Talk:Dummy (album)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Electronic music Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reference ideas for Dummy (album)

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

<^>v!!This album is connected!!v<^>

All song titles serve as redirects to this album, have their own pages, or have been placed at the appropriate disambiguation pages.--Hraefen ^Talk 17:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article should contain the general meaning

This article should be moved to Dummy (album) --Supaari VaGayjur 14:06, 2004 Jun 8 (UTC)

Authenticity check: A search reveals that the phrase "regarded by many" appears in the text. Is the phrase a symptom of a dubious statement? Could a source be quoted instead? Perhaps the "many" could be identified? Might text be edited to more genuinely reflect specific facts?

Wetman

http://www.rhino.com/rs500/listing9.lasso Rolling Stone 500 Greatest Albums Ever #419. Dummy -Portishead http://www.spin.com/features/magazine/covers/2005/06/0507_cover_greatest_albums/ Spin Magazine 100 Greatest Albums, 1985-2005 74. Portishead, Dummy (Go! Discs/London, 1994)

Want more sources?

Citation needed

"both of which are allegedly musically derived from Gunter Kallman's 1968 song Daydream." Comment romoved. If this "allegation" is true, re-insert it, citing your sources. ▫ UrbaneLegend ^talk 23:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Sour Times.ogg

Image:Sour Times.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Does not appear on the U.K. edition"

Tracklist says that one of tracks "Does not appear on the U.K. edition".

Which one is it? --Amir E. Aharoni 15:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Covers section

Perhaps a good way to reduce the Miscellanea section would be to create a Covers section, since there are several references to covers versions of the tracks. It would basically have the same bulleted listing, but it seems more appropriate for an album page. There could also be another small section entitled something like Other Appearances for the remaining bullets that mention appearances of the tracks elsewhere. The thing with album pages, is that they usually have lots of statistics, listings, and random facts, but I think it's more appropriate in this case. I'd appreciate feedback on this opinion... I haven't researched it too much in the actual Wikipedia guidelines, so maybe I'm being redundant. --DJ Phazer 23:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:PortisheadDummy.jpg

Image:PortisheadDummy.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weather Report Sample

For the intro of "Strangers" I believe, the soprano saxaphone effect, I do believe it's sampled from a track from Weather Report's Black Market. It introduces the song, not unlike in "Strangers". Can anyone identify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrowleyHead (talk • contribs) 19:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Hayes Sample

For some reason there is a widespread but clearly incorrect belief that Portishead sampled Ike's Rap for Glory Box, but it's actually a sample from Hayes' version of Walk on By. The Tricky track is also taken from the same sample of Walk on By. Anyone who doubts this can search youtube for Isaac Hayes performing Walk on By. I changed this on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.98.253.38 (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll Never Fall In Love Again - Different Song

I've changed the composers of Johnnie Ray's "I'll Never Fall In Love Again" as it was written by him and is a completely different song to that by Bacharach and David. Ray's song was written over ten years before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.76.149 (talk) 10:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Release date not correct

I'm pretty sure the release date is incorrect.

Discogs says it has been released in October 1994 http://www.discogs.com/Portishead-Dummy/release/22840

I do a radio show since 1992 and when I heard "Numb" I immediately tried to get that 12". I played it in my show in September 1994. At that point the album has definitely not been released, 100% sure!

The Wiki-article mentions a footnote to iTunes where it gives 22. Aug 1994 as release date. I know that iTunes often has wrong dates, so this should not be a good reference for pre-iTunes-releases.

Allmusic also says October 1994. Rob van vee 05:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The correct (UK) release date, where it would have first been released, was 8 August 1994. I have changed the date to this, and added a reference (the BPI site, which details UK certifications, has 8 August 1994 listed as its release date). Furthermore, it entered the UK top 100 albums chart on the chart dated week ending 3 September 1994 (based on sales for the week 21-27 August 1994 inclusive), so it cannot have been released (in the UK) in October 1994.Nqr9 (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't say that – the US release date was October 1994, but the UK release date was indeed 22 August 1994... as you have noted, this would have meant it would have entered the chart w/e 3 September, which indeed it did (at number 32). Sadly the BPI isn't much good at quoting actual release dates either: the further back you go, the more you'll find it also has generic "first of the month" release dates, or even no date at all. I've actually gone back to find music magazines of the time in the British Library, and they confirm the 22 August release date: this ties in with the chart entry date as well. Richard3120 (talk) 05:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed the generic 1st of the month listed as the release date for a few BPI certifications. I know the album debuted that week in the UK chart, but thought it may still have been released two weeks earlier, given that they were a new act and it entered at #32. I have calculated UK release dates for some wikipedia articles by subtracting 12 days from the UK chart entry date (which gives the Monday of the sales week the chart was based on, as new releases were generally out on Mondays in the UK back then), and 22nd August would be release UK release date using this method, assuming it entered the chart after one week of sales. I believe you about the music magazines in the British Library... it just seems strange that the BPI would have 8 August as the release date, given that it's not a generic 1st of month date. Perhaps it was originally scheduled to be released then, but put back a fortnight? I changed the date on the Portishead discography article too, if you want to change that back.Nqr9 (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nqr9: You could be right about the release date being put back three weeks. But it was definitely released on 22 August, I have music magazines from the time confirming the date... that last week in August 1994 saw Dummy, Jeff Buckley's Grace and Oasis' Definitely Maybe all released within seven days of each other... what chances nowadays of three classic albums being released within a week? Anyway, you are right about the "12 day" method for calculating release dates in the UK: up until 1984-85 records were usually released on the Friday beforehand instead of the Monday, so the 12 days becomes 15 days.

I don't really understand how the BPI arrives at its dates – for instance, looking at the Beatles' certifications, for "Free As a Bird" there's no release date at all, and that was out in 1995, after Dummy. At the Hollywood Bowl is given as released on 13 May 1977 (so not a generic date) but charted on 21 May, nine days later, yet Love Songs was released the same year, apparently on 28 November, but charted on 17 December 1977, 19 days later... there's no consistency there at all, which is why I prefer to avoid using the BPI as a source for release dates before the age of the internet. Richard3120 (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dummy (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031223203129/http://kotinetti.suomi.net/heikki.hietala/Interviews/Geoff%20Untitled.htm to http://kotinetti.suomi.net/heikki.hietala/Interviews/Geoff%20Untitled.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 10:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Richard3120 (talk) 14:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only Gold Certified?

How is this album only gold certified in the U.S. if it's sold 1.1 million copies there? 2601:644:8501:4BA:ADF1:2B7C:4DDC:EB69 (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Certifications are not awarded automatically based on the number of sales, in the US, in the UK, or anywhere. It is up to the record company to apply for a certification, and the sales need to be independently audited, the paperwork submitted, and the label also has to pay for the certification. Hence many smaller labels who don't have the finances of the major labels simply don't bother getting their records certified. And that's why certification is not an automatic guarantee of the number of sales, or vice versa. Richard3120 (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]