Talk:Thick as a Brick

Radio Version

Could someone explain which part(s) of this album are used in the radio edit?

It's pretty much the first 3 minutes, right up to where the acoustic guitar stops (just after "spin me down the long ages let them sing the song") and the band go into the 5/4 section. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Lyrics

I've tried to explain what some of the lyrics mean but I'm not too happy with the way they came out. CambridgeBayWeather 07:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a table would fit better... --Emc² (Contact me ) 13:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

merge

wouldn't it be better if Gerald Bostock were merged with this article? — goethean ॐ 16:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

25th anniversary cover

The album cover for the 25th Anniversary edition is slightly different from the art that’s currently shown in the article, so I’m going to add it as an alternate cover. If you have any qualms, explain them below. —BrOnXbOmBr21 06:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ThickAsABrick25thAnniv.jpg

Image:ThickAsABrick25thAnniv.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.\

Needs to be changed

Don't you think that this is written too informallly? Especially the section about the title of the song, it's like talking with a fan of Jethro Tull. I think it is no appropriate for Wikipedia.--78.84.184.201 (talk) 11:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, completely inappropriate - and have removed it.

Rrose Selavy (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization

As should be capitalized. It's an adverb, not a preposition as it might seem. "To the same extent or degree; equally: The child sang as sweetly as a nightingale." for example.(ref)http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/as As at Dictionary.com(/ref) Pixel Eater (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

After reading this[[1]], I believe the lowercase is correct and should remain. This is an instance of the construction "as...as" with the first "as" only implied ("[as] thick as a brick"). In this structure, it's the (here omitted) first "as" that has the adverbial meaning of "equally." The second "as" is a preposition similar to "like." Richard K. Carson (talk) 07:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Long-delayed?

This sentence worries me somewhat:

On April 3, 2012, Ian Anderson released a long-delayed sequel, "Thick As a Brick 2", ...

I have been following Jethro Tull for a quite a while now, and have never heard the idea that a sequel had been in the pipeline until last year. And nothing that Ian Anderson has said gives me the impression that he has been working on this until the last two years. "Long-delayed" is just pure hyperbole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.130.71.68 (talk) 07:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Thick as a Brick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130916070228/http://www.thickasabrickdeluxe.com/?utm_campaign=taab40th&utm_medium=web_link&utm_source=tull_facebook to http://www.thickasabrickdeluxe.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Chart

Did it really not chart in the UK? Did it only chart in the US, Australia, and Canada? 146.198.128.142 (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Resesi

Cover inspired by? So any album cover that looks like a newspaper was also inspired by? 2001:56A:F414:D300:C010:DE2B:7B3F:774B (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Pink Floyd

The description of how "Thick as a Brick" was recorded reminds me strongly of Echoes (Pink Floyd song), which was similarly pieced together with everyone contributing. As it seems that "Echoes" was released a year before "Thick as a Brick" it might be appropriate to mention this in the article, as a possible influence. --BjKa (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it has more in common with Frank Zappa's work myself - musically challenging, stylistically all over the place, taxing for a casual listener, and topped off with a large dollop of silliness. However, I am no more a reliable source than you, so it can't go in. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Three covers of the album

File:Dansk hvid landkanin.jpg

Do not Speedy Me Rabbit

The original LP artwork should be used. The CD and the 25th anniversary editions should be removed. I found better versions of the artwork, like this one. Unsure about the gatefold image as it may belong to a section. --George Ho (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: Agreed; we don't need three non-free images on this article. They can be described broadly speaking as "the CD covers are crops of the LP that are not as good as the medium is smaller". I have moved the original LP cover to the main images and deleted the others per WP:CSD#F5. The images you linked to, however, don't show the full page which folds out from LP to A3 size. I have the original album and can do a higher-quality scan, but I think what we currently have is sufficient for a fair-use infobox illustration and doesn't need to be any better. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Ooh... I would like to see a high-quality scan in PNG, Ritchie333, but I'll wait and hold my patience. :) George Ho (talk) 11:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be a copy of the whole newspaper online that is a resolution where you can read it. I think you may be waiting a while, as the text is still in copyright so I can't just bung scans online. A shame that, as some of the silly prose in it is better than the actual music in places. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

What about 45worlds.com and discogs? By the way, I wonder whether the gatefold portion is necessary. George Ho (talk) 12:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Thick as a Brick. 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/20111005165658/http://jethrotull.com/news/taabtour2012.html to http://jethrotull.com/news/taabtour2012.html

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) 05:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thick as a Brick/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 11:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• Let me return the favor of a GA review...Always liked JT, but don't know too much about them. Vanamonde (talk) 11:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

  @Ritchie333: I've been through the article once: ping me when you've dealt with my comments, I'm not going to bother putting this on hold. Vanamonde (talk) 11:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig's tool is clear, spotchecks come out negative.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   No extraneous material

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No issues with stability

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Image license appears to be fine

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

• The one image is licensed fine. A free-use image of the band might be nice.

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "The music would also generally satirise" may be clearer as "intended to satirise..."

Gone with "He also intended to satirise" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• I think we should stick with not more than two from among "stated", "later stated", and "has stated".

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "The remainder of the suite was pieced together in the studio." This is a tad confusing after reading "came up with individual song segments, then wrote short pieces of music to link them together." in the previous paragraph

I've reworded this - the general gist is that the music was semi-improvised in the studio. I've done this - you basically only need to get one take of the backing track (or not even that if you can edit it together) and you've got it. Doesn't mean you can play it live! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not a fan of sentences beginning with "because", but I think that's mostly just me.

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• A general audience may not be aware of the Monty Python type of humour, so "They were fans of Monty Python, and this style of humour influenced the lyrics" could use a little more detail

I've clarified this - although I think most of the sources assumed if you were a fan of Tull, you knew exactly who Monty Python were, so they don't mention it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "the band's previous album" seems an odd phrasing: I'd just say "band's 1971 album"

The problem with that is it doesn't place the album into the right context - the whole motivation for recording a single piece of music was because of the critical response of the album before it, which was only intended as a "regular" collection of songs. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• You could maybe mention what their previous work was classified as, in "contrasting with the group's earlier work."

Aqualung is a mix of rock, folk, classical and a few other bits, but in context here the important bit is "a collection of songs", so I've clarified that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Musical style" seems a bit brief, but maybe that's all the material readily available?

I've dropped a little more into this section, mostly dealing with lyrics. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• "LP" should be linked at its first use, I think, and in the lede too perhaps?

Done. LP record is where our article is, so I've used that. Also, the article doesn't explicitly say that the album is one song split over two sides of vinyl, so I've added that. I'm sure had CDs been around, the whole piece would have been one track. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• " so could a spoof one." instinctively, I feel this should be "so could a spoof", but I might be wrong.

I've reworded this Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• The second paragraph of "cover" is a bit repetitive in referring to Anderson's authorship of the review; is there a way to condense that?

I've trimmed it a bit. To be honest, it doesn't really need that much detail - the news stories are just silly made up nonsense. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not the biggest fan of single-sentence paragraphs, and would like to see them merged with the previous/next paragraph, but if you're not happy about that I'm willing to let it go.

I think that's in the wrong place - moved Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• "At some points, news and weather reports were read halfway through the show and even a man dressed head to toe in a scuba diver outfit would come onto stage and pass by as the band performed." I find this sentence a bit long, and strangely phrased, particularly the "even a man..."

Looks like I forgot to copyedit this bit. Fixed. I'll have a trim of everything else once I've addressed all the other issues. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "the improved ability with the flute by Ian Anderson" Seems grammatically off to me, but might be wrong, once again

Trimmed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• Is there any information about how the title of the album originated?

I haven't found anything beyond sources saying it was just silly. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• This is a question not strictly related to the GA, but I wonder to what extend Gerald Bostock and Thick as a Brick - Live in Iceland substantive enough as standalone articles, and whether they wouldn't be better off merged here; this isn't hugely long.
• "American critic Robert Christgau crushed the album" bit colloquial, is it not?

"Disliked" will do here Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• " AllMusic reviewer writes" something missing there, I think...

I think "AllMusic wrote" is generally considered acceptable Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• "put Thick as a Brick as one of his favourite" something seems off here: "described"?

Copyedited Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• Any reason we have a separate sub-section for one of the anniversary releases, but not the other? To me it would make sense to have just two subsections in that section: "original track listing" and "Special edition releases", combining the 25th anniversary, 40th, and "differences" subsections into one.

I've combined this together, renamed the section "reissues" and simplified things a bit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• Are all the credits coming from the LP sleeve? is that worth mentioning?

They are, although unlike most LPs they're written from the POV of a local journalist eg : "in addition to his usual flute, acoustic guitar and singing roles, Ian Anderson expanded his musical virtuosity to violin, saxophone and trumpet" rather than an actual list Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• "The original Thick as a Brick of 1972 consists of only two long tracks comprising a single song, while Thick as a Brick 2 lists 17 separate songs merged into 13 distinct tracks (some labelled as medleys), although also all flowing together much like a single song." This sentence is a bit too long, IMHO

Why do we care about how long the original album is in a section about the sequel (not to mention we've already mentioned it earlier in the article)? Removed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm going to AGF on the host of music websites, since I don't know much about them.

The page with LP scans is technically a copyright violation. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Second run

Looking good, a few minor points on a second run:

• "Thick as a Brick was deliberately crafted in the style of a concept album and a general parody of the genre. " seems to me this should either be " and as a general parody of the genre", or "and a general parody of the genre of [insert parodied genre here]". Am I wrong?
• Can we find a good link for "suite" at its first use?
• Made some minor copy-edits, feel free to revert
• Can we find a link for "overdubs"?
• Optional: do we need the subtitle in the section title for the sequel?
• Avoid the sea of blue in the last body sentence.

I just went through and did a copyedit, trimming down a lot of stuff, so I think everything is addressed now. The article was in far worse shape than what I would normally send to GA. I recall working on it in order to get it onto the main page as part of OTD earlier this year, when it was largely unsourced and needed some serious cleanup, and obviously got to a point, forgot about it, then put it up for GA thinking I was finished. Anyway, should all be resolved now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Looks good, passing now. Cheers. Vanamonde (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Cool, cheers. I think the album's great, one of my favourites, and the cover is brilliant too - but I'm not sure anyone outside Britain would appreciate the humour. :-/ Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, reading this has certainly got me interested in the album, I'll probably listen to it the next time I've got a spare hour. Vanamonde (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)