Talk:Dark Side of the Rainbow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Oz, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Oz and Wicked series. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project.

	This Pink Floyd-related article is within the scope of WikiProject Pink Floyd, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Pink Floyd, their members, associates, albums and songs. You can help! Visit the project page, discuss an article at the project talk-page, or even join us!
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.)
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

 

Contents 1 Corresponding moments: how many and what kind to list 2 random unsourced comment 3 Mind games 4 Runtimes 5 Requested move to Dark Side of the Rainbow 5.1 Voting 5.2 Discussion 5.3 Other Proposals 5.4 Further Discussion 5.5 Result 6 variations on the theme 7 Fun with subjectivity 8 Recipe 9 Proposed Synchronicities 10 alt.drugs citation 11 Merging (WP:NOT)

[edit] Corresponding moments: how many and what kind to list

Because this is not supposed to be a comprehensive list, and because we are in fact linking to a comprehensive list outside Wikipedia, I propose keeping the examples section taut by listing one, or at most two, correspondences per song, and by focusing for on lyrical rather than the much-more-subjective, much-more-common-no-matter-what-movie/album-is-used, and therefore much-less-impressive tonal correspondences. (Exception: lyric-less On the Run and Great Gig in the Sky examples, plus the stunning closing heartbeats overlap.) I also propose limiting the list to first-run-through-moments only since that is the "real" Dark Side of the Moon experience and the rest is errata. As drive-by contributors are prone to adding random correspondences that don't really add value to the article, I also propose generally having a policy of directing such users to the talk pages and deleting such additions. Does anyone think that's a bad idea? Thanks for input. Archaic 02:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't be a comprehensive list - the most famous ones (heartbeat while Dorothy listens, "balanced on the biggest wave", "which is which", etc.) should be listed, but your solution for the drive-by minor correspondences seems fine to me. - dharmabum 08:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I just can't believe when talking about "The Great Gig in The Sky" it talks about how the music climaxes with the events unfolding, but honestly it also should say something about the TITLE itself..... A Tornado, "The Great Gig In The Sky"..... that is one of the factors that leads me to believe its intentional.

I never understood that the great gig was about death and rebirth untill I saw the syncup, wow, improved. HighInBC 20:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The article should not contain guides (see "what Wikipedia is not" subsection) Just64helpin 18:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] random unsourced comment

"As early as 1994"?? Are you kidding? I heard about this back in 1985 in Alberta, Canada!! The idea's been around longer than that my friend!

Media coverage --> Other than the Charles Savage article, which ran in 1995, the majority of media coverage began in April 1997 and ran through May. That's when the MTV Interview ran, that's when USA Today covered it. That's also the summer that Best Buy ran their promotion with the album DSotM and the movie WoO together. Prior to that, the media coverage was restrained and infrequent. Since then, there hasn't been that much either. So that's the correct timeframe. Changed that in the article and added a link to the MTV News segment.-02:01, July 20, 2006 75.5.53.36

Great additions. I restored reference to the summer 2005 stuff as well, since that earlier wave was when the websites like the Synchronicity Arkive began appearing; those websites eventually prompted the Boston DJ's comments, which led to the broader wave of attention in 1997. It's all part of the timeline. On a related note, it's too bad there don't seem to be alt.music.pink-floyd archives available prior to 1997; I'd be curious to see if there was actually discussion of it even earlier than 1994. Archaic 15:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mind games

I think this calls for a revert war! There is a wealth of information about the synchronicity in this article--examples, theories of its origins, comments by the artists--but little to suggest the synchronicity is an effect of perception. Like the moon looking larger when it's close to the horizon. Granted, my edits were a bit ham-fisted, but I think more needs to be said to suggest the only mumbo-jumbo in the synchronicity is that going on in our heads. It's still cool, though... Tafinucane 19:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey Tafinucane. I actually liked your addition to the article a lot. In editing it, my only goal was to make the writing more clear, direct, and neutral. I believe it still has the same basic volume and content as it did before I meddled with its form. Is there some particular change I made to which you object? Also, I have no objection if you want to expand on the thought in the article. It could even be a separate subsection if there's enough to say about it. Archaic 22:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I was wrong. Rather than provide content about the phenomenon and perception I just tried to use more forceful, floral language which you rightly corrected. Tafinucane 23:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Runtimes

Pigsonthewing: if you're going to revert something that is not vandalism, it would be nice if you would explain your reasoning. Here's mine: First, your one-sentence reference to different runtimes became redundant because I added a long paragraph about that issue. Second, it's a tangental technical footnote, not an opening paragraph-worthy thought. Finally, you're incorrect anyway: it's the album, not the film, that has different runtimes depending on which version is used. Archaic 21:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I pre-emptively stand to correct myself. Yes, I see now that in addition to the different album tracks, the UK Oz is 98 minutes as compared to 101 minutes in the US. Is there a chunk missing from the UK version? Surely it doesn't just get sped up by 3 percent, so that everyone's voice is slightly too high-pitched? In any case, now that there's a technical section, I (more humbly) suggest that such commentary more properly goes there than in the introduction. Archaic 04:09 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Surely it doesn't just get sped up by 3 percent, so that everyone's voice is slightly too high-pitched? Yes; exactly that.. I (more humbly) suggest that such commentary more properly goes there than in the introduction.: On the contrary, I feel that it's important to say from the outset, that it won't work for eeryone. Andy Mabbett 23:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It's really just FASTER? Why? ANd why don't they do that to every movie? Reggaedelgado 18:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes; and they do. Andy Mabbett 18:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

(Copied from my entry on Talk:The Wizard of Oz (1939 film):

The differences in runtimes aren't arbitrary, but the result of technical differences between video systems. (Tech warning! I'll try to keep it as simple as possible.)

In the USA (also Canada, Japan, S. Korea and most of S. America) television uses the NTSC system which has a scanning rate of 30 frames per second (give or take a fraction). Film, running at 24 fps, has to be converted to 30 fps video using specialised techniques to make the motion appear smooth, but the speed stays the same.

The UK, along with Europe, Australia, New Zealand and China among others, uses the PAL system which uses 25 frames per second. Transferring film to PAL at 24 fps would involve showing every 24th frame twice, which would cause the on-screen movement to jerk once a second. To avoid this film is simply sped up to 25 fps so that each frame of film corresponds to one frame of video and the movement appears perfectly smooth. Hence the shorter running time. The pitch of the sound also increases noticeably, but nowadays that's often corrected digitally. Lee M 10:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm from a PAL country, and managed to get it to work by speeding up the music digitally by 4.16% (the difference between 24 frames and 25) - suddenly, everything I had read about was happening. It DOES work for PAL countries, you just need to make the effort.

[edit] Requested move to Dark Side of the Rainbow

[edit] Voting

• Support. The title is POV.

To call the perception synchronicity is to say that only the deluded would find a similarity between the works of art. Look, no matter what you think, clearly there is some disagreement about this. Each editor's particular passion for side of the debate is completely beyond relevance. In the name of neutrality, I propose a move back to "Dark Side of the Rainbow". (That page has edits of its own, so an admin must handle the task.)

You may also think of this as a kind of harmless appeasement, if you like. Archaic presents this rationale on the old talk page, "Talk:Dark Side of the Moon - Wizard of Oz coincidences". (I'm not sure why that discussion wasn't moved to this new article.) omphaloscope:talk 08:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose

Two reasons. First, Omphaloscope, you are misreading the term "synchronicity." It does not necessarily mean a false connection that only the deluded perceive. Jung was respectful, not disdainful, of those who thought they saw connections such as this one; he believed in the collective unconscious and hidden universal forces. "Coincidences" is the non-NPOV term which subtly assumes it to be delusion, while "synchronicity" is the precise word for this thing.

Second, as Pigsonthewing correctly pointed out when moving the section originally to DSOTM-Oz Coincidences, it is better to have the names of both works in the title so that the page comes up high when people are doing searches for one or the other of them, both inside Wikipedia and via outside search engines. They would have to already be familiar with it to use the less descriptive title "Dark Side of the Rainbow."

Archaic 17:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Archaic, thanks for explaining synchronicity better. I admit I hadn't fully grasped the depth of the term when I proposed the move. According to what you say, synchronicity appears to be even more controversial than I had thought; it's a special Jungian term that reflects his whole worldview. But we're mere encyclopedists. We can't say objectively that the collective unconscious is at work here. It's a respectable argument, but not one which ought to be enshrined in the title. (Perhaps we might address it in a section.)

On your second point, I accept your rationale behind keeping both "The Wizard of Oz" and "Dark Side of the Moon" in the article title. I'm going to open a moveoptions vote.

omphaloscope:talk 18:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. There's nothing wrong with the current name (except the capital 's'); but it's a Wikipedia-invented one. Better to use a preexisting popular name, Dark Side of the Rainbow. Searches will still turn the page up because of its content; and they'll also turn up the redirect page which can be followed here. Doops | talk 19:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Several points--

• "synchronicity", as far as I know, is just a word, the noun form of "synchronize" which is just syn- ("together") + chron- ("time"). I don't think it implies anything Jungian. In this title, "synchronicity" seems perfectly NPOV -- the article will describe what things happen at the same time as what other things without making any claims to why.
• on the other hand, it shouldn't be capitalized in the article title. so, if nothing else, the article should be moved to Wizard of Oz-Dark Side of the Moon synchronicity.
• The proposed name below "claims that x & y are linked" misses the point. The article shouldn't be about the WHY but the WHAT; and the phenomenon of people playing the record while watching the movie is a well-established one. If by nothing else, the two are indubitably linked by this cultural phenomenon. Nobody denies that people associate the two together.
• If the phenomenon is actively called "Dark Side of the Rainbow" then I think that's the ideal name. Only when something doesn't have a name of its own should the wikipedia make up a name for it. The article's content will ensure that it comes up in searches, as will the redirect which will continue to exist from the old name.

Thanks for your attention. Doops | talk 19:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other Proposals

• Claims that The Wizard of Oz and Dark Side of the Moon are linked
  • Support. NPOV. Has both titles. omphaloscope:talk 18:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Elephantine and ungraceful. Furthermore, it's silly -- the article isn't about the claims; it's about the phenomenon of the people playing the album while watching the movie. That phenomenon definitely exists, whatever its origins. Doops | talk 19:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The claims are what's notable (thus Wikipedia-worthy) about the phenomenon. They're also what the current revision addresses: all the different bits where they might be connected.

Regarding length: yes, it's pretty pachydermal. It's long so that it includes both titles, which you deem unnecessary above. I don't have any well-informed opinions, as I understand neither how the Wikipedia search engine works nor how it's used.

One last thing: associations have been made between the album artwork and the film, so let's not restrict the article to just "the phenomenon of the people playing the album while watching the movie."

Omphaloscope » talk 21:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• The Wizard of Oz and Dark Side of the Moon

• Weak support. Just another suggestion. 1. Fewest restrictions on what appears in the article, while still (2) precise. 3. Not too long. 4. Allows discussion of both the associations made and why people make them. 5. Has both titles. 6. Easiest to pronounce. Will miff the fewest, I believe. Dark Side of the Rainbow may still be best.

How about "Emerald Moon," which references both film & LP without being elephantine or commercial.

[edit] Further Discussion

Doops is right that "synchronicity" is also a NPOV noun version of synchronize that doesn't need Jungian collective unconscious to work; I was just noting its psychoanalytical context to refute omphaloscope's claim that it was a disparaging term. In any case, in the last day or two random people have been making alternate claims for "Dark Side of Oz" being more famous than Rainbow (some anonymous change on DSOTM page; I disagree with it, actually), or another one I'd never heard before in this article, "The Wizard of Floyd." It seems to me that there's no one artsy title which has a consensus, but people have been certainly been routinely calling this a "synchronicity" since 1995. I also think the other suggested names (above) are hopelessly clunky. I say the current title is fine: simple, direct, descriptive and neutral. Our energies are best spent improving some article that needs it. Archaic 04:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

As an amusing aside to this discussion, how about this paranthetical sentence [[1]] which appeared today in the New York Times op-ed pages?

"(And surely some Jungian theory about the collective unconscious explains why both Oz and Narnia are populated by four heroic characters fighting an evil witch.)"

Archaic 02:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Result

Moved. Please don't remove the move notice next time :). WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 02:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] variations on the theme

What about all the ones listed here? —alxndr (t) 18:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fun with subjectivity

I added a line about its existence in the 1970s. There used to be a post at the Synchronicity Arkive about it but the site has since been revamped.

I haven't bothered to go through the talk page a lot to see if I'm just saying what everyone else has been saying, but a lot of stuff with DSotR is subjective. There is no real "right" way to watch it. I believe the most accepted way is to use the 1994 CD on the third roar using a copy of the VHS version that has a black-and-white (i.e., not Sepia) opening. But one may use anything they like. Grab your new remastered DVD and a 5.1 mix SACD and enjoy. Use a horribly timed copy. There is no real list of things, they're like Paul Is Dead clues. You can make up some crazy stuff, some might stick and seem fun, others might not. If you're going by someone's solid setup, and you see everything they say, good. If you're timing it incorrectly and using the "wrong" disc and the "wrong" copy of the movie, and you're not seeing anything, you're simply not using your imagination like everyone else. Eclipsed Moon 02:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

That's just it; it's a subjective experience. I can remember one time back in the mid-90's when I was listening to a Nine Inch Nails album while Riverdance played on PBS on my TV, and they looked beautifully synched, and it was hilarious. I doubt either the Riverdance choreographers or Trent Reznor intended Riverdance to sync with The Downward Spiral; it was a happy coincidence, which didn't make it any less enjoyable. So is DSotR, and it's one that every viewer can experience slightly differently, since it's just a lovely coincidence; being anal about the particular DSotM release or WoO copy only helps you recreate what other people have experienced, but there's lots of ways to enjoy the two together without having to slavishly follow certain rules. - dharmabum 09:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recipe

The lengthy section on replicating the effect needs to be cut down as per WP:NOT; Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Isopropyl 14:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I added a small piece a while back, explaining that if PAL users speed up the album 4.16% - by computer or otherwise - the sync works perfectly (as described, it syncs only with NTSC versions). I spent a couple of days trying and failing to get it to sync (with a PAL DVD and the 30th anniversary ed), before I speeded up the album itself, and voila, everything I'd read about fell into place.

[edit] Proposed Synchronicities

• Money begins just as Dorothy enters Oz. This is the scene where she first encounters the Yellow Brick Road and the ruby slippers. In Baum's book, the slippers were silver. One popular interpretation of Baum's The_Wonderful_Wizard_of_Oz, published by Henry M. Littlefield in 1964, is that the story is a parable concerning US monetary policy. The theory includes the proposals that the Yellow Brick Road represents the gold standard and the silver shoes represent the silver standard. The timing of the song, its subject matter and the direct parallel to the scene and Littlefield's theory are uncanny. Bsmith94 04:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• • I think that falls under no original research. --NE2 15:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

When I watched this, I was struck by how well the talking at the beginning of The Great Gig in the Sky (I think it was that song) matched up on the third repeat with one of the people in the film talking. Is this well-known, and, if so, should it be added? --NE2 15:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] alt.drugs citation

I deleted the link to a February 1995 alt.drugs USENET reference to Dark Side of the Rainbow as part of an "Ultimate Stoned Movie List" because we know that alt.music.pink-floyd people were discussing it prior to then, though unfortunately that group's archives are apparently lost. So it does not have historical value, in my opinion. Moreover, its drug associations strike me as an unnecessary and potentially negative (to some folks) overtone to bring into the article; the DSOTR experience does not require an altered state of mind and arguably is better viewed sober since it requires a lot of fastmoving mental processing. Sstrader restored the alt.drugs link, noting that "I originally added this and think USENET citations are important." What do others think? Should it stay or should it go? Archaic 18:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify my opinion (beyond the short comment I left). I think that the relevance of the citation is that (1) it's the only actual reference that we have from USENET and (2) USENET is an important repository. I think we agree on (2), so the main issue is (1). Memories of the contents of lost archives, though important, have no bearing on the importance of those archives that actually survived. Copies of historical manuscripts--where the original no longer exists--are still valued. Because of DejaNews and Google, we have a wealth of history in USENET. It's not complete, but it's all we will ever have unless further archives are uncovered. With the existing archives, that citation is the earliest and is therefore the earliest documentation that exists in this domain.

As for the negative drug associations: deleting information based on where it was published (and not the value of its content) seems to me suspect. What if the earliest reference was not in a Pink Floyed related group and was somewhere else? Would a disagreeable location override its valuable content? People will make the associations they want; the USENET location has no moral position, it just is.

--Sstrader 15:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging (WP:NOT)

I propose that this article be merged into the Dark Side of the Moon article per WP:NOT. While this topic is important, it does not warrant an article of this length enumerating various perceived connections. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This topic should be limited to a paragraph in the Dark Side of the Moon article. All of the specifics are unimportant for collection on Wikipedia. The only important part is noting that this idea exists, a short history of when it came to exist, and links to sites enumerating details of how to view it. It does not need to be a direct copy of personal websites' summaries on the details of the synchronicity as that is mostly a matter of perception and personal opinion.--Dylan Lake 06:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the uniqueness of the cultural phenomenon justify this article? Various other phenomena get their own article separate from the event to which they refer (see Kennedy assassination and Kennedy assassination theories or The Catcher in the Rye and Cultural references to the novel The Catcher in the Rye). Dark Side of the Rainbow seems to me different enough from the original such that it would be a useless digression if integrated into the original article. What part specifically of WP:NOT would this fall under?--Sstrader 16:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe the part of the WP:NOT policy to which Dylan Lake refers, is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I think the "uniqueness of the cultural phenomenon" does warrant its inclusion in the Dark Side of the Moon article, however it seems to me that most of the details are irrelevant and should not be included, and that the subject does not require a seperate article. The general overview of the concept, its history, and its place in popular culture is important, but all of the details described are based on a few non-notable, and personal websites that do not represent the general consensus on the subject from the 70s onward. Not enough research has been done in this regard, and at the moment it is all based on few individuals' perceptions. If users are interested in the cataloged study of how certain songs may match up with parts in the movie, they are free to view that on the actual website, and I think it is appropriate that a link be provided. Wikipedia itself, is not the place to host this kind of a catalog. --Ottovonguericke 05:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea of merging a few snippits of this article into DSOTM and then eliminating the rest of it. The Dark Side of the Rainbow is inarguably a distinct cultural phenomenon, not just an eccentric bit of trivia noted on a few personal websites. There have been a number of mainstream media articles about this, an MTV News story, references in TV shows and at least one comic strip, etc. Most of the article is devoted to explaining its psychological, cultural, and pragmatic aspects. This is no different than thousands of other Wikipedia articles about topics -- some far more obscure -- that a reader might be curious about.

I agree, however, with your instinct that it is inappropriate to use Wikipedia to try to compile an exhaustive list of the more notable matchups. If you look elsewhere in the discussion page, you will see that the regular editors have agreed to limit the length of the list of examples for precisely this reason, and to that end have established a rule of deleting random additions that drive-by editors like to add. If you wanted to make the argument that the section of bullet-pointed examples should be cut in half, so that an even greater percentage of the article is discussion of the history and context of the phenomenon, I would probably support that. But the bulk of the article is totally in line with Wikipedia's mission of collecting and ordering information about subjects of general interest.

Thus, this article is useful to people and merits preservation.

Archaic 15:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

A significant event in pop culture deserves an article. Perhaps some more rigid criteria for inclusion would be a better solution. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It deserves mention on WP, but a list of purported matchups and a 'how to' on how to play the two together are not encyclopedic. Cut out those two, and too little of the article is left to merit its own page. I support Dylan Lak's proposal. -Alcuin 04:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If there are no examples of purported matchups, the whole subject becomes meaningless. A section that defines where to start the cd is just as much a how-to as a page number that defines where to find a reference. I don't know how significant and notable this subject is, but if it really is widely known, in my opinion it should be left as is. Tinus 22:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I Agree, with Tinus. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Based on the consensus in this discussion, I have removed the merger tag. Archaic 17:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)