing "the man who sold the world". I don't know how to do this, but it's just a thought. 160.39.145.130 (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you and could organise that but let's see if anyone else has an opinion first... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

+ Fantailfan (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree, having just found this more than two years later! It seems logical to me that the album should take precedence: though it seems clear that the song is more widely known, the album was its origin. After all this time, it looks like a consensus to me...? Should probably be cross-posted to the talk page for the song before any ch-ch-ch-changes are made, though. Nortonius (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, the song is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and shouldn't be disambiguated, whereas the album should. --JD554 (talk) 13:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis is the song the primary topic, would you say? While it seems that no pages link to the album article, two link to the song article; on the other hand, viewing figures for the album article for last month (June 2010) were 9,246, while those for the song article were 8,267. Not much to choose between them, but it would suggest to me that it's the album people look for on WP, rather than the song, and that seems to be the thrust of WP:PRIMARY TOPIC. I'd rule Google searches out, because of the multitude of song lyric sites - Google any album with the same name as one of its tracks, and you'll get zillions more pages on lyrics to the song, rather than about the album. Nortonius (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought I'd check that those viewing figures for June were representative - from the beginning of July 09 to the end of June 10, the album article got 172,680 hits, while the song article got 153,915, and the album got a higher hit rate in every month. Actually I think that this is highly significant, given the original point of the discussion, that a simple search for "the man who sold the world" takes you to the song: clearly people are choosing to look at the album more than at the song, despite the re-direct, without which the viewing figures would probably be even further apart. Nortonius (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I've now posted a note regarding this discussion on the talk page for the song. Nortonius (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good argument with respect to the page visits of the album article and, due to that, I've changed my mind and agree that the undabbed page should be the album article and the dabbed page should be the song article. Incidentally, you can exclude the majority of lyrics servers for google searches if your add "-lyrics" to your search string. --JD554 (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok great, thanks for coming back with that, and for the tip re search strings - to be honest, I'd forgotten about adding +s and -s to search strings! I wonder, should we go ahead and do something about changing the dab? Don't mind waiting a while for more input, as it's only a couple of days since I posted something about this on the song's talk page. People don't seem to be finding this the most gripping issue for their attention though, given that so far you and I are the only people to have spoken up in over two years - understandable really! p.s. Hmm! Looks like I completely failed to understand how "What links here" works, too! Something felt wrong about the results I reported earlier so I looked again - of course, both articles are linked from more places than I could be bothered to count, even hiding transclusions and redirects! Oh well - I'm pretty confident of those viewing figures, anyway, anyone can check them! Nortonius (talk) 12:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's been 10 days since I posted a note on the song article's talk page, and JD554 and I remain the only editors to comment on this in recent times, either there or here, so I think it's time the dab was changed per the above discussion - only, I'd rather not do it myself as I have no experience of moving pages etc. and don't want to mess up! If it's not done in a few hours, I'll ask around for someone who might do it. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Credit goes to editors Sonia and Anthony.bradbury for picking up the pieces of the mess I made when trying to do it myself, and making it work! Nortonius (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

Is there any connection to, or inspiration from, Heinlein's The Man Who Sold the Moon? DS (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The Man Who Sold the World → The Man Who Sold the World (album) –Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC) how can the album be more significant when all links refer to the song?. Makes no sense to meE-Kartoffel (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the previous discussion on this talk page, above, headed "Redirection"? This has been discussed before, though things may have changed since then for all I know. On the other hand, to what links are you referring exactly? Nortonius (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I refer to the internal wikipedia links to the album article, they are almost entirely produced by the Bowie template, whilst other articles mostly refer to the song. "The Man Who Sold the World" is commonly referred to as song, not as an album entity. (E-Kartoffel (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Well,-- if the wikipedia-*user interest* is so high, I even understand it, so we can leave it this way, as it is. (E-Kartoffel (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • Oppose dab page. I don't like dab pages with only two entries. Even if there isn't a clear primary topic, I still think it's better just pick one as primary and put a hatnote to the other in that one. That way at least some people saves a click. With a dab page everybody has to click an extra time to get to their intended destination. I am neutral on which one should be placed as primary topic, hadn't it been for the Nirvana cover it probably would have been the album, but with their cover it's probably pretty split. The view statistics say that the article about the album gets about twice the views of the one about the song [1][2], although this might be because the album is currently placed as primary topic.TheFreeloader (talk) 11:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hard rock/heavy metal?

[edit]

I understand that this album has some hard rock and heavy metal tones, but it also explores progressive and psychedelic and blues. Rock just seems easier. --24.107.207.98 (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to whom? (WP:SUBJECTIVE). Dan56 (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just feel that the album has other genres other than hard rock and heavy metal. (The title track isn't even hard rock at all.) If my IP is different, it means I am not at my regular computer right now.--108.218.70.130 (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the IP. 'Rock' is a good general term for the album, without going into a long list of all the genres it does explore. While we're at it, Dan, I see you'd made the main infobox image the early US 'cowboy' cover. I don't think this is appropriate as the iconic cover, the one used for original release in the album's country of origin, is the 'dress' cover. If there's a general rule about using the very first release as the infobox image then I think we're adhering slavishly to it here, not logically, by using the cowboy cover. The community seemed to agree with this for a very long time, as the article has pretty well always used the dress cover as lead image, and you've already had at least one editor revert you on the change, so I'm hoping to convince you here that we should switch back. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, other than us editors, what third-party source shares this opinion? That other genres describe the album that way? And I don't think one inexperienced IP in the last week is a worry. I don't know how it's iconic, but if it has replaced the original and is widely distributed, then that would fit the criteria for an alternate cover. If the artist's country of origin should take precedent, then why wouldn't that apply to the release date as well? Dan56 (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is my point, you say 'rock' and you don't even need a citation. Undoubtedly there's a strong hard rock and heavy metal tinge to it, that's in the main body, with citations, but that's not all there is to it (as the main body also intimates, again with citations) and the source in the infobox about "moving into" hard rock and heavy metal doesn't necessarily support the idea that the whole album can be characterised that way. Don't get me wrong, I wrote much of this article and personally prefer to describe it as heavy metal, but you'll always have arguments over that, even with citations, which are easy to cherry-pick. As to the album cover, it's not so much that someone you describe as an inexperienced IP has reverted your change of cover, but that what you've changed has had the tacit support of the community for a long time, even with the slightly earlier cartoon cover and its date listed among the alternatives. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This would, as would this. There should never be cherry-picking, tho: The sides/genres that the sources have taken should be explained and included in proportion to the viewpoints. You might find one source that says it "explores progressive and psychedelic" for instance, but if it's in the minority of viewpoints that largely call it "hard rock" or "heavy metal", then placing it in the infobox (even with a cited source) would be undue weight. Dan56 (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cover Art, or sleeve???

[edit]

The editor of the Michael J Weller page has stated that the artist did the sleeve art not the cover art, as stated in this article. Which is correct??? http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Michael_J._Weller User:JCHeverly 21:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should the 1971 British cover be shown first rather than the original 1970 American cover?

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus. It seems unclear what "the original cover" means in this context, and the well meaning and informed contributors below seem almost evenly split. No one likes closing RFCs as "no consensus", but at least, the argument given by User:142 and 99 is a comfort, that it really shouldn't matter all that much since both covers are in the article and they have to be in some order. --GRuban (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, the original 1970 American cover was removed from the "Cover" field of the infobox (having been there since June 2013) in favor of the 1971 British cover, with no rationale offered (13 January 2016). After reverting this edit, it was restored again with no clear rationale (23 February 2016). I've opened this RfC, asking for those editors should the 1971 British cover be shown first rather than the original 1970 American cover? Dan56 (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • While editors have argued here the image "most closely associated with the album" should be show first, and have questioned the meaning/context of the word "original", the template guideline says to use "the official version of the original cover". According to what is cited in this article from biographer Nicholas Pegg's book, Weller's cartoon design was the original, in the sense it was the first made, the first accepted by Bowie, and the first released, on the first release of this album, the American release. Furthermore, there's no coverage by third-party sources that the British cover is "most closely associated with the album", at least not in this article, not that it should matter either way. Dan56 (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

According to this article, The Man Who Sold the World was originally released in 1970 in the United States, with the cover featuring an illustration of a man in a cowboy hat. It was released in the United Kingdom the following year with the cover featuring David Bowie in a dress. A few editors have insisted on placing the British cover ahead of the American, with one claiming it is a "British album" (I didn't know albums had nationalities, or that this was relevant or mentioned in any guideline regarding album covers). The current guideline says to include "an image of the official front cover of the original version of the album." (Template:Infobox_album#Cover) Dan56 (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since "original" means first or earliest, that would be the American release from 1970. As for the British cover, which it has been used for CD reissues of this album and has been argued has replaced the original in the eyes of most people who follow Bowie's work, it should still be in the "alternate cover" field, since the guidelines would deem it as such: "An alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original" (emphasis added) (Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover)... That would be the 1971 British cover. Pretty clear cut IMO. Dan56 (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A pretty clear case then of ignore all rules and use common sense. The suggestion that "a few editors have insisted on placing the British cover ahead of the American" is somewhat ingenuous, as the UK cover was given primacy in the article from 2005 until 2013, when Dan changed it without prior discussion. So too the idea that nationality has nothing to do with it -- we choose the variety of English based on ties to the national origin of the work or artist. To get down to cases, using the original UK 'dress' cover is simply reflecting the most commonly employed cover outside WP -- see for instance Allmusic's review, Buckley's David Bowie: The Music and The Changes, Carr & Murray's Bowie: An Illustrated Record, plus any number of advertisements for the album on Amazon, etc. I really think WP is out of touch in slavishly adhering to this particular guideline and using the absolutely original cover, rather than the best known original cover (the first to appear in the album's country of origin). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, only the "man dress" cover is in Carr & Murray (1981). Marc Spitz's biography, pp. 145–6, has:

Upon submitting the ["man dress"] cover art to Mercury, the Bowies claimed to be shocked when the executives balked at releasing it as it was. Before the cover was restored on subsequent reissues, the American version depicted a George Underwood [sic] cartoon ... "Bloody philistines!" Bowie reportedly shouted when he first heard of news of the label's reaction to his original cover choice. More likely, however, both Bowie and Angie knew that word of a banned or controversial sleeve would get them lots of ink.

Attributing the cartoon to George Underwood makes Spitz look shaky, but overall the "man dress" cover seems to have been the original design; Spitz makes no mention of the other designs. And I've added a ref for the UK release date. Nortonius (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's a misconception that the "dress" cover was the originally planned design. In this passage in the Pegg book, he wrote:
"It is commonly believed that the original sleeve was the famous photo of Bowie in a dress, but this is not the case. David originally asked Mike Weller ... to design a cover reflecting the album's ominous atmosphere. Weller proposed a painting of Cain Hill Hospital, where a friend of his was a patient - apparently he was unaware that it was also where Terry Burns [Bowie's half-brother] lived - and Bowie received the idea enthusiastically.... Weller tells the Gillmans that David was 'very pleased' with the finished Metrobolist [The original album title] design, but it appears that not long afterwards Bowie changed his mind and persuaded Phillips's art department to commission Keith MacMillan to photograph him instead in the 'domestic environment' of the Haddon Hall living-room.... In America, Mercury quickly rejected the 'dress' photograph.... Instead the label gave the go-ahead for ... the 'cartoon' artwork.... David, whose initial enthusiasm for the cartoon cover had evaporated, was reportedly furious, and he successfully persuaded Mercury to use the 'dress' photograph on the UK release."
Pegg goes on to say Bowie claimed in 1972 that the cartoon cover was "horrible" and in 1999 that he "actually thought the cartoon cover was really cool". Dan56 (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contrary to what editors have argued here, the guideline for infobox images doesn't say to choose which image is "most closely associated with the album", but to show first "the official version of the original cover". According to what is cited in the article from Pegg's book, Weller's cartoon design was the original, in the sense it was the first made, the first accepted by Bowie, and the first released, on the first release of this album, the American release. Dan56 (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
The different US cover is easy - the dress cover was banned! [3]. (That the source doesn't bother to mention what the cover was changed to seems significant). As I suggested above, a reliable source (something more than just the vague "1970" / "1971") that confirms original release dates is required to answer the first question properly. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice the original release dates were uncited in the article -- taken care of that now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The source given by Ritchie333 says that the "dress" cover "would be banned" when the album was issued in the US. That implies that the "dress" cover was the original intended cover - even if it was not issued with that cover until later (in the UK). I think that is a significant point. (Just read Nortonius' comment above, which confirms that chronology.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that that really seems to fit the ethos of WP:HITANDRUN, proposing vague patterns that don't model the real world when common sense and good judgement is what's required. I note that all the "support" voters have directly talked about Bowie's career and cited reputable biographies; your argument would stand more weight if you did likewise. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My referencing two separate guidelines from separate WikiProjects about this exact type of scenario (handling alternate cover art) isn't going to hold weight in this discussion? Really? Citing the essay HITANDRUN is equally baffling (I'm not proposing a "wanton change", I'm proposing we keep the old approach in place for years). Look, if you want to IAR, that's up to you, but please don't make such a half-assed attempt to summarize your opposers. Sergecross73 msg me 14:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with that is I don't understand it ... Nortonius (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333, Nortonius, this talk of citing Bowie's career and biography smacks somewhat of fancruft; it's not like the "dress" cover is being excluded altogether. If you or other "support voters" don't like the guideline as it's currently written, propose changing it rather than making this the exception, because this wouldn't be the only article where you could make your argument (see Beggars Banquet). It's just that the argument has to have some logic that's not just relative or specific to Bowie's career. This is Wikipedia, not Bowiepedia lol! Dan56 (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well to me the whole point behind WP:IAR is you say "well we've got this guideline over here which is usually the way to do things, although common sense says to do something different every now and then, and that's fine". I'm here to write an encyclopedia, not get bogged down in the minutae behind policies and guidelines which frankly sends me to sleep. The argument we're making here is that we should pick the cover that reliable sources document as being the most significant. Maybe you're an enlightened 21st century guy and transsexuals are just things people happen to be, but in the Nixon-era US, the conservative record industry would have had an complete and utter fit about putting out an album by an obscure one-hit wonder (which is what Bowie was in 1970) that (OMG) had him in a dress! And it was the springboard for Bowie publicly declaring himself as if not actually bisexual, at least ambiguous to make a nice conversation piece out of it, as described by the Daily Telegraph as "the first signal of the sexual ambiguity that would become his stock-in-trade". And I'm not that big a Bowie fan, everything with Mick Ronson on it is brilliant, the Anthony Newley period is, let's face it, shit, everything else is not really my cup of tea but I can see why people love the Berlin stuff and Let's Dance, no problem with that. Drmies is the big Bowie fan around here, I think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This seems to be much ado about nothing. Both covers are included in the box so the matter of which comes first is really not that big a deal. I suspect that if you scratch the surface of the reasons offered by most people who really care about this question you will find "but I like this cover better" or nationalistic reasons behind the opinions. My copy of the album I bought (in Canada) in the 1980s has the 1972 RCA cover. A few years later I saw the 1970 US cover album in a used record store and bought that, just for the cover. A year after that the CD was released with the man-in-dress cover and I bought that. (It also has the other three covers inside the "booklet" which folds out). I once won a radio trivia contest by stumping the DJ with my question "Which is the only Bowie album to not have a picture of him on the cover in its original release?" where this album was the answer. So yeah ... where was I? Oh yeah ... I really could not care less which one is first and cannot see any good reason why anyone should care. "I like this one" and nationalism are not good reasons. Either one first is fine with me, just so long as they all are included in the box. 142 and 99 (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I got curious and looked up information on the album covers. I found this passage in the Pegg book, cited in the article many times. Pegg wrote this:
"It is commonly believed that the original sleeve was the famous photo of Bowie in a dress, but this is not the case. David originally asked Mike Weller ... to design a cover reflecting the album's ominous atmosphere. Weller proposed a painting of Cain Hill Hospital, where a friend of his was a patient - apparently he was unaware that it was also where Terry Burns [Bowie's half-brother] lived - and Bowie received the idea enthusiastically.... Weller tells the Gillmans that David was 'very pleased' with the finished Metrobolist [The original album title] design, but it appears that not long afterwards Bowie changed his mind and persuaded Phillips's art department to commission Keith MacMillan to photograph him instead in the 'domestic environment' of the Haddon Hall living-room.... In America, Mercury quickly rejected the 'dress' photograph.... Instead the label gave the go-ahead for ... the 'cartoon' artwork.... David, whose initial enthusiasm for the cartoon cover had evaporated, was reportedly furious, and he successfully persuaded Mercury to use the 'dress' photograph on the UK release."
Pegg goes on to say Bowie claimed in 1972 that the cartoon cover was "horrible" and in 1999 that he "actually thought the cartoon cover was really cool". No word there on why the albums were released at different times, but it should be remembered that only a few years earlier it was not unusual for UK and US versions of albums to have different titles and different track lists too (see discography pages for the Beatles and Stones), so it could just be that Mercury saw no good reason to release them at the same time and had other marketing reasons for the different dates. But what reading the Pegg passages does tell me is more important than which picture comes first on the page is the fact that the page does not anywhere discuss the fact that Bowie hated the album title, wanted to call the album Metrobolist, and even between the US and UK releases tried to get Mercury to re-title the album Holy Holy for the UK release. It's all in the Pegg book. 142 and 99 (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So the cartoon design was the original plan according to the Pegg book? Ritchie333, Nortonius? Dan56 (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Fancruft", anyone? Yeah I can imagine a lot of flip-flopping going on, either way, it looks like Bowie wanted the dress on the cover, so go define "original". Nortonius (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's an English-language adjective meaning "first" or "from the beginning", Nortonius. And you obviously didn't read clearly what 142 and 99 quoted from Pegg's book, which says Bowie originally wanted the cartoon design. Dan56 (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read it, what part didn't you understand? Before going to press, Bowie wanted the dress on the cover. Now you really are clutching at straws, if you're defining "original" as a cover that wasn't even wanted – we could all make one of them. I'm rapidly losing interest though, I'll just be interested to see how this one fizzles out. As 142 and 99 says, the flip-flopping over the album title is more interesting. Nortonius (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "very pleased with the finished Metrobolist design" do you not understand Nortonius?? Dan56 (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Look, you're just hounding now – one minute you're dissing other people's views as "fancruft", the next you're diving in head first. I'm signing out of this now. Nortonius (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not hounding, Nortonius. You're not answering my question or addressing my point, so I pretty much feel the need to squeeze a response out of you or at least trying to smh. It's like, "how is he not getting this", I'm thinking. Like, do I need to cite the template guideline again, or the definition of the word "original"/"official", or Pegg's book, which I've cited in the article at this point, proving Weller's design was the official version of the original cover (the first made, the first accepted by Bowie, first released, first issued, etc.) It's frustrating to not get this across, because for some reason its not registering with you and the others. Dan56 (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's kinda irrelevant since WP:WEIGHT doesn't apply at all to infobox images in any WikiProject. "Original" means just that, and that's what the guideline is, regardless of whether it agree with its logic, in principle, or philosophically or whatever.Dan56 (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dress please. It seems to me that what should matter besides our guidelines is which image is most closely associated with the album; I have no doubt that the dressy one is, as verified by various citations offered above--from picture books, websites, internet searches. "Original" is an easy term to define, but not easily applied in the real world. Maybe Bowie wanted a cartoon cover "originally", but that doesn't mean he wanted this cover "originally"--after all, there's a big gap between mental image and draft drawing. Wut, that's hypothetical? theoretical? Well, there's nothing simple about this. As far as I can tell, if the album cover hadn't been problematic for the US record company, the album would have been released all dressed up, and certainly in that sense we can consider the cartoon cover an alternate--for which there is a space in the infobox. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's no "maybe" or "a cartoon cover". The source clearly says he wanted Weller's design: What part of "very pleased with the finished Metrobolist design" do you not understand Drmies?? It's not even about his original intent being Weller's design or that he initially accepted the finished cartoon design, it's the fact that whether you like it or not, the American release was first released, WITH THAT COVER! Like, come on! How stubborn do you have to be not to accept that. Dan56 (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Try to sound more nicer, Dan. I gave arguments. Very pleased, maybe--but no so pleased that every other version of the album had it on its cover. I was very pleased with my first child, and yet I went on and made another one. Don't play this stupid "nah nah you're just saying that CUZYOUNOLIKEIT"; it's very unbecoming. Like, you know. Drmies (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's an awful analogy, and what you do in your personal life is your business lol. And the guideline is clear. It doesn't say to choose which image is "most closely associated with the album", but "the official version of the original cover". Weller's was original, in the sense it was the first made and the first released, on the first release of this album. If you don't like the guideline, then go to the template talk page or WP:ALBUMS and propose a change, but questioning the meaning of basic words in the English language to support arguments based in personal preference or ideas on what's more important to show is nothing more than making up your own rules. You're playing this stupid "well, what does 'original' really mean?" Like come on. There's enough evidence. Dan56 (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing stupid about it. Only simple people think that "original" means something simple. Anyway, I gave some arguments, you yelled at me some like you yelled at most other people here; I hope you feel better. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dan, just as a heads up, you might also want to head over to the Out of Our Heads page. There the infobox says the album was released in September 1965, but the prose says that was the UK release date and the US release date was July 1965, 2 months earlier. Also, that page has a separate section for the American release that comes after the track listing for the UK album, meaning the main infobox has the UK album cover even though it was released 2 months after the American one with a different cover. Seems like the editors there need a lecture about what "original" means ... or else maybe its possible for there to be more than one "original" release. 142 and 99 (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You also: "original" isn't simple. I don't want to lecture, since school is out, but hey, it's never too late to read Frantzen's Desire for Origins--not because you may be interested in the history of Anglo-Saxon's scholarship, but because you seem to be under the misapprehension that "original" is something that can reliably and objectively be established. Or maybe a hefty dose of Terry Eagleton will help? Drmies (talk) 02:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You said earlier it's "an easy term to define", but now it's not "simple"? Pleeaase. Dan56 (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not. I'll just get reverted by rockist guardians of the article or something lol. It is another canonical rock act. Dan56 (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To some degree Lewismaster. The others who are strongly against the "chronological" criterion in this discussion seem to be in denial of the fact that Bowie originally intended to use the cartoon design, before changing his mind of course. Perhaps popularity and sales isn't being taken into account either, since according to what's cited in this article, The Man Who Sold the World was more successful in the US than in the UK. Dan56 (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

USA release date

[edit]

I have just looked up this album in Billboard's "New Album Releases" and it appears in the 2 January 1971 issue. The following appears above the list of releases:

This monthly product list includes LP's which were issued during the past several weeks and are considered as part of the manufacturers' January release.

This does not support a November 1970 release. As Billboard is a reliable source, especially on the subject of album release dates, should the article be amended? I ask due to the existence of citations of apparently reliable sources supporting the date given in the article.

I note also that the booklet accompanying the American 1999 remastered album credits the original US cartoon artwork to Michael J. Weller © 1971. Would this not have to be © 1970 if the album was released in 1970? — Labalius (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always in favor of having dates supported by references rather than dates that come out of nowhere. Binksternet (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Billboard report is basically just saying they missed mentioning it in previous issues, and are mentioning it 'now' - I bought the album a couple of weeks before Xmas in '70 - so, it was definitely out. 50.111.60.168 (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Man Who Sold the World (album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 20:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


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

Will review this tomorrow --K. Peake 20:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

[edit]
  • Infobox looks good
  • "and in the United Kingdom" → "and through the same label in the United Kingdom"
  • Not necessary; it's why the label is stated first
  • "in April and May 1970." → "during April and May of 1970."
  • Not done; think it reads better as is
  • Good point, fixed
  • Where is the part about the Spiders from Mars backed up?
  • I knew there was something I forgot to mention in the aftermath section. Added
  • Done
  • Nowhere is his previous album called folk rock
  • Whoops; added to music and lyrics
  • "his previous releases," → "his previous content,"
  • Think it's fine the way it is
  • Done
  • "to other songs between" → "to singles between"
  • Done; think it was like that originally
  • "The album was released with" → "The Man Who Sold the World was released with"
  • Think it's better as is for differentiation; don't want 3/4 paras starting with the album title
  • Done
  • "wearing a blue "fish" dress designed by" → "wearing a blue dress that was designed by"
  • Done
  • "featuring black-and-white pictures of" → "featuring a black-and-white picture of"
  • Done; again, original wording
  • "was originally better received by critics" → "received generally better reviews from music critics" with the target
  • Personally don't find the need to link that; changed it to "...received critically"
  • Done, but not the link as I find that unnecessary
  • "both countries; its 1972 reissue managed" → "both countries; however, the 1972 reissue managed"
  • Done
  • "has been praised for" → "has been praised by critics for"
  • Done
  • "of its music and lyrics. Multiple critics have since considered the album to be" → "of the music and lyrics, while since being considered to be"
  • Changed to "music and lyrics, with many considering"
  • "The album has since been" → "It has since been"
  • Done
  • "will be remixed in 2020, under its original title Metropolist, for its 50th anniversary." → "will received a 50th anniversary remix in 2020, under the original title of Metropolist."
  • We can leave this sentence as is. The reissue is being released next week so it'll be changed to past tense anyways

Background

[edit]
  • "David Bowie's breakthrough single" → "Bowie's breakthrough single" with the target
  • "bringing Bowie commercial success" → "bringing him commercial success"
  • That's embarrassing; done
  • Mention the album being his second studio album for context and add release year in brackets
  • That's not necessary, as it mentions "Space Oddity" being July 1969. Maybe add "released later that year"?
  • Done
  • Done, forgot this one. These types of boxes with no quote marks are ok to use.
  • Done
  • "For their performances," → "For the group's performances,"
  • Done
  • "on 20 March," → "on 20 March 1970,"
  • Done, but it kinda makes it redundant as a sentence before it says "February 1970"
  • [9] should be solely at the end of the sentence
  • Must have had a different page number there originally. Fixed.
  • "was a giant" → "with a giant"
  • Oops
  • "on 11 March," → "on 11 March 1970,"
  • Again kind of redundant but sure
  • "at the end of March," → "at the end of March 1970,"
  • No, straight overkill at that point
  • Added 'that year'
  • "that it was" → "that the dismissal was"
  • Done
  • [7][4] should be put in numerical order
  • Done
  • Done
  • Already linked, just a redirect
  • Done
  • "staircase at Haddon," → "staircase at Haddon Hall,"
  • Done

Recording

[edit]
  • Nope, British spelling
  • Redirects don't always need to be fixed.
  • "Mace was a" → "At the time, Mace was a"
  • Done
  • Done
  • "his contract with his manager Kenneth Pitt" → "his contract with Pitt"
  • Must've forgotten I mentioned him earlier
  • "on 21 April and" → "on 21 April 1970 and"
  • No, the reader is not going to forget what year it is two sentences later
  • Yeah I guess you're right, done
  • "the rest of April until mid-May." → "the rest of April, until mid-May."
  • Comma makes it seem like it's a separate point, which it isn't
  • "On 4 May, the group recorded" → "On 4 May of that year, Hype recorded"
  • Again no, straight overkill
  • Think this response was an answer to "of that year". Changed "the group" to "the band" as by this point I believe they had stopped performing as Hype
  • "back to Advision on 12 May and completed on 22 May." → "back to Advision Studios on 12 May 1970 and completed 10 days later."
  • Only changed to "ten days later" because it reads better
  • Remove target on Angie but are you sure she shouldn't be referred to as Burnett like earlier on in the article?
  • Removed but "with his new wife Burnett" is just not right
  • "all music on the album," → "all music on The Man Who Sold the World,"
  • Done
  • "quoted Visconti saying" → "quoted Visconti as saying that"
Fixed
  • "1998 interview as saying" → "1998 interview as saying,"
  • Done
  • To me that's totally unnecessary
  • "like that"." → "like that."" since a full sentence is quoted
  • Moved quote outside but not sure where you got the second one from

Music and lyrics

[edit]
  • Added link
  • "largely acoustic music of Bowie's second album." → "largely acoustic sound of Space Oddity." with the target
  • Partially done; already linked above
  • That's not necessary to me
  • "describes the album as" → "described the album as"
  • Done
  • "writes that the album is" → "writes that it is"
  • Done
  • "According to Spitz, Ronson was intent on making" → "According to Marc Spitz, Ronson was intent to make" with the wikilink
  • Done
  • "darker than its predecessor." → "darker than those on Space Oddity."
  • It's fine as is
  • "they contains numerous themes" → "they contain numerous themes"
  • Oops
  • "of the decade," → "of the 1970s decade,"
  • Sure
  • "sexual possession."" → "sexual possession"."
  • Done
  • "has also been seen" → "have also been seen"
  • Whoops
  • Introduce the studio albums as Bowie's fifth and eighth, while add release years in brackets and target Ziggy Stardust to the album's page
  • Done
  • "He continues that the songs" → "He continues, saying that the songs"
  • Done

Side one

[edit]
  • "is an 8-minute epic" → "is an eight-minute epic" per MOS:NUM
  • Right my bad
  • Done
  • Remove target on "All the Madmen"
  • Done
  • "It contains a" → "The song contains a"
  • Done
  • "an atmosphere that Buckley" → "an atmosphere, which Buckley"
  • Done
  • No, British spelling
  • Done
  • "giving it a" → "noting the synthesizer gives it a"
  • Changed to ", noting that it gives the track"
  • Not necessary
  • "A blues-rock and" → "A blues rock and"
  • Done
  • [45][3] put in numerical order
  • Done
  • "impersonates Marc Bolan in" → "impersonates Bolan with"
  • Removed Marc
  • "different than the rest of the album," → "different from the rest of The Man Who Sold the World,"
  • Done
  • Remove wikilink on folk rock
  • Done
  • "Similar to "The Supermen", it references" → "Similarly to "The Supermen", the song references"
  • Done
  • Done

Side two

[edit]
  • Done
  • "of the album and points to" → "of The Man Who Sold the World and points towards"
  • No, getting very repetitive, the reader won't forget the name of the album at this point
  • "enhances this scenario." → "enhances the scenario."
  • Done
  • [54][43] put in numerical order
  • Done
  • "Like most of the tracks," → "Like the majority of the tracks,"
  • Done
  • "The lyric explores a" → "The lyrics explore a"
  • Done
  • You should mention who "You Shook Me" is by originally and add the release year in brackets; also add "Love in Vain" release year in brackets
  • I was originally going to but the ref doesn't give the original artist (I know it's Muddy Waters) or year so that'd technically be OR
  • Remove target on title track
  • Done
  • "Its lyrics are" → "The song's lyrics are"
  • Changed to just "The"
  • Add release year of the poem in brackets
  • Done
  • "The song's narrator has an" → "The narrator has an"
  • Done
  • Completely unnecessary
  • "are found on the rest of the album." → "are included on the rest of The Man Who Sold the World."
  • Again, readers know the name at this point
  • "features guiro percussion," → "features güiro percussion,"
  • Done
  • Remove target on "The Superman"
  • Done
  • "reflects the themes of Friedrich Nietzsche," → "reflects the themes of Nietzsche,"
  • Done
  • ""period piece" and later" → ""period piece", and later"
  • Done

Cover artwork

[edit]
  • "he used a photograph" → "Weller used a photograph"
  • Done
  • "as an allusion to" → "to be an allusion to"
  • Done
  • "to have the line" → "to include the line"
  • Done, the majority of this section was not written by me so sorry about that
  • "According to Bowie biographer Nicholas Pegg," → "According to Pegg,"
  • Done, forgot I mentioned him earlier; tend to expand out of order
  • Full-stop should not be in the quote since it is not a full sentence; maintain consistency
  • Done, sorry!
  • "been said that his" → "been said that Bowie's"
  • Done
  • "the photo, were inspired" → "the photo were inspired"
  • Done
  • "successfully lobbied the label" → "successfully lobbied the record label"
  • Done
  • "for the record's release in" → "for the release in"
  • Done
  • "of the as-yet-unreleased" → "of the then-unreleased"
  • Done
  • "The 1971 German release presented" → "The 1971 German release's artwork presented"
  • Done, it's funny for the fun of it I just looked up this cover to see if it's as bad as it sounds and oh god it's horrible xD
  • "This image remained" → "The image remained"
  • Done

Release

[edit]
  • Done
  • "by Mercury," → "by the aforementioned record label"
  • That just adds way too much
  • "from his preferred title" → "from his preferred title of"
  • Done
  • "persuade the label to retitle the album Holy Holy (after" → "persuade the record label to retitle the album to Holy Holy after"
  • Done
  • Remove the brackets at the end of the sentence too
  • Done, btw brackets [] are not the same as parentheses ()
  • "frequently and its" → "frequently and the"
  • Done
  • "that it developed an" → "that The Man Who Sold the World developed an"
  • Done, definitely ok here
  • Wikilink on the album is not needed since you did that earlier; maybe refer to it as Ziggy Stardust again?
  • Yeah you're right, fixed
  • "Mercury Records released "All the Madmen" as" → "Mercury released "All the Madmen" as"
  • Done
  • ""Janine" (from the previous album)" → ""Janine" from the previous album"
  • Change to "from Space Oddity
  • Done
  • "in Eastern Europe in 1973," → "in Eastern Europe during 1973,"
  • Done
  • Remove wikilink on "The Width of a Circle"
  • Done
  • Remove wikilink on "Black Country Rock"
  • Done
  • "as the B-side of" → "as the B-side to"
  • I've always used "B-side of"
  • Remove wikilink on "Holy Holy"
  • Done
  • "shortly before the album." → "shortly before the release of The Man Who Sold the World."
  • Done
  • Remove wikilink on "Space Oddity"
  • Done
  • Done

Commercial performance

[edit]
  • "nowhere else."" → "nowhere else"."
  • Done
  • "the album peaked at" → "The Man Who Sold the World peaked at"
  • Done

Critical reception

[edit]
  • "Upon release, The Man Who Sold the World was generally more well-received critically in" → "The Man Who Sold the World was met with generally more positive reviews from music critics in"
  • It's fine as is
  • "and commented that producer Tony Visconti's" → "and commented that Visconti's"
  • Done, believe that was there before expansion
  • "top-ten albums for" → "top 10 albums for" per MOS:NUM
  • Done
  • Done
  • "Erlewine viewed its music" → "He viewed its music"
  • Done
  • "adding that" → "adding that:"
  • Done
  • "Bowie's best albums"." → "Bowie's best albums.""
  • Done
  • "Q called it" → "the staff of Q called it"
  • Changed to "a writer for" as I'm sure it was only one person
  • "while Mojo wrote," → "while a Mojo columnist wrote,"
  • Done, although it's already linked above
  • "thrilling abandon again"." → "thrilling abandon again.""
  • Done
  • "Comparing it to" → "Comparing The Man Who Sold the World to"
  • Done
  • ""more effective" and" → ""more effective", and"
  • Done

Aftermath and legacy

[edit]
  • "and on stage." → "and on the stage."
  • In this case 'stage' is a general term. Doesn't mean one stage
  • "and his new manager Tony Defries was" → "and Defries, his new manager, was"
  • Sure
  • "he would see the artist" → "he would see the musician"
  • Worded the same way in Hunky Dory
  • "also departed due to other personal conflicts with the artist." → "also parted ways due to other personal conflicts with Bowie."
  • Sure
  • [95][80] put in numerical order
  • Done
  • "his best work with Bowie until" → "his best work with him until Bowie's fourteenth studio album"
  • Fine as is
  • "Despite the commercial flop" → "Regardless of the commercial flop"
  • Definitely reads better as is
  • That's actually a good point I didn't realize that until now. "Regardless" is just not the right word in this scenario though. Rearranged the sentence to "Although his new single "Holy Holy", recorded in autumn 1970 and released in January 1971, was a commercial flop,..." That better? – zmbro (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on the follow-ups" → "on the follow-up albums"
  • Done
  • Add release year of Hunky Dory in brackets
  • Done
  • "He also convened with" → "Bowie also convened with"
  • Done
  • "Author David Buckley has described that record as" → "Buckley has described the album as"
  • Done, have no idea how "that record" came to be put there
  • "Erlewine cites" → "Erlewine cited"
  • Done
  • "writing "Musically, it" → "writing: "Musically, it"
  • Done
  • "1971's Hunky Dory." → "1971's Hunky Dory.""
  • Done, that's embarrassing
  • "and important albums" → "and most important albums"
  • Done
  • No, British English
  • Done
  • "the release of this album," → "the release of The Man Who Sold the World,"
  • "attributed to Marc Bolan's appearance" → "attributed to Bolan's appearance"
  • Done
  • Done
  • "listed it at No. 45 in his top 50 favourite albums." → "listed it at number 45 on his top 50 favourite albums list."
  • Done, believe it was like that before expansion
  • "(produced by Bowie and Ronson)" → "that was produced by Bowie and Ronson"
  • Changed to "which was"
  • Remove target on Nirvana
  • Done

Reissues

[edit]
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • "originally issued as" → "that was originally issued as"
  • Done
  • "incorrectly list the" → "incorrectly listed the"
  • Done
  • "the album was reissued again" → "The Man Who Sold the World was reissued again" to avoid confusion with compilation album
  • Good point, done
  • Done
  • "in CD, vinyl," → "on CD, vinyl," with the target
  • Done
  • "of this compilation" → "of the compilation"
  • Done
  • "under its working title" → "under its working title of"
  • Done
  • "its 50th anniversary. It will" → "the 50th anniversary. The reissue will"
  • Done
  • "original Michael J. Weller artwork as" → "original artwork by Weller as"
  • Done
  • "For this release, Tony Visconti has" → "For the release, Visconti has"
  • Done, think this was written by someone else

Track listing

[edit]
  • Add a source to verify that Bowie wrote the songs, as well as one to verify the bonus tracks
  • Added, sorry about that

Personnel

[edit]
  • Fine as a redirect
  • Fixed

Charts

[edit]
  • The tables should be split from each other properly
  • Fixed
  • Should be fine now
  • Added OCC but Chart should be there
  • Done
  • Add (Billboard) in brackets for the Top Pop Catalog Albums chart
  • Done

References

[edit]
  • Removed a small non-important tidbit so hopefully that does it. Otherwise a direct quote is used and I'm not sure what else can be done about that.
  • Make sure all of these that can be are archived by using the tool
  • They are
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Fix MOS:QWQ issues and WP:OVERLINK of AllMusic with refs 47, 52, 53, 61 and 65
  • Sorry force of habit
  • WP:OVERLINK of Ultimate Classic Rock on ref 58
  • Done
  • It's just Parlophone
  • WP:OVERLINK of David Bowie on ref 76
  • Done
  • Are you sure ref 85 is a reliable source?
  • WP:OVERLINK of Rolling Stone on ref 90 and remove the publisher
  • Done
  • Remove the author from ref 92 and fix WP:OVERLINK of Mojo
  • Done
  • Done
  • WP:OVERLINK of Rolling Stone on ref 114
  • Done
  • Fix MOS:CAPS issues with refs 116 and 120
  • Done
  • WP:OVERLINK of Billboard on ref 121
  • Done

Bibliography

[edit]
  • Done
[edit]
  • Good

Final comments and verdict

[edit]
  • Kyle Peake Thanks for the review and your kind words. I honestly knew this wasn't ready for GA yet, due to so many basic errors you pointed out. I don't like nominating articles until I know they're fully ready and for this one, I just said what the hell. Still, thanks for reviewing, looking forward to our future interactions. – zmbro (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When did Ronson and Woodmansey depart?

[edit]

The current version of the article says:

In August 1970, Visconti parted ways with Bowie owing to his dislike of Defries and his frustration with Bowie's lack of enthusiasm during the making of The Man Who Sold the World; it was the last time he would see the artist for three or four years. Ronson and Woodmansey also departed due to other personal conflicts with Bowie.

This makes it sound as if Ronson and Woodmansey left in August 1970. They didn't: both played on several subsequent Bowie albums.

I added the phase "somewhat later", but it was reverted as "unnecessary". Seems to me that we either need to clarify when Ronson and Woodmansey left, or simply remove references to their departure from this section - since both continued to work with Bowie for at least three albums, their departure is probably not part of the "aftermath and legacy" of this album. And my understanding is that Bowie broke up the Spiders from Mars in a surprise announcement live on-stage in 1973, making the phrase "departed due to other personal conflicts with Bowie" technically true but misleading. i.e. Bowie fired the band, they didn't choose to leave on their own. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr swordfish Hi there. You actually don't have the full story. This section is a somewhat abridged version of the background section on Hunky Dory (which I expanded first). Bowie was preoccupied with lots of things when making TMWStW, so it was Visconti, Ronson, and Woodmansey who made most of the music on the album. Visconti became frustrated with this and left Bowie to work with T. Rex for the next four years in 1970. Ronson and Woodmansey DID in fact part ways with Bowie around the same time as Visconti, because the two felt they weren't compensated properly for their Man contributions. The two went and formed a new band called Ronno, which wasn't that successful.
Meanwhile, Bowie found a new manager, Tony Defries, released the original version of "The Prettiest Star" "Holy Holy", and formed a new band called Arnold Corns, which recorded "Moonage Daydream" and "Hang On to Yourself". That project was again a failure, and when it came time to record Hunky Dory, Bowie went back to Ronson to apologize for his prior behavior and asked him to return. Ronson, who by this point was ecstatic to come back to his entourage, gracefully accepted. Woodmansey came back as well, and Ronson found a new bassist, Trevor Bolder, to replace Visconti. This solidified the future Spiders from Mars line-up. Ronson and Bolder stayed with Bowie until Pin Ups in 1973, while Woodmansey's final record with Bowie was Aladdin Sane. Hope this clears things up. – zmbro (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your prompt reply filling in details of which I was unaware. I still think the current version is a bit confusing to someone (like me) who knows that Ronson and Woodmansey played on several subsequent Bowie albums but didn't know about the breakup and reconciliation. I'd suggest the following language:
In August 1970, Visconti parted ways with Bowie owing to his dislike of Defries and his frustration with Bowie's lack of enthusiasm during the making of The Man Who Sold the World; it was the last time he would see the artist for three or four years. Ronson and Woodmansey also departed due to other personal conflicts with Bowie to form a new band called Ronno (which was not successful), however both returned to record Hunky Dory.
Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mr swordfish I actually think it's fine the way it is, because after that sentence, it goes on about what Bowie did afterwards then later on says "Bowie also convened with Ronson and Woodmansey, who returned to play on both records." (Hunky Dory and Ziggy Stardust). I believe I originally had the Ronno info in this section but trimmed it down so that the info was solely relevant to Bowie and TMWStW. Plus, the information should be present in the Hunky Dory article (if I remember correctly) However, if you would like me to specify I can. Also, Bowie recorded "Holy Holy" after they departed, not "The Prettiest Star" (that was before Man and after Space Oddity). – zmbro (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now, having read if four or five times, I agree that it appears to be factually correct. As a casual reader the first time though it seemed at odds with what I knew about the disbanding of the Spiders from Mars, which happened several years after Visconti and Bowie parted ways. I think it would be worth re-editing to eliminate this potential confusion, but I don't have a concrete suggestion at this time. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

US release date (again)

[edit]

While sources routinely give 4 November 1970 as the US release date, might some sort of mention - in the body or a footnote or something - of the idea that it actually came out later be worth considering? Not to overwrite 4 Nov as the date but at least to suggest there's some debate there. The official Bowie blog have talked a few times like here and also here about it supposedly being released the other side of New Year (the latter also suggests the UK release was a few days earlier, too). --TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 12:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Might not hurt. If there's one thing I've disliked about writing Bowie is the website insistence of changing established release dates for everything. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 13:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Man_Who_Sold_the_World_(album)&oldid=1208754067"