Talk:Monster (R.E.M. album)

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.

"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]

I propose we create a "LIST OF SONGS WRITTEN FOR OR ABOUT KURT COBAIN" there are alot of these songs, such as "Tearjerker" by The Red Hot Chilli Peppers. -mikebritt

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]

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]