Talk:Diamond Eyes
Albums Unassessed | |||||||
|
Mention of leak?
An editor has expressed his interest (on my talk page) in keeping mention of Diamond Eyes leaking off the article until the official release date. As it stands, mention of the leak is reliably sourced as a possible explanation for why the release date was recently bumped up two weeks. Nowhere in this article or the source is there a link to download the leak, and this article in noway promotes illegal downloading. What has been written here is compliant with the (brief) leak guideline at WP:LEAK. However, I still feel I should gather some consensus before continuing to undo his edits. If the result is to remove the information, it would be best to comment out the sentence and source so it can be easily re-added. Thank you. Fezmar9 (talk) 06:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Scrapping of Eros
There are two delays surrounding Eros. The first being shortly after Cheng's accident, all work on the album halted until further notice. This was not a creative or artistic decision, just what felt right at the time. According to Moreno, the band hopes to "release [Eros] when the time is right -- hopefully when Chi is back on his feet. But when the accident happened, we just didn't want to be in that time anymore." [1] The creative/artistic decision that Moreno speaks of was the choice to shelve Eros indefinitely and begin on a new album, Diamond Eyes. The "creative decision" is already paraphrased in this article as "they didn't feel that [Eros] represented who they were as artists or as people at the time" from the Blabbermouth source "this record doesn't best encompass and represent who we are currently as people and as musicians."[2] These two separate delays should not be lumped together. I feel that what has been written in this article accurately portrays what the third-party published sources are indicating. Maybe it needs to be expanded upon or made a little less wordy, but not completely changed.
ALSO, an editor has expressed his dislike for mentioning "the creative decision" in the intro, feeling that it was overly descriptive. Something that an intro should avoid. Fezmar9 (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Metal Hammer link
Does the link to Metal Hammer really need to be there?
The reviewer listened to the leaked version,and the descriptions are..vague.
While it is a nice link for people interested in the album,I think the link may need to be removed based off the fact that the review was of an illegal version of the album,and it really isn't the best of reviews any ways.
I realize the album has only been out 5 days and it will be hard to find a good replacement for the link,but it just seems..wrong to have it.