Jump to content

Talk:Parallel Lines

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Parallel Lines "song"

[edit]

Is there any evidence behind this actually being a song? If there isn't, it should probably just be labelled as a poem as are oft found in liner notes without corresponding music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.248.59 (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

parallel lines is an unrealeased song from the PL sessions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.148.147 (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fade Away and Radiate

[edit]

According to the article, this song is about "falling in love with dead movie stars". I'd like to see some justification for this claim, since the lyrics seem to be quite directly about the prosaic situation of falling asleep with the television on ("The beams become my dream. My dream is on the screen.") 209.179.82.114 (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Parallel Lines. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Parallel Lines/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 The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Article requirements:

Green tickY All the start class criteria
Green tickY A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details
Green tickY At least one section of prose (excluding the lead section)
Green tickY A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs
Green tickY A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians
Green tickY Categorisation at least by artist and year
Green tickY A casual reader should learn something about the album. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the C Criteria . Changed. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 00:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 02:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Is it acceptable to use the preposition "in" between the name of the studio and its city?

[edit]

In response to this recent edit war: ([1], [2], [3], [4])... Is it acceptable to use the preposition "in" between the name of the studio and its city? Dan56 (talk) 10:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was there no consensus at Template talk:Infobox album? --Martin de la Iglesia (talk) 13:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is apparently a different discussion. This is permissive. It is not asking if it should be mandated, only if its permissible. The infobox question is which should be used, and there the consensus seems to be do not use the preposition. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Parallel Lines. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

20m sales

[edit]

This is a gross exaggeration. It wouldn't fit Wikipedia's own criteria as certifucations fall well short of this. Coachtripfan (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your certifications account for about 2m. Where are the extra 18 million sales? Yes, probably an extra million sales in the UK (no multiple platinum awards then). This figure is a joke. Coachtripfan (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the world? Dan56 (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The countries where certifications are listed account for the majority of global sales.

Blondie had little success in Japan or Latin America for example.

This 20m sale is just plucked from the air and cannot be broken down. Coachtripfan (talk) 10:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chartmasters (we obviously can't use it in Wiki articles) estimated the sales of the album at 8.7 million. Based on their rationale, the inflation of this album's sales is obviously very high. Bluesatellite (talk) 03:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Despite this discussion has ceased; here is some older sales reports to have an idea of the trajectory of its claimed sales.

  • 5 million (1979) by The New York Times Magazine (pag. 18): [...] "In 1978 , most of these kids probably never heard of Blondie , but in 1979 , the album “ Parallel Lines , ” Blondie ' s third , latest and best , had sold more than five million copies worldwide ; and sales of the album ' s hit single , “ Heart of Glass , ” exceeded two million" | Article online by Ann Louise Bardach and Susan Lydon, August 26, 1979
  • 5 million (1980) by The New York Times Annual Review (pag. 191): [...] "more than five million copies worldwide ; and sales of the album ' s hit single , “ Heart of Glass , ” exceeded two million" | Article online by Ann Louise Bardach and Susan Lydon, August 26, 1979
  • 7 million (1980) by Lester Bangs in his book Blondie (pag. 11): [...] "They ' re featured on the cover of Cash Box , which reports that Parallel Lines , selling 7 million copies worldwide"
  • 20 million (1992) by Ted Greenwald in his book Rock and Roll (pag. 191): [...] "Blondie crossed over with Parallel Lines (1978), selling a whopping 20 million copies"
  • 7 million (1996) by Lucy O'Brien in her book She Bop: The Definitive History of Women in Rock, Pop, and Soul (pag. 139): [...] "It wasn't until they moved to Chrysalis and released the Mike Chapman - produced album Parallel Lines that Blondie took off in the States , their single ' Heart Of Glass ' going to No. 1 , the album selling seven million copies in two years."
  • 20 million (1999) by Out (pag. 81): [...] "Back in New York in 1978 , they went into the studio to record the classic Parallel Lines with producer Mike Chapman . The album has sold 20 million copies ."
  • 20 million (2006) by Billboard (pag. 34): [...] " 1 hit on the Hot 100 in 1979 but propelled the album to sell 20 million copies worldwide."

--Apoxyomenus (talk) 04:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sometimes labels don’t submit for certificates from riaa, it costs after all thousands to do so Shhsbavavaa (talk) 12:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I get the the point that certifications are often out of date.

In UK, no multi platinum awards in late 70s but it has sold around 1.7m and so should be platinum x5.

In the US, perhaps another million.

But we are talking about sales of 20 million. This claim, never verified appeared in a book back in 1992 - and others have repeated it. There is no global organisation that compiled this.

This is the thing with Wikipedia, if something is claimed and published it is often taken as fact.

Better to stick to certifications which admittedly under-estimate sales. But at least they can be verified. Coachtripfan (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Record Companies know how many copies were manufactured. And how many were sold to stores etc. There are a number of reasons why Certifications may be significantly lower than actual sales figures.

Less Than 9 Million World Sales...

[edit]

It did not Sell anything like 16 Million Globally. Some sources, even give it 20 Million Global Sales. It has been calculated, that it really sold around, 8,500,000 to 8,700,000. As can clearly be seen, by its Global Chart Peaks, and real Sales. It 'only' sold 1.5 Million, in the USA, where it Peaked at No.6. The UK was just about the only Country, that put it at No.1. Its UK Sales were very big, but not gigantic - around 1,700,000. So, its Global Sales, are exaggerated, by a huge 11,500,000 to 11,700,000. The most inflated Sales, of any 1970's Album. But, still the 16 Million, (or 20 Million), nonsense is repeated. 86.17.80.227 (talk) 23:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Parallel_Lines&oldid=1249998721"