Talk:Selected Ambient Works 85–92

More like this?

Can anyone offer me recomendations of albums/artists that sound like this particular album? I've checked out Aphex Twin's later stuff and it's not what I'm looking for. I guess I still want beats and a bit of techno in my ambient music. Tried BoC on recomendation, not what I'm after either.

So, any suggestions?

In responce to 195.92.168.171; nothing else sounds like this! A phenominal album. The closest reccomendations I could give you would be anything early by The Orb, Boards of Canada, or Kraftwerk. --Insomniak 12:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The best you're going to get is buying classic acid house, and buying classic ambient records. Joyrex 08:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Check out Substrata by Biosphere. 01:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you heard Surfing on sine Waves or Classics? 81.174.255.77 12:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It's really much like the ambient work of Tangerine Dream. I guess Aphex must have been heavily influenced by them. CheesePlease NL 14:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Name ONE TD track anything on this album sounds remotely like. I can't wait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.235.243 (talk) 04:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Joyrex - The Warp record label's got a few in a similar vein. Check out LFO (Frequencies). Also, Beaumont Hannant, Autechre, LFO, Alter-ego, B12 and the Artificial Intelligence Series. Insomniak's right though, none of it really comes close to this.

Incidentally I strongly believe that in the distant future, higher civilisations will look back at this album as the only significantly meritable piece of art to have come from humans during the 2nd Millenium, thus proving that Richard James can't have actually been one of us, but was a unique form of extra-terrestrial intelligence living alone among the rest of us apes...

Which way's that joint going? Traveller palm (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Who wrote the reception section, it's bordering on fellating Richard James, the tone is waaaaay off neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.59.48 (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

From redirect page

Didgeridoo isn't that fast, it's only about 146 bpm. And I don't know if it even should be here. Also, I would disagree with calling SAW 85-92 radio-friendly. XamiXiarus 14:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both these points and have edited the article accordingly. Moskvax 08:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not NPOV. Anyone know enough about this album to know if it should be rewritten from a neutral standpoint, or merely deleted? Jwrosenzweig 21:14 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Could this also follow the highlighting convention and use complete sentences?

Sample source Trivia

The line 'we are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams' actually comes from the original Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory film (the one with Gene Wilder, not the Jonny Depp one). The line is said by Wonka himself as a baffling and seemingly non-sequitur response to an awkward question from (I think) Mike TV during the factory tour.

It sits quite out of context with the rest of the script and comes as quite a jolt to the ears if you've listened to this album as many times as I have. I'd actually recommend any aphex twin fan watching the film again just for that line. Unless you're busy or something.

Should this go in the article?? Traveller palm (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's already in there. Sorry. Perhaps I should read the article before joining the discussion! Traveller palm (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Music from this album used in the media

One of these songs (sounded like Schottkey 7th Path to me) was heard on the 21/4/09 eddition of The One Show in a section about lampreys. Anyone else know of any other times when songs from this album were used in the media? Is this really significant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.26.57 (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Green Calx

Why Does this redirect from Green Calx?

Conkern65 (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Track title Redirects

I am going to redirect the song ptolemy to the astrologer, and the song Xtal to the crystal oscillator. Both of those tracks are named after that, and if there is no explination of this in the artical, at least allow me to keep the redirects. kthnx And if anyone edits this WITHOUT explaining to me WHY it is neccicary to do so, I will undo that edit.

CONKERN65 • Wins! Fatality! • 00:00, 26 April 1992 (UTC) (talk)

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Selected Ambient Works 85–92/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Davest3r08 (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Zmbro (talk · contribs) 16:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this, as a massive fan of this album. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I have already made various edits regarding missing info, such as placements on best of lists, as well as removing sources out of the lead section. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Comments

• Overall the article is looking good, but it needs some work before it can pass. Here are my main concerns:

• The lead section does not convey how important this album is to the electronic genre. It needs to convey its importance on a wider scale (i.e. what it was praised for, why it's important, etc.)

•  In progress Shouldn't take that long, as there is some information about the album's legacy in the reception section. Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 16:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• How's this going? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 00:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Zmbro, I think I should finish by tommorow. — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 00:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
    • @Zmbro,  Done— Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 22:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• The mention of Selected Ambient Works Volume II is technically WP:OR as it's only mentioned once in the whole article (in the lead section), and is unsourced at that. If Volume II must be mentioned, it should be in the body, as well as the major fact that it's a genre shift from 85–92  Done Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 13:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
• Most of the composition and reception sections consist of: "X person said this." "Y person said that", etc. While it's not that big a deal for GAs, it's still noticeable. Maybe try summarizing or being more general.
  • Maybe I could open a request at WP:GOCE/REQ? Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 22:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  If you decide to do that I'll have to fail this as you can't request copy edits with open articles that have open PRs, GANs, or FACs. Plus, you'll likely be waiting at least a few months before someone grabs it. It shouldn't be that big of a task. I just think a general summary of the article's contents would be best rather than "X person said this." "Y person said that"... But it's up to you. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  Zmbro, eh, as it's not much of an issue as you said, and as I have no plans to bring this to FAC, I'm marking this as  Not done. — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 23:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• This section still needs some rewording before passing. In composition alone there are five instances of the word "noted", which itself is a word to watch per WP:EDITORIAL. Then there are two "stated that" and two "wrote that". Again, I recommend trying to summarize more. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  In progress— Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 11:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
    • @Zmbro,  Done (I've replaced instances of "noted that" and "wrote that"). — Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 17:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Copyvio detector is at 35.9%. Seems to be because of duplicate quotes between two sources. Shouldn't be a problem. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 17:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• References

• ref 10: Is alt.rave reliable?  Removed Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 13:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
• ref 8: I doubt Space Age Bachelor is reliable  Removed Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 13:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
• ref 24: Soundcloud link that is missing ref info and I doubt is reliable as it is  Removed Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 13:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
• ref 23: missing work/publisher/date/author  Done Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 13:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

That's all for now. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• The article sometimes uses James' and other times uses James's. Use whichever one is considered British English. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
• Are you planning on using the Rock's Backpages review from The Wire listed under 'sources'? If not I'd remove it. I have access to it and it's only 154 words and doesn't really have much notable info so I'd be fine with removing it. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Zmbro, no. — Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 16:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• Any reason why no authors are mentioned in prose most of the time ("According to AllMusic," "Pitchfork stated that") while sometimes the authors are mentioned? ("Barney Hoskyns described", "Geeta Dayal of The Guardian wrote"). Choose one or the other (preferably the author listed because one writer said it, not the publication itself) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 21:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  In progress— Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 01:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
    •  Done— Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 13:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
      • (courtesy pinging @zmbro) — Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 13:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I have any more issues. The article is in much better shape and covers the album's importance much better. Prose could still use a little work, but this isn't FAC so it's perfectly fine for GA. Happy to ✓ Pass – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hilst talk 01:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Selected Ambient Works 85–92's audio quality has been described as poor due to being recorded on a cassette damaged by a cat? Source: Bush, John. "Selected Ambient Works 85‍–‍92 – Aphex Twin". AllMusic. Archived from the original on 8 June 2012. Retrieved 19 July 2017.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Dora and the Fantastical Creatures

Improved to Good Article status by Davest3r08 (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 16:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC).

General eligibility:

• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Hook is interesting and funny. Promoted to GA on the same day as the DYK nomination, QPQ satisfied. Earwig and spotcheck are clean, only proper nouns and quotes. No issues with citation. Hook is properly attributed in the article. No image to review. Passing DYK. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 23:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Cat damage

Was this deliberately recorded on a damaged cassette tape, or was the tape damaged sometime between recording and copies being made? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Compassionate727, the original AllMusic review states "Also, the sound quality is relatively poor; it was recorded direct to cassette tape and reportedly suffered a mangling job by a cat." So, most likely the damage by the cat was during the album's recording. — 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)