Talk:Substance 1987

Albums Unassessed

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Can we turn this from a review into something encyclopedic? -Branddobbe 17:24, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

Article title

Should we move this to Substance 1987, its full name and hence avoid the messy page title as it is now?

"Substance 1987" is not necessarily the title of the album - on the CD version anyway, it says just "Substance" on the CDs and the sides of the box. I think the front cover is just stating the year - I don't think it's meant to be part of the title. --Zilog Jones 23:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That may be so, but everybody who is 'in' to New Order refers to them as Substance and Substance 1987... Kiand 23:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've been bold and move the article. --Kiand 18:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But the album is called Substance, not Substance 1987. So, er... SaltyWater 20:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to move the page to its correct title. SaltyWater 11:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does the front of the CD case say? "New Order - Substance 1987". Not just "Substance". --Kiand 20:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has 1987 on the front of the CD but it doesn't mean its called Substance 1987. SaltyWater 21:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about a band who rarely put -anything- on the front of a CD here. When theres a name, thats going to be the full name. Note that the fan-run discographies call it Substance 1987, also, including the definitive niagra.edu and NewOrderOnline ones. --Kiand 21:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movement has a year on it, is that part of the title too? SaltyWater 21:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, because its quite clearly seperated from the name due to being beside the record number (FACT/FACD/Whatever 50). But on Subtance, its positioned exactly as part of the name, as it is part of the name. --Kiand 21:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't the date written on the spine then? SaltyWater 22:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, its missing from most but not all spines. It is, however, on many of the cassete inlay sleeves. Saville design decision, no doubt. However, doesn't change the fact that Substance 1987 is the name of the album, as can be confirmed by the Warner-endorsed fansite --Kiand 22:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's very nice, but because it's officially endorsed doesn't mean everything on there is gospel. Anyone else care to comment? I note the article has been moved back to Substance 1987. SaltyWater 22:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because thats the name of the compilation, thats that. As goes "officially endorsed", it means something as its the only official website for the band that covers anything prior to WFTSC. They don't have an online catalogue, etc. All your reasonings as to why its not the name - lack of name on spine/back of sleeve, etc, are down to design issues, basically - the name on all non-Saville designed covers is "Substance 1987". Probably because thats its name. --Kiand 22:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be so rude. SaltyWater 23:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how thats "rude". The album has a name, and that is Substance 1987. Its pretty much as simple as that. --Kiand 00:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Substance VS Substance 1987

The album is called SUBSTANCE. Nothing more, nothing less. Those who are not familiar with the way label's designer Peter Saville works, tend to take the surface value as something official. First of all, Saville is all about design, not about how to properly present the title (or even the name of the band!). "Republic" has © in its title on the cover and that is the only place it appears there; that album is nevertheless officially refered to as "Republic". The same with "Movement" - the cover has the equally printed "FACT 50 1981" below the word "Movement". And yet the album is called simply "Movement". "Waiting for the Sirens' Call" has a big printed "NO" on the cover (and that's the entire design), which has again nothing to do with the title. AND FINALLY: I just looked at the official Warner New Order catalogue, supplied with "Get Ready": the album is listed there as "Substance", as well as on CD.

P.S. Here "1987" refers to the inner sleeve of the True Faith single that had come out earlier and which looks exactly the same with "Substance" being "True Faith" and "1987" being "1963" (!). It was only a sly reference, nothing more: he extrapolated the concept of single design into LP design. I just looked in the Peter Saville book, a collection of his design work, and it clearly shows "Substance" tagged as simply "Substance". That comes from the designer of the cover art! What else is needed in this case??? Klaus Bertow 11:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Track listings

What version are these track listings from? I have what's most definately a re-issue (CD), bought last year - no. 3984 28227 2. Seems to be published by London Records although it also says "©1990 CentreDate Ltd.". Anyway, from the listing in this article it appears to be the same as what's noted as the "Original Factory CD". Was it the US release that had the extra tracks (disc 2 tracks 3, 12, 13 and 15)? --Zilog Jones 23:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No clue. I've got the same as you, bought in HMV on Henry Street. I guess its the US release, on Qwest. Kiand 23:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Its the UK CASSETTE version of all things. US used normal CD track listings.... Kiand 23:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, but it says how the "Cassette version places "Murder" (an instrumental single released in Benelux only) before "The Perfect Kiss"", but that listing there doesn't do that. I propose we make a separate list for the CD and tape versions if all this is true (and just note under the CD list how the vinyl is). Don't suppose anyone knows what the DAT track listings are, if any different? --Zilog Jones 00:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, this is getting even weirder - the US version (according to here) is different again. It is like the UK CD version, but with Cries and Whispers in place of Mesh. --Zilog Jones 00:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Mesh" is "Cries and Whispers"; it was erroneously labelled on the original Factory CD releases (that's the one I have; I was the one that added the note about it omitting several tracks that apparently appear on other versions, can anyone confirm that they actually do?). I presume on the US edition it has just been labelled correctly, and there is nothing more to it. Hn 04:07, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

http://www.niagara.edu/neworder/albums/suhttp://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Substance_%28New_Order_album%29&action=edit&oldid=44114789bstance1987.html --Hn 04:14, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I think that clears up things. Thanks! --Zilog Jones 00:41, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cries & Whispers / Mesh

The paragraph explaining the confusion between these song titles seems to be clear enough as it is. The recent edit changed the tense, which personally I think was unnecessary; the decision to edit "Perfect Kiss" was made twenty years ago (as of 2007) and the current version of Substance in print still dates from this time, so "was" rather than "is" is more accurate. Also, the comments about the cassette format were misleading and vague: "...holds the most music...". In relation to what? And what length of tape? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RobShaz (talk • contribs) 15:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:New Order - Substance cover.png

Image:New Order - Substance cover.png 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.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:New Order - Blue Monday excerpt.ogg

The image Image:New Order - Blue Monday excerpt.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion Instrumental

On my CD, it says "Confusion Instrumental" not "Confused Instrumental". The CD was released by Qwest Records / Warner Bros. Records in the US in 1987. 202.8.226.193 (talk) 05:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]