Eleventhblock (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Teflon Peter Christ (talk | contribs) |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 183: | Line 183: | ||
:Absolutely, saying "rave reviews" sounds like an advertisement. "Critical acclaim" or "positive reviews" would be better. Thank you for noticing that! '''[[User:Eleventhblock|<span style="border:1px solid Black;padding:1px;"><font style="color:White;background:Black" size="0"> 11Block </font></span>]]|[[User talk:Eleventhblock|<font color="Black" size = "0">talk</font>]]''' 18:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC) |
:Absolutely, saying "rave reviews" sounds like an advertisement. "Critical acclaim" or "positive reviews" would be better. Thank you for noticing that! '''[[User:Eleventhblock|<span style="border:1px solid Black;padding:1px;"><font style="color:White;background:Black" size="0"> 11Block </font></span>]]|[[User talk:Eleventhblock|<font color="Black" size = "0">talk</font>]]''' 18:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC) |
||
:: Maybe the both of you should look up the word "rave" in [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rave the dictionary]; it's perfectly appropriate for this context, as several other news sources have found as well ([http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=%22rave+reviews%22+yeezus]). Don't water-down what the source cited clearly supports--[[WP:STICKTOSOURCE|Stick to the source]], unless you can find as much reliable sources that use your preferred phrase. Awfully limited language does not demonstrate any neutrality. If the reviews were strong enough for [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=%22rave+reviews%22+yeezus these folks] to use "rave", then that's the tone of the material in question. We're not misleading readers with a perfunctory "positive reviews" when that can range from lukewarm to what Metacritic likes to call "universal acclaim", especially when there are several sources backing it up. [[User:Dan56|Dan56]] ([[User talk:Dan56|talk]]) 13:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:17, 24 June 2013
Albums C‑class | |||||||
|
Hip hop C‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Track list
The tracklisting is wrong, and I would like to fix it with the real one. - Roxxoredizorz
- Do you have a source where you are getting the "true" tracklist? --Esanchez<subYUser_talk:Esanchez7587|Talk 2 me]] or Sign here) 22:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the back of the CD. - Roxxoredizorz
- The CD has not been released and I seriously doubt you have seen it. STATic message me! 00:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Not done No changes suggested. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
the CD hasn't been released but people have it... but you must know that by now Distortiondude (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Edit request on 14 June 2013
Cthemc (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- Please specify the change you want to be made. STATic message me! 19:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
"Drill"
Hi, I would like to specify that by "drill", Kanye doesn't talk about drill'n'bass at all, unlike this article points out (link to drum'n'bass when you click on "drill") but about drill rap, a subgenre of trap music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Le Felz (talk • contribs) 22:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
In Utero link
Can someone who has the power edit the in utero link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Utero_(album) thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.147.16 (talk • contribs)
Track listing changes
Since the track listing was originally added to the page, various editors keep chopping and changing the various featured credits for each song: namely, whether or not God or Justin Vernon should be credited on "I Am a God", whether or nor Travi$ Scott or Justin Vernon (or neither) should be credited on "I'm in It", whether Tony Williams should be credited on "Blood on the Leaves" and whether Iamsu!, or all people, should be credited on "Send It Up". The problem is arising from the different websites giving different features for each song: is there a more official source yet to check, or can we establish some consensus to stop the constant alterations? I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 11:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- The back cover states that "For full album credits, go to kanyewest.com". There are no credits there yet, but would most likely be made available on the 18th when is the official release. So just wait 3 days and then get the official credits from there. 2Flows (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Amazon.co.uk has listed the featured credits, and have Chief Keef and Justin Vernon on "Hold My Liquor", Kid Cudi on "Guilt Trip" and King L on "Send It Up", which makes more sense. I can't even hear Frank Ocean on "New Slaves". — Statυs (talk, contribs) 17:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't understand where XXL Mag is getting their info, I can't see any producers OR features listed on the back cover of the album, which is apparently where they are getting their info from. It only shows the song titles and what it samples. This should be removed, methinks. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 17:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Amazon.co.uk has listed the featured credits, and have Chief Keef and Justin Vernon on "Hold My Liquor", Kid Cudi on "Guilt Trip" and King L on "Send It Up", which makes more sense. I can't even hear Frank Ocean on "New Slaves". — Statυs (talk, contribs) 17:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Everybody is getting their info from THE ACTUAL ALBUM because it leaked. Frank Ocean is at the VERY end of New Slaves after Kanye sings his autotune. Bon Iver comes before Chief Keef's chorus in Hold My Liquor. Agent Sasco and Bon Iver can both be heard in I'm in It. I don't really hear Tony Williams on Blood on the Leaves, honestly. KiD CuDi is on Guilt trip. King L is on Send It Up. Charlie Wilson sings the bridge in Bound. Any more questions? Distortiondude (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Saw the edit, thank you! Distortiondude (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Edit request 15 June 2013
I just listened to track 6 on this album, and whats on the wiki here ""I'm in It" (ft Justin Vernon)"" might be incorrect Along with that, I can confirm that the song Samples Assassin but Im not sure if its featuring Justin Vernon or Travis Scott... The vocals dont sound like Justin to me, but more like Travis@SexForDummies (talk) 12:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[1]
Agent Sasco is an uncredited feature on it Distortiondude (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Who's removing the features from the track list?
I have the album, as do many others. The features I put in are on the album, so why are they being removed? Distortiondude (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Please, provide us with an image that shows the features listed on the songs. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 18:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't have an image to show that, unless you want me to screenshot my iTunes library. But these features are on there, and if you don't believe me, go listen to the album yourself because they're pretty hard not to hear. Distortiondude (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just because an illegal torrent download listed the artists as featured artists, does not mean they are actually credited on the official album. The other vocals are now credited in the notes section. STATic message me! 18:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly. There's a lot of conflicting sources on the features... and there is just NO WAY that Frank Ocean is on "New Slaves". As I posted above, the websites "confirming" this info apparently takes it from the back cover, which, if you actually take a look, shows nothing of the sort. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hit it right on the head about bolding a lot lol. Well the fact that XXL Magazine is definitely a reliable source, they would not just make it up. I would be partial to not even listing the so called "official" tracklist on Wikipedia until Mr. West, the US Amazon or iTunes revealed one. There is still the question of the French Amazon having 4 extra tracks and no comment by Kanye about the leak. STATic message me! 05:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly. There's a lot of conflicting sources on the features... and there is just NO WAY that Frank Ocean is on "New Slaves". As I posted above, the websites "confirming" this info apparently takes it from the back cover, which, if you actually take a look, shows nothing of the sort. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just because an illegal torrent download listed the artists as featured artists, does not mean they are actually credited on the official album. The other vocals are now credited in the notes section. STATic message me! 18:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Ad from Def Jam, showing the correct track listing (no features). — Statυs (talk, contribs) 06:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Would it be opposed of to remove the featuring and production credits until we got official word, since there is so much conflicting information? — Statυs (talk, contribs) 06:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I would be opposed, since the ones we have stripped it down to have been reported by universally reliable sources as appearing as guest artists on the songs. That source 100% confirms what tracks are on the album, and what they are titled, but clearly purposely does not list featured artists. I do not understand the removal of the uncredited vocals credit however? STATic message me! 06:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
A person from a Kanye forum (kanyetothe) says that they put together the credits before the album leaked, and it was just picked up by publications as being official. The only thing this article should contain is the song list, as the rest lacks any sort of real confirmation. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 07:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Here we have it. Although, we're a bit late in seeing this... — Statυs (talk, contribs) 07:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
No mention of leak.
I have found that no mention of how Yeezus was leaked on this entire article. 11Block |talk 21:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Per WP:LEAK it is not our place to report leaks to illegal torrent download sites, unless the artist responds to the leak in someway. Examples would be pushing up the album, changing the tracklist, adding songs things of that degree. STATic message me! 21:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
"Sixth studio album"
Should Yeezus really be written as Kanye's "sixth studio album"? I recently edited the article to change this to "seventh studio album", taking Watch the Throne into consideration, and got reverted. I do understand the reason for the revert, but if we're going to keep the current wording "Yeezus is the xth studio album by Kanye West", then there's no reason for WTT to be ignored because it's both 1) a Kanye West album and 2) a studio album.
I'd personally prefer a rewording to either "seventh studio album" or "sixth solo studio album", because either of those two would be more accurate than the current wording. Any other thoughts? Holiday56 (talk) 06:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that it's his seventh studio album. Using "solo" just complicates things. Watch the Throne is his album. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 06:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- A lot of reliable sources say sixth album though [1] [2] [3] Calidum Sistere 07:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- And Bionic (Christina Aguilera album) was referred to as Christina's fourth album, while her next album, Lotus (Christina Aguilera album), was referred to as her sixth (by her record label). We can do our own math on here. It's his sixth solo studio album, but his seventh studio album. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 08:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Kanye West’s sixth solo album “Yeezus”. — Statυs (talk, contribs)
- I'm fine with qualifying it as his sixth solo studio album. Calidum Sistere 16:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes it should be listed as either his sixth studio album, or sixth solo studio album. I doubt any reliable source refers to this album as his seventh as collaboration/compilation/mixtape albums are not taken into account when tallying up number of albums. STATic message me! 18:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- And for that matter why not count Cruel Summer as one of his too. Calidum Sistere 18:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Cruel Summer is excluded from the count, as it wasn't a studio album, but rather a compilation album. Is there any consensus on what wording should be used? I'd personally prefer "seventh studio album", and I don't see why Watch the Throne should be ignored just because it was a collaborative studio album. Do we really need sources to reference a simple count? Just because media outlets tend to ignore collaborative albums (much in the same way that they forget about Christmas albums and other studio releases of the sort) doesn't mean that we should. Holiday56 (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sixth or seventh depends on the point of view (whether to include "Watch the Throne" or not), so if we choose one of them, there would always be someone to disagree. I'd go with "sixth solo studio album" since this is true and doesn't depend on the point of view. 2Flows (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Cruel Summer is excluded from the count, as it wasn't a studio album, but rather a compilation album. Is there any consensus on what wording should be used? I'd personally prefer "seventh studio album", and I don't see why Watch the Throne should be ignored just because it was a collaborative studio album. Do we really need sources to reference a simple count? Just because media outlets tend to ignore collaborative albums (much in the same way that they forget about Christmas albums and other studio releases of the sort) doesn't mean that we should. Holiday56 (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- And for that matter why not count Cruel Summer as one of his too. Calidum Sistere 18:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes it should be listed as either his sixth studio album, or sixth solo studio album. I doubt any reliable source refers to this album as his seventh as collaboration/compilation/mixtape albums are not taken into account when tallying up number of albums. STATic message me! 18:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm fine with qualifying it as his sixth solo studio album. Calidum Sistere 16:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Kanye West’s sixth solo album “Yeezus”. — Statυs (talk, contribs)
- And Bionic (Christina Aguilera album) was referred to as Christina's fourth album, while her next album, Lotus (Christina Aguilera album), was referred to as her sixth (by her record label). We can do our own math on here. It's his sixth solo studio album, but his seventh studio album. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 08:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- A lot of reliable sources say sixth album though [1] [2] [3] Calidum Sistere 07:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
genres
lots of writing referring to the sound as some sort of industrial music. make the genre industrial hip hop
- Unless you have an official source (not from some illegal torrent website) clearly stating that the genre is industrial hip hop and NOT abstract hip hop, then no. Also, sign your comments. 11Block |talk 11:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- pretty sure none of the sources for the genre ever actually call it "abstract hip hop." only source that even calls it "abstract" is a quote from a questionable source on the article cited. find some actual official sources for that and it can stay. "industrial" has been thrown around everywhere.. "experimental hip hop" or "industrial hip hop" much more fully represent the gamut of critical writing on it 74.105.44.63 (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- and here are two of the innumerable sources that describe the album as both "industrial music reappropriated in a hip-hop context" (PopMatters) and "a wildly experimental work" (Los Angeles Times). couldnt get more obvious than that.
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/review/172614-kanye-west-yeezus/ http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/posts/la-et-ms-review-kanye-wests-wildly-experimental-narcissistic-yeezus-20130617,0,3686173.story 74.105.44.63 (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Done with changing with this edit. Thank you for providing the two sources but, please sign your posts. 11Block |talk 20:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Who keeps chaning the tracklist and producers?
Can you please leave the tracklist alone the way it is, everytime we come here it looks different. Please put the song producers back or make the page open for public editing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.228.99 (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- An actual producer of the album said that the credits circulating were not true... so... No... — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- I am honestly genuinely scared of how much this page is going to be vandalized, when the protection ends in a little over a week. Just imagine how it would have been if it wasn't protected during the last week. >.< STATic message me! 04:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- STATic is right. Tons of people are making countless, false edits based on what they think is truth. Most of this false information however, is coming from websites that illegally feature the album due to a leak a few days ago. So, if you want to edit any of the official credits, THEY MUST BE OFFICIALLY SOURCED. I highly suggest that we wait until the official physical release comes out before anybody starts making guesses. 11Block |talk 11:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- I am honestly genuinely scared of how much this page is going to be vandalized, when the protection ends in a little over a week. Just imagine how it would have been if it wasn't protected during the last week. >.< STATic message me! 04:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Edit Request 2013/06/17
Charlie Murphy is on the closer, Bound 2. http://www.vibe.com/article/qa-charlie-wilson-talks-recording-bound-2-kanyes-yeezus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcybulski (talk • contribs) 23:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Minor Edit Request 2013/06/18
Alexis Petridis, who reviewed the album for The Guardian is referred to as a woman, but Petridis is most definitely male. Proof: http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/alexispetridis
It's a small error but it was bothering me. And attention to detail is important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.192.38 (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
So many co-writes!
I'm not a fan of Kanye, but I have noticed the lyrics to his earlier albums were all written by him. On Yeezus all of the songs have 5 to 13 writers each. Should this complete selling out be noted? Mrmoustache14 (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- #1, it has so many co-writes because of the amount of samples... the writers of every song sampled must be credited as a writer. #2 What?! — Statυs (talk, contribs) 17:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
"Featuring God"
And what source, other than Kanye himself, indicates "God" is featured on the album? That would indicate there is proof that "God" exists, which is a debate that shouldn't even exist here. Why is "featuring God" allowed? -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- That's how it is on every store, digital and physical, so that's how it'll stay. Distortiondude (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if he exists or not. Art is above any form of religion (or non-religion). What if God were actually an alias of someone else? Or "something"?--z33k (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly, we don't know, it can't be verified, so why should it be included? I didn't think WP's job was to parrot the backs of CDs. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Travis Scott and Mike Dean just confirmed "featuring God" was a hoax [4]: "the tracklist was a hoax and the song was never intended to feature The Almighty. "People gotta stop doing that man," he said, chastising radio and media outlets for spreading the error." 2Flows (talk) 09:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- If you check Kanye West website it clearly says FEAT GOD in the tracklist. On itunes it clearly says Feat. God on the tracklist. Kidstylez (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- And someone said God is not listed in linear notes which would make the song title "I Am A God (Feat. God)" Kidstylez (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- As stated above in the source above by Travi$ Scott and Mike Dean it was not meant to. Does it really make sense to have no featured vocals credited on the whole album just to credit (featuring GOD), when there is no extra vocals or anything to represent "God". STATic message me! 17:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- We have to decide whether it is correct to list a featured collaborator, even if he obviously cannot be on the track. The statement that the song features God comes a primary source (Kanye himself). According to WP:USEPRIMARY, a primary source is an acceptable source for "information about what the person says about himself or herself and can normally be used for non-controversial facts." A claim that a song features X (could be God, the President or whatever) is already a claim about someone else, and as such is not reliable, in my opinion. Also a statement "feat. God" is quite controversial. 2Flows (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- And someone said God is not listed in linear notes which would make the song title "I Am A God (Feat. God)" Kidstylez (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- If you check Kanye West website it clearly says FEAT GOD in the tracklist. On itunes it clearly says Feat. God on the tracklist. Kidstylez (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- Travis Scott and Mike Dean just confirmed "featuring God" was a hoax [4]: "the tracklist was a hoax and the song was never intended to feature The Almighty. "People gotta stop doing that man," he said, chastising radio and media outlets for spreading the error." 2Flows (talk) 09:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly, we don't know, it can't be verified, so why should it be included? I didn't think WP's job was to parrot the backs of CDs. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- I mean it would be different if there was a sample of someone speaking on the song as "God", reading a bible verse or something of that nature, I would not be as opposed to listing it. However, there is not and we do not credit the actual featured artist as featured artists, why would we list an Almighty being as a credited featured artist? Do we need to start a Musical career on the God page now so we can mention this song? Or maybe a discography? No no no. It should be enough that two of the main producers on the album laughed about it and called it a hoax carried over from the fake tracklist. STATic message me! 00:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
From what Travis said, it seems like because of the claims of the song "featuring God", Kanye decided to take the joke seriously and have it listed like that... God is not wikilinked... So nowhere is it saying that the song is featuring the "actual" God... That's just the way it is and it's nothing to be butthurt about. Several sources called "Hold My Liquor", "Can't Hold My Liquor", so should we change the title to that too, even though that's the official title, because it's not reliable if Kanye said it himself? Give me a break. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Please remain civil no one is "butthurt" just trying to discuss a topic, get a cooler head Status. Song titles are always contested when a album leaks "I Am a God" vs. "I Am God", "Bound" vs. "Bound 2", "On Sight" vs. "On Site". On another note the God featuring had been wikilinked in the past. STATic message me! 01:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- What is wrong with the word "butthurt"? "When a person gets overly offended for a non mean-spirited joke"; which this whole "featuring God" thing is - a joke. I'm just using an example... It's the same exact logic was removing "featuring God" because Kanye is not a reliable source... If he's not a reliable source for the featurings on his album, how is he reliable for what the song is called? The point is that its ridiculous. Could you provide a diff for that? I don't believe I have ever seen it wikilinked. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- No one said Kanye was not a reliable source, I also never said it should be removed I was just giving a logic viewpoint that makes sense. However when all iTunes, Amazon and Kanyewest.com list it I mean there is no reason not to. Not like it madders but here is just one of the many diffs, I am not just saying it to say it. STATic message me! 03:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- 2Flows, above, said that Kanye is not a reliable source. And I wasn't exactly talking just to you, but in this conversation as a whole. So people don't link God, maybe a note should be added. Joke or not, it's just simply the way it is. For all we know the weird screaming sounds in the song could be this "God". But it's not really a big deal, and if God is no wikilinked, then there's nothing controversial about it. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- No one said Kanye was not a reliable source, I also never said it should be removed I was just giving a logic viewpoint that makes sense. However when all iTunes, Amazon and Kanyewest.com list it I mean there is no reason not to. Not like it madders but here is just one of the many diffs, I am not just saying it to say it. STATic message me! 03:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- What is wrong with the word "butthurt"? "When a person gets overly offended for a non mean-spirited joke"; which this whole "featuring God" thing is - a joke. I'm just using an example... It's the same exact logic was removing "featuring God" because Kanye is not a reliable source... If he's not a reliable source for the featurings on his album, how is he reliable for what the song is called? The point is that its ridiculous. Could you provide a diff for that? I don't believe I have ever seen it wikilinked. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
On the back of the album it says go to kanyewest.com for the full credits so we should definitely use the credits from the website. Koala15 (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- As long as God is not wikilinked it should be fine, since it can refer to someone else's work on the song, as someone said above. 2Flows (talk) 09:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Personally, this is ludacris. God did not actually come into the studio and produce a song for Kanye West. God hasn't been proven to actually exist. Just because Kanye West claimed that "God is featured" DOESN'T actually mean that God is real. That is also another completely separate debate. However, use some common sense. Do you honestly believe that you can actually hear God sing or rap in this song? Did he even produce this song? Obviously, no. Thank you. 11Block |talk 17:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- As long as God is not wikilinked it should be fine, since it can refer to someone else's work on the song, as someone said above. 2Flows (talk) 09:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Digital Album Version
I noticed that the two tracks "Black Skinhead" and "I Am God" are listed as "Digital Album Version (Explicit)" on digital retailers (Amazon.com, Spotify etc.) How are they any different from the CD version, and if so shouldn't that be mentioned in the article?--z33k (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
my little correction
Omega is not a progressive rock group. In fact they used (nearly?) every stile which came up during the, (60's), 70's and 80's ... Hardrock, Progressive rock, Psychedelic rock, New Wave, Space Rock, ... I think during there peak-times they said something like, that nearly every 2-3 years they change there style...
Maybe the authors of the source (http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music-arts/five-star-review-kanye-west-yeezus-rocks-raps-article-1.1373220) thought that OMEGA is a Progressive Rock band, because of Gyöngyhajú lány is a Progressive Rock title. But, just a little example: they also had great success with there album and single Időrabló (álias Time robber), which is clearly Space Rock.
--Impulsiv. (talk) 01:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Exec. producers
Another user keeps removing the notes about executive producers, stating they are not special, and I completely disagree with him. In music, the exec. producers' role is quite different from that of other producers - "The executive producer is just responsible for business decisions, whereas the music producer produces the music." That's why exec. producers must be distinguished from the rest, by indicating them as (exec.) and also placed on top of the list of producers, since they are considered more important than the rest. This is also the way we have done it on the majority of album articles... 2Flows (talk) 00:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- That is definitely the truth. Exec producers are usually the main funders or masterminds behind the project and are definitely worth distinguishing. I mean they even get there own section in album liner notes, sometimes even on the back cover of the album. I think the argument might be that all three exec. producers are also normal record producers on the album. STATic message me! 00:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- The fact that it has been done doesn't mean that it should be done. Besides, as Static said, all 3 are also music producers... There are two different types of producers; music and executive. Yes, executive producers are important, but so are music... Without them... the music would not exist. Denote the difference between both or none. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
"Rave" reviews
I do not think this article, or any album article for that matter, should describe an album as having received "rave reviews" in the Critical Reception section. To say an album has received rave reviews, and supporting this by lifting the wording from one journalist, feels like the use of sensational language to unnecessarily stress how well the album was been received. I am in favour of saying an album receives "positive reviews", or "mixed reviews", or "negative reviews", which is more neutral in tone. This approach is supported by many reviews of Best Picture winners at the Academy Awards, which can be found to receive positive or extremely positive reviews. DElliott (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Absolutely, saying "rave reviews" sounds like an advertisement. "Critical acclaim" or "positive reviews" would be better. Thank you for noticing that! 11Block |talk 18:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe the both of you should look up the word "rave" in the dictionary; it's perfectly appropriate for this context, as several other news sources have found as well ([5]). Don't water-down what the source cited clearly supports--Stick to the source, unless you can find as much reliable sources that use your preferred phrase. Awfully limited language does not demonstrate any neutrality. If the reviews were strong enough for these folks to use "rave", then that's the tone of the material in question. We're not misleading readers with a perfunctory "positive reviews" when that can range from lukewarm to what Metacritic likes to call "universal acclaim", especially when there are several sources backing it up. Dan56 (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)