Talk:Michael (Michael Jackson album)

Undone revisions

I made the following edits (which have been undone) for the following reasons:

1. We have an agreement in consensus that the album is a compilation album, hence I changed "an album of unreleased tracks" to "a compilation album of unreleased songs"... note that songs by technical definition are made up of tracks. Using the term track to describe a song is technically incorrect as reading industry publications such as Sound on Sound will show that each individual element of a song is referred to as a track during the mastering process.
2. Consensus at WP:ALBUMS says that infoboxes should use the earliest release date. Hence I thought it was WP:BOLD and logical to change the introduction sentence "which was released in the United States by Epic Records on December 14, 2010." to It was released from December 10, 2010 by Epic Records and Sony Music Entertainment." Its logical to be consistent with the information.
3. I removed Dave Grohl as a featured performer because the album booklet credits do not specifically NOTE him as a guest feature etc... its not unusual for famous performers to appear on tracks as drummers etc. Randy Jackson (from American Idol) often appears as a base-guitarist for Mariah Carey but you don't see a whole list of Carey songs "featuring Randy Jackson". Equally as he's not noted in the album credits as a featured guest he isn't listed as one.

— Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• The past concensus was over what to put into the info box. I see no need to force the issue in the article text especially when there's no need. As for song versus track, two of the songs have been previously released (I Love the Way that You Love Me and Behind the Mask). I'm an amateur muscician and the words track and song mean two different things (although people confuse the two). Also, the word 'track' has multiple meanings. In this particular case, we're using definition 14c. You're thinking of 14d.[1]
  • Okies I can see this one being a compromise as I don't wish for people to reignite the debate of studio album vs. compilation album. With regards to tracks or songs I still believe songs is a better term to be used, even though I'm aware tracks is acceptable, because the former is more accurate in terms of technical description and doesn't have the same scope of confusion that the word track can have. My main concern with using the latter was that the songs were finished after Jackson's death and so I didn't want people to surmise the use of tracks as an indication that Jackson had only completed segments of the songs. By in large, he had completed much of the songs but many needed re-tooling or mastering. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• OK, we can change back the date. I'm fine with that.
• Well, my thinking is that Dave Grohl situation is different in that his appearance on the album was the subject of several articles. (I can dig them up if you want.) I don't think (at least I'm not aware of) Randy Jackson's studio work getting an equivelent amount of press coverage. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I am aware Grohl has featured in Rollingstone Magazine and NME for example, but he is still not a featured performer nor guest musician on the album. The coverage he received happened before the album credits were released. Being famous and playing the instruments on a song doesn't make you notable for inclusion at the same level as someone who has featured vocals on the track unless there is a specific critic response to Grohl's appearance on the album. Otherwise if there is nothing particularly noteworthy beyond Grohl playing an instrument on the album then he is no more notable that Randy Jackson playing base guitar on Mariah Carey's Memoirs of an Imperfect Angel album. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If reliable sources cover Grohl's performance, that makes it notable. Do we have a definition for "featured performer" or "guest musician"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

My point is that if Grohl is not credited by the label as a featured performer on the song itself in the album credits, which are legally registered, then we're giving him more weight than the A&R of the project have given him. I'm not saying that he can't be mentioned but he shouldn't be mentioned in the same way that 50 Cent is for example... After all Grohl is not listed in the tracklisting so why she he get a specific mention of him in the introduction? Does the coverage extended beyond confirming Grohl's appearance on the album? I don't think it goes into much detail... — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 20:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

If I do a search on Dave Grohl's appearance, I get about 30 reliable sources:

• www.google.com/custom?hl=en&safe=off&client=pub-6571102184684432&cof=FORID%3A13%3BAH%3Aleft%3BCX%3AReliable%2520Sources%2520Search%2520Engine%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fintl%2Fen%2Fimages%2Flogos%2Fcustom_search_logo_sm.gif%3BLH%3A30%3BLP%3A1%3BKMBOC%3A%23336699%3B&adkw=AELymgVnxDwdeygLsSP25GtgRX4YjWZJVaQm7P0tH3rX9x7B4AsTsQmGf_rTdMG61aJc7O-Ztknc9nF5fRMTM67ruHLdBvunhnEDFFJoRAlDaswbVuES03o&boostcse=0&q=%22Dave+Grohl%22+%22Michael+Jackson%22+%22Another+Day%22&btnG=Search&cx=010426977372765398405%3A3xxsh-e1cp8

For Randy Jackson, I get about 4 or 5:

• www.google.com/cse?cx=010426977372765398405%3A3xxsh-e1cp8&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Randy+Jackson%22+%22Mariah+Carey%22+%22Memoirs+of+an+Imperfect+Angel%22&sa=Search&hl=en&siteurl=www.google.com%2Fcse%2Fhome%3Fcx%3D010426977372765398405%3A3xxsh-e1cp8%26hl%3Den

(Copy and paste the above URLs into your web browser.) Feel free to tweak my search terms to get more accurate results. But based off of this, we're talking about a 6-to-1 ratio. So I don't think it's a good comparison. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The point is that David Grohol is not credited by the label, or album credits as a featured performer so why should Wikipedia be different. We shouldn't be giving Grohol the same weight of importance as 50 cent or Lenny Kravitz. Like I said if there is information beyond his appearance (e.g. some criticism or prism and not just confirmation of his performance) then perhaps its worth a mention but certainly not in the way its been mentioned currently. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 17:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should base article content on what the labels say or want. Those are primary sources. We should base our article on secondary sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've never come across an article before where a performer isn't listed in the track listing but elsewhere in the article we refer to the them as a "featured performer". It actually seems ludacris... With something like album booklets... they are the legally registered credits ensuring that said performers receive their credits/royalties for their appearances. Being listed as a featured performer such as 50 Cent is obviously carries more weight than simply being listed as playing instruments on a song. That's the point I am trying to make...? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 18:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You keep referring to primary sources to determine weight when we should be relying on secondary sources to determine weight. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Because the album credits are legally binding ... they decide the weight that performers on an album are given. The published track listing does not list David Grohl so why are we listing him alongside 50 cent etc. Also i've noticed the same has been done with Shanice providing background vocals... my question is so what? Many artists provide background vocals as such but it isn't considered the same as featured vocals.... — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

What policy/guideline says that primary sources take precedent over secondary sources? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I give up. I'm basing this on common sense. From a legal point of view Shanice and David Grohl's involvement in the album are not treated in the same way as say 50 Cent's or Lenny Kravitz's appearances because they don't have registered performance in the same way. What your saying is that as long as secondary sources (an abundance of) mention other performers its ok to list them along in the main tracklisting despite the published track listing not mentioning said performers but them instead only being mentioned in the album booklet under personnel. Your also suggesting that enough reliable secondary sources say something its reliable/correct/logical. Finally under your suggestions if enough sources mention a particular vocal producer for example, then its ok to list them alongside the main producer of a song. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Michael is studio album

i'm sorry but i've the cd and sony wrote in it jackson was want to released this before his death and they said that he was working in the studio in all songs in spit of it contains four fake songs so it's studio album — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tato 0708 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

see above discussions — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 17:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Michael is not a compilation album

I've check Michael Jackson's official website and they have a store where they sell Michael Jackson albums. In the Michael Jackson Store, they have a category called "compilations" that includes Michael Jackson compilation albums. If an album is a comipilation then it will have this category. Here's an example: Number Ones http://www.myplaydirect.com/michael-jackson/number-ones/details/3992223 Michael doesn't have this category. http://www.myplaydirect.com/michael-jackson/michael/details/5721683 If you click the "compilations" category you'll see that Michael is not included in there. http://www.myplaydirect.com/michael-jackson/tags/5446070 Chelo61 (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't care... we mentioned before in the discussion that the label is not a reliable source for the number of releases or the type of release. Independent reliable third-party sources call the album a compilation. By its very nature its a collection of previously unreleased albums that had very little input from Jackson himself. Without his involvement its impossible to state that his next studio album would have looked like this. For the last time just DROP it... WP:STICK. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 19:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Why is the label not a reliable source? They are the ones who puts out albums to the public so they know which albums are studio, compilation, live, etc. May I remind you that Michael Jackson wanted wanted "Hold My Hand" to be the first single from his next project and "Hold My Hand" was released as the first single. Chelo61 (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Because the label is not independent of the subject. There's been massive instances of this where a label brands a song a single then that song fails to chart so the label calls it a promotional single. Sony Music in particular have a bad reputation for things such as reporting Beyonce's certificates. Labels use terms to promote things hence they have a vested interest. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 19:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

But it's not talking about how many copies Michael has sold or anything like that. It shows the album type of Michael. Chelo61 (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

But it shows that labels often change their use of technical terms for marketing purposes. Furthermore you're not able to address the concerns that we have about the label having a vested interest in the album. I'm sorry but on this occasion the consensus stands from before. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 20:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying we can't trust the label? Even when it's talking about the album type? So I guess that means we can't trust them when they say albums such as Number Ones http://www.myplaydirect.com/michael-jackson/number-ones/details/3992223 and The Essential Michael Jackson http://www.myplaydirect.com/michael-jackson/essential-michael-jackson/details/3992299 are compilations. Also if you go to allmusic they don't list Michael http://www.allmusic.com/album/michael-r2075647 as a compilation but they do list Number Ones http://www.allmusic.com/album/number-ones-r668827 as a compilation. Chelo61 (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

ugh... this again. Can't this guy learn to respect the established consensus. BTW: I have looked through the links provided and NONE state that it is a studio album. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 02:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It also doesn't mention that Thriller http://www.myplaydirect.com/michael-jackson/thriller/details/3992186 and Bad http://www.myplaydirect.com/michael-jackson/bad/details/3992294 are studio albums but they are. What I was trying to point out is that Michael is not included in the compilation section so it is a studio album. Plus Michael is included in the "main albums" section in allmusic just like Off the Wall and the other studio albums. Chelo61 (talk) 04:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:SYNTHESIS. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 04:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Chelo61. Just because A is not listed, does not mean A = B. Meaning if an album is not listed as compilation or studio on the official website does NOT mean it is a studio album. If no category is stated then we go by the consensus here, which in this case is Compilation and not Studio! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 09:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Go to allmusic and they included Michael with the rest of the studio albums. Chelo61 (talk) 23:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No, they list it as "Lyrics Included" nowhere says "Studio", and argue that Nomber Ones is listed as compilation is a big WP:SYNTHESIS. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 23:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

See http://www.allmusic.com/artist/michael-jackson-p4576/discography They list studio albums such as Dangerous, Invincible and Michael under the main albums section. If you check Thriller http://www.allmusic.com/album/thriller-r10089 they list it as "Lyric Included" and nowhere says "Studio" but we all know that Thriller is a studio album. Chelo61 (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

A+B+C+D won't make E a studio album, furthermore their page lists Michael Jackson's This Is It as Studio album when it is not Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞}

Check the page and you'll see that Michael Jackson's This Is It is listed under type "Soundtrack". Chelo61 (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes here but not here, the page you state that it is (by default) studio-only albums. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 23:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Chelo61; seriously: Stop clutching at straws and trying to find the tiniest hint that to justify your needless edit warring. The consensus has been established and if you cannot respect that by continuing to defy it by inferring that if something does not list the album as compilation then it obviously must be studio; then you WILL end up on an indefinate block, I think that the whole community has had enough of this (I know I have!). Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 00:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The majority of coverage and coherent logical arguments state that Michael is a compilation album. This discussion is over. Drop the stick and move on. If you feel you cannot do that then face being reported to administrators for WP:IDHT. You are wasting your time and everyone elses. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This revert and edit summary after I warned you about your most recent edit to this article is not helping... Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 02:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

When did TMZ become a reliable source?

When did Wikipedia articles start using TMZ as a source for information? Look at references 48 and 49. I think that the information sourced from TMZ should be removed. They are a tabloid site.

The only TMZ reference on the Michael Jackson article is one of a County of LA PDF document concerning Jackson's death. The PDF is merely hosted by TMZ.

Regards

98.82.124.5 (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

We're not the only ones.[2] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if your response was meant to be interpreted as defiant or if you have a genuine logical fallacy. The use of TMZ by other users in no way justifies the use of TMZ by this article. My question was meant to be rhetorical.

Furthermore, searching up "Jason Malachi" on Google News returns almost no articles about the person himself and none on his social network pages being hacked. Searching "Jason Malachi" appended with "hack" or "facebook" or "twitter" on Google only returns Michael Jackson fan sites. Unless anyone can find a reliable source, the information should be promptly removed. 98.82.124.5 (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Since TMZ broke the news of Jackson's death, it is being accepted as a reliable source i believe. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

True, TMZ broke the news, but can anyone provide a definite answer to whether or not TMZ should be used as a reference here? I'd appreciate it. 98.82.150.94 (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Revets to studio album

Ok i not sure whats going on here Chelo61 - As in Y this is happening yet i see no change in the tlaks on this page - A t this point i believe the next time i see this done again i will be reporting it as Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Signs of disruptive editing.Moxy (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

See above... This has been going on a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 00:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Sales of Michael

Billboard has reported issues with sales of the Michael album. Only 1.5 million have actually been sold and Sony is now left with a huge CD return. The other issue for Sony is the fact they paid so much money for unreleased Jackson material. But it would appear that the public are not showing very much interest in new Jackson music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.45.41 (talk) 09:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused- what in the world does this have anything to do with the article? Maybe it's a fact, but who cares? It's irrelevent. Allsop21 (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)