Misplaced Pages

Talk:Not Your Kind of People

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Woovee (talk | contribs) at 15:40, 10 August 2012 (→June 2012: vote for these Review Scores). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:40, 10 August 2012 by Woovee (talk | contribs) (→June 2012: vote for these Review Scores)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
WikiProject iconAlbums B‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Loudness War

I believe this topic to be of notable value to the article's content, but two biased fan's of the group, Garbagemty and Deepblue1, have made several non-constructive section blanking edits upon the introduction of any content pertaining to the subject.

The content, as originally written:

Waveform of "I Hate Love" from the CD release

The album has been criticized by numerous fans for being poorly mastered, containing excessive use of dynamic range compression and poorly performed equalization patterns. On the Dynamic Range Database – where albums are ranked on a sliding scale from 1 to 20 (1 being the worst, 20 being the best), based on the difference between the peak decibel level of a recording and the recording's average loudness – Not Your Kind of People was given an average rating of 5 out of 20, indicating "bad" mastering on the DR Scale.

Each individual statement made in the section was supported by relevant sources - including one very handy source, an interview with the album's own engineer which testified to the album's compression, dynamic range compression and unorthodox EQ'ing. There was no issue with the content as it stood, several users simply continuously blanked the section on numerous occasions because the content was of a critical nature, as detailed here. Fans need to be aware that Misplaced Pages is not an advertising site for any band, and that all notable content - whether positive or critical - should be included in an article. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Forums are rarely WP:RS, the loudness-war doesn't look like one either. I haven't looked properly at the interview, but I don't think it establishes the album was criticised for it, I'm not sure if it even establishes it was unusual. Nil Einne (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

June 2012: vote for these Review Scores

Clash (magazine)'s review is notable.
Metacritic considers Clash Magazine as one of the most important magazines/sites for reviews. Metacritic's "2011 Music Critic Top Ten Lists" lists Clash Magazine in the best Music magazines along with ] and Spin : see here the list of the best "Music magazines" for Metacritic here.
At the opposite, Artistdirect doesn't appear on Metacritic's "2011 Music Critic Top Ten Lists" which means that artisdirect is not considered as important by journalists.
Henceforward, here's my vote for the Review Scores : YES for Clash Magazine and NO for Artistdirect.
To me, the list of ten reviews must include : Allmusic, Entertainment Weekly, Clash, The Guardian, NME, Pitchfork Media, Rolling Stone, Spin, The Irish Times, Virgin Media. These ten reviews reflect all the diversity of opinions in a objective way and equitably, respecting what critic reviews said about the album : see here critic reviews of "Not Your kind of People on Metacritic.
Woovee (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
'Note that unregistered users that had appeared in the last days on wiki, to directly take part in this vote and to support the one and only opponent to this issue, won't be counted. For instance, look at 178.128.76.165 's history. First ever contribution to wiki (2 June 2012) is... to take part in the current issue and to support the one & only opponent. This also includes 111.196.174.232 & 178.138.32.14 & 77.49.254.23 as they are all from the same person who changes of ips. Each time, first contribution to wiki is for this issue of this page. And they all speak in the same way.. Semi protection is very useful for that. Woovee (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
You don't even know how to use the Internet! All those IPs are me. Don't you know IPs change over time? If you can't use the Internet, then don't use it! I'll just go create an account.
And I still don't understand why you're trying to push a crap review. The article should be protected from YOU! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.254.23 (talk) 12:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "The article should be protected from YOU"
Exactly! The article should be protected against Woovee and Homeostasis07 because they try to insert a lame review in an otherwise OK Reception section. You are the vandals. You didn't edit this page with good faith but with hidden interests (your edits are not constructive). Read again that Clash review: do you really think it's an objective and non-biased review?
So, I strongly reject this abysmal Clash review. There is already one really bad NME review.
"Let's vote for these Review Scores: "Clash (Magazine)" and "Artistdirect""
What "Artistdirect"? I put another review from The Irish Times, more relevant and balanced than Clash & Artistdirect reviews. Anyone with good sense will see that. Why did you revert this review and act like you didn't see it? Deepblue1 (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I vote for Irish Times too. Seriously, that Clash review barely describes two songs of the albums destructively. It's also very biased. Whatever reason it's being pushed in the article, I don't know. There's a much better review offered! What the hell is wrong with you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.254.23 (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Woovee that Clash should be incorporated in favour of the much less notable Artistdirect, and suggest also that the review from the barely notable musicOMH be removed to appease the 10-review-only policy. I also think Woovee hit the nail right on the head when he said the professional ratings infobox should include : Allmusic, Clash, Entertainment Weekly, The Guardian, NME, Pitchfork Media, Rolling Stone, Spin, The Irish Times, Virgin Media. They're by far the 10 most commonly notable reviews available for the record, and offer an accurate insight on general opinions of the album thus far. And, a heads up to admins, Deepblue1 is instructing that anyone with a "Misplaced Pages account please vote for The Irish Times review" here via a garbage fan forum (under the username "Alin", requires registration to view). The user has demonstrated that he has major issues, per WP:Own, and is now attempting to subvert the talk process by flooding the page with users who share his own specific thoughts on the subject. In this article's short life span, if there has been any disagreement in its content, user Deepblue1 has been there, continually reverting and instructing others to do so (also evidenced in the link I provided a moment ago). User has also lacked any sense of civility and courtesy when editing, 495908493, 495535182, going so far as to accuse other users of being paid advocates for Clash, instead of simply providing a rational reason for his editing. I believe this page will get nowhere if he's allowed to go on like this unhindered. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • You deserve a Nobel Prize for your very long and boring essays about nothing. I think you're paranoid (pun intended). The problem is that you're a major pain in the ass. You're too obsessed with that particular review (like you are/were with Loudness War). What is your interest to post that Clash review with any price? You gain something? You work for them? If the Clash review isn't posted you're going to die?
  • "The user has demonstrated that he has major issues, per WP:Own" You and Woovee have issues. You and Woovee tried to insert the review with any price. That bothered me and other anonymous users. It wasn't there at first. There were already 10 reviews posted. It's not your own article to write everything you want: you need consensus. And guess what? I will revert everytime your unconstructive edits. If not me, then other users with good sense. Trolls like you deserve this kind of behavior. Good night!Deepblue1 (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Let's put the reviews face to face
Vote please! Deepblue1 (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
it's in the same issue : henceforward, no need to create another topic. We saw your point of view and the ones of your multiple doubles/clones ips recently appeared on wiki to support you as the one & only opponent. This is a small reminder : the ten Review scores include both Clash and Irish Times as three registered users recently said it to you. The complete list of ten reviews contains : Allmusic, Entertainment Weekly, Clash, The Guardian, NME, Pitchfork Media, Rolling Stone, Spin, The Irish Times, Virgin Media. Woovee (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  1. "Not Your Kind of People Reviews". 2012-05-25.
  2. Micallef, Ken (2012-03-28). "Working Collectively and Apart on Not Your Kind of People". Electronic Musician. NewBay Media. Retrieved 2012-05-25. Billy Bush (engineer): "I am not afraid of compressing the bejesus out of the signal while tracking. Every once in a while, an assistant will look aghast when I do that, 'you know it's kicking down 10dB!'"
  3. "Not Your Kind Of People - Album Details". Dynamic Range Database. Retrieved 2012-05-24.
  4. "Garbage - Album List". Dynamic Range Database. Retrieved 2012-05-24.
Categories:
Talk:Not Your Kind of People Add topic