Talk:A Farewell to Kings

Relevance of Christgau Quote?

I'm wondering how helpful it is to cite Robert Christgau to represent critical responses to the album. Of course Christgau was going to hate it. His tastes ran more to punk. He made no secret of his hatred of intellectual lyrics and any unusual melodic approach, which he considered pretentious and snooty. The albums he considered bad included Boston's debut, "Leftoverture" by Kansas, "Going for the One" by Yes, and Queen's "A Night at the Opera." Christgau's quote about "A Farewell to Kings" seems to have less to do with the relative merits of the album itself and more to do with his own assessment of Rush's work as a whole.

Is there perhaps a critical review from a less agenda-driven critic?

Mastering Info

I've always thought the fact that the record was slightly out of tune was common knowledge among Rush fans, and I've read it in guitar magazines in the past. I no longer own those magazines, and to my surprise, I couldn't find information about it anywhere on the Internet. Anyone with a musical ear can simply listen to a song from the album and then the same song played live, and hear the difference, so it's a true fact, but I can't find a way to verify it using a reputable Internet source. If anyone else can do this, that would definately be good for the article.

This is very hard to believe, as if Geddy doesn't sound enough like a chipmonk without begin speeded up, find the sources before adding it back if you can't find it on the interweb its probably because it didn't happen. Also has anyone else got a problem with the interpertation of Farewell..? How does "the evolution of society from the days of medieval feudalism and autocratic monarchy, hence "a farewell to kings"" make any sense, since autocratic monarchies were ruled by, wait for it, kings? It's written in the present tense so is it not about how ordinary people in western demoracies, since we got rid of monarchies hence "a farewell to kings", are responsible for who governs us, and if we let jerks get into power and allow them to screw everything up, well its really our own fault and we have to do something about it or we will be judged harshly by history?--KaptKos 09:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

articles linked using song listing

I disagree with linking articles that are not about the song they are linked to. Therefore, I have removed them. "Cinderella Man" has nothing to do with Cinderella, other than having it in the name. I think that if a song is linked to an album, it should be about the song, such as "Cygnus X-1" and the majority of the Pink Floyd songs on Wikipedia. Spaceboy~ 03:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Writing Quality

This article reads as if it had written by a five year old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ff1959 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, sentence clunk abounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ff1959 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get a life, you losers who wrote this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.239.94.164 (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the problematic seems to have been removed. It is still accessible at [1]. Some of it could be incorporated into the current article with proper references. –Drilnoth (T/C) 17:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closer to the Heart

For some reason, this article lists closer to the heart as the first video played on MuchMusic. This is not the case, it was the enemy within

http://www.muchmusic.com/aboutus/faq/#programming —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.202.115.133 (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concept Album?

The lede says that this album, along with Hemispheres and 2112, is a concept album, and part of a "post-apocalyptic trilogy". This does not make any sense, and is completely unsupported. I'm going to remove it until someone can provide a citation for it. MacBeth7622 (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:A Farewell to Kings/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Article requirements:

Y All the start class criteria
Y A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details
Y At least one section of prose (excluding the lead section)
Y A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs
Y A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians
Y Categorisation at least by artist and year
Y A casual reader should learn something about the album. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To meet the current criteria for B class, this article needs sourcing. The article would also benefit from some attention to layout in accordance with the guidelines at WP:ALBUM. The article's body of prose should be placed above the track listing, for instance. The opening paragraph could be strengthened by a bit of style work. The second paragraph, for instance, consists of one sentence. Please see WP:LEAD for more ideas. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 23:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 01:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:SYN on Charistgau

The source says Charistgau does not like prog rock. If the source is reliable, that might be relevant to add to an article on the critic or (less likely) progressive rock. However, that statement by itself is not relevant to this album until it is connected to the album in some way. That connection is synthesis and cannot be added to the article.

The source you provided says he does not like prog rock. Let's call that source A. Other sources say the album is progressive rock. That's source B. The statement added here is, essentially, "Of course he didn't like it; it's progressive rock and he doesn't like progressive rock!" That's C. A + B = C. That is WP:SYN. The claim is not verifiable unless you provide an independent reliable source that directly supports the statement. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

40th anniversary track listing

Should the track list include the additional songs on the 40th anniversary reissue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.34.188.85 (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]