Talk:Rust Never Sleeps

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

Clearly this a "Live Album"[edit]

A studio album is typically recorded in a recording studio and certainly NOT in an arena in front of a live audience. These are two distinctly different recording environments.

Only two of "Rust Never Sleeps" songs were recorded in a recording studio. Seven of the songs were recorded in front of a live audience.

"Ragged Glory" was recorded live in the studio. Does that make it a "live album?"

The Grateful Dead's "Europe '72" collection was recorded live in halls and arenas during the the tour in front of audiences and without an audiences. Overdubs were done during the tour without audiences as well as post tour in a recording studio. The audience "noise" was removed as much as possible. Does anyone consider "Europe '72" a studio album?

Most "live albums" contain studio overdubs and are produced in the studio with all the tools that are available (such as effects.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docstevens (talkcontribs) 20:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is an entirely live album[edit]

I don't think this is an entirely live album. I remember reading in some Neil biography that there are a few studio tracks on it as well ("Sail Away" and "Welfare Mothers" come to mind.) Darkhorse82 03:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orange or Darkturquoise?[edit]

This album is one that challenges the color conventions for the infoboxes. Though technically a live album, Young just preferred to release his new material in this format. Is there a discussion elsewhere about live albums that feature all original material?Alcuin 15:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a live album - that's Live Rust[edit]

This is not a live album even though some of the tracks were live with the crowd noises removed. Fantailfan (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Why is there no separate page for the Rust Never Sleeps film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree -- it was a moderately successful film (directed by Young using a pseudonym) that needs its own documentation somewhere in Wikipedia, probably as a separate page. Vandelay (talk) 03:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well, there should definitely be an article on the "Rust Never Sleeps" movie, the brief mention of it in this article doesn't do justice to one of the most mesmerizing pieces of concert footage ever released, both for its musical content and for its quirky theatrical settings, and also for its very peculiar style, with a deliberately grainy image and general "rugged" feel, going as far as to acknowledge a false start at the begining of "Thrasher", which makes the ensuing performance of that song even more marvelous, showcasing Young's frailty and imperfection while turning them into his special powers which raise him above the crowd of typically self-aggrandizing rock stars.--Abolibibelot (talk) 05:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely very strange that the film doesn't have its own page, or at least a section in this page. I'm watching the movie right now and would like a trustworthy track listing, if nothing else. I can see track listings on, e.g. IMDB but they credit 'Neil Young and Crazy Horse' even for the solo songs. Abolibibelot says there are 'brief mentions' but I don't even see that on the current version of the page.

Ambrosechapel (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a short section mentioning the film with release date, concert date and track listing. Most of the places I found a track listing were wrong ('Thrasher' wasn't listed) but Discogs matches the film I've seen. Ambrosechapel (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rust Never Sleeps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Genre discussion[edit]

I feel that "acoustic" isn't specific enough. So I'm starting a discussion. Maybe we could at least change it to "folk" instead? I don't know.

Dpm12 (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think acoustic is rather fitting. Country folk definitely seems off. I love this album so much, by the way. El_C 00:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, that ref I added actually didn't say "country folk". That was a mistake on my part

Dpm12 (talk) 00:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cite a source that says its "folk". Dan56 (talk) 02:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edit 20191011[edit]

The edit I made yesterday was quickly reverted with this explanation :
“(Reverted bold edit by Abolibibelot; trivia, unsourced additions and unnecesssary line breaks; and the album was recorded in concert, so in spite of the overdubs and removal of audience noise, it is live, and secondary sources support that, including the first citation in the lead”
So, even though it's probably “unnecesssary”, let's try to address each of those complaints.
1) What exactly is "trivia" here ? The fact of mentioning which album was ranked first in a poll where it is stated that "Rust Never Sleeps" was voted second ? When I read about such a list, if an item I'm interested in is ranked second, I definitely want to know which other item is ranked first, so if it is worth mentioning at all, then that information should be mentioned as well, at least as a footnote. Then, I felt that it was worth mentioning that the album which came third in the list for the year 1979 alone, behind "Rust Never Sleeps", came in first in the list from the same group of critics for the whole 1970s decade, in which "Rust Never Sleeps" was placed ninth – that puts into perspective how whimsical these rankings really are, despite the fact that they are considered as major references on Wikipedia.

If you wanna know those things, go to the citation link. But the article itself should stay on topic (WP:OFFTOPIC) Dan56 (talk) 06:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2) What I added was based on sources already present in the article (for those polls), or based on the mere description of the source material (for the "Rust Never Sleeps" movie).
3) The line breaks are definitely necessary here, because, as it is, that paragraph which begins with the very brief mention of the "Rust Never Sleeps" film (which should definitely deserve an article of its own, as it was requested on this talk page years ago, since it is among the best and most idiosyncrasic rock music movies ever made, on par with David Bowie's "Ziggy Stardust" or Bob Dylan's "Eat The Document"), then mentions the (actual) live album "Live Rust", gives the impression that it is that title, "Live Rust", which is borrowed from a slogan for Rust-Oleum paint.

Fine, whatever. Those sentences are unsourced anyway, so who cares what's done with them. Dan56 (talk) 06:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4) "Rust Never Sleeps" contains 9 tracks, 7 of which were reportedly recorded live, 2 of them were not, according to what is already mentioned further in the article. This alone implies that it does NOT qualify as a bonafide live album. Then there's the fact that it contains only original, heretofore unreleased material, which is not typical at all for a live album – "Kick Out The Jams" by the MC5 is a very rare example, but it is indeed a live album, intended as such, with conspicuous audience noises and no silence between tracks. That's the main point : "Rust Never Sleeps" was not conceived as a live album, each track was treated as a separate item, the order of the tracks on the record does not reflect the order in which they were played, and an effort was made to hide the unwanted applause and other audience noises – that's just the opposite of the typical approach for a live album ! Neil Young chose to record most of of those tracks in a concert setting because he felt that they would work best in such a setting, rather than in a studio setting; that was an aesthetic decision he made for that particular album; in a way he used the audience and the concert venue as tools to shape a particular sound, just like in a studio recording many settings are possible with regards to the choice and placement of microphones, the choice of recording all instruments at once or each one separately, and all the available technical trickery. The purpose of a live album is to provide the listener with the most direct experience of a concert as it happened, with minimal editing, tinkering and tampering after the fact. This is clearly not the case here, and in every discrography of Neil Young I have read before, "Rust Never Sleeps" was always considered as a "regular" album, not a "live" album. And as someone mentioned above, the very fact that "Live Rust" was released the same year should make it even clearer that, in his mind, those were two totally different projects, and only one was a live album project.

Too long to read all this... Hey, why don't you just cite a reliable source for your changes to article text that is already attributed to a reliable source?... Dan56 (talk) 06:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

5) "Live Rust" does NOT feature all tracks from "Rust Never Sleeps", only four of them, so the sentence saying that it is "a compilation of older classics interweaving within the Rust Never Sleeps track list" is complete bullshit and makes the whole article dubious for anybody who has a minimal ability to notice things. Let's just hope that someone else will be "bold" enough to change this at least, in a way that pleases the sentinels around here, with no fear of spending precious time doing tedious solitary work for the community that will be erased in a split second with flimsy justifications (which in my experience is far too frequent on english Wikipedia).
--Abolibibelot (talk) 05:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about you not lump together all your bullshit changes in one revision with an inaccurate edit summary? That way, you can have a point to expect better in response. Dan56 (talk) 06:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Title comes from a common adage[edit]

The phrase "rust never sleeps" is a general proverb or truism. It's been published a bunch of times before the 1960s. I found it in various gardening, farming and engineering magazines from the early-to-mid-20th century, not always directly associated with an advertisement for Rust-Oleum. For instance, The American School Board Journal of June 1906 makes humorous wordplay of the adage when talking about an envious book publisher named F.W. Rust, writing "Rust never sleeps on his guns, though he frequently spikes those of the enemy..."[1]

The January 1927 farming journal Through the Leaves warns the reader on page 401[2] that "Rust Never Sleeps. More machinery rusts out than wears out. The more complicated the machine, the more lubrication it needs..."

An advertisement in 1938 and 1939 issues of Electric Light and Power, Electrical West and Electrical World magazines reads, "Rust is working everywhere. Rust is working all the time. Rust never sleeps. But there is a simple economical answer to your rusting problem: use non-rusting Copperweld. Copperweld guy strand is protected from rust by a thick layer of pure copper inseparably molten welded to a tough steel core..."

An ad in 1940 Metal Finishing magazine says, "Rust never sleeps! Rust is always on the prowl. That's why International Chemical offers you a complete range of performance-proven anti-rust compounds."

FYI. Binksternet (talk) 01:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]