Jump to content

Talk:UHF – Original Motion Picture Soundtrack and Other Stuff

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Style of "Generic Blues"

[edit]

The listing under "(Style) Parody" for "Generic Blues" originally stated B.B. King. I went back and listened to the track and found that label quite inaccurate. "Generic Blues" sounds much more like the electric Chicago blues of artists like Junior Wells and Paul Butterfield, whereas B.B. King's blues is a more sparse and subdued Memphis or Louisiana style. These styles are just about at opposite ends of the spectrum from one another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.85.184 (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

[edit]

This page was moved from "UHF - Original Motion Picture Soundtrack And Other Stuff" to "UHF - Original Motion Picture Soundtrack and Other Stuff" as per the naming convention set out at Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Album titles and band names – Ianblair23 (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Album discontinued

[edit]

I removed the line regarding the album being discontinued as of August 2009. I don't see any evidence of this one any websites. in fact, Al's site shows that all of his albums are available for sale. there is a similar comment posted on pages for some of Al's other albums. Lawnboy1977 (talk) 00:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:UHF – Original Motion Picture Soundtrack and Other Stuff/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LazyBastardGuy (talk · contribs) 22:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I love this album. I'll do this review.

Getting the easy stuff out of the way first:

  • The article has two images; cover art's source website appears to be a dead link and seems a tad dark anyway. (The album I have is dark gray around the borders rather than black.) Second picture, of Mark Knopfler, seems OK.
    I uploaded one that preserved the original vinyl look (the CD has an ugly logo in the bottom).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not sure if this matters for the GA process, but that link is dead. And funny, I just now remembered that logo. BTW I'll finish your Bad Hair Day review tomorrow. LazyBastardGuy 03:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking over the edit history, things seem peaceful. Groovy.

Now for the hardcore stuff, starting with overall writing.

Lead paragraph
  • Seems like the mention of "UHF" the single is slightly out of place. Just looking at it, it seems wrong to me.
    That's the way the rest of Yankovic's articles' leads start. I just continued the trend so that they would have a similar layout.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, coming back from Bad Hair Day which as you said does follow the trend and where it does not seem so out of place, I guess my reasoning here is since the single had no fanfare, it looks kind of bad right there. I guess it doesn't seem like such a defining feature of the album that readers might be familiar with (like how "Smells Like Teen Spirit" was the monster smash from Nevermind). Just IMO, it seems like it would fit better at the end of the second paragraph there, but I suppose even if you left it that wouldn't hinder a GA status. LazyBastardGuy 03:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Blues" should probably be wikilinked. LazyBastardGuy 03:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Production
  • The dashes in the first sentence enclosing the phrase "co-written by his manager Jay Levey" seem unnecessary. In fact, I would almost say you could get away with not having any kind of punctuation there to isolate that phrase.
    Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now I think "called UHF" seems a little awkwardly-placed, perhaps it would go beter before "to Orion". LazyBastardGuy 03:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have written more clearly - the typo is "filmed", and "featured" sounded weird there (I was trying to address each word in sequence, but that's my fault). LazyBastardGuy 03:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I was just silly and forgot to fix the typo. Changed now.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're looking for US$, as that's how I've seen it on other articles. Just a formatting thing, though. LazyBastardGuy 03:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How does it look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I touched it up a bit. I think that's how it's supposed to go. LazyBastardGuy 05:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Once again, former The McCoys guitarist Rick Derringer was brought in to produce the album; this, however, would be Derringer's last production credit..." seems like you could take out "this, however," and replace it with "but this" and get rid of the semicolon.
    Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Backing" seems informal. Needs a better word. I suggest, "Recording with..."
    Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't that important, but I think the second occurrence of the word "yielded" should be replaced by "resulted in".
    Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...and thus "Let Me Be Your Hog" was recorded." First, isn't "Let Me Be Your Hog" a parody? Of an Iggy Pop and the Stooges song, if I recall correctly? If so, this isn't an original - and the aforementioned phrase needs to be replaced with something that indicates Yankovic got the rights to this song.
    Actually, it is not a parody. I couldn't find a source saying whether it was a style parody, however.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I must be thinking back to a previous version of the article. It said something to the effect of "obvious elements of "Let Me Be Your Dog" by the Stooges". But if the source says what the article currently says, I believe ya. LazyBastardGuy 03:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking more like, "...recorded for the album was "Generic Blues", Yankovic's attempt to write..." LazyBastardGuy 03:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How? Looks the same to me. LazyBastardGuy 03:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I lied the first time. :P Now it is fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty then. It still seems kind of weird to word it that way but if the source provides no alternative, I don't see what we can do. Might as well leave it as it is. LazyBastardGuy 03:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to take out "to". LazyBastardGuy 03:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I missed this the first time around - there is an instance of Polka Party! in the Reception section that needs italicized and not in quotes. LazyBastardGuy 03:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reception
Actually, I just had a thought. Maybe you could embellish with more from those few reviews it did receive? LazyBastardGuy 03:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've said pretty much all the Allmusic review said, but I added a bit more from the Rolling Stone book, and I found a review from TV Guide.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that'll do for now. LazyBastardGuy 05:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Track listing
Missed one - "She Drives Like Crazy" LazyBastardGuy 03:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Charts and certifications
  • If this is the only chart position you can find, you don't need this section; you've already got it covered under "Reception".

Article seems fairly balanced and neutral, save for any POV concerns I noted above. Additionally, if any part of the article goes overboard on the details, I certainly didn't catch it.

Now, for sourcing. Hoo boy. Three things jump-out at me as I look over them:

  • Most sources come from an officially-affiliated Yankovic source. In fact, two of them have been milked for information.
    It is true that a majority of the sources are from officially-affiliated items, but most of them have been professionally published either through an editor, DV distributor, or record label (The Permanent Box liner notes, the record itself, the DVD, the trading cards, the books, etc). Also, there is no policy against mining sources, and its generally encouraged (if one can squeeze info out).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I meant, my concern was that the article seems, only seems, to exhibit an overreliance on primary sources. I am all for squeezing as much crap out of a source as you can get - I do it all the time ;) LazyBastardGuy 03:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, gotcha. Sorry about the rant, then. :P --Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are few sources overall, but an absurd proportion of officially-affiliated ones.
    Like I pointed out above, the majority of the officially-affiliated sources come from ones that have been professionally released. I could see the "Ask Al" sources being slightly problematic, but they have been accepted before, and there is no policy against self-published sources, just as long as the publisher ("Weird Al" Yankovic, in this case) is notable and reliable. So far, none of this "Ask Al" answers have been malicious or erroneous. I checked out WP:SELFPUB before I nominated this article to check, and the Ask Al sources pass all five of the necessary requirements (also, they only make up 1/5 of the sources). If there is something that you'd like to see backed-up by a third party source, I could try to find some.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you plan to take this article beyond GA, I would highly recommend doing that. The sources used are okay ATM, but again more third-party stuff is always welcome. LazyBastardGuy 03:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Yeah, for the time being I'm just trying to get it to GA. Maybe if more info presents itself I'll take it higher.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And third party no less. Good job. LazyBastardGuy 03:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, the article is not GA-material... yet. It's too far along, I think, for me to fail it right away, so I'm putting it on hold for one week. I'll look over it later and determine if the changes made are satisfactory; if not, I won't hold it any longer and I'll fail it. If they are, you'll have a GA. Good luck.

I have made the requested changes/clarified some points. How does the article look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lookin' good, real good. Just a few more nitpicks. Also, like I said, if the album only ever had one chart position (unless you can find a few from, say, Finland or Fiji), it shouldn't stand on its own like that. You've already got it covered in the Reception section, so you don't need it down here. LazyBastardGuy 03:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I removed the chart section and I *think* I got all the nitpicky stuff, as well as the stuff I just missed the first time. How does it look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There were a few things but all of them were minor, so I took care of them myself. If you called me a grammar nazi, I wouldn't take offense. ;) Congratulations - I'm ready to pass this as GA. Tomorrow I will get to the other "Weird Al" articles you've nominated (I've already claimed them as the primary reviewer). LazyBastardGuy 05:23, 6 September 2013 (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.

Money for Nothing/Beverly Hillbillies

[edit]

Isn't the title of Money for Nothing/Beverly Hillbillies supposed to have an asterisk, according to the article about the single, thus the title would be "Money for Nothing/Beverly Hillbillies*"? Jed 20012 (talk) 14:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have mixed feelings on this. First off, yes, that's the legally copyrighted name of the song. However, it is never printed anywhere on the album like that. I feel like adding it to the track listing is almost too in-depth for the casual reader, but it does receive a mention in the text.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on UHF – Original Motion Picture Soundtrack and Other Stuff. 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: 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) 06:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UHF Video

[edit]

The section mentioning what other videos are spoofed by the UHF video lists "INXS - Mediate" as one of the videos...but Mediate's video is a copy of the video for Bob Dylan's Subterranean Homesick Blues. Is there any indication that Weird Al's version was referencing INXS instead of Bob Dylan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.123.123 (talk) 05:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well observed point. I went and looked at all three videos, and the Weird Al version does more closely match the INXS video visually. Dylan stands to the right of the frame, the INXS members stand to the left or center of frame; Yankovic stands to left of frame. Dylan stands in front of a an alleyway, INXS in front of an industrial area; Yankovic stands in front of an industrial area. Incidentally, Yankovic more directly referenced and spoofed the Dylan video with his 2003 parody BOB (on the album Poodle Hat). --Krelnik (talk) 10:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:UHF_–_Original_Motion_Picture_Soundtrack_and_Other_Stuff&oldid=1211540324"