Talk:Faust IV

Fair use rationale for Image:FaustIV.jpg

Image:FaustIV.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 05:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

About the track listing

A track called "Picnic on a Frozen River" was previously released on "So Far"; on the original vinyl it was listed lasting 36 seconds, later CDs have it extended to over 40 seconds. That track has no melody whatsoever, it sounds rather like a joke as the band is playing just random notes. Nothing like this can be heard on "IV". People are also arguing about the title of the other theme introduced at about 4:00 on track 5 here, the one that starts off with the actual "Gilly Smiles". Again, when you listen to the track 6 which is called "I've Got My Car and My TV" on "So Far" you can hear the exact same theme kicking in at about 1:19 there. Can anybody explain this mess and what is actually right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.46.27.60 (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I am not certain what the printed listing showed for the timing of POAFR on the original So Far album sleeve, but on the original album itself the track starts at about 32m16s and continues to about 34m38s, a total of 2 minutes 22 seconds. That's obviously different than the listing shown on Faust_So_Far, so I wonder if that was taken from a later print or not? Either way, it's not correct.

Unfortunately I no longer have the album cover, but listening to the album can verify that the section from 32m16s is POAFR, being obviously another version with the same repeating theme.

Having looked at some online sources, "Just A Second" (which I believe to be the "no melody" track you referred to) is always listed in the wrong place but it appears at least on my album at about 20m 13s and lasts for less than a minute. There are more mistakes than correct versions, apparently.Twistlethrop (talk) 06:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Reception

"The album was not embraced by fans of Faust's earlier work, for suggested reasons including...."

I beg to differ. As somebody who listened to and bought each of the band's first four albums as it was released in the 70's, I and those of my friends who listened to IV at the time embraced it fully and did not - as the source suggests - consider it Faust's "sell-out record". To do so would arguably suggest that the fertile 60's-70's ethos was no different than that of the more sterile 90's where sell-out recordings became common. I suppose it's almost a get out of jail free comment to suggest that "you had to be there"... but it would remain true.
The source is a review that was written in 2007 - 34 years after the album was released in 1973. That, together with the fact that its author Dominique Leone was born several months (December 1973) after it was released, makes his opinion based upon what is at best anecdotal. It may be that its "non-European" viewpoint makes it more so. I submit that all those factors make it impossible for the source to be regarded as authoritative. I have amended the wording to acknowledge both sides of the coin and work towards NPOV.Twistlethrop (talk) 05:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)