Talk:Jazz (Queen album)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Queen, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.QueenWikipedia:WikiProject QueenTemplate:WikiProject QueenQueen

Albums Start‑class

	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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

The article mentions that the poster of the bicycle race was not available in the U.S. However, I purchased this back when it came out, and it had the poster. This was in Ohio. So I know this statement isn't true. I did not mail order this album, but bought it from a local music store (probably Peaches) - Tom

More inappropriate John Deacon comparisons

I request that the line about In Only Seven Days being a "son" of Spread Your Wings be removed. On the discussion for Queen's News Of The World album, I mentioned that Misfire and Who Needs You are distinctive songs. Ditto here. Someone assumes that all John Deacon's songs sound the same, but I consider that insulting to Deacon's artistry. 65.248.164.214 (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

Added pop rock. Face it: It's still a whole lot of pop on this album.--Gustav Lindwall 20:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fat Bottomed Girls

How exactly do Mercury and May share lead vocals? To me it sounds like Freddie (of course with harmonies of Roger and Brian on the refrain) - BK

Fair use rationale for Image:Queen Jazz.png

Image:Queen Jazz.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) 11:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mustapha

Mustapha utilizes more of the Farsi (Persian) language rather than Arabic for its 'nonsense'. I've seen this documented before, but the only credit I can give for this is the fact that I know Farsi speakers who understand a bit of what he's singing--Drowse (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This entry needs to be clarified. Are the lyrics actual language or improvised? The entry, as it stands, seems to say both... Elcalen (talk) 11:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fun It

"Taylor used a Syndrum pad and played most of the instruments." Does this include the guitar riff? 'Cause that's such a huge part of the track it may be worth mentioning. Elcalen (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dead on Time

I'm not sure if Dead on Time is one of the "few" metal songs in their catalogue. There are certainly at least a dozen heavier (or at least equally heavy) songs in their catalogue: Keep Yourself Alive, Great King Rat, Liar, Modern Times Rock and Roll, Son and Daughter, Ogre Battle, Stone Cold Crazy, Death on Two Legs, Sweet Lady, Tie Your Mother Down, I Want It All, Headlong, Hitman, etc. — Deckill er 09:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About "Let Me Entertain You"...

... when Freddie sings "I'll pull you and I'll pill you/ I'll Cruella DeVil you", what exactly does he mean by "I'll Cruella Devil you"? That he'll skin us and use us for fur or something? I'm confused. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 04:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

Do we really need the George Starostin review ? I mean, there are plenty of other reviews by professional reviewers whose reviews are actually published by reputable magazines and websites. On top of that, his reviews were written with the benefit of hindsight, which makes them far less interesting, because they don't exemplify the critical response at the time the record was released. Just because his reviews are long-winded and often disagree with popular opinion doesn't make them any more interesting than those of the next person with a website. Also, his scoring system goes up to 15, so showing the score here as "9 stars out of 10" is misleading. 84.198.246.199 (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merging of song articles

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jealousy (Queen song).

I think that Mustapha and Bicycle_Race could be merged here too. They are short enough and they don't have sources to pass WP:NSONGS. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD has closed now. Can I merge them now, or do I need to set up separate AfDs for each one? --Enric Naval (talk) 09:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bicycle race poster

The article states "A bicycle race with nude women was held to promote the album". While I know about the event in question (and May saying several times since that it wasn't big or clever), my copy of the album (EMA 788, gatefold sleeve, probably early 80s pressing) doesn't have it. It is possible that the previous owner kept the poster for his own, er, devices. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I won't remove it (for now) so as not to upset any tender, sensitive Wikipedians - but the business about the poster not being in US copies of the LP is incorrect. I bought it, new, a few weeks after release, in the US, on Elektra, and it most definitely did have the poster in it. So somebody with a better line on confirmation should look into that and officialy amend it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.73.237 (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's official site, which is cited for this fact, is quite clear: "..... but the poster was deemed to risquÃ© for the American public and instead of issuing it with the LP, Elektra Records avoided causing offence to retailers by instead included a coupon with which people could apply for their free poster."[1]

Should you tenderly wish to sensitively amend it officially, you'll need to find a reliable source. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no wish to engage in some silly war on this topic. The Queen site, official or no, is wrong. Here's one source. I'll let you decide whether or not it's "official" enough for you. Scroll down and look under "Notes" :

https://www.discogs.com/Queen-Jazz/release/4159122

You might also notice that there is another listing, for the US version, which does mention the coupon. I would guess that there were possibly copies with the poster, and copies with the coupon, with an attempt to target where each went. Not an outlandish thought, actually. And mine was purchased in NYC, for whatever that's worth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.73.237 (talk) 03:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason for a "war" -- silly or otherwise -- of any kind. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say about a topic.

Queen's official website is likely a reliable source for uncontroversial information about their albums. Discogs, however, is a user created and edited database.[2] Anyone can edit Discogs, much like Wikipedia. Other than for uncontroversial information about Discogs in Discogs, it should not be cited for much of anything on Wikipedia. (Similarly, Wikipedia should not be cited for much of anything on Wikipedia, other than non-controversial information about Wikipedia in Wikipedia.)

If you can locate a reliable source disputing the claim from Queen, we will need to find a way to discuss the conflicting information. Otherwise, we simply have nothing to say other than the official story. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The most cursory of looks at your Talk page indicates quite clearly that you (not "we", you) have your own agendas and views on things like this. "Queen's official website is likely a reliable source." Why? Oh, right, because you said it is. "We will need to find a way to discuss the conflicting information". Once again, there is no "we" here. There is only you choosing to believe who and what you wish to believe as far as "conflicting information" from sources go on an actual fact that you obviously have no personal knowledge of yourself. Like I said - tender and sensitive. Leave it wrong. I don't really care, and you'll get to put another notch on your passive/aggressive chewtoy. Everybody wins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.104.195.43 (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have upset you. Unfortunately, because anyone can edit Wikipedia, everyone does edit Wikipedia. While most editors are well-intentioned, Wikipedia often becomes a dumping ground for what people remember, think they remember, saw, wish they had seen, believe and would like others to believe, along with a good deal of outright vandalism.

While I do not doubt what you are saying, there is no way to cite what you remember. What Queen's official website reports is verifiable, so long as it is a reliable source for that information.

The fact cited doesn't seem in any way controversial, so I would think that Queen's official website would be a reliable source, barring any sourced indication that there was/is some kind of controversy about it. For clarification, I've raised the question at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If you believe that Discogs is a reliable source, we (you, me, anybody) can raise the question there as well, but I'm not sure that your interpretation of what the differing listing might mean would be helpful in sorting this out in any case.

If you (or anyone else) finds a reliable source contrary to other reliable sources we (those of us working on this article, including me and you) would have to figure out how to address that. There have been other instances I have run across where reliable sources have disagreed. Typically, we (Wikipedia editors) have simply stated that source A says X and source B says Y.

Should you prefer to simply storm off and ignore it, that's your choice. Boo hoo. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I almost just responded to all that drivel point by point - then I remembered - I actually have a life outside of this website. See ya.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Jazz (Queen album). 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) 06:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]