Talk:Station to Station

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleStation to Station 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 starStation to Station 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
November 4, 2008Good article nomineeListed
August 8, 2022Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Releases, sides and labels etc.[edit]

  • US and U.K. release dates may be noted separately. Cute flags can even be used.
  • For the first remastering, Rykodisc (Dr. Mountain) did the remastering, and EMI released them in the U.K.
  • Would it be good it separate the original release into sides one and two? (by asking the question I obviously think so.)
  • Are catalog/catalogue numbers necessary?

On another point... "namechecking" sephirot is kind of... well, let's just say "namecheck" is not the right word. Can't think of it now, have to get ready for work.

Gloop. Fantailfan (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate, tks for the vote of confidence re. GA. Been spending so much time on military articles recently I'd put off a review for this but probably time now. In response to your points:
  1. Based on general guidelines and album FAs I've checked I don't think the flags are a goer, but no prob re. the separate release dates.
  2. Yep, Mountain and EMI can probably go in somewhere.
  3. Articles on albums that started out as LPs seem to be moving to Side 1 and 2 divisions so no issue there.
  4. I don't have a strong opinion on the catalogue numbers. A fellow editor went through and put them in all the Bowie album articles and I wasn't fussed either way. Since it's a bit of a 'standard' in the Bowie ones I think I'd leave for now and see what the consensus is from a review.
Agree "namechecks" isn't the best in this context, "alludes to" or "references" would be more appropriate but I used similar words nearby and couldn't think of anything else – suggestions welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re. #1, not aware of different UK/US release dates at this stage; done #3; modified "namechecks" as best I could. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have in my hand the EMI 1999 version and it has a hidden track 7, a version of Station to Station which I can't actually distinguish from the version at track 1, although it is 10:12 compared with track 1's 10:14. The disc also a CD-ROM interactive version. Zoe 06:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoe Buchanan (talk • contribs)

White Light Tour?[edit]

I've never heard it called that. So far as I know it's always referred to as the Thin White Duke tour. Anybody else got a view? BTLizard (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a citation for 'White Light Tour', so I think we can say that's at least a valid term. However, since it's not the only one, I've reworded the subsection heading to the more generic 'Concert tour'. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Station to Station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
  • 1. Well written
    • "Bowie said that it was written for – and rejected by – Elvis Presley, while his wife at the time Angie claimed it was penned for her." For a second I thought "his wife" referred to Presley's wife. May want to reword.
    • "('Since when has that ever stopped him from doing anything?', quipped NME's Roy Carr and Charles Shaar Murray later)." Eh, kind of unencyclopedic.
      • Hmm - thought it was a good quote that does say something about the artist, or at least how he's perceived, as well as adding to the cover commentary. If I lose the "quipped", would you change your mind or are set you on dropping it entirely? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Changed "quipped" to "asked" for now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hmm...I still find the comment distracting. Also, the paragraph could probably lead off the "Release and reception" section instead of standing on its own. —Zeagler (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Worked Cover section into Release & Reception. Left contentious quote to see how it looks in its new home - still think a bit of humour doesn't do the article harm...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh, all right. Bet it doesn't survive FAR, though. —Zeagler (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "'Stay'...was issued as a companion 45 to RCA's ChangesOneBowie greatest hits collection (though it did not appear on the compilation) which was itself packaged as a uniform edition to Station to Station." A little confusing; how about "...hits collection, though it did not appear on the compilation. (ChangesOneBowie was itself packaged as a uniform edition to Station to Station.)?
    • By the way, what does "uniform edition" mean?
      • Similar packaging (primarily lettering). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added a citation for this now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Could you explain it in the article as you did here? I don't think that's a common term – at least not in the States. —Zeagler (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd recommend summarizing the Rolling Stone and Circus reviews as you did with the one from Billboard.
      • I'll see what I can do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • See if it's more what you had in mind now... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since there's only one certification, drop that section and incorporate it into the "Release and reception" prose.
      • No prob - didn't actually put that in myself anyway... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm making a couple of changes to the last sections, and here's why (We can discuss if you disagree):
      • Removing the "LP: RCA / APL1 1327 (UK)" header in the track listing, as it's unnecessarily narrow. (Someone may wonder if the track listing is unique to this issue.) That track listing is the same on every version up until the CD reissues that you've covered well.
        • Again, another editor put those in for all the RCA Bowie albums and I wasn't fussed, so not fussed if they go either...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Same with the bonus tracks...unless you can confirm that no other issue has bonus tracks.
        • Ditto. Just not sure if Reissues subheader looks right at the same level as Side One and Side Two. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Breaking off a "Production" section from "Personnel" to conform to most featured articles.
        • Okay, only thing I don't like is a section with just one subsection. Is there a standard subheader we can use for the musicians? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2. Factually accurate and verifiable
    • Since you're referencing a few books many times (and totaling a range of pages), it would be a good idea to use shortened footnotes.
      • Yeah, you're right. I'm actually quite used to doing it the way you suggest in my many MILHIST articles, this is just following the way I've done it in the other Bowie album articles (which doesn't make it right of course). I'm happy to break it into a short Notes section followed by a full References section. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd still like to see more specific notes for the books you're citing. See Californication (album), where each idea gets its own note. That means that some separate references will look identical ([16], [17] and [18]), while others will cover multiple ranges of pages in one reference [21].
            • I think the page range for the main Pegg citation is fairly narrow, same with the main Carr/Murray one (though I have narrowed it still more). The main Buckley one is admittedly too broad so I'm in the process of making his more page-specific and will aim to do the same with Wilckin. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Drop the citations in the lead (except for the one referring to the quote). I don't mind your inclusion of a quote in the lead that's not mentioned later in the article, since it's a summary of an idea that's discussed in more detail in the body.
    • There are some non-standard references (the Rykodisc CD reference, for example) that I will try to take care of myself.
      • Great, thanks - didn't know there was such a template. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm going to convert remaining references to the templates for consistency. —Zeagler (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Tks. I made some tweaks all round to cover the differences in the templates and display the info in a similar manner, e.g. page numbers, full stops, etc. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3. Broad in its coverage
    • (Just a heads-up that the Rolling Stone review in the infobox was removed by someone else without an explanation.)
    • I'm not sure how the "The Man Who Fell to Earth soundtrack" section is relevant to this album.
      • It's pretty well always included in discussions on the album, say in Carr/Shaar-Murray, Pegg, Buckley, etc. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm more sure that the "Victoria Station" section is not relevant to this album; it would be appropriate in the David Bowie article, however.
      • I think it's a bit difficult to present a rounded article on the album without discussing The Thin White Duke and the Bowie's foibles while supposedly under the influence of that character. Again, this is not so much my assessment as a distillation of discussions of the album in the major sources. Still, I'll look it over. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Eliminated subheaders and cquotes to give the Aftermath section more obvious flow; in any case the Victoria Station stuff was always related to the tour, which I gathered you were okay with including in the first place - again, let me know what you think now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, so this info is relevant because Bowie was still operating in Duke-mode for the soundtrack work and Nazi salute incident. Let's slip in some reminders of that...someone not familiar with Bowie's characters might not pick up on it. —Zeagler (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second paragraph of the "Legacy" section seems like trivia to me. If there were quotes from these artists about Station to Station and its influence, that would be different. As it is, we're just left to infer (perhaps erroneously) that the album was influential to the artists who name-dropped it.
      • This dates from before there was a significant move against 'pop culture' sections (and has somehow survived without anyone slapping a trivia tag on it)! Not sure about quotes from artists (but will search), however if I cited the references from works discussing the album, would that make their inclusion more reasonable? That will cut down the number of them anyway... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dropped entirely - if I find worthwhile cited material that prompts reinstating any, will do so but for now... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4. Neutral
    • "It was a substantial hit" is a POV statement. Just stick to the numbers.
    • Another one in the lead: "Featuring the hit single..."

Nice job in creating an informative article for an underappreciated album. Hope these fixes won't be too difficult (converting the references will probably be tedious, though...). I'll try to be around to help. —Zeagler (talk) 12:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for reviewing. Don't worry about the references, tedium is part of the deal...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Believe tonight's efforts mean all points are more-or-less actioned - will await your response. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Everything not commented on in this round has been sufficiently addressed. —Zeagler (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Completed last round of actions - your turn again...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passed! You're one of the good guys; a pleasure to deal with. I'd be happy to review any of the Bowie or Roxy Music articles you nominate in the future. —Zeagler (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to move "Aftermath" section to the David Bowie article[edit]

I feel that the Aftermath section would fit better in the general David Bowie article, as it isn´t so much about Station to Station as about what happened on the subsequent tour. These rather controversial "incidents" are currently quite badly covered in the Bowie article (last paragraph of this section in the current version). Opinions? – IbLeo (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the Bowie article treats it poorly, with vague and unsubstantiated statements - annoying as I'm quite sure I put in some more specific detail, mentioning the Victoria Station incident by name for example, in an earlier version and it's obviously been whittled away without my picking it up. Yes, we probably should take some of this and get it into the Bowie article but, as I said in the GA review (see 3. Broad in its coverage above), I'm reluctant to lose it here as I think it gives a fuller picture of the album's history, and it also balances the Background section. I'm pretty sure I've seen such Aftermath sections in other album articles, including FAs, though admittedly I couldn't name them off the top of my head as I don't spend that much time on music subjects these days... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I admire your good work to rise this article to GA, and I understand your concern about moving the section. On the other hand, I don't believe that too much information should be repeated in different articles. So I compromised by adding a reference to the Aftermath section in the David Bowie article (this edit). – IbLeo (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Station to Station/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article should be put up for GA. Fantailfan (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 11:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 06:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Station to Station. 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:

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 01:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Krautrock influence?[edit]

Aside from the opening electronics of the title track, does anyone know of reported instances of a "krautrock" sound on the album? I know plenty of critics have written that there's a krautrock sound on the record but I'd love some more specific examples. The opening sound on "Station to Station" is clearly a Kraftwerk homage, and then I suppose the funk sound could be connected to CAN (Ege Bamyasi in particular) but even then, the funk sound in CAN is hardly their defining "krautrock" characteristic. Other than the fact that Bowie was reportedly listening to a lot of contemporary German artists around this time...where is the krautrock on Station to Station? Genuinely curious. Tactical Fiend (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tactical Fiend I've found that the biggest influence of Krautrock on Station to Station is in the title track. When expanding its page, most critics have pointed out krautrock's influence in the song, most notably in the opening noise, but it's also prevalent later on when the tempo changes. Most biographers and Bowie himself have stated that the title track is the direct bridge between Young Americans and Low, which is Bowie's definitive Krautrock-influenced work. While the album itself is commonly regarded as the bridge, certain songs on the album like "Golden Years" and debatably "Stay" sound a lot more like YA than Low. But in terms of specifically krautrock, it's the title track that has the most influence of that genre. – zmbro (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zmbro I suppose I can hear that, with the experimental nature of the song. I've definitely had that thought about Young Americans and Station to Station. Station to Station is kind of the evil twin of Young Americans, to my ears. Tactical Fiend (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tactical Fiend I can see that as well. Even though StS doesn't have the backing vocals of YA, tracks like "Golden Years" could easily be placed on YA with no issue. You have other funky tracks like "TVC 15" and "Stay" while others like "Word on a Wing" is a little soul-like and "Wild Is the Wind" is a ballad, which I don't recall Bowie making much of during this time in his career. Low is the massive outlier in Bowie's catalogue in terms of style. "Heroes" has the electronics of Low but in a more pop manner, so Low is his most electronic album (you can make the exception of "Be My Wife" which is more rock than electronic). I also find it interesting that Low has like 5 or 6 instrumentals, which was for sure something Bowie rarely did, but that can explain, or foreshadow, why he doesn't start his vocals in "Station to Station" until 3 minutes in. I would also call StS the "evil twin" of YA, especially since the Thin White Duke was his darkest character, and he moved to Berlin to escape that part of him. – zmbro (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zmbro Perhaps you've already checked this out, but I recently finished the Low entry in the 33 1/3 series. Highly recommended, great history about not only Low, but some background on Station to Station and even The Idiot. I've read a few other entries in that series, some good some bad. This one does a good job of giving a lot of details on the writing and recording of Low without getting bogged down in the writer's opinions or "relationship with the music". Tactical Fiend (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extra track listings[edit]

Ian Rose Per WP:ALTTRACKLIST, should all these extra tracklists be included? Live Nassau Coliseum '76 seems unnecessary since that has its own page now, while things like the DVDs can be put into prose. What do you think? – zmbro (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi zmbro, are you talking about under Deluxe edition or under the overall 2010 reissues section? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose, The overall 2010 reissues section. – zmbro (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, frankly I always felt that section overbalanced the article a bit, if you can reduce in line with MOS I'd say why not. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Artwork[edit]

Ian Rose Something I just thought of, should we add the 2010 artwork as an additional one? (this one). I ask because I typically see both the original and that one associated with the album almost interchangeably. – zmbro (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zmbro, yeah, although you can't see it in the article snapshot under Milestones anymore, I'm sure I would've included both when I put it up at GAN, and somewhere along the way it's been deleted. If I noticed it go, I can't recall what justification would've been used, and can't see a reason for not including it again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Station_to_Station&oldid=1211381900"