Talk:The Black Parade/Archive 4

Genre Changes to "Emo"

Needless to say, the genre of the album keeps getting changed to emo, and almost immediately changed back, only to be changed again and so on. My proposal is that it be accepted either way. I don't see any harm either way, and I think there are more important things to do on Wikipedia than cause an endless edit war about something completely arbitrary. There is no official genre for almost any album. It's all open to interpretation. I think we need to list the genre as simply, "Rock," since that is the only status the band has given its work. The problem is that there is no evidence either way, and therefore no reason to state it as encyclopedic fact. Let's just all just say from now on that the album is NOT classified as "emo," due to a complete and utter lack of evidence. However, I do not have any personal opinions either way, I just see this as the only way to minimize the article being changed back and forth. I'm not quite sure how we would go about making a decision like that, but I'm sure there could be a way.--Friginator 2:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

While I understand your concern the genre for emo is actually sourced and should be included. That is why I keep changing it back. It is sourced through the allmusic review of the album. All of the genres must be sourced. Reliable sources would have to be provided saying this album wasn't emo if that genre was to become disputed. The genres listed currently aren't just genres I or other users feel this album is like. It is sourced by allmusic which is what they say the album sounds like. Genres require sources other than the band to classify for sure what it is. All information needs to be sourced by a reliable source and the genres provided were provided by a professional reviewer.  Orfen  ^T • _C 20:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Or, to put it succinctly, WP:BURDEN states "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". While I feel the subject does qualify as emo music, I'd need to find some article (preferably in a music magazine like Rolling Stone) that specifically called The Black Parade emo. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Orfen: Though I would obviously say that Allmusic.com is a good source of info, I don't see how their interpretations could be seen as an official designation of Genre. In my opinion, the genre should simply be changed to "Rock," because that is the only genre acknowledged by all parties, including the band themselves. Since the band has specifically stated that they are NOT emo, and that neither is this particular album, I would say there is good evidence against the inclusion. I do agree that if Rolling Stone actually classified the album as emo, a good case could be made. If a statement is open to interpretation, it should by not be included in an encyclopedic article. --Friginator 20:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The band themselves don't count as a reliable source though. We cannot use primary sources for things such as genres. We need to use the opinions of reliable music critics to decide what we include in Wikipedia not the ediotors or the band. Yes, the band's opinion is worth mentioning (although I am not sure if there is something about them denying the term emo specifically for The Black Parade) but they ultimately don't decide on Wikipedia what their album sounds like. Yes, they made it, but it is up to the critics to decide for us what the album is classified as regardless of our opinions. Whether we believe if this album can be classified as emo having sourced information makes for a better article and a better encyclopedia.  Orfen  ^T • _C 05:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

My problem with the genre change, though, is that "genre" is an opinion, and can't be stated as a fact either way. The album got generally positive reviews from critics, but we don't state that the album was "good" or "bad," because this is not fact. I don't think that the band themselves are any less reliable than allmusic.com. We could always note the critics' interpretations, but we could not verify their opinions as fact. Also, the term "emo" is so specific that it couldn't apply to the entire album. One song ["Mama"] incorporates Russian polka, but this is not the subgenre either. With virtually every Wikipedia article on music, there are debates over genre and subgenre, which is why I think that the entire situation has gotten out of hand, and Wikipedia needs to separate all the opinions from the facts. --Friginator 29:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The genres source by reliable sources who are considered experts in their field aren't just considered opinion. Those are reliable facts and as such we should list them. If there is a dispute then the dispute should be listed but there needs to be reliable sources showing a dispute. This isn't an encyclopedia that tells the opinion of its users but rather what published experts in the field have listed as their interpretation. Allmusic or any other website hasn't listed the genre of the album as Russian polka. Yes, some mention the fact that "Mama" is a different song for the band and list why but even then I'm not sure if it is specifically labeled as Russian polka. We can't add how we think the album sounds. We have to add how respected publishers feel the album sounds. Yes, there are sometimes a lot of bias in the disputes on talk pages but in the end we are creating an encyclopedia based on the published views of others. We can't let how we think an album sounds or how we feel a band should be labeled come into play when making an article. Excluding the genre emo would be POV since we wouldn't be covering a neutral POV as we have obviously made our own decisions on how we think the album or the band sounds.  Orfen  ^T • _C 03:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I disagree for the same reasons as before, but more importantly, IGN's review specifically states that this particular album is not emo, whereas Allmusic.com (the given source) only has "emo" listed as one of the many styles. Allmusic classifies the genre, however, as simply "Rock." Again, the opinions of others should not be listed as fact, despite who these others are. Not including a genre is not POV or any type of bias. It would be POV to state that the genre is not "emo", but refusing to choose a side either way is just staying neutral. --Friginator 23:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Theres definitely no argue if we just leave it with the generic term of "Rock" or "Alternative Rock", "punk rock" fans as well as a bunch of idiots and trolls(including me) always fill opinionated and doubtful when something they loathe gets labeled with their favorite genre, and also the fact that they play with different styles on each of the songs would really be best to just call this album as Rock or Alternative Rock, does anyone agree with me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.2.103.55 (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Influences

Personally I think it is obvious that their biggest influence of all is Green Day. The first thing that I came to think of when I saw this band was that they reminded me of Green Day in too many ways for it to be just a coincidence. Same record label, same producer, same type of rock opera, same looks, similar style of videos (colors, lights etc). The music itself is not too similar but there are some that are obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.11.182 (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

citation needed for Smashing Pumpkins influences: http://www.musicpix.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=41&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0 75.162.122.157 (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

New Songs

What are the sources for the new B-Sides added?-iamyoda

I can't see any sources either Blkeddie! 07:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to ask this as well. Think we should remove them for now? TeamOverload 15:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Cancer

I have removed the following paragraph from the main section of the article. I don't see why it's relevant, and if it is, I don't think it belongs in the intro.

In an interview with the band released on iTunes in the "Welcome to the Black Parade- EP", the band discussed a collective favorite, "Cancer." They believed that they had written one of the best songs of all time. One of the band members stated, "It's my favorite song. By far. I think this is my favorite song actually that I've ever heard. Not even just the songs that we've done, I mean it's by far my favorite that we've ever done, but, I think it's probably my favorite song of all time."

As far as I can tell, this paragraph does little more than promote the album- or, on some level, I suppose it makes the band look fairly pretentious, especially since the member who praised Cancer so highly isn't named. --Moralis 19:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, how did I miss that? Thanks for removing it, it sounds ridiculous. I have a habit of skipping over bullshit, that must be why I missed it.--JUDE ^talk 20:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

New Image

I have removed the following section from the beginning of the article:

With the launch of the album, My Chemical Romance essentially became a new band, known as the Black Parade. The Black Parade are the band's alter egos. Along with a new identity, the band got a new look, sporting new hairstyles, most notably singer Gerard Way's platinum blonde hair (now dyed black again), along with marching band-style uniforms designed by Academy Award-winning designer Colleen Atwood, whose work has been featured in several Tim Burton movies, as well as the film Memoirs of a Geisha.

The reason I removed it: I have only seen this idea mentioned as (obviously nonserious) speculation by a critic in one review. I think it could stand if it were re-worded, and it would require some sourcing. --Moralis 19:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

While I do not believe that this information is needed in it's own section I do believe that the fact that The Black Parade is the band's alter ego needs to be mentioned. There are sources as this came up on the My Chemical Romance article before and a quick Google search helped me find some interviews. I think the real thing is I don't think all that information needs to be there, perhaps shrink it enough to add it to the intro. and of course sources.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 20:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Maybe we could mention it in passing in this article, and maybe get a little more into it for the My Chemical Romance one. mcr616 _Speak! 20:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Archive

The NPOVD dispute seems to be over, so I've archived the page again (see Archive 3). --Moralis (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Singles

I have added and sourced Teenagers as a single. Hope the source I put is reliable. TeamOverload 12:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a general consensus that forums aren't terribly reliable. We're looking for a source in some kind of press. My Chem's site would be good, as well. As of now, Googling several phrases, such as "My Chemical Romance Teenagers April 23" and "Teenagers My Chemical Romance April 23rd" yields two results: that AbsolutePunk thread is one, which doesn't cite a source that I can see, so it's pretty much just another rumor. The other is a Frank Iero fan site, which again, appears to have been listing mere rumor.

Until the single is either released or an official announcement is made, we're not going to be able to list it here, unfortunately. --Moralis (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

What about Disenchanted? It sas so on vh1.com search, and why wouldn't vh1 be a reliable source? And "Mama" was confirmed also as the next single on BBC Radio, and then it was played.

The VH1.com search yields an album listing that contains no information except for a 4/2/07 release date. As April 2nd has come and gone without a release, and that listing is completely devoid of any other content, it's safe to say that the source isn't reliable =P It's probable that it was added after a rumor spread. I don't know. Regardless it's obviously not referring to something you're going to find in a record store.

We can't verify what happened on the radio, but even if we could- we still wouldn't use that as a source. Whatever we use, we must be able to trace the announcement back to 1) MCR, 2) the record label, distributor, etc., or 3) an actual album release, in which case we probably won't need a source anymore, as anyone'll be able to verify it by checking amazon.com, the iTunes store, or their local record shop.

As it stands right now, the next single hasn't been announced in any official way and Wikipedia can't list it until it does (WP:SOURCE). People looking for My Chem rumors are probably looking for a fansite, which we are decidedly not. --Moralis (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

So we're lowered down to Mama or Teenagers or no next single at all —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iamyoda (talk • contribs) 20:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Teenagers was added to this page last night and now it can stay there as it has been properly sourced, or at least better sourced. I also added it to the My Chem Template. Are we agreeing to let it stay now? TeamOverload 15:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No. We cannot use the caption from a photo of Gerard with some cheerleaders as "proof" that Teenagers will be the next single. The FMQB listing is not sourced to anything. I'm removing it again.

I cannot stress this enough: valid sources must be explicit, transparent statements by a representative of the band until the single is released. These sources, like all the others we've seen so far, are simply jumping on the rumor bandwagon. Googling things like "My Chemical Romance Teenagers Single" still doesn't turn up anything but rumor.

Wikipedia is not a publisher of rumor. Please don't add the single again until it's really announced. Keeping the single off the list until we're 100% sure it's accurate is not hurting us in any way. What if Teenagers isn't the next single, though? Or what if there isn't another single?

There's a reason Wikipedia doesn't publish retractions: we go out of our way not to include anything in articles that isn't 100% verifiable. Please see WP:NOR, [[WP:V] and WP:RS. From now on I think it would be in everbody's best interests to discuss sources on this page before adding Teenagers to the article again. --Moralis (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we all know that teenagers is going to be the next single, but I admire what you're doing. I also agree with you. There should be more sources, because there is a *shadow* of a doubt that they could have told everyone at the shoot to say it was teenagers even though it really isn't. Who knows, they could have even recorded two videos that day to cover it up. We all know that MCR can be really really tricky with us. So, in short, I agree with you wholeheartedly.--JUDE ^talk 20:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that they would go through all the trouble to release it on the radio with the swears edited, then take a picture at the music video, and then release the song on their website for nothing. But I do agree with the people who say there is no real proof in a way too.

Genre

I believe Gerard said that the CD was an Art Rock record in an MTV interview. Sorry, no source like an article or something, but he did say it was an art rock record. -- 24.222.102.218 17:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The genre's for all My Chemical Romance related articles was decided at Talk:My Chemical Romance. It is now archived at Talk:My Chemical Romance/Archive 2. If you wish to change the genre I'd start a discussion at the My Chemical Romance talk page, however we decided upon this way so we can source all the subgenres and their main genre as alternative rock be the only one listed in the infobox.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 23:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

My Chemical Romance borders on the edge of emo but the band disagrees that they aren't emo Anarchistleader777 14:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the band really defines what genre they're in. mcr616 _Speak! 19:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It says emo, but i really cant be bothered going into the talk pages and seeing if it was agreed that they are emo, so im asking someone else to do it. Blkeddie! 15:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Their genre is currently Alternative Rock, but in the past their genre was Post-Hardcore.--Lynx Austin 21:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The Band says they are not emo. so they shouldnt be classified as emo. if britney spears says shes not punk then why would someone change her genre to punk? i say we should repect the band and not classify them as emo.Tq6993 (talk) 08:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You just don't get it do you. Landon1980 (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

What the band says is much less important than what WP:RS say. -Colfer2 (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

They are the poster kids of Emo. [1]. Real. -Colfer2 (talk) 12:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Everything in Wikipedia must be verifiable and the emo genre is sourced by the allmusic review. It is considered a reliable source. Also, as a follow up to my change I made the source you have provided is more about the band and another event, it's not really much to do with the album itself.  Orfen  ^T • _C 01:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the title of the article can be a source. --neon white talk 01:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The allmusic review is written by a professional reviewer and is discussing the album itself while the article provided is mainly talking about the suicide of a teenage girl. It doesn't have much to do with this album itself. Also if you wanted to use the title it'd be for the song. But I wouldn't even use the title. It is talking about a suicide mainly and isn't classifying this particular album in a genre. Yes, emo is mentioned frequently, but it is generally dealing with the bands music as a whole causing a suicide.  Orfen  ^T • _C 23:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I personally think we should change the genres to "Alternative rock", "Pop-punk", "Progressive rock", "Punk rock". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocker10000 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Adding tracks

Could we add the parts of the trivia sections to new pages for dead! and this is how i disappear? also for disenchanted for its history of shut up and play. i know it is very little to put in for a new whole page but i'd like a page nevertheless —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blkeddie! (talk • contribs) 07:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

No, the Disenchanted/Dead!/etc. articles were deleted already. I'd think it would just be better to keep it in a trivia section. mcr616 _Speak! 20:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Track Information

I just found a place where I can get all the information about the tracks...how can I make a separate page for all of the tracks? (eg. Mama, Cancer, House of Wolves, Dead!...) Lolagirl 02:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)lolagirl

It would be cool if you could make them, but they're not notable enough to have their own articles. Sorry! mcr616 _Speak! 19:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Technically, "Mama" should be considered to have its own separate article because it is Gerard Way's favorite song, but also it has a possibility of being a single and was used in a commercial of The Sopranos _Arcai 12:29, 26 July 2008, Saturday

Being someone's favorite song isn't enough to warrant notability for a song. Use in a commercial isn't enough to pass for notability either. The single rumors can't be proven now as the release date was months ago and the song hasn't charted. Please see WP:MUSIC for notability guidelines.  Orfen  ^T • _C 00:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Protest

I think if My Chemical Romance songs don't deserve their own pages, then neither do ANY songs that aren't singles. Like the Beatles, Elvis, etc. Because who gets to say if a song is notable enough or not? I present a protest: Allow mcr songs to have their own page or take down all others that aren't singles. I'll have a petition ready soon. 209.247.5.55 19:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but no matter how many sigs you get, it's not going to make a difference. WP:N is a policy, and you'd never get enough consensus to change it. Sorry ! mcr616 Speak! 23:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

And thats how the world works, isn't it? No one can change anything bad no matter how many people think its wrong. Thats life for ya. 209.247.5.55 02:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

What? This isn't an evil conspiracy... it's just that we have policies against this. Could you imagine if any song ever written each had its own page on Wikipedia? Holy crap! Who's going to maintain them all, and what's more, what's in them? Whereas I and I know a lot of others know a lot about the background of each of the songs, unfortunately unless it's something really notable, it doesn't belong in a separate page on Wikipedia. Perhaps you could try other websites? CattleGirl ^talk 08:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

What makes the other songs more notable than any of the songs done by My Chem? I'm not really sure, so maybe if you could explain to me why a concept album by The Beatles is more important than another concept album by My Chemical Romance maybe I'd accept the fact we don't have a page for every My Chemical Romance song.

I truly don't understand why Cancer, Mama, Disenchanted or Dead! don't each have a page. And even though they currently aren't singles, I'm also guessing that all of the songs made by the Beatles weren't released either.

I do understand why we don't have a page for every single song on Wikipedia, but those songs made by those artists haven't made a concept album and don't have real meaning in the song.

My Chem is equally as important as Elvis was, they have saved lives, they've put a meaning to everyones life, and they're there for those people. Blkeddie! 04:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you completely that MCR is equally if not more important than elvis ever was (you can kind of gather I'm not a huge elvis fan...) but the fact remains that while each of their songs has a background and a story to tell, that by no means distinguishes them from every other song anyone has written. It's not based on importance, it's based on notablility. Although I along with you would like to see individual pages for these songs (and there used to be pages for these songs), but it really does violate our music policy- for instance (although it should have) Mama has never been no 1 on any charts, or won awards, or has been significantly covered. If it starts doing these things, then we can include them.

It's really just that we have to join the line somewhere. If we allow every song off a concept album to have its own page, then it really comes back to what I said before- what's going to be in it? Who's going to maintain it?

At the moment it would be best to just outline the concept in this article, or perhaps create another article like (The Black Parade concept or something...)

I think that replied to everything... CattleGirl ^talk 07:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That's actually a good idea, "The Black Parade Concept". If only we could find some sites with official information :( Blkeddie! 15:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

There is an article for every song on American Idiot so why not the Black Parade?Mm jimmy 13:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

i think that it's only fair that we put back links for the Aversion review back on the professonal reviews part, or else, you're simply another one of those idiotic crazy mcr fan who doesn't like to see his/her band criticized. wikipedia is a neutral site. Itachi1452 18:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the arguement before when it was removed was that it was not a professional review. It is however still mentioned in the Reception section, just not listed in the infobox.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 19:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I say that if a magazine like Rolling Stone or EW or a big source were to negatively review the album, then yeah it should definitely be listed. But Aversion? I've never even heard of that. And considering the original review consisted of only one word, I refuse to accept it as a "professional source". MJB12 16:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Patient's Death?

The article talks about the Patient's "Passage Out Of Life". Is this right? What do people think? Does the Patient die at the end or does he survive? Who is the singer of the last song? Is it his lover, or a relation, a friend or he himself who is singing about being "not afraid to keep on living"? Or is it a dialogue? Any thoughts? ThePeg 00:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I remember a couple of interviews with Gerard where he said more or less said that the Patient died. I personally think that the Patient is the one narrating Famous Last Words, but I could be wrong. Gerard hasn't really thrown out any details except that the Black Parade is how death comes for the Patient, and that the album is a reflection on his life. mcr616 Speak! 00:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, so why do you insist on placing obviously POV information in the article? Such as he died of cancer, some people even believe that The Patient dies or is injured in the Great War, and it's not even certain if he dies. It's completley a personal thing and has no place on wikipedia, and if your that positive of all the facts you insist on placing in the article then find a source.And you are not the only one that can contribute to this article, I have just as much right to contribute to the article as you do even though I am not a wiki member, you will not force your opinion on other people!

This is not the problem I have with you. If you'd take the time to read my comments, you'd realize that there are many interviews with Gerard and the rest of the band that say basically what the album is about. That's what I'm putting in the article. I have found multiple sources and I do plan on putting them in the article. What makes me angry about you is you use a proxy to change your IP address to avoid warnings. If you really wanted to help contribute to Wikipedia, you wouldn't use a proxy. mcr616 Speak! 14:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You know what, it's people like you and the mod that you enlisted to get the page protected for 2 weeks, that are ruining Wikipedia. Wiki is an encyclopedia supposedly based upon the consensus approach to adding/deleting information, but this isn't actually the case, as YOU are the only one that took offence to my edits, and YOU are the only one labelling my edits as vandalism and YOU are the only one that requested to get the page protected, and because of one person (that's YOU), I am now labelled as a vandal. Too much power in too few idiotic hands. And good luck trying to find some sources, if they are found I'll back down, otherwise I'll see you again in two weeks.

One source right off the bat. "My Chemical Romance Welcomes You To The Black Parade". It's an audio recording. mcr616 Speak! 21:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Another source. [2] and [3]. It's in those videos. You all set now? BTW, please don't call me and the sysop who protected the page idiotic. It's not very nice and could get you blocked (which wouldn't be a problem for you since you use a proxy), and we could work together a lot better if we got along. Hope that this problem can be resolved and we can all work together to improve Wikipedia. mcr616 Speak! 21:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The good luck trying to find some sources comment, was a genuine one as I want this matter resolved just as much as you do. The only thing that has annoyed me about you, is how you labeled my edits as vandalism when they were nothing of the sort, I always explained my edits thoroughly and I feel your treatment of me was unfair. Also, the way I connect to the internet seems to have angered you, but without it, I would already have been banned on your orders for a series of completley genuine edits. I think you are an honest editor with wiki's best interests at heart, but I think in the future you should refrain from labelling someone a vandal just because they don't agree with your own opinion. Congradulations on finding some sources and with them placed in the article I no longer have a problem. Hopefully, we can get along better in the future.

Thanks ^_^! I apologize for the whole freaking out because you connect via proxy, but a lot of the time, people who use proxys on Wikipedia are sockpuppets trying to evade a block, trolls, or persistent vandals. Sorry I jumped to conclusions. mcr616 Speak! 15:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Some info on influences from SE book - may be of some use

At the top are links to scans of the booklet, and below are direct quotes.

---

The End./Dead! - http://www.theimmortalityproject.com/fansite/ltded/LTEDSN051.jpg

This Is How I Disappear/The Sharpest Lives/Welcome to the Black Parade – http://www.theimmortalityproject.com/fansite/ltded/LTEDSN052.jpg

Welcome to the Black Parade/I Don’t Love You - http://www.theimmortalityproject.com/fansite/ltded/LTEDSN053.jpg

House of Wolves/Cancer/Mama/Sleep - http://www.theimmortalityproject.com/fansite/ltded/LTEDSN054.jpg

Teenagers/Disenchanted/Famous Last Words – http://www.theimmortalityproject.com/fansite/ltded/LTEDSN055.jpg

Famous Last Words/Kill All Your Friends - http://www.theimmortalityproject.com/fansite/ltded/LTEDSN056.jpg

---

The End. - Ray

· Pink Floyd’s The Wall was a great influence on this piece.

Frank

· Hmm, I remember when this song was called “Intro”.

· The End is a piece of music inspired by one of Gerard and my favorite David Bowie songs… “5 Years” (sic)

Dead! - Ray

· The main influence on this one is an Electric Light Orchestra song that has a fun vibe but also this great straight pulse throughout the entire track.

· The solo was fun to write. I wanted to try a mix of Chuck Berry and Brian May, so there are definitely licks straight from “Johnny B. Goode” and the doubling and harmonizing of “May” (sic). Okay, and somehow Woody Woodpecker crept in as well…

Frank

· It had a Beatlesque bounce in it, upstrokes on the second verse…

This Is How I Disappear - Ray

· I had been listening to a lot of Smashing Pumpkins, especially “Zero”, continually amazed a how a few mutes and an octave can be so heavy.

I Don’t Love You - Ray

· We tried to capture the feel of CCR’s “Who’ll Stop The Rain” and “Have You Seen The Rain?” so we added a B3 and a Wurlitzer to fill out the sound.

Frank

· It reminds me of a classic oldie, something Otis Redding might like to have a crack at.

Mama - Ray

· The verses are your standard Russian polka progressions, but G’s vocal melody makes it feel new.

· In Verse 2, Gerard has some fun by singing in different voices (another tribute to The Wall) that gives new life to a section you’ve heard before.

· We end the song with a little tribute to Metallica’s “One” with machine gun picking and snare and tom rolls,,,

Famous Last Words - Ray

· I had been listening to a lot of Blizzard of Ozz at the time we were writing this song. Randy Rhoads is one of my favorite players, and I wanted a solo similar to his style on the record.

Kill All Your Friends - Ray

· Influenced by The Pixies and Weezer, this song has a different feeling from the rest of the record.

---

Hope it can be worked in somehow. :^) --Jamdav86 13:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Blood based on Barney?

One of my classmates said that Blood was a rehash of a Barney song. Is this true?

Blood sounds, in my opinion, very much like Queen's Lazing on a Sunday Afternoon, especially it being very short and having the artist's voices changed. --Luisdile02

Actually, it's simply a part parody and part homage to cabaret songs, which many Barney songs are inspired (poorly) by, while Lazing on a Sunday Afternoon was doing the same as Blood, and achieved a very similar outcome, though with very different subject matters (I suppose you wouldn't have "Lazing on a Sunday Afternoon" on The Black Parade and mroe than you'd have "Blood" on A Day At the Races). --lincalinca 07:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget it was a hidden track. Vael Victus (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Album Sales

I don't know if it was an accident but under Chart Performance it says the album has only sold 2 copies in the first week, that doesn't seem right, eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LinkinParkOz (talk • contribs) 10:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The Website

Uhm...F L A T L I N E in the title bar, and all it is is a flatline... Whats up?Quatreryukami (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing its a message to tell everyone that The Black Parade is now dead Blkeddie! (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Genre

The genre keeps getting changed for this album. I had originally added the genres from the allmusic source since that seems to be the only source at the moment for a genre. If others can be found then we should come to a consensus as to which genres to add in the infobox and which others to talk about in the appropriate section.  Orfen  ^T • _C 03:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Responding to your edit remarks, I added the ref ("EMO: Welcome to the Black Parade", The Independent) because an anonymous editor removed "emo" from the genres. Then you removed the ref. Then another anonymous editor removed "emo". The article "EMO: Welcome to the Black Parade" does seem to address the album, but either way, no big deal. I just want to support the correct genre if needed. -Colfer2 (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Patient Specifics

The article said that the patient dies from heart conditions, and while that interpretation is plenty valid from the lyrics, it could easily be contradicted by other lyrics. I removed it, BTW.

Genre Controversy

Because the controversy over the genre, I think we should play it safe and change it to "Alternative rock, disputed subgenres." Friginator (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Black Parade/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

• Format reference 18
• Date is red linking in reference 9

Gary King (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have made the changes you specified. One question though, is the date formatted correctly for reference 9?  Orfen  ^T • _C 04:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If a date does not have a day value, then typically it should be unlinked per MOS:UNLINKYEARS. Speaking of which, unlink "in January 2006 in ". And, no Sales numbers? And no Release section, for prices, dates for worldwide releases, etc.? Gary King (talk) 04:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The sales numbers are underneath The Black Parade#Chart performance and the worldwide releases are at The Black Parade#Release history. Are you suggesting to create a new section? Perhaps renaming the "Chart performance" section to "Release" and creating a chart to summarize chart performance (see Dookie for what I'm suggesting)?  Orfen  ^T • _C 05:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that looks better. Gary King (talk) 06:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I added the Chart performance section with the peak of 5 different charts.  Orfen  ^T • _C 06:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If dates are going to be linked in this article, then all dates need to be linked for uniformity. This includes the dates for references 31 and 33. For reference 9, don't like the date, but still type it out as December 2006. For reference 25, "in English" does not need to be specified. Gary King (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I took off the "in English" in the references and fixed the links.  Orfen  ^T • _C 04:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I am now passing this article. Gary King (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

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

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Article requirements: Y All the start class criteria Y A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details Y At least one section of prose (excluding the lead section) Y A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs Y A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians Y Categorisation at least by artist and year Y A casual reader should learn something about the album. The article is B-class worthy now! To improve the album more to reach the availability to reach a GA status, a section about the album's production should be included as well. The reviews in the infobox state: Include no more than ten reviews. When choosing which reviews to include, consider the notability of the review source and keeping a neutral point of view. For older albums, try to include not just contemporary but also some more recent reviews." so that has to be fixed. Also, examine WP:Lead to make sure the lead paragraph of the article is appropriate for the articles length paragraph wise. A section that will no doubt be vandalized to infinity, but a section on lyrical and genre/sound themes on the album will also have to be created. I wouldn't quote the band for sources in this style as many bands do not like to be stapled into genre's, but more from a critical perspective. Otherwise, this is shaping up good! Keep it up! Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 03:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)