Talk:Monster (R.E.M. album): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:25, 18 September 2015

Albums C‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Alternative music C‑class Mid‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was a past Alternative Music Collaboration of the Week! You can view other past collaborations in the archive.

Again false Sales Numbers

This album was not sold 4 million times. It was sold 2,9 million copies. But here I see 4,000,000. It was shipped 4 million times.

But what hurts me. This album was overshipped. Meaning retailers ordered it and thought they will sell it but as a result the album was sold only 2,9 million times

in the 90s club sales had been popular. This album may have been sold 200000 copies via this way but not in total 4,000,000 times

please stop claiming false things. And this link

Let's R.E.M.-ember: 31 Billboard Chart Milestones Over The Band's 31-Year Career". billboard.com. Billboard. Retrieved 2011-09-24.

is error. Some cannot see numbers or so. Just photographs. But years ago when they broke up there were numbers. No idea why removed `?

And then I saw 2,9 million

"Gradual loss of commerical standing"?

I wouldn't call it "gradual" in any way. The group went from three consecutive 4X platinum albums to one that merely went platinum and then the next album was gold. This album had two top 25 songs; New Adventures and all subsequent albums failed to have any top 45 songs!

In the U.S., they lost most commercial standing with New Adventures and the rest with Up and the subsequent albums. I think "gradual" is the wrong word to use. Bsd987 20:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - looking at the charts, it would seem to be less overwhelming, in the way a 15,000 foot mountain has less standing than a 22,000 foot mountain. Fantailfan 19:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"its radical artistic change is generally believed to have instigated R.E.M.'s gradual loss of commercial standing in their homeland, the United States." is really funny and without any source it should be removed. NAHIFI was a chart success. I would say that Up was the record when their sales in the USA started their "gradual loss". --Tbonefin 17:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Let Me In" for Kurt Cobain?

I disagree - I believe it was for River Phoenix, not Cobain. Stipe is kind of ambivalent on it but the "For River" note seems to make this clearer.Fantailfan 17:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. David Buckley's "REM: Fiction" biography states it's for Kurt Cobain, and I've always thought so too - but I suppose we should have some kind of further backup. Wezzo 17:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to concede.Fantailfan 16:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The most of REM books refer to Cobain, eg. Marcus Gray ICFTS pp. 258. --Tbonefin 17:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King of Comedy

I have merged this article into here - individual tracks do not merit their own article. BlueValour 22:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But why are so many Warner-era R.E.M. albums/songs so heavily NPOV? --Fantailfan 00:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the female voice in king of comedy? starts at 1:05 and i just cant figure it out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.129.151 (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Band members vs. Personnel; Guests vs. Addiional Personnel

While I think that "Personnel" is kind of impersonal, it is a standard used for Wikialbums; Guests for Additional personnel follow under the same argument (I would prefer Additional contributors or something like that). Until the standard is changed, I'd prefer keeping to it. --Fantailfan 01:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing reviews

Please do not remove professional reviews that are deemed acceptable by WikiProject Album standards. --Fantailfan 22:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Massive reversion

No comments on why this was massively reverted? Please explain. --Fantailfan 01:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the revert wars!

Hey! Between the two of you, you have edited over 10,000 pages; I have edited over 3500. As a disinterested observer, I am citing the unofficial "way too much time on our hands" doctrine: Let's compromise!
(a) Dudesleeper is correct on the dating. The reason for this is very simple: for many years now release dates have standardized on Tuesdays in America and Mondays in other places. The difference of a single day is not worth this craziness.

Proposed: We can use (as as has been the case elsewhere) one date with the UK release date and the second with the US one. You can even use cute little flag icons for them.

(b) There are no explicit guidelines on how to incorporate an album article in a discography.

Proposed: We add a second discography using this format, with the albums discography taking top spot, the chronological one the second:

| Misc         = {{Extra chronology 2
  | Artist     = 
  | Type       = 
  | Last album = 
  | This album = 
  | Next album = 
  }}

Discuss, please. -- Fantailfan (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. I'm just amused at the American(s) being offended that they have to wait an extra day for the album. - Dudesleeper / Talk 09:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is because we have this Monday holiday thing here, so new releases of books, CDs, etc., are standardized on Tuesdays. --Fantailfan (talk) 11:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article?

I've been trying to clean this article up a bit, and then it was massively reverted recently by a user i am ignorant to know of, and i think the article is good material for a 'Good Article'. Any thoughts? RedParakeet28 (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lynda Stipe

Michael's sister features on the album, why is she not mentioned on the page? 84.92.140.217 (talk) 11:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Head/Tail sides or C/D sides?

I remember I had the album on a cassette and the two sides were called "C side" and 'D side". I don't know if that is relevant to point out, but I thought I'd do so anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.235.147 (talk) 07:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel to Murmur?

I seem to recall that, at time of release, this album was being touted as a spiritual follow-up to the band's debut album, Murmur. Hence both albums being two-syllable words beginning with M and ending with R. This also explains the 'Side C' and 'Side D' thing; essentially this was the second part of a double-album. Anyone else remember this?--81.151.136.14 (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]