Talk:Time (Electric Light Orchestra album)

Fair use rationale for Image:ELO TIME 1981 .JPG

Image:ELO TIME 1981 .JPG 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) 05:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

WHy should it be merged? It was a 45 rpm single release in it's own right and deserves it's place —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Equaliser (talk • contribs) 02:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with The Equaliser. If it was singuarly released, it should get its own article. I always believed the aim of an encyclopedia was someone types or looks up something, and there it is, rather than merging pages. Ie if someone wanted an article about davidstow cheese they wont want to look through a merged giant article of stilton to find what they want are they?--Sotonfc4life (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Jeff Lynne may indeed have recorded 'Time' to satisfy contractural obligations, but this album was wonderful. It fitted so well into the emerging synthesiser sound that dominated the early 80s and had some fabulous tracks on it. I really feel it was one of the best ELO albums.

Unfounded speculation

Dear anonymous, who edits under several different IP-adresses. Wikipedia does *not* allow unfounded speculation without sources. The claim about the story that is told in this album neither makes sense, nor fits very well with the lyrics, nor has any reliable source to support it, and hence, it should not be here. Stop adding it back. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Album count

A count of which album this is was added very recently to this article. And, as often occurs, it has immediately caused a dispute. The issue here, as I see it, is not whether this is the ninth or the tenth album by ELO, but whether this is of any significance that it needs to be in the lead sentence. Does the reader, on being introduced to the subject, want or need to know this right from the start? Why does it matter? I've reverted back to the lead as it was before, without the count, and invite responses. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The count should not be a matter of debate (because it's a count), and I don't see how the gains of excluding one word helps the article in any way. Do as you wish, but if there's going to be a count, it should be right. Best, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Well it is a matter of debate; the question is whether Xanadu counts as a studio album or not. I suspect those who first added it thought that Xanadu didn't count, possibly because it was a soundtrack album, or maybe because it is half Olivia Newton John. But as I said, the importance of the count escapes me. No-one really cares. The lead should stick to significant facts. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't care too deeply, to be honest. Leave it out if you want. Best, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Time Travel

OK, one song mentions a "Time Transporter", but none of the other songs mention time travel in any way. It's an interpretation based on very loose grounds (basically only the album title and nothing much more). The theme is science fiction, yes, but the idea that there is otherwise some overarching theme or story in the songs needs Jeff Lynne as a source as only he would know. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Vague lyrics can be interpreted as almost anything. We can not claim that your interpretations are the true ones unless we have a reliable source, which in this case is Jeff Lynne. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

There are multiple reliable, published sources that call this a concept album about time. Three sources talk about how it's a narrative about a man who is taken to the year 2095. The burden is on you to prove, with reliable sources, that this album isn't about time travel. Have you really listened to it? You do realize that none of its tracks make any sense when you take them standalone? They all contribute to a single narrative. And by the way, other tracks which mention time:

• "Prologue" – ("I have a message from another time...")
• "Twilight" – ("I only meant to stay a while, I gave you time to steal my mind away...")
• "Yours Truly, 2095" – ("I sent a message to another time...")
• "Ticket to the Moon" – ("Remember the good old 1980s?" ... "I wish I could go back there again")

Need I say more?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that this is a *possible* interpretation. But claiming that this is THE ONLY interpretation, and that this is what the albums is about requires Jeff Lynne as a source, as only he knows. Have I listened to it. Yes, it was pretty much my favorite album during the whole 80's. I know it by heart. Claiming the tracks doesn't make sense standalone is absolute nonsense. The storyline claim needs to go, and the claims that it's about time travel needs attribution, like The Time Traveler's Almanac reference.

Notably, somebody added an unsourced story line in 2010 where there were no kidnapping by time travelers and it all turned out to be just a dream. That's *also* a possible interpretation. Or the whole album is just from the perspective of an old man in 2095 longing back to his youth and childhood over a hundred years ago. That's *also* a possible interpretation. We can't claim one as canonical without Jeff Lynne. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Most sources agree on one story element: a man is taken to the year 2095.

• "...manages to get himself transported to and stuck in the year 2095. Ironically, all he does the whole time is whine about how he misses good old 1981 and the girl he left back there."
• "ELO became one of the '80s most accomplished proponents of time travel music. ... The basic premise: a man from the 1980s is catapulted to the year 2095, where he's confronted by the dichotomy between technological advancement and ages-old heartache."
• "A man is trapped in 2095 ... "Twilight" set the scene: while sleeping, the hero is mysteriously transported into the future.

Two more sources state that the album takes place in the future, but fail to elaborate beyond that.

• "Time's thematic conceit (supposedly a look backward from the twenty-first century) ...
• "... Time (1981) was a future-set rock opera.
• "...their unsung 1981 time-travel masterpiece Time (which, more than any of its sci-fi concept-record brothers from the same period, has stood the test of, um, time)

None of this can be disregarded. It's pretty obvious that this is what the album is about, and unless Lynne ever states (or has already stated?) anything to the contrary, it's going to remain the album's only valid interpretation (at least on Wikipedia, unless more sources can be found that contradict/challenge what's already been said). Look at The Wall#Concept and storytelling as an example. How many of these statements have been corroborated by Waters? Everything written there is a reflection of what can be found in the album's lyrics. Everyone knows that Time is a concept album with a narrative, and taking that into mind, lyrics like "you took me here but can you take me back" so clearly informs other parts of the album like "I realize it must seem so strange that time has rearranged" and "it's only a day since I was taken away ... I wish I was back in 1981". Why would an old man be talking about how he was "taken away" a day before he decided to suddenly reflect on his past? Come on now.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

References

"It's pretty obvious that this is what the album is about" - You just listed multiple different "this". It's not obvious that it's about the specific "this" that you added to the article. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Holy gamoly, I found a source. Quote:

Jim Ladd: "Well, this is like the vehicle for this guy to go on this time travel, this twilight state, and he's now going to imagine all the things that is about to happen to him."

Jeff Lynne: "That's right yeah."

So, yes, time travel, but *imagined* time travel. So, not like ANY of the stories people made up. (Although Jeff Lynne says he doesn't know himself if the character somehow actually traveled in time, or was just fantasizing).

Jim Ladd: "Is he is bed, is he sitting staring at the window, day dreaming"

Jeff Lynne:"During twilight or?"

Jim Ladd: "Yeah."

Jeff Lynne:"I picture him in bed actually, looking at the window."

--OpenFuture (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, so, pretty much confirmed? Straight from the horse's mouth, it is a story about a man who appears to travel to the year 2095. It's just left ambiguous as to whether it's a "dream" or not, everything that has been written remains valid and applicable. You have no rationale to remove the paragraph now, unless you have some excuses like, "Well, Lynne never actually said that the album's protagonist met a robot woman when he sings about meeting a girl who is an IBM...". The "this" that this album is about: a man (believes he is) taken to the future and spends his time there introspecting. There are songs which clearly elaborate on that theme. It's not difficult to ascertain the gist of the album's plot, at least not with the first few tracks. Lynne isn't Edgar Allen Poe. You first said that "there is not a hint of time travel", now there is a lyric about a "time transporter" and Lynne himself corroborating that the album is indeed a "time travel vehicle". There's really no room left for argument over the album's supposed ambiguity. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The "time travel" part, yes, definitely confirmed. The "story line" is confirmed as not being one beyond a guy lying in bed imagining the future, or possibly actually traveling there.

No, Lynne isn't Edgar Allen Poe. Poe writes stories that actually is about something. Lynne doesn't, or at least does not on this album. He says himself in the interview that early on he did try to write little stories but by 1981 he doesn't, and he often doesn't even know what the songs are about himself. It's loosely set in the future. "Rain is falling" is possibly the "I" being back in 1981 again. Or possibly not. "Here is the news" is the "I" of the album being in the future but listening in the present. Possibly. Is he time traveling or just day dreaming about the future? Not even Jeff Lynne knows.

There is no story line. It's not a rock opera. It's a bunch of songs (mostly) about the future. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Where is your source for any of that? When did Lynne ever say that the album shouldn't be taken as a long-form narrative?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

You have it backwards. You need to find a source of Jeff Lynne explaining what the long-form narrative is. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I have! Scroll down. Here is a direct link where you can listen too: http://www.elodiscovery.com/Jeff-Lynne-Electric-Light-Orchestra-Interviews2.html--Ilovetopaint (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I've found the Ladd interview, check out 330 seconds in

Jim Ladd: "'Yours Truly, 2095' seems like a song about our time traveller off in the future and he meets this girl who is kind of like an android."

Jeff Lynne: "Yeah ... He obviously misses his real girlfriend, his own time, and this one will do for now, if he can find a way to... put it."

More at 476, when Ladd asks Lynne whether the man has actually gone to 2095 or if it's in his head:

Jeff Lynne: "[That's] what I'd like to know, because it's baffled me since I've wrote it, if he has actually gone, or if he's just thinking about it. ... It could be real, or it could be a dream... I'm not sure. I'd rather not say, because I don't know either. I'm supposed to, but I don't."

At this point, this is like removing all mentions of red shoes or munchkins from The Wizard of Oz, you know, because Dorothy was only dreaming that she was in the Land of Oz, and that anything about yellow brick roads is subject to interpretation. Right. Is this really going to necessitate an WP:RfC?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

No, it doesn't necessitate an RfC. Yes, Jeff Lynne says it's about Time Travel. No, there is no long form narrative story line. This is clearly confirmed by the Ladd interview. I have no idea why on earth you would push that to an RfC. The point here is that the lyrics of time doesn't mention red shoes or munchkins, so stop adding red shoes and munchkins to the article. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Throughout the interview, Ladd asks about what the protagonist does while he's in the future, and at no point does Lynne deny that there is an overarching narrative. He admits that he might not know what the song's might mean sometimes, but he confirms their premise: a man has time travelled to 2095 and wants to return to 1981. This album doesn't talk about red shoes or muchkins, no, it talks about IBM girls and levitating cars.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Once again, you need a source where Jeff Lynne explains that narrative, not a lack of denial that there is a narrative. If there was one, don't you think this would have been mentioned? Also, if there was a narrative, wouldn't Jeff Lynne know that narrative? He openly admits to not knowing the meanings of the songs, how can there be a narrative if the songs don't have a decided meaning? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Third opinion on Storyline

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

ilovetopaint have added a section on the storyline of the Time album, based on one (of several) sources that describe one (of several possible) storylines for this album. However the albums author Jeff Lynne in an 1981 interview (ref the 1981 Innerview hosted by Jim Ladd here) makes no mention of a story line, and actually mentions that he no longer writes stories, and that he himself does not know what his songs mean, but leaves it up to the listener. I therefore claim that we can't let this article say that there is a definitive storyline. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Should Wiki-voice view Time as a story? Keep "Storyline"?

I am procedurally closing this RfC. Dionysodorus (talk · contribs) wrote at WP:ANRFC, "this RfC quickly degenerated into a heated debate between two participants, quickly rendering the initial !voting out of date. Not practical to close it really."

This close is without prejudice against any editor undoing this close and relisting this RfC at WP:ANRFC.

Cunard (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dispute about whether the album should be considered a long-form narrative. See this revision and further discussion on talk page. OpenFuture has placed several "failed verification" and "unreliable source" templates, rationalizing that the journalist can't possibly know the songwriter's intentions, implying that the album's lyrics are too oblique for anyone to assess an accurate plot summary. I contest that the journalist is not interpreting the material, but rather summarizing it, also that the author has virtually admitted that the album does follow a semi-coherent narrative structure.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 08:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes / Keep – Any claims of Lynne disavowing a narrative do not exist in any referenced material, sources are reliable, they don't fail verification, everyone calls it a concept, Lynne speaks of the album as a literal story of a man who goes to the future, and the album's lyrics are far from oblique.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 08:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Clarification: I feel that the current (as of now) revision is what should be kept, not the horribly tagged revision that is addressed.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Addendun: earlier revisions of the article lacked a second-party source that explicitly used the word "story". I've since found one and integrated it into the article.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Delete – the section directly contradicts both the actual lyrics, and the authoritative source, an interview with the author. The version Ilovetopaint describes as "almost perfect" contains no discernible storyline and skips more than half of the songs. Claiming that the album has a storyline at that point is nothing but WP:OR. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - I have no problem with this loose plot summary (see below for my further thoughts). The Italian source isn't great though (apart from anything else, we have no idea what may be getting lost/mistaken in translation), so it would be good to have others to back it up. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• Delete - The author's declaration holds greater weight here than a tertiary interpretive source. A section on common interpretations by others would be justified if there were significant sources that discussed it. One interview that generally supports 'there is no real storyline' is not enough. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• Delete - The absence of any clear declaration from the author holds greater weight than a tertiary interpretive source. A section that says it is sometimes interpretated otherwise might be justified if there were significant sources that discussed it. Nice story. No reason to believe it is actually true. Pincrete (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Addendum "the author has virtually admitted that the album does follow a semi-coherent narrative structure". is an extremely weak foundation on which to build the claim that there IS a storyline, and to extrapolate what that storyline is. Pincrete (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Keep but modify - If the songs on the album all follow a specific concept and theme, a section with information about this is appropriate. However, it's a big leap from stating that the songs are sung from the point of view of a man who has traveled to the future (either actually or in imagination), and stating that the songs fit together to create a single, coherent plotline (a "story"). Song lyrics are poetry, ie auditory art, and the poet is under no obligation to decide what they mean. Even if each song did have a clear plotline, that wouldn't necessarily mean that the songs were like chapters in a novel, each advancing the plot of one long story. Science fiction is full of short story collections in which all of the stories happen within the same imaginary universe, but don't fit together as a novel (example: Heinlein's The Green Hills of Earth). I think the section should reflect that the songs have a common theme, and that they have been interpreted by music critics and other listeners to be parts of an album-long time travel story, and that this has not been clearly confirmed or denied by the composer.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Through much fighting I have been able to get agreement on the contents of the section, so there is no WP:SYN any longer. However, there is also no longer any discernible plot. I'd like to change the sections title from "Concept and storyline" to "Concept and lyrical content" or just "Concept" as there isn't any story line. Notice how the section now doesn't even mention most of the songs on the album, as they don't fit into the idea of a storyline. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• 1. Multiple secondary sources describe Time as a concept album. One goes so far as to call it a rock opera (a rock album which tells a story through various songs, not necessarily a literal opera). Time is said to be the story of a protagonist who is taken from the 1980s into the year 2095.
  2. In a radio interview (heard here), Lynne can be heard conversing with Jim Ladd, who asks him about various tracks on the album. Lynne is receptive to his interpretations, agreeing that the album is essentially "a vehicle for this guy to go on this time travel, this twilight state, and he's now going to imagine all the things that is about to happen to him." (timestamp - 3:50) Lynne confirms various elements of the plot, such as the protagonist's time travel to 2095, his encounter with a female android, and how he misses his girlfriend from the 1980s ("when things were so uncomplicated"). (timestamp - 5:45) Later in the interview, Lynne confesses that he doesn't know exactly whether or not the story should be taken as a dream (timestamp - 7:55).
  3. The sources in this section rely solely on that interview along with an Italian review of the album from the online publication Rockol, established in 1995 and self-described as the "top ranked music news site in Italy", containing a varied staff of editors and writers. Their comments on the album aren't interpretive, they are fairly literal summaries of its lyrics, which can be observed here, proving that the various songs share a narrative thread. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 08:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

References

• This section needs to be removed because:
• a. Tertiary sources can not be used to establish the intentioned meaning of fiction. Only the author or a source close to the author can do that.
• b. The albums author Jeff Lynne in the 1981 interview makes no mention of a story line, and actually mentions that he no longer writes stories, and that he himself does not know what his songs mean, but leaves it up to the listener. I therefore maintain that we can't let this article say that there is a definitive storyline, since the author clearly does not have a specific storyline in mind.
• c. In addition to that, the storyline added several times directly contradicts what Jeff Lynne says in that interview. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

a. The source does not address meaning, they address a lyric summary. The only thing remotely close to speculation is in this text: "Ce l’avrà fatta il nostro eroe a tornare nel 1981? La band non lo rivela e ci lascia con una formula enigmatica: “Anche se cavalchi l’onda del domani, vaghi ancora per le distese del rimpianto" Translation: "Does our hero return to 1981? The band does not say, and instead leaves us with an enigmatic formula: "Though you ride on the wheels of tomorrow, you still wander the fields of your sorrow."--Ilovetopaint (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

b. Total nonsense. I have already proved that Lynne considers the album a narrative by the way he speaks of the album as if it were a time travel adventure story, which Ladd does state and Lynne corroborates (timestamp - 3:50). If Lynne wasn't writing songs with stories anymore, Time is clearly an exception. Anyone can see what Lynne has to say if they look at the transcripts that are written above — or simply listen for themselves.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

c. OpenFuture cannot reference a single direct quote and timestamp that contradicts anything that is written about the album in the section.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The Italian magazine source do NOT just summarize the lyrics, it adds things that are only interpretations. Your text further adds another layer of interpretation on top of that source that is not supported by either the Italian magazine, nor the Lynne interview.

You have not in any way proven that Jeff Lynne intended this album to be narrative.

Listening to the lyrics yourself is a good idea. I agree you should, because the lyrics do not support your interpretations. In any case, even if you imagine that they do, adding things to the article based on that would be WP:OR.

I have a life, and will spend the time to provide timestamps in the interview that contradict you only once you show willingness to listen to anything I say. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I haven't added any original research. I've lifted every single claim verbatim from the sources to the best of my ability (assisted by Google Translate for Rockol). You are conflating summary with interpretation. Wikipedia articles, when talking about songs, are allowed to summarize its lyric content without attribution from the songwriter, so long as it is from a verified source. You don't even know how {{not in citation}} works. It's ironic how every time you attempt to back up anything you've claimed regarding Lynne's intentions, it actually serves against you. I think that's more the reason why you won't do it anymore, lol. Ladd asks Lynne if the album is about a guy who goes to the future, Lynne says "yes", and you cover your ears every time. I'm going to try not to respond anymore to your absurd revisionism. I've copy and pasted several quotes that prove you wrong. Seems like you'd rather pretend Lynne never says "yes" to Ladd's interpretations.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 10:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not a summary. The only authoritative sources are the lyrics themselves and the Innerview. I tagged the things that are not in there (which was a lot). Rockol is not an authoritative source, and you should stop using it. The things you write are WP:SYN of Rockol and Lynne with some added imagination from you. That's not acceptable. "A guy that goes to or imagines the future" is indeed supported by sources. Do you want to change the section to say only that? It would certainly be a good start. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with OpenFuture that the album is not a tightly plotted narrative, but then many works of fiction aren't. And there is a lot left to the interpretation/opinion of the listener. Certainly, further cites to Lynne's own statements would be good, even if he is saying nothing definitive. That would back up the ambiguity of things. But as long as the summary reflects this uncertainty, and the leeway given to individual interpretation, I don't see any problem. And there is nothing in the summary that I can see that is fundamentally incorrect. The album is most definitely based around the concept of a time traveller, the title alone tells us that. Maybe just start the section with a straight-forward statement that the narrative is intentionally vague and open to interpretation in parts? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

But we can't have a subjective interpretation and present it as the authoritative one. And why would this Italian magazine trump any other interpretations? This is what is actually supported by the lyrics and Jeff Lynne:

In 1981, a man lies on his bed and looks out through the window, and drifts into a twilight state, where he either goes to the future or imagines going. ("Twilight"). In the year 2095, he meets an android woman ("Yours Truly, 2095"). He reflects on the 1980s, "back when things were so uncomplicated" ("Ticket to the Moon"). He lies on his bed and looks out through the window where it is raining("Rain Is Falling"). He sends a letter in the form of a dream to his girlfriend in the past ("From the End of the World"). During the album's epilogue, an earlier lyric repeats once more: "though you ride on the wheels of tomorrow, you still wander the fields of your sorrow".

None of these add up to any sort of storyline, and it also conveniently skips several songs, because they don't fit into a narrative. And it would be hard to fit them as well. Lynne's own comment on "Here is the News" indicates that the "I" listens to the news in the present although he is still in the future. And in Rain Is Falling he seems to be back into 1981. That's tough to fit into a story line of any sort without a lot of elaboration that doesn't exist in the sources.

Where is the story? There is no story above "He goes to or imagines the future". That the album has time travel as a theme is mentioned already elsewhere. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

"None of these add up to any sort of storyline ... in Rain Is Falling he seems to be back into 1981." Ignoring the fact that nonlinear storytelling is still storytelling, you should open the transcript, press CTRL+F on your keyboard, and type "my interpretation is"...--Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure. You start. Add "Ilovetopaint (talk · contribs)'s interpretation of the album is that it creates the following story line" to the main article, and we can close this RfC". --OpenFuture (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

English is not your first language, is it? You have horrid reading comprehension. I was saying you should look at the very end of the transcript so that you would see that everything you wrote has already been negated by the author.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

So you ran out of argument and resorted to personal attacks. How lovely. So much for constructive discussion. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Not an attack. You have repeatedly demonstrated a tendency to misconstrue, confabulate, or ignore incontestable statements. My question is whether it's deliberate? You have made one or two valid points concerning whether the plot summary follows WP:STICKTOSOURCE — the rest of your points have self-destructed, either by virtue of having no relevance to the argument or because Lynne himself has negated them in the below transcript.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

That's just more attacks and all patently false. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course it's impossible to be constructive on the subject of an album's narrative with someone who doesn't understand how conceptual art and media works, let alone basic narrative techniques, lol. I provide verified sources and corroborative statements by Lynne; you provide nothing. Virtually everything that has ever been written about this album suggests that it is about a man who travels to 2095. You are the only person I've ever seen who challenges that concept, reasoning that Lynne has never definitively stated the premise. Yet, in a recorded interview, he is asked multiple times about a time-traveling protagonist who is central to numerous album tracks, and every single time the subject is broached, Lynne affirms a continuous narrative. Who is being nonconstructive again? Go ahead, talk more about how some tracks feel somewhat disjointed (I guess it's unthinkable that Lynne could be a substandard storyteller?), or how "Another Heart Breaks" and "Here Is the News" don't contribute to the album's main narrative, because whoever heard of intermezzos, right? Hahaha.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

You are still ignoring everything I said and instead continuing the insults. Please refrain from commenting until you are prepared to be constructive. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The last argument you put forth was that Time can't contain a story because whatever story it has is largely incoherent, using "Rain Is Falling" as an example. Supposedly, Lynne said that the song is about the protagonist laying in bed in the year 1981. You are either lying or you lack comprehension skills. Lynne never states that. Since you will likely decline to scroll down, I will copy and paste the relevant quote: "My interpretation is actually, [he's] in this place looking out his window, and it's still in that future period. And uh, I think it's just a depressing time, just watching it all go by, in this hundred years future. He's just at his window looking in, watching everything go by." What else is there to respond to? "we can't have a subjective interpretation and present it as the authoritative one" No duh. "And why would this Italian magazine trump any other interpretations?" It never did. None of these [songs] add up to any sort of storyline." Only in your meritless opinion. While it's true that Time does not have a tight-knitted plot (as Escape_Orbit has said, many fiction works don't), it's clear Lynne intended the listener to be able to stitch together some sort of story. Fortunately for all of us, Lynne was more concerned with writing songs that had lyrics which sound good, rather than engage the listener in some complicated story arch. He doesn't really care what the album is about. It doesn't matter. But the most important thing is that he made an attempt for it to be about something. That something, loosely outlined in the album's concept and storyline, and elaborated on by Lynne and secondary sources, is what you're hellbent on undermining for whatever strange reason.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I also agree with that. There are certain claims of the lyric content made in the Rockol source which I neglected simply because they were too specific and potentially offtrack. Such assertions like "'Ticket to the Moon' is about the protagonist reflecting on the 1980s" or "'Yours Truly, 2095 is about the protagonist meeting a female android", however, are unequivocal, as is the fact that Lynne wrote the songs from the point of view of the same character within the same plot line.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

But "The protagonist reflects on the 1980's" doesn't make a storyline. For there to be a storyline, something must actually happen. You can take any album by anyone as long as they have intelligible lyrics and fantasize a "storyline" in that case. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

A sequence of events create a storyline. Lynne elaborates on the character arch of the protagonist introduced in "Twilight" when he talks about the album's subsequent tracks. These tracks directly follow and reference each other as being within the same fictional realm.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

No, a story line is not just a sequence of unrelated events. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Welp.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Only in death: No declarations of the sort have ever been brought to light. OpenFuture fails to cite his source, whereas I've shown that Lynne corroborates secondary interpretations. See below transcript.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The interview, as shown by your transcript, does not support your story line. The transcript mentions no storyline. The things you have written in your storyline is often not supported by the transcript, nor by the lyrics. That's why I tagged them. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Haha, right, if you say so.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Pincrete: As I've said above, there was no such declaration ever made by Lynne. It's a falsehood. He has never been quoted saying that the album has no story. Read below for a transcript where Lynne discusses the album's tracks and their placements within the album's overall story/concept. You will see there is a running narrative theme.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

There is so much OR and synth in your case. If there is any significant doubt (which I believe there is), then it becomes 'some interpretations' not wiki-voice. Pincrete (talk) 08:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Jeff Lynn quote from the interview at 10:24 in reference to "The Way Life's Meant to Be". "It's very hard to talk about songs, because, but what they mean and stuff, because, like I said before you know, I don't really know what I mean myself sometimes, I just write 'em, and if it looks nice I like it.". 10:47: "It's just really hard to say what I think I mean, you know, honestly." It seems to me very hard to write a narrative rock opera if you don't know what the songs mean. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Pincrete: It would be extremely helpful if you explained how it is OR when numerous verified sources describe Time as a concept album with a story? Isn't it original research to suggest otherwise, to disregard everything that has ever been written about the album and what Lynne has said? Lynne himself explicitly refers to Time as a concept album. He's just never been quoted to have called it a story (he gave very little press at the time of the album's release). OpenFuture has no case except that he doesn't feel the album has a story, with one reason being that it contains an instrumental (one of the most famous rock operas, Tommy, contains 2!), and another being a quote by Lynne where he says it's sometimes difficult to talk about song meanings. However, in the same interview, he talks of the album's time traveler character, clarifying that there does exist a narrative continuity between tracks whenever he's asked to comment on them. And he is the authoritative source. Please elaborate: where is the "significant doubt" here? That he doesn't use the word "story" when he talks about the album's story? Does The Wall also stop being a rock opera if it's found that the word "story" has never come up in any Roger Waters interview discussing it?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Brief reply: "Lynne himself explicitly refers to Time as a concept album. He's just never been quoted to have called it a story". That it my book means others are interpreting that it IS a story, possibly a valid/interesting interpretation, but not FACT. Please stop pinging, I've voiced my opinion. As I'm sure you are aware a 'concept album' is not necessarily a 'storyline', in fact it tends, if anything, to discredit 'storyline', since 'concept album' is much looser. Pincrete (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Pincrete: If you do not want to be pinged, you should not have bothered participating in this matter. You repeated a false claim, that the author had declared that the album did not follow a story. Observe these quotes:

Ladd: "This is like the vehicle for this guy to go on this time travel, this twilight state, and he's now going to imagine all the things that are about to happen to him."
Lynne: "That's right, yeah. ... He obviously misses his real girlfriend, his own time. ... It's one of those 'It could be real, or it could be a dream world' thing. I'm not sure. I'd rather not say, because I don't know either."
"...manages to get himself transported to and stuck in the year 2095. Ironically, all he does the whole time is whine about how he misses good old 1981 and the girl he left back there." "ELO became one of the '80s most accomplished proponents of time travel music. ... The basic premise: a man from the 1980s is catapulted to the year 2095, where he's confronted by the dichotomy between technological advancement and ages-old heartache." "A man is trapped in 2095 ... "Twilight" set the scene: while sleeping, the hero is mysteriously transported into the future. " ... Time (1981) was a future-set rock opera."

I ask you to please edit your contribution to reflect the above. The author never made a declaration denying any of this. You're going to confuse anyone who doesn't bother to scroll down this far.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Can I have some of what you're smoking? Pincrete (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Good, because it no longer contains anything resembling an actual storyline. Gone is the kidnapping time travelers, gone are the attempts to go back in time, etc. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad that you're satisfied even though the subtext of Lynne's comments still communicate to the reader that the album is a story regardless of what you believe lol. The "storyline" descriptor doesn't need to exist for clarification anymore, but I will still argue for its inclusion.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

That "subtext" exists only in your imagination. Likely the same imagination that made you think the lyrics mentioned a kidnapping by time travelers. It's because of overactive imaginations like that WP:RS is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Anne Delong: I agree with everything you wrote, however, this dispute is the main point of this RfC: "an album-long time travel story ... has not been clearly confirmed or denied by the composer". Is it not confirmation enough when the author confirms that several songs are narrated by the same character (i.e. "the man from track 1 goes on to do this in tracks 2, 3, 4, and so on...")? Keep in mind, second-party sources explicitly call the album a "story".

"(Accurate paraphrasing of reliable sources is not considered original research. ... Identifying synonymous terms, and collecting related information under a common heading is also part of writing an encyclopedia. Reliable sources do not always use consistent terminology, ... This does not require a third source to state this explicitly, as long as the conclusion is obvious from the context of the sources.)"

Do we really need the author himself to explicitly use the word "story" before his statements can be paraphrased as such? His statements confirm the existence of a recurring time traveler character, one that clearly experiences various events in a linear progression which all come to serve part of an overarching narrative — is that not a "story", by definition, in the most conventional sense? Yes or no, please.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• "A recurring time traveler character" - Definitely.
• "that clearly experiences various events" - Yes.
• "in a linear progression" - No, that's your interpretation.
• "all come to serve part of an overarching narrative" - Absolutely not. There isn't a smidgen of overarching narrative. There is a beginning, but neither middle nor end. We aren't even told if he comes back to 1980 or not. It's just a set of disjointed images from the future. Which of course makes perfect sense considering it happens as a part of a half-waking, half-dreaming twilight state. But anyway...

--OpenFuture (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Ilovetopaint, extending the comparison to written fiction, recurring characters don't necessarily mean an overarching plot - for example, the stories in the collection Poirot Investigates share characters, a common theme (solving mysteries), as well as other common elements, yet the plot of each story is separate and complete. If some secondary sources call the album a story, that is a fact, and I see no reason it can't be mentioned, as long as Wikipedia doesn't confirm it per WP:OR. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I think a better comparison would be the difference between The X-Files' "mythology" and "monster-of-the-week" episodes. Contrary to whatever OpenFuture may claim, the album does have an end for its beginning: the opening and closing tracks are literally titled "Prologue" and "Epilogue". There are already various examples in the article of songs that demonstrate a sort of plot contained within the album (in short, man goes to the future in track 1, and by track 7, only a few hours have passed when he decides that he wants to go back home). I think that constitutes an overarching narrative, story, or "mythology", as The X-Files would term it.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

In track 7, a few hours have passed. But in track 3, he actually had a life in the future, where he drives the very latest hovercar, and has an android who "looks a lot like you". And in Track 4 he is waiting to leave on a flight to the moon. And in Track 5 he is back on earth, where he used to live in the 1980s. And yet, in Track 7, only a few hours have passed since track 1. Linear progression? Come on! Clearly there is no linear progression. It's just an non-existent as the kidnapping by time travelers you insisted on early on. And an epilogue is per definition not an end. You need to listen to Kevin Mathews. Not authoritative, but he got it right. There's no plot. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• First: poetic license. Lynne didn't care what the implied logistics were when he wrote "I drive the very latest hovercar". The character just does. You are so bad at recognizing this. Even if you were right and the album is nonlinear — that doesn't contradict a narrative. The narrative in Time, by Lynne's admission, would be centered on the experiences of the character's "twilight state". What is your deal? How much cinema have you watched? Am I really going to have to explain this for you?

"Some films go beyond brief dream sequences into another realm: the dream film, in which the visual aspect of cinema conveys a subliminal story through unique logic and seemingly irrational images that cannot be entirely verbalized. ... [they] create their own rules of logic and laws of nature, and often include dream sequences within the dreamlike structure of the story."

• Second: "an epilogue is per definition not an end"...? Are you trolling this entire time?

"a concluding part added to a literary work, as a novel."

"a concluding section that rounds out the design of a literary work"

"A short addition or concluding section at the end of a literary work, often dealing with the future of its characters."--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

"Poetic license?" So we are to ignore the fact that there is no storyline, because it's "poetic license" on Lynne's part? He intentionally made a story line that isn't a story line? That's absolute nonsense. All you are doing is proving yourself wrong.

Is this a prestige issue? You have been forced to back down on every single claim you did except two: That it's time travel. I did find a source of Jeff Lynne explicitly saying that it wasn't just images from the future, but actually time travel. And you still haven't backed down on the increasingly absurd claim that this is some sort of rock opera with a linear narrative, even though it clearly isn't, and you have absolutely no support for that claim except your own personal interpretation. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Is this a mental illness issue? Go watch a film like I'm Not There which has a nonlinear structure. Like your interpretation of Time, it's a collection of vignettes unified by a single abstract theme (in the film's case: Bob Dylan). And yet, it is considered to have a plot and a story. The sources say the same for Time — you can't do anything about that.

A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.

You have no arguments. And no comprehension of the subject, a fact which you refuse to admit, but which has become, oh, so very clear. All you can offer is "it's too abstract to be a story" and "it's not consistent". Then, when it's explained to you step-by-step why those points don't mean anything, and that a work like Time can still contain a narrative in spite of its disconnectedness, you conveniently ignore it. Every time. Instead of reconsidering your erroneous beliefs, you'd rather take pride in your stubbornness, treating my open-mindedness and willingness to compromise as if it were a bad thing. You must be so miserable. I thought you said you "had a life"? What happened to it? --Ilovetopaint (talk) 10:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Interview transcript which proves a narrative

Transcription of relevant excerpts from Ladd interview

(incomplete)

(0:38–0:46)

Ladd: "Their new album Time, [is] a conceptual piece about time travel and civilization in the year 2095."

(3:45–3:56)

Ladd: "This is like the vehicle for this guy to go on this time travel, this twilight state, and he's now going to imagine all the things that are about to happen to him."

Lynne: "That's right, yeah."

(4:13–4:29)

Ladd: "I want you to just kind of elaborate on this one tune here about, maybe what you see this guy as. I mean, is he in bed, is he sitting staring at the window, daydreaming, when this—?"

Lynne:"During 'Twilight' or — after?"

Ladd: "Yeah."

Lynne: "I picture him in bed, actually, looking at the window. A little bit."

(5:22–5:53)

Ladd: "Now 'Yours Truly, 2095'. It seems like a song about our time traveller — now he's off into the future — and he meets this girl who's kind of like an android.

Lynne: "Yeah".

Ladd: "'She has an IQ of one thousand and one, she has a jumpsuit on, and she's also a telephone'?"

Lynne: "Yeah, that's right."

Ladd: "It's a great line."

Lynne: "Well, it's a good rhyme. Yeah, just a bit of fun. He obviously misses his real girlfriend, his own time, and this one will do for now, if he can find a way to... put it."

Ladd: "So to speak".

Lynne: "Yeah (laughs)."

(7:00–7:17)

Ladd: "'Ticket to the Moon', this is a song about our future-traveller who is on his way and about to take a ride to the moon, and while he's waiting for his flight, he starts to reminisce about the simple, uncomplicated life in the 1980s."

Lynne: "That's right, yeah."

(7:50–8:16)

Ladd: "Is this like — somehow he has actually gone to 2095, or is he doing all this in his mind, the trip to the moon?"

Lynne: "This is what I'd like to know, because it's baffled me since I've wrote it, if he has actually gone, or if he's just thinking about it. I don't really know either. It's one of those 'It could be real, or it could be a dream world' thing. I'm not sure. I'd rather not say, because I don't know either. I'm supposed to, but I don't."

(9:53–10:08)

Ladd: "'The Way Life's Meant to Be', seems like now the guy is like confronting the future, he's like face to face with it—"

Lynne: "Mmhm."

Ladd: "—and what it's brought. It's a pretty pessimistic view of it."

Lynne: "Yeah. It seemed to be on that song, yeah."

(11:04–11:25)

Lynne: "In that particular song, he's walking down the same street that it was before, like say a hundred years before. But uh, even though he's on the same bit of ground, everything that he knew is, like, buried under this new shit, y'know, that's growing up on top of it, all these plastic towers and stuff."

(13:28–13:52)

("Rain is Falling")

Lynne: "My interpretation is actually, ]he's] in this place looking out his window, and it's still in that future period. And uh, I think it's just a depressing time, just watching it all go by, in this hundred years future. He's just at his window looking in, watching everything go by."

Ladd: "Kind of thinking about his past."

Lynne: "Yeah, his past was a bit — a couple hours before."

Song by song "narrative" breakdown

• Twilight: "In 1981, a man drifts into a daydreaming state of twilight" - You can't say daydreaming, here. The interviewer asks Lynne "I mean, is he in bed, is he sitting staring at the window, daydreaming, when this—?" and Lynne answers "I picture him in bed, actually, looking at the window. A little bit." He later says " It's one of those 'It could be real, or it could be a dream world' thing. I'm not sure. I'd rather not say, because I don't know either. I'm supposed to, but I don't." That does not support the claim that it's a daydream. It might be, but Lynne explicitly leaves that up to interpretation because he himself does not know. So you can't claim that. What IS supported is a "state of twilight" whatever that means. The interviewer seems to interpret that as the state of concentration that nowadays is usually called "flow", and Lynne doesn't contradict that.

• Yours Truly, 2095: "After it appears that he is taken to the year 2095" - There is no support that he has been "taken" anywhere so far. It clearly describes life in 2095. He drives the "very latest hover car" and has a IBM robot that is "also a telephone", with which he seems to have made multiple attempts of getting intimate, but failed, although he thinks he might try again some day. "Maybe one day I'll feel her cold embrace, and kiss her interface".

• Ticket to the moon: OK, so now he is waiting for a flight to the moon. So what happened between his seemingly monotonous domestic life with a robot and this? There is no narrative to explain that.

• The Way Life's Meant To Be: "The protagonist then visits the place he once lived" - There is no support for him "visiting" anything. Relevant lyrics are "Although it's only a day since I was taken away and left standing here looking in wonder", what was he taken away from? 1981? Or the life he describes in "Yours Truly, 2095"? Because if he was taken away from 1981 only yesterday how come the previous song describes 2095 domestic life and his long-running attempts to interact with the IBM? And what happened to his trip to the moon?

• Another Heart Breaks: How does this fit it with your storyline? If there really is a storyline, there should be a story. This song doesn't have one.

• Rain Is Falling: "The protagonist hopes that he may be able to return home with a time machine" - There is nothing like that in either the lyrics, not in the interview. Nada. Lyrics: "With their brand new time transporter, They'll think maybe I fought to get away, But with all their great inventions, And all their good intentions, here I stay". How do you get that to "He hopes to return home with a time machine"? That's a big piece of interpretation there. Lynne just says that he is "in his place, looking out through the window, thinking about his past" (not exact wording).

• From The End Of The World: "Still determined, he attempts to send a letter in the form of a dream to his girlfriend in the past, but fails" - There is nothing about him being "still determined". But Lynne does confirm that he sends a dream-letter, presumably to his 1981 girl friend, but that she doesn't receive it.

• The Lights Go Down: Well, why did you skip that one? It's just a typical breakup song, really.

• Here Is The News: How does that fit it? It provides no narrative.

• 21st Century Man: Another conveniently ignored song that also provides no narrative.

• Hold On Tight: "Following this, the protagonist is invited to "hold on"" - Nobody is inviting anyone to anything. It's just a song saying that you shouldn't give up on your dreams. There is once again no narrative.

• Epilogue: "During the album's epilogue, an earlier lyric repeats once more: "though you ride on the wheels of tomorrow, you still wander the fields of your sorrow"." - True. But again, no hint of a narrative.

--OpenFuture (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

What a mess of clumsy, meaningless points, too many that are too contrived to merit a response. I have only three things to say:

1. You have a dreadful comprehension of story, narrative, and concept albums. You are purposely isolating each song and saying "nothing here seems to be about a man in the future". I pointed this out to you earlier, that the songs do not seem to be about the album's premise if you take them standalone and act as though they aren't building on established themes. You responded: "absolute nonsense".
2. Nobody cares what your interpretation of the album's tracks are, nor my interpretations. You're supposed to be challenging the partial plot summary that draws upon statements from the Rockol source and Lynne's accounts, how they supposedly present an inaccurate or embellished version of the album's concept and storyline. While it can be difficult to thread a plot together, it is still possible to create a sort of loose summary based on lyric content and Lynne's statements. If you think there are inconsistencies with the Wikipedia summary, the sources' claims, and the album's lyrics, it would be better to note them rather than raise asinine questions like "How can Time be considered a story if it has instrumentals?"
3. It's quite insane how you are still going on about how the album has no storyline when Lynne completely refutes that notion every single time he comments on any of the songs which follow "Twilight". Lynne confirms that the lyrics on tracks 2–5 feature the same narrator talking about his experiences after traveling the year 2095 (timestamps - 3:45, 5:22, 7:00, 7:50, 9:53, 11:04 - see transcript). The album thus meets the minimal requirements for an extended narrative. This is indisputable. Please, let's move on.

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

You don't read what I say, and instead complete misrepresent what I said. I never said anything even remotely resembling "nothing here seems to be about a man in the future". You are now also rude and your replies are full of personal attacks. I'm not going to discuss with you as you are incapable of constructive discussion, and this will be handled completely through dispute resolution processesas it is impossible for me to assume good faith in this situation. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Guardian

• "Twilight' makes being abducted by time travellers sound like the most fun you can have" - Where in the article does it say that? I can't find it. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

That quote is actually from The Quietus. I referenced it from The Guardian by mistake.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, so then please remove the claim of time travellers, because there is no mention in the guardian of time travellers. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Time (Electric Light Orchestra 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:

• Added archive http://www.archive.today/eeaOI to http://chartheaven.9.forumer.com/a/complete-uk-yearend-album-charts_post21.html

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Time (Electric Light Orchestra 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120215182433/http://www.infodisc.fr/Album_E.php to http://infodisc.fr/Album_E.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://chartheaven.9.forumer.com/a/complete-uk-yearend-album-charts_post21.html

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) 21:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Tone of article

This article seems kind of revisionist to me. To its credit, there are citations, but they seem a bit like they’ve been cherry picked to paint a picture of Time being a more successful and widely known record than it really was. Don’t get me wrong, it’s my favorite too ... but someone unfamiliar with ELO reading this article would get the impression that this is what they’re known for, and that’s not really true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:182:C680:CCC:8A8:1168:1E20:A2CF (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)