Talk:All Lights Fucked on the Hairy Amp Drooling

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 3 May 2020, see discussion.
redirect, 3 May 2020, see discussion.

This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep.

Verification?

Is there any proof that this actually exists? As beloved as Godspeed is (and considering how obsessive some of their fans can be), if there was a copy of this, it most likely would've been ripped and be circulating the internet. Or is it already? I suspect that it's some sort of band in-joke, but as it's listed as an official release by several authorities, there has to be a copy out there somewhere. Chris Berry 04:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is proof that this recording exists. See the Wayback Machine's results. However, I doubt any physical proof will ever be found. angular (discuss·contribs) 03:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Their non-traditional record company could be lying. 24.91.16.229 06:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There would be a master somewhere - no record company would just sit on an album they know people would buy. The tape doesn't exist, and neither do any of the songs. --NEMT 16:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NEMT - This doesn't necessarily follow - If the band, specifically Efrim, doesn't want it released, I could believe that Constellation would respect that. La Monte Young has famously refused to release Theatre of Eternal Music recordings for nigh on 40 years! Of course, the theory that it's a joke is believable too.

.... Efrim never said he doesn't want it released. He said he doesn't care enough to go out of his way to release it. He even said he's looked on the internet to see if someone's posted it because it would be interesting. 68.84.235.198 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was self-released so maybe they just had one master tape,dubbed 33 copies and then the master was worn out and at the time no one cared about,because they didnt thought this band/project would last so long.And as far as i know Constellation and the Godspeed collective is most likely the same people or at least close friends.They are not doing it to make money.So just because people want to hear and buy it,doesnt mean they made it up,just to make them look more interesting,if in fact the band just doesnt want it to be released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.137.6.108 (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, this page lists Mike Moya as a member on this release, but the Constellation page doesn't. --Vans74 18:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

email

not suitable for wikipedia obviously, but CST have confirmed by emails posted on afterthepostrock.com that they have a copy of the cassette and that nobody's allowed to hear it. Obviously they could be lieing but they have made claims this specific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.214.63 (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

How the hell do you know its post-rock if you've never heard it.apparantly the genre of the album was more like funk jazz,and that they hadn't experimented with post rock yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirvanarox55 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can only assume it's because GSYBE is dominantly post-rock so it's a safe assumption that this would be as well? TheLongingSH (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this article says it is not post-rock http://thefourohfive.com/news/article/interview-efrim-menuck-of-a-silver-mt-zion 220.20.201.191 (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recently surfaced.

There's some drama going on right now surrounding a tape that surfaced on reddit. Side A was ripped before the person with the tape backed out and deleted his post. That's the cause of the recent vandalism.

It might be noteworthy to post that a physical copy is known to exist out side of constellation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.151.167 (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The track here sounds like Efrim singing: http://www.tinymixtapes.com/news/godspeed-you-black-emperors-long-lost-debut-cassette-all-lights-fucked-on-the-hairy-amp-droolin

I'm just making the case for including a mention of the rumor or possible hoax. The argument that the supporting footnotes aren't "notable" enough doesn't hold water unless one were to also argue for the deletion of the entire article.

The article itself is supported almost entirely by references to sources that are as "non notable" as the ones I used to support mentioning the supposed surfacing of the tape on reddit.com, with exception of the label Website. However, I don't think one single reliable (albeit arguably NOT neutral third party) source isn't enough to justify the existence of the article. I do think that the other references indicate it should be included, I'm only making this point to support keeping my edit mentioning the Reddit.com incident/rumor. If it turns out to be a hoax (or not), the page can then be edited to reflect that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roomsmoody1924 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An IP user has taken issue with my inclusion of the (possible) hoax surfacing of this tape on reddit and removed my edit without discussion. I've reverted this and would like to raise the issue here. See my above comment - and might I add it's absurd to suggest that because I'd like to include this incident in the article that I am the perpetrator of the supposed hoax.

Roomsmoody1924 (talk) 01:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with including references to the hoax is not the notability of the sources, but the content of the information - unverified, sketchy, and reported on as such. Including the information muddies the (verified) information concerning an already enigmatic article. There have been numerous attempts at faking this record over the years, also reported as gossip on low-level blogs, and this one's no different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.122.112 (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on All Lights Fucked on the Hairy Amp Drooling. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.cstrecords.com/html/allfuckedb.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on All Lights Fucked on the Hairy Amp Drooling. 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/20090801104058/http://www.splendidezine.com/features/godspeed/ to http://www.splendidezine.com/features/godspeed/

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 13:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged tracklist

This page for some time had a supposed track list for this phenomenon, which I removed. I wanted to start a thread for discussion with the person who's been re-posting that list. As I noted in the edit summary, we need something third-party to substantiate the tracklist per WP:V. A (virtually unreadable) single, primary source isn't sufficient to demonstrate that this is a genuine release; we have no documentation of the contents of this release from a reliable third-party source and no ability to compare it to the (alleged) original release itself. If it were an ordinary published work, like most bands' releases, none of this would be necessary, but this is a special case and requires reliable, exceptional sourcing. Chubbles (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4chan leak

Information about the recent potential leak on 4chan's /mu/ board is trying to be deleted on the grounds of being irrelevant. Most of this article is about the tape's obscurity and people's interest in finding it. This is the first potential leak in almost a decade so yes it's absolutely relevant, even if it turns out (probably) fake like the Reddit debacle. If you want to ignore this development then might as well delete the paragraph about the Reddit hoax too, or just nuke the whole article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:710F:6C00:B00C:F068:12AC:6D03 (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since reliable media (Exclaim!) is covering it, it may be added, but only insofar as the statements are supported by the reliable media. Speculations will be removed. Chubbles (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove "claimed to be" from lede

A member of the group, its label, and several reliable sources have acknowledged its release. 66.30.12.132 (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources have then just provide a citation, and make the change. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but unfortunately, some editors here have a very biased opinion and made baseless claims in the past. For instance, one editor stated the following to justify page deletion ("the "album" appears to have been a rumor invented or encouraged by the band for the sake of having an air of mystique"), which is pure non-sense. That said, I do not think that the recent leak of the tape on some obscure forum is a particularly good reason to change anything to this page. There are hundreds of thousands of old records and tapes for which there is no trace of digital files on the internet. Hence the presence of a digital version does not seem particularly relevant. 82.10.25.108 (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources have reported on an alleged leak. We don't have a reliable source reporting any empirical confirmation. When and if that happens, I'm happy to see the wording of the page change. Chubbles (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, I'm not referring to the leak. I'm suggesting the first sentence change from "is claimed to be the earliest release" to "is the earliest release". 66.30.12.132 (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources have reported on the alleged leak of a possibly extant album. We don't have a reliable source reporting any empirical confirmation that the audio released is, in fact, the possibly extant album. Sorry for being insufficiently clear. Chubbles (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And to also try to be perfectly clear, I'm not referring to *any* subsequently released audio; I'm referring only to the existence of the original 1994 cassette this article describes, noted in/by The Wire (1998), Constellation (2000), Efrim Menuck (2000 & 2010), The Rough Guide to Rock (2003), and The Encyclopedia of Popular Music (2011), all of which state or treat the album as fact. 66.30.12.132 (talk) 13:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And all of the third-party sources did so in absence of any actual audio (Constellation's own website and statements from Menuck are primary). Kind of remarkable lapse in journalistic integrity, actually, though an understandable one. However, it's noteworthy that the reporting on the most recent event is extraordinarily careful not to make definitive statements that this is the "missing album". Chubbles (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRIMARY: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label..." 66.30.12.132 (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent guideline, that I explicitly supported, for the 99.99999% of cases where the existence of the published record is not in doubt. This is the edge case. Chubbles (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said earlier, I do not understand why this would be more in doubt than thousands of records and tapes for which almost no trace can be found on the internet. Think for example of professional libraries for films and TV, which are officially released in extremely limited editions. While people are unreasonably intense about this particular tape, I really do not understand the doubt. 82.10.25.108 (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those limited-edition releases don't have articles; most of them aren't mentioned on any Wikipedia page at all. If they were, and no audio could be confirmed by any third-party source, the same level of circumspection should apply. Chubbles (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since at least a couple editors don't share your doubt and we're at an impasse, an RfC (below) may be a way forward. 66.30.12.132 (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC regarding the album description "claimed to be"

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.

Officially (re)released by the band on Bandcamp. DigitalIceAge (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Should the article's opening album description change from "is claimed to be the earliest release" [emphasis added] to "is the earliest release"? 18:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Context: previous discussion. (NB: this RfC concerns only the original cassette release, not any subsequent purported releases.)

The existence of the original 1994 album this article describes has been noted by multiple reliable cited sources without expression of doubt, including the group's current label Constellation Records (2000) and member Efrim Menuck (2000 & 2010 interviews), as well as RSes such as The Wire (1998), The Rough Guide to Rock (2003), and The Encyclopedia of Popular Music (2011); Menuck also discusses it in Fearless: The Making Of Post-Rock (2017) and member Ian Ilavsky discusses it in Storm Static Sleep - A Pathway Through Post Rock (2015). WP:PRIMARY states: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label" [emphasis added]. Although one editor has expressed doubt and previously reverted this change, I believe applying policy with these sources is sufficient to avoid expressing skepticism. Separate text challenging the credibility of the original album's release could be added, but only if there is significant reliably-sourced expression of doubt. 66.30.12.132 (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted above, that guideline exists because, in virtually all cases, what we are verifying is the existence of a published work whose mere existence is plain to establish - it is in record stores, libraries, sound archives, or on streaming and digital download platforms. All Lights Fucked, if it ever existed, was not available in any of those places, until, maybe, last week. The alleged album - the existence of the work itself - does not pass WP:V, and the reporting on the possible leak in the past week has hewn to that viewpoint. I think our article should continue to follow those sources unless and until it can be established that this anonymously leaked audio is, in fact, the alleged album. Chubbles (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The band and their record label have already acknowledged the existence of the tape. Most bands do not comment on anonymously uploaded low-quality files of their music uploaded on the web, so I am not sure why they would be expected to provide any comments in this case. 82.10.25.108 (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support changing the lead. The comment above "Kind of remarkable lapse in journalistic integrity" is a weird bad-faith argument, because aside from their experimental leanings the band is fairly straight-ford and not known for pulling pranks and being unreliable with the press a la The Residents. If multiple reliable sources establish this as their first demo (even before the leak), we should be able to call a spade a spade. DigitalIceAge (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2022 (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.

"Official release"

A brief discussion arose today at the List of 2022 albums talk page about whether the original 1994 release should be considered "official" or not, given its limited scope and the apparent attempts to bury the album's existence prior to the recent leak/new release. A number of sources (e.g. The Line of Best Fit, Exclaim!, and Pitchfork) are calling this new release "official" which prompted me to add the album to the 2022 list, but the concern is that the original release should perhaps take precedent in this case, meaning the album gets listed in 1994 instead. Before making any edits in this regard, I'd like to see a consensus around this question: Do we consider the original 1994 release to be "official" despite the aforementioned factors, or do we follow the sources claiming the 2022 release is "official" and leave it as is? QuietHere (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the first release not be official? It was not a bootleg. I have tons of records and tapes than were issued in 50 copies. 33 was probably too many. I don’t know what drives Wikipedians so crazy about this poor article… Tothebarricades (talk) 05:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Genre and hidden note

I added a hidden note to the genre section which was rolled back so I'd like to provide an explanation here as to why the hidden text is valuable and meets guidelines. The text is:

I added this following the third time I removed various unsourced genres from the article. [1], [2], [3], [4]. Genres were removed in accordance with WP:UNSOURCED (see also WP:GWAR).

I think this falls completely in line with the recommended usage of WP:HIDDEN, specifically:

Reminding others of Wikipedia policies where they have been frequently broken. For example, in many articles, hidden text is necessary to remind editors not to add inappropriate links. On the page Help:Getting started, hidden text is used to let others know not to write their first article on that page.

And with regards to being peremptive, the bullet point reads:

Telling others not to perform certain edits to a page, unless there is an existing guideline or policy against that edit.

There is a guideline here: WP:OR. The description does not preclude additions of genres, only those without sourcing.

AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially the same notice appears in the default version of Template:Infobox_album, as well as two others. I think the fact that those have been there forever and nobody's said anything about it is evidence enough that these notices are okay. The whole point of WP:HIDDEN text is to leave notes and reminders for editors, and that's what is being accomplished in this case. QuietHere (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue is with the hectoring tone. As the guideline notes, it should be worded in a way that doesn't make it sound like a decree from on high. Chubbles (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The tone is exactly the same as the one in the template which reads . If you have an issue with it I suggest you take it up there rather than here. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Chubbles (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious track lengths

Although MOS:ALBUM says "Track lengths should be included for each track", the only official (Bandcamp) release doesn't specify them. The actual track delineation is ambiguous, so the currently listed track lengths are WP:OR and should be removed (with another hidden RS admonition!), leaving only the verifiable totals. 66.30.12.132 (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that track lengths without an WP:RS should be removed. I've seen a few edits changing them from one thing to another without any sourcing. I think though it would be worthwhile to include the side lengths given in the bandcamp since those can be sourced from the bandcamp just fine. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done; yes, that's what I meant by retaining the verifiable totals.
Also, I think we can bump the article quality to B at this point? 66.30.12.132 (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trying one more time... This is the full extent of the detail I see when viewing the Bandcamp release page:

	
1. all lights fucked on the hairy amp drooling- SIDE A1 17:23
2. all lights fucked on the hairy amp drooling- SIDE A2.wav 17:45
3. all lights fucked on the hairy amp drooling- SIDE B1.wav 17:51
4. all lights fucked on the hairy amp drooling- SIDE B2 16:35

SIDE A
drifting intro open / shot thru tubes / threethreethree / when all the furnaces exploded / beep / hush / son of a diplomat, daughter of a politician / glencairn 14 / $13.13 / loose the idiot dogs / diminishing shine / random luvly moncton blue(s) / dadmomdaddy

SIDE B
333 frames per second / revisionist alternatif wounds to the hairkut hit head / ditty for moya / buried ton / and the hairy guts shine / hoarding / deterior 23 / all angels gone / deterior 17 / deterior three / devil's in the church / no job / dress like shit / perfumed pink corpses from the lips of ms. celine dion

We don't know the individual track times; we do know the specific grouping of the tracks into two sides.

I've been trying to convey that the best way to provide this info is this version (which lists the tracks and divides them by the A and B sides) rather than this version (which lists the track names but guesses how they're divided among the four parts) or this version (which shows unimportant detail about the four parts' times but doesn't even list the track names). 66.30.12.132 (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I had missed that the bandcamp provided the track names. I think what is best even if it is a little bit awkward is to have two separate track lists. 1 for the cassette release with all the tracks and no unsourced timing information. And one for the bandcamp release with the verifiable time. This is similarly done on other Godspeed albums such as G_d's Pee at State's End!, Luciferian Towers, 'Allelujah! Don't Bend! Ascend!, Yanqui U.X.O. and F♯ A♯ ∞. Since it seems multiple track listings are a common theme for them. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 12:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that, although another editor has repeatedly removed the detailed track listing of the cassette release in the past, saying it lacks a reliable source... 66.30.12.132 (talk) 12:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was before the existence of the album was independently substantiated. I no longer have objections to using images of the cassette label as a primary source for basic factual verification. Chubbles (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the changes to the listing and I really had a hard time understanding what was going on. Both were listed as two tracks. One with all the track names of each side squished together into a single track and the other as two sides. This doesn't seem to reflect either cases, the cassette back lists 27 tracks, and the bandcamp lists 4. I've updated it to reflect those listings. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

<groan> I modeled the cassette listing after G_d's Pee at State's End!#Track_listing as you suggested. Your vertical cassette listing doesn't delineate the sides (which its insert clearly does) and wastes space since there is (and will likely never be) length information displayed, and your digital listing doesn't list the (actual) track (piece) names, forcing users to read the reference to know them. I think your version is significantly worse. 66.30.12.132 (talk) 11:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The point of linking the article was to show that multiple listings for tracks are common-place. Especially between digital and physical releases for Godspeed You! Black Emperor. That article copies the tracks as they are from the listing. The slashes are not an invention of the editor, they are that way because that is how they are listed (bandcamp). I think we should do our best to faithfully represent the sources rather than making up a track listing. As far as delineating sides we can simply do that, it's in the source. I wouldn't really consider that a relevant piece of information, but it can be done easily and I don't really care. I think wasting space is a complete non-issue, the point of the section is to provide information about the tracks, and there are a lot of tracks. Squishing them into a unreadable blob does nothing to help anyone. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the delimiters should have been "•" rather than "/" per the insert! But this is where I finally bail out. 66.30.12.132 (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]