Jump to content

Talk:Michael (Michael Jackson album)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chelo61 (talk | contribs) at 19:43, 27 March 2011. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Placing of Michael

Should Michael be placed in the "Other albums" category on Michael Jackson albums discography (certifications and sales)? I noticed it's listed in the compilation section, but I thought we agreed to call it an "other" on Michael's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allsop21 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can't decide. Some editors think it should be "compilation", others think it should be "studio", and some have suggested a new category named "posthumous". I think "other" is simply a temporary compromise until one of these ideas gains consensus. Your input is welcome. What do you think? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The section "Other albums" in that page is for remix albums, EPs, Soundtracks, etc... This album is not nothing of all these. I edited the Michael page changing in "Other" because we haven't got a consensus for the type of the album. SJ (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2010

I am also divided. On one hand, Billboard and others call this a studio album, but then some say it's a compilation. Unlike Farewell My Summer Love, Michael Jackson did have a part in this until he passed away. I'm confused on what to do. I do not agree with someone changing the title of Michael to a compilation. I agree that "other" should be used until we reach a REAL consensus. At home, I will be placing this album on my studio album shelf, but I agree we need to reach a consensus on this site. Allsop21 (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Every other artist on wikipedia has posthumous albums with new material list as Studio Albums. This release isnt any different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otis_Redding#Discography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimi_Hendrix#Discography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupac_Shakur#Discography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selena#Discography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Notorious_B.I.G.#Discography —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.11.78.245 (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I say we should eventually move it to a section called Posthumous albums. But for now, other albums is fine. Maybe once a second one is released it should be discussed. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT 01:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. MaJic (comments go here) 20:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

End the Edit War - Studio vs Compilation

Ok since the album was announced there has been a significant and on-going edit war about where Michael is classified as a studio album or a compilation album. There have been numerous discussions which have led to users simply shouting or trying to outquote each other. Hence I've collated all the evidence in this one discussion to present both sides of the argument. Per WP:CONSENSUS a straw poll (note not a WP:VOTE) is an appropriate form of action. Take a look at both sides of the argument below and then note which side of the argument you are supporting either by Studio orCompilation.

Note: I have taken the evidence exactly as it was given in the three earlier discussions on this page. I have presented the sources as they were given and I have researched for more where appropriate. I believe both views have been presented quite enough times, its now time everyone started singing from the same hymn sheet be it compilation or studio and made their minds up please or else the article might have to be protected indefinitely as constant edit warring cannot continue. Remember editing decisions must be based on verifiable facts supported by reliable third party sources and not original research or synthesis. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 18:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that all users who are registered, and have previously commented on one or more of the old threads, have been notified of the discussion

Evidence

Evidence
  • "Rather than a studio album to rival Thriller, the King Of Pop’s trustees have come up with an intriguing but patchy compilation." Daily Mail
  • "Despite the tepid reaction to Michael, the first compilation of unreleased Michael Jackson song" The Guardian
  • "Jody Rosen writes that Jackson "would not have released anything like this compilation, a grab bag of outtakes and outlines assembled by Jackson's label." RollingStone
  • "a host of collaborators and producers, including Akon, Lenny Kravitz, 50 Cent and Teddy Riley, completed 10 songs left unfinished by Jackson for this compilation, with mixed results." "Michael is not an album with a cohesive theme or consistent sound." USA Today
  • "TODAY (11/8) is the day the first single from "MICHAEL," the compilation of unreleased MICHAEL JACKSON recordings set to be released DECEMBER 14th, is streaming from JACKSON’s official website" All Access
  • "the December 14 debut of "Michael" -- a collection of 10 songs completed by various record producers after the singer's sudden death in June 2009 due to an overdose of the anesthetic propofol and other drugs." Reuters (Canada)
  • "Call it a collage, an approximation, or a tribute. Or call it, as many of Michael's collaborators have: "a labor of love." That sentiment certainly shines through on the record. Yet obviously, this is not the exact album Jackson would have created" Huffinton Post
  • "The much anticipated album of newly completed recordings from Michael Jackson entitled MICHAEL will be released on December 14 by Epic Records in conjunction with the Estate of Michael Jackson." MichaelJackson.com
  • "Next Monday sees the release of Michael, his first new studio album in nine years." The Telegraph
  • "ONE telling moment on “Michael,” the first full album of posthumous material" New York Times
  • "The first posthumous studio album from the King of Pop misses out on a Number 1 slot in the US, Japan and the UK." Music Rooms

Comment About Evidence I don't care for how this evidence section has been added to the initial call for a vote, for three reasons. First, calls for votes should be neutrally worded. Evidence that supports a particular side doesn't belong. Second, there is no way to tell whether this is an accurate sampling of reliable sources. It's not hard to find sources which call it a "studio album" that were left off this table:

  • "Michael Jackson's first posthumous studio album is in a tight race for honors on next week's chart with reigning champ Susan Boyle and former queen Taylor Swift, according to early industry prognostications." Reuters
  • "The producers of the singer's first studio album since 2001" MTV
  • "The cover of "Michael," a posthumous studio album by Michael Jackson" Bloomberg

Third, two of the quotes in the compilation column of the table (Reuters and Huffington Post) don't say anything about it being a compilation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've simply collated all of the evidence already given in previous discussions. I've not modified it any way but I've merely said that the evidence given above is what is under discussion and was previously used to assert one view or another. I've asked people to comment based on this and any other evidence give. To make it more neutral I've removed the distinction simply leaving a list of quotes for people to speak about. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 23:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resolved
= Compilation

Vote

  • Compilation, (in my eyes the evidence is clear, there is overwhelming independent coverage support compilation and the exact composition of the album matches Compilation album) -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 18:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compilation – Sigh. I can't believe there's still problems with this. The evidence is quite clear in my eyes as well. As the Wikipedia page states for studio album, "A studio album is an album made up of tracks recorded in the controlled environment of a recording studio, as opposed to a live recording made at a performance venue or a compilation or reissue album of previously recorded material." These songs were previously recorded. I wish this edit war would end. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT 18:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compilation as per above sources. Moxy (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compilation: a compilation (by the records company) of previously recorded tracks, rare tracks, B-side,... Not newly recorded material (by Michael Jackson); he has gone. Silvergoat (talk∙contrib) 18:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compilation as per above sources (and there are many others that call Michael compilation album). SJ (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compilation same as above. Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't have any strong opinions either way, but I think that this article should be consistent with other similar articles. When examining other posthumous albums of studio material, the majority of Wikipedia articles I've found list the album as studio:
Another editor has pointed out that there are exceptions:
But upon closer look, Zappa's album is mostly a re-mix album with one live track and one studio track and Lopez's album is apparently comprised of songs previously released on her debut album. So, 7 out of 9 similar postumous albums of studio tracks are listed as "studio". It would be nice if we could be consistent. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:Other stuff exists I am no longer of this opinion. Each album should be taken on its own merits and based on the information available to us from the reliable and independent sources. So far the information is telling us that the records are a a mixture of completed and uncompleted records by Jackson recorded over an extensive number of years. There is no cohesive theme nor style to the songs. Equally although Sony Music said it is a the first release of new songs we know that's not true as two of the songs were previously released in demo form. Its just b-sides and rare tracks. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 19:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Other_stuff_exists is one of the most misused arguments on Wikipedia. WP:Other_stuff_exists applies to article deletions, not article content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so but it puts forward a good concept.. the idea that we shouldn't base our editing decisions for Michael based on other posthumous albums. It doesn't take away from the all of the latter comments I made about the range of records on the album. The absence of Jackson's creative input and a clear purpose to the studio process show that the album is by its composition a compilation album. There is no way of definitively saying that these records would have been released or have appeared together. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 19:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The project is bigger than just one article. In any case, I think it ultimately boils down to the definitions of 'studio' and 'compilation'. Is a studio album an album of studio tracks? Is a compilation album an album of songs compiled from different sources? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Studio This is really simple. Studio album = New, never released, first time appearance. Compilation album = Previously released, greatest hits, appeared on a different album. Also, are all of you guys seriously going to call every single new studio album by Michael Jackson compilation albums instead of studio albums just because he's dead even though every song will be new? Chelo61 (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stick to the facts please... we're talking about Michael. We cant talk about future albums as we do not know their content or composition. At least two of the songs from Michael have been released before be it in demo form or not. There is nothing new about previously unreleased tracks. Careful not to get the two confused. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 20:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only one song from Michael was released as a demo and that was "(I Like) The Way You Love Me" which appeared on the box set The Ultimate Collection as a demo called "The Way You Love Me" but the song was completed for Michael. Previously unreleased tracks are new songs whether or not they got leaked. Chelo61 (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Without MJ's contribution in the final engineering, mixing and compiling of the songs used for the album i dont see how we could call it a Studio Album. Calling it such would imply its all MJ's work and what HE had intended to release. If the there dead or the band has broken up is normal a "posthumous compilation" even if its new material. Elvis Presley discography (Dead 1977 so all albums after are not classed as studio in the main discography) - The Beatles discography (they broke up in 1970 so again all albums after the break up are not classed as studio albums). As for Jimi Hendrix albums (as mentioned above) the discographies are separated right Jimi Hendrix discography and Jimi Hendrix posthumous discography. They should be renamed in the articles (just a small oversight by some of our editors that actually numbers his posthumous albums calling them studios 1,2 etc). Moxy (talk) 00:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Jackson did contributed to the album, he recorded the songs, produced them, and wrote most of them. By the way, Michael Jackson was working on new studio albums since his tenth one, Invincible, came out. Just because he's dead, that doesn't mean that every single new album that gets released will be a compilation album. Chelo61 (talk) 04:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually thats exactly what i am saying - every album after someones dies is a "posthumous compilation" of released or/and unreleased material. In fact Teddy Riley (Producer of the new album and co-executor of the Michael Jackson estate) has said that its the first "compilation" of unreleased Michael Jackson songs, the onslaught of posthumous material has only just begun.Moxy (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more on Moxy's side here. If Michael Jackson was intending to make one or more studio albums but was not intending to make this particular album with this particular track listing and other particular characteristics, then this particular album is, therefore, not a studio album, but a compilation album. Unless if there is unrefutable proof given that Michael Jackson did want to make this particular album, then I will not change my mind about it being a compilation. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 06:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Compilation albums aren't filled with new songs. Sometimes they have 1 or 2 new songs so people can buy them. Studio albums are filled with songs never before released. Sometimes they have 1 previously released song in them because that song was very successful or has been remixed or, like in Michael, the song has been completed. Chelo61 (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Michael Jackson did contributed to the album". Rubbish grammar aside, Jackson did NOT create the final FINISHED' version of the tracks on this COMPILATION album. As many other editors have pointed out, even though it was well documented news that Jackson WAS indeed making a new album, that album is NOT Michael - as clearly seen by the lack of tracks with will.i.am, Ne-Yo and other producers. You have NEVER ONCE ADDRESSED THE FACT THAT THIS ALBUM WAS HEAVILY RE-WORKED/COMPLETED BY 3RD PARTY PRODUCERS. Just because Jackson's vocals appear on PREVIOUSLY UNRELEASED material that was FINISHED in a STUDIO by OTHERS does not make it a studio album. Seriously now, GET OVER IT. 218.186.8.225 (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if the artist is dead or alive, a studio album is still a studio album. Remember, will.i.am and Ne-Yo are against any new Michael Jackson albums which is why they won't released any of the new songs they worked with Michael Jackson. Chelo61 (talk) 06:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compilation - Given that these songs were recorded some time ago and it is impossible for the artist to record any new songs (May he Rest in Peace, we have lost a great singer) this is clearly a compilation album. If the songs had been recorded in the past 6 months I might have thought differantly; but because they were being worked on years ago it clearly is previously unreleased material, therefore it is a compilation album. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 22:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compilation. If it is to be a studio album, then where would be the proof that Michael Jackson intended to release an album that are of the specifications of Michael? There hasn't been proof (given to me, at least) that Jackson intended to make this as an album, and the songs on it were recorded over a period o more than 20 years, most of which are new tracks. Also, I will share the sentiment that the left column shares about it being a compilation album. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 23:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compilation Per all above, the only user who think this is a studio album does not understand the difference between this and this. Tbh®tchTalk © Happy New Year 03:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do know the difference between a single and a song so don't try to make me look dumb and don't make up stuff as you usually do to get your way. Chelo61 (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you didn't know those were NOT my words. Tbh®tchTalk © Happy New Year 06:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You weren't the first one, but you did used those words as your own. Chelo61 (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case you didn't know, I do know the difference between a single and a song. Chelo61 (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Studio. Michael is a studio album. The songs were recorded in a STUDIO. I don't see what's wrong with just calling it a posthumous studio album. It was recorded in a studio, & released after he died. I'm changing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewOne (talk • contribs) 05:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is highly not preferred that you change this. The consensus needs to be reached before something is settled upon, and it has been established that changing the type on one's own volition is the wrong thing to do. Also, the album being recorded in a studio does not make it a studio album. Demos and EPs and even compilations can be recorded in studios (the latter of which is, of course, not in any specific sessions). Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 07:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have clearly failed to read the comments on the talk page that explicitly draw attention to the confusion between 'studio' as a location and 'studio' as an ALBUM TYPE.218.186.8.242 (talk) 10:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note this comment was moved from a section above. It maybe was intentionally placed there or maybe was an error. Tbhotch™ © Happy New Year 07:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compilation, per common sense. It is a vault-raiding exercise compiled from previously-recorded tracks spanning an almost 30-year timeframe, tracks that were not recorded for the purpose of being released together as a single body of work. That the tracks were recorded in recording studios does not mean that the album has to be classed as a studio album; compilation albums can (and indeed usually are) made up of tracks recorded in studios. Nor does it matter that the tracks have never before been released; compilation albums often include—and sometimes are even even made up mostly of—previously unreleased material. The pertinent fact is that the tracks were recorded in different sessions over a period of many years, at different points in the artist's career, and not for the same release. They are odd-and-ends, outtakes, B-sides, unfinished songs, compiled here into a single release by the artist's estate postmortem. This is, in every sense, a compilation album. The only one who seems to continue making a war of this is Chelo61, to whom I highly recommend dropping the stick and getting over it. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is you who should just get over it and stop calling Michael a compilation album because it is a studio album. A studio album is still a studio album whether or not the artist is dead or alive. Chelo61 (talk) 06:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Again you miss the point completely. It has nothing to do with the material being recorded in a studio, it has even less to do with the artist being alive or dead: it has entirely to do with the manner in which the recordings were assembled. These are not songs that were recorded and worked on in a specific setting with the intention of being released as single body of work. Rather, this is a collection of tracks compiled from Jackson's unreleased and unfinished recordings, gathered from a number of recording sessions stretching back 28 years. That's what makes it a compilation album, and nothing you have said in this entire discussion refutes that simple fact. You may go on beating your head against the wall if you like, but I'm done. Consensus is overwhelmingly in support of the fact that this is a compilation album, as evidenced by this discussion. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You are the one who is missing the point. Compilation albums have songs that were previously released. Studio albums have songs that were never before released. Since you're "done", I guess you won't care if somebody correctly changes Michael from compilation album to studio album. Chelo61 (talk) 01:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    if someone incorrecly change compilation to studio, will be breaking this clear consensus, and will be warned. Tbhotch™ © Happy New Year 02:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you know when will finish this "poll"? SJ (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the intent was to give it a week, so Monday the 3rd. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compilation. I agree entirely with IllaZilla who has summed it up perfectly.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compilation. Overwhelming evidence, clear, sound logic supports this over the whinging and lame claims by 'editors' who claim otherwise.218.186.8.225 (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compilation per IllaZilla --Guerillero | My Talk 08:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • StudioYes, I've changed my mind after thinking it over and realized it is a studio album. Look at studio album. Look at compilation album. A studio album is a collection of previously unreleased material and a compilation is a collection of released material, regardless of whatever album it was intended for. Look at Doll Domination and see that a lot of the songs were intended for Nicole Scherzinger's solo album, yet Doll Domination is not a compilation. Also, A Quest For Knowledge, even though this is the "otherstuff argument", did mention that several other albums that are this exact case have been listed as studio albums. --Cprice1000talk2me 01:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In Doll Domination, only three songs were intended for Nicole's solo album. 3 songs aren't more than 50% in Doll Domination. Furthermore, like was said above, a compilation is not only a greatest hits or a best of. Read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compilation_album SJ (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But please don't call it a "posthumous compilation" - that makes no sense --Cprice1000talk2me 19:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Studio albums are "just a mix of unreleased songs". What doesn't make sense is a "compilation album of unreleased tracks" since all studio albums consist of unreleased tracks and all compilation albums consist of previously released tracks although some compilation albums includes 1 or more new songs so people can buy them. Chelo61 (talk) 06:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, people buy compilation albums for the previous songs, not the new songs. Tbhotch™ © Happy New Year 06:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I said some compilation albums not all compilation albums. But what about the people who already own all of the songs on the compilation album? Sometimes compilation albums have new songs so people who already own all of old the songs can buy the compilation album for the new songs. Chelo61 (talk) 06:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my mind. See above --Cprice1000talk2me 01:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison between Michael and Doll Domination is completely impropper. Her Name is Nicole was recorded by Nicole Scherzinger (a lot of the songs were written by her too). She is part of the Pussycat Dolls and she is still alive. She consciously chose of her own accord to put the records on her band's album instead. Note that she had an ACTIVE input in the re-recording and re-tooling of the songs for Doll Domination. Jackson was in no way, involved in mixing, mastering or re-producing the material, previously recorded for other albums, to make them ready for Michael. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 20:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aftermath when vote is complete

It is a bit early to have a conclusion as the vote per say has only been open for 4 days (people are still free to comment above), but looks like the majority (back by reliable sources) wish to call it a "Compilation" (am i correct?). If this is to be the outcome over the next few days we should talk about (so we dont have more conflicts and since we are all here) if the album will also be listed under "Compilation" at {{Michael Jackson}}, Michael Jackson albums discography (peak chart positions) and Michael Jackson albums discography (certifications and sales) the latter 2 have it already under Compilation.Moxy (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you there Moxy. If the conclusion is 'compilation' it needs to be universally used across all related pages. With it being New Year Eve soon I think the discussion should be a left a few more days should others wish to make an resolving comments. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See above Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 22:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fancruft

What's with all this about it being the highest-selling album of 2010? --Cprice1000talk2me 19:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not true... The best-selling albums were The Fame by Lady Gaga, Eminem's Recovery and Justin Bieber's My World! --79.216.174.128 (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AV Club vs Huffington Post edit war

There appears to be some sort of edit war over whether a review by the AV Club or Huffington Post should be in the article.[1][2] [3][4] I'm a bit confused. Why can't we list both? What am I missing? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are only suppose to be ten reviews in the first place. And currently there's 11. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The A.V. Club is more music orientated publication compared to Huffington Post. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huffington Post is more notable, right? --Cprice1000talk2me 22:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not totally sure. Yeah, I guess since AV Club is more about music than HP...... ask Tbhotch --Cprice1000talk2me 22:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We should just make sure that there is a balance to the reviews (as in good and bad ones if this is the case), before replacing them. but all looks ok to me i think Moxy (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if we're at 11, does that mean we still have to delete one? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should keep AV Club and, I agree with working the HP review into the article. --Cprice1000talk2me 23:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or we can remove A.V.'s review from infobox and add both reviews in prose. We are at 11 reviews on a template for 10, and the other possible review that can be removed is The Boston Globe since the other nine are more music-oriented reviewers. Tbhotch™ © Happy New Year 04:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peak charts

The album was n°1 in Argentina in December ! It should be added on the chart peaks section

http://www.capif.org.ar/Default.asp?CodOp=ESCM&CO=6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.203.44.169 (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Year-End-charts

The album was the 25th best-selling album in Germany in 2010 source--79.216.174.128 (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certifications

Also Platin in Germany. [year=2010&tx_ttnews[month]=12&cHash=c2d06e4658825353604476bf5e4e0f27]

not WP:RS. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 13:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source

I think we somewhat agreed to call Michael a compilation album, but then we site a source concerning Hollywood Tonight as the second single that clearly calls Michael a studio album. This contradicts our "decision". Allsop21 (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rectify Vandalism

Someone has vandalized the article, claiming that 3 tracks on the album, "Keep Your Head Up", "Monster" and "Breaking News" were written and produced by someone called "Jason Malachi". Can someone please change this back to Michael Jackson? Also, it is known that James Porte also helped write the songs in question.

92.30.245.54 (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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.[5]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_(Michael_Jackson_album)&oldid=421027333"