Talk:L.D. 50 (album)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article L.D. 50 (album) was one of the Music good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
WikiProject Metal (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Albums (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Miscellanea?[edit]

"Many of the songs on the L.D. 50 album include clips edited intricately into them of which are brought together to create the song L.D. 50 which is featured on the The Beginning of All Things to End album, along with other clips which are not featured in other songs." lol what? i dunno who wrote this, but apparently they never heard TEOATTC "The song LD 50 featured on the beginning of TEOATTC"??? this whole part makes no sense, so i'm deleting it.69.218.199.100 01:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This could really use some notes about themes (occult/alchemical, death/redemption), individual songs, and techniques. Unfortunately, I do not know any sources for this and fear that my notes would be "original research."71.50.30.172 00:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Cover Art[edit]

Is that supposed to be a baby on the cover? If not, what is it? Typhoid Orchid 00:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes it's a baby on the front. Removing magic mushrooms from the list of substances on the cover, I don't believe this is correct. Any thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.1.149.18 (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Sources[edit]

Here are some sources which can be used to help expand the article. (Sugar Bear (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC))

Genre change[edit]

I went ahead and changed "Math metal" in the infobox to "Technical metal," as "Math metal" now redirects to Djent (which Mudvayne is not) and this album is pretty much the only one described as "Math metal." I kept "Technical metal" because it better captures the complexity of the album more than just Progressive metal. Takava Nirhii (talk) 05:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Experimental metal in the infobox perhaps? because that genre is kind of an umbrella term for genres like technical metal, math metal and djent. I call the big one bitey (talk) 07:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This has been performed on other articles, but the infobox should only include cited material or information cited in the article. So far, the only thing cited in the article is "The musical style of L.D. 50 has been described as heavy metal[9][11][12] and alternative metal.[13][14]". No other genres are mentioned and genres that are "influences" do not count. Not much more to add. If there are no further discussions, we should keep it to the material referred to in the article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually there are sources for nu metal and progressive rock which someone randomly removed a while ago, i'll try to get around to re-addding them later. I call the big one bitey (talk) 7:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, just add them soon otherwise they should be removed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not entirely convinced by the "future prog" citation from Spin. What does it mean? Prog metal? Prog rock? I don't think it's strong enough to just interpret what they are saying like that. If you can't find a better more specific source, I think it should be removed as it's not specific enough to what is being stated. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm still not really content with just linking to an article (or rather, a disambiguation page) for the link for progressive music. I think for this article, we should shorten it down to genres that are related the most to this article per WP:UNDUE. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Well i would be content with "alternative metal", "nu metal" and "heavy metal", but i'd really like to see progressive metal stay, since this album definitely draws from the prog genre, and there's even a source proving this, even if it may not directly call the album progressive metal. If i had to choose which one Mudvayne album sounded the most like progressive metal (a genre critics have categorized them as multiple times) then it would be this, since it's full of tempo shifts, odd time sigs, strange interludes and Tool like moments. I call the big one bitey 13:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not that I don't disagree that it's influenced (this doesn't sound like Papa Roach or something from the similar era), but perhaps we should include the main genres you mentioned int he infobox and leave the others in the description per WP:UNDUE. If you can find more sources for prog metal, go right ahead but the Spin one is a bit weak now and probably could be expanded upon. It's not really anyone's fault, but I find journalists often say a genre or make a wacky hybrid like Spin did when they really mean different things. Wikipedia sadly doesn't take this stuff into consideration. I'll take a stab at cleaning out the infobox. Get back to me if you think there still is problems. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Again, i'm not convinced by this citation either. " yet oddly progressive in their overall musical goal." is not clear of what is claimed in the citation (namely prog metal). Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Well i'm pretty sure the ip that added that is a sock of a long term abuser who has a history of adding iffy/unreliable sources. Just looking at all the Mudvayne articles you can see him edit warring over the genre, often citing spurious sources. I call the big one bitey 11:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah. I thought it might've been you not signed in. :) Whups! I'll remove it for now and refer to the talk page. Thanks for clearing that up. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing more spurious than the sources claiming Mudvayne as nu metal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.42.92.110 (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's up to the sources for specific albums. The band has been described as several genres. We can't hunt and pick at the ones we find 'acceptable' or true. Please do not remove cited material, or material that's backed up by cited prose. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Listen to your own advice. The sources claiming Mudvayne as nu-metal are minimal and irrelevant. There's greater sources for progressive metal. ProgGuy (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Can you get the sources discussing this as progressive metal? Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
"It is still being discussed"? Really? It was a dead issue until you decided to throw a temper tantrum about it. And stop removing sources. This is not a nu metal album, it is a progressive metal album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.96.198 (talk) 23:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Anon. There was no real consensus for the genre of this album, but we do not have a source for progressive metal anywhere in the article. The Sea of Tranquility site appears to be a fan site. I'll ask WP:ALBUMS about it shortly. Do you have anything to back up Sea of Tranquility? Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, there was a consensus. Stop lying. Also, Sea of Tranquility is one of the most well respected progressive rock magazines out there. 64.134.96.198 (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I've read through this page and despite consensus we still need sources to back up. We can't just choose what is or isn't' the genre.
For the record, the Post Bulletin article doesn't specificly discuss this album being in that genre. It states "Mudvayne, the Grammy-nominated progressive rock and metal band, is helping keep rock on a roll in Rochester." and "Mudvayne rose to fame in 2000 with the single “Dig" from the debut album “L.D. 50." Since then they’ve staked claim as one of the most creative and distinctive bands in the aggressive rock world.". We need specific sources discussing the sound and style of this album. Here we do not have them. As for Sea of Tranquility I'll make a post about it on WP:ALBUM/SOURCE to see if it should be considered a notable source or not. We still have a source for nu metal however, so we should not ignore it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Discussion of Sea of Tranquility can be found here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Just as a note, the new Revolver citation states "With ‘L.D. 50,’ Mudvayne took critical flak for their gimmicky image, but the album’s prog-rock experimentalism and virtuosic playing hold up amazingly well–even if the rapping on tracks liek “Under My Skin” binds ‘L.D. 50′ more to nu-metal than to the math-metal tag Mudvayne (now free of face paint and pseudonyms) prefer.". So it's still not calling it a prog metal album, but it is good for describing it as nu metal. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • You have one source claiming LD 50 as a nu metal album. You have MULTIPLE SOURCES saying that it is a progressive album, alternative metal and heavy metal. Also, NO, REVOLVER DOES NOT CALL THIS ALBUM NU-METAL. Stop making up claims for what the sources say when they clearly identify this as progressive metal. 64.134.96.198 (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Before removing tags that bring people attention to the talk page, please note the Revolver article is titled "[http://www.revolvermag.com/news/10-nu-metal-albums-you-need-to-own.html 10 Nu-Metal Albums You Need to Own", the entire citation itself says that "With ‘L.D. 50,’ Mudvayne took critical flak for their gimmicky image, but the album’s prog-rock experimentalism and virtuosic playing hold up amazingly well–even if the rapping on tracks liek “Under My Skin” binds ‘L.D. 50′ more to nu-metal than to the math-metal tag Mudvayne (now free of face paint and pseudonyms) prefer.". So there is no mention of progressive metal, but one describing the album as "nu-metal" and a second referring to at least one of it's tracks. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The source is WRONG. Sea of Tranquility is an authority on progressive rock. Revolver is an industry promotional tool. Stop cherry picking sources.64.134.96.198 (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
If you want to take up the verifiability of Revolver, I suggest taking it up on WP:ALBUMS. Please stop removing the entire genre field until we reach some sort of conclusion here. If you have an issue with a source, tag it, but don't just remove everything until we can at least give it a fair discussion. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I have a problem with you taking Revolver at their word rather than doing the research. Their is evidence against Mudvayne ever playing "nu metal" and these sources cited claiming this album as such don't hold the weight required to bow down to their false premises. 64.134.96.198 (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
If you don't like the source, then find a better one. If you want to find more specifics for the genre, that is your burden. If you have issues with Revolver, bring it up with WP:ALBUMS as Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources#Online_and_print finds it's an okay source. I'm more upset by you claiming I've added false information, and I've had to copy + paste information here for you, and after that you thought it would be better to drop genre all together. Please look for research on what people are saying, not to find the ones you want them to say. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia. We go by what can be proven by sources. We don't go by your person opinions or conclusions. I'm pretty certain Revolver isn't the first reliable source to call them nu-metal. Please don't let your personal opinions cloud your view here. Sergecross73 msg me 01:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Take your own advice, Sergecross. "Don't let your personal opinions cloud your view"? How about the fact that Sea of Tranquility is an authority on progressive rock? That Mudvayne is NOT a nu-metal band? "Don't let personal opinions cloud your view"? These are FACTS. Mudvayne is not nu-metal. This album is not nu-metal. What you really are demanding is that the sources and facts aren't to cloud my personal view. Calling Mudvayne "nu-metal" is an OPINION, not a fact. Mudvayne is progressive metal - fact. Sea of Tranquility is an authority on prog music - FACT. LD 50 is not nu-metal - FACT. 64.134.96.198 (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it took me all of 2 seconds to do a search to find Rolling Stone (magazine) referring to them as nu-metal - http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/album-preview-mudvayne-reinvents-itself-says-nu-metal-will-be-back-20081023. It doesn't say this album in particular, but it's clearly referring to them, and their earlier material. I'm not suggesting it be used in this article, but rather just as something showing that it's not nearly as far-fetched as the IP is making it out to be. Sergecross73 msg me 01:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I've found that too. I think the Revolver articles does the trick honestly. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • REVOLVER AND ROLLING STONE ARE INDUSTRY PROMOTIONAL RAGS. Sea of Tranquility is an authority on progressive rock. Nu metal should NOT be in the infobox. This is not a nu metal album. Mudvayne is a progressive band, not a nu metal band. Facts are facts. Sea of Tranquility trumps the other sources. 64.134.96.198 (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
"REVOLVER AND ROLLING STONE ARE INDUSTRY PROMOTIONAL RAGS." - Source? "Sea of Tranquility is an authority on progressive rock." - Source? "Sea of Tranquility trumps the other sources." - Source? SonOfPlisskin (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)Y
Son of Plisskin, this is intentional baiting. You've previously called me a "troll" and revert my edits without reason, which shows that you should step away from this discussion until you can participate civilly. Multiple citations back up Sea of Tranquility's authority here: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] and one of SOT's writers also writes for PopMatters: [8] "Jordan Blum holds an MFA in Creative Writing and is the founder/Editor-in-Chief of an online literary/multimedia journal called The Bookends Review. He specializes in progressive rock and also writes for Delusions of Adequacy, Examiner, and Sea of Tranquility" - Ergo, Sea of Tranquility is an authoritive site. 64.134.96.198 (talk) 22:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, Rolling Stone article misquotes the band. Mudvayne has not described themselves as nu-metal. 64.134.96.198 (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that asking for sources supporting such claims was completely fair on my part. And I don't that one person having an MFA and writing a lot of articles about a particular genre, automatically means that the site is "authoritative", and it still doesn't mean we ignore other sources even you claim that Sea of Tranquility is the only site ever that's driven by honest journalists with big hearts and loads of integrity. Also, I don't even know why this is being discussed here, since that review doesn't even mention that album. The quote from that is completely useless to the article and I'm getting rid of it. The Postbulletin one also doesn't mention the album's genre, but I'll leave it for until this thing has cooled down. SonOfPlisskin (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Just for the record, I went through your links Anon:
  • [9] just is using the review to promote his material. That's not enough. Hammer (Last Stone First End)
  • [10] again, this is a blogspot account, and fails per WP:USERGENERATED. Hammer (Last Stone First End)
  • [11] appears to be a record label quoting the site for promotion, but I don't see how that helps either.Hammer (Last Stone First End)
  • [12] also just quotes it, but doesn't suggest what makes the writers at Sea of Tranquility notable.Hammer (Last Stone First End)
  • [13] appears to be a record label quoting the site. Again, just because other sites quote things, doesn't make them a great source. We don't know the relationship these things have and we can't measure any integrity because the sea of tranquility site doesn't appear to show it itself. Hammer (Last Stone First End)
  • [14]This one is just a Wordpress site, but it actually does have something vaguely useful, it says at the bottom that "Jordan Blum recently received his MFA in Fiction and he currently teaches at several colleges. Outside of that, he writes about music for Delusions of Adequacy, Examiner, Sea of Tranquility, and Popmatters." Examiner is no good, no clue about Delusions of Adequacy but Popmatters makes it a bit more promising. Maybe bring that up WP:ALBUMS if you want to help your case at all? ? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Otherwise, it would be good if you actually posted the context of what you are linking to to back it up. Next time, I'm not surfing through links to find one that is decent. Because this case sounds like the one with About.com, where we may accept reviews from some readers of a site, but will ignore them otherwise if they don't come from a published source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  • All of tbose sources you claimed are unreliable are actually very good sources. Also, referring to Mudvayne's music as "nu-metal" is opinion and not supported by the sources. 63.155.164.33 (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Can you explain how major sources in the music world, like Rolling Stone (magazine) or Revolver (magazine) are not qualified to deem them nu metal and then reconcile that argument with Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source? Sergecross73 msg me 18:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Pretty much what serge said. You can just keep saying "uhh it's not good actually", but you fail to back it up. I'm considering this behaviour as a vandal, expect your edits reverted unless you actually want to explain why they are good quality sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The categorization of nu metal is inconsistent with the style of music being played on the album as defined by the sources. Why not have alternative metal since the majority of sources list that? 63.155.164.33 (talk) 07:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
That response is your own personal observation on genre, which isn't useable, and conpletely dodges my question. Sergecross73 msg me 10:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
No, it isn't. I'm addressing the sources, which you aren't. 63.155.164.33 (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Genres and sources[edit]

To avoid debate, let's go with heavy metal, considering that the most number of sources cited in this article describe the album as this. Also, Melody Maker, which was contested as a source since there's no link to read their review of the album, was used as the sole citation for progressive metal and nu metal has been removed, along with references to the album being progressive metal or nu metal. There - now the article reflects the sources. Stop complaining. 63.155.164.33 (talk) 08:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Do not remove items that are tagged. We are to assume good faith when additions like the Melody maker article are added. If we don't have a page number, it will be added once it can be found. Until then, I'm restoring that section. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm fine with heavy metal's use, but that's not a reason to discount other sources. As I stated in the section above, we've got two very prominent reliable sources calling them nu metal, and no valid reason given for discounting them. I'm going to add that too unless valid reason is given against their use. (Personal claims that its false is not a valid reason.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
No, we don't. Most of them don't say exactly that the album is nu-metal. Revolver is questionable (see below) and descriptions of the band, not the album being "like nu-metal" without exactly describing them as nu-metal don't make for L.D. 50 being called a nu-metal album, especially when examples of the album clearly being identified as progressive rock are dismissed for the same reasoning, despite actually calling the album prog, unlike the nu-metal sources which tiptoe around the categorization, and it conflicts with the description of the music, other than a Revolver blog (which may be a questionable source) describing some vocals as being "liek rapping". 63.155.164.33 (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
As I've said below, Revolver is a useable source, but also, there's also the Rolling Stone article, where it appears both the Rolling Stone writer and a band member refer to the band as nu-metal. Sergecross73 msg me 15:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I've discussed this before -- it's a misquoting. Stop being contentious for the sake of being contentious. Mudvayne is not a nu-metal band. Evidence contradicts opinion. 63.155.164.33 (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. I'm informing you of the websites stance on source reliability, and their content. Nothing more. Sergecross73 msg me 20:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Revolver[edit]

I have some serious reservations about this citation. There isn't any information about the Revolver company, other than it being owned by NewBay Media. Moreover, I'm not sure if the writer is a staff member of the site, paid as an employee, or if this is part of a fan blog, since there's a spelling error of "like" as "liek". 63.155.164.33 (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources tied to a hard copy magazine, like Revolver (magazine) or Rolling Stone (magazine) are almost considered reliable, because what it takes to create a product that is nationally published. There's a strong consensus that its a usable source in music articles. There's no indication that this list was created by a blogger. Its posted in a news section, not any sort of blog section. Sergecross73 msg me 15:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Is it really, because I haven't seen any evidence that this wasn't a fan post. Many websites of this sort have sections where readers can sign up for an account and post blogs on the site that are not connected to the paid staff. Plus, professional copyediting would have caught the word "liek". A basic spell checker would have caught the word "liek". 63.155.164.33 (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The typo is surprising, I do admit, but quite the opposite, I don't see any evidence of Revolver having a user-blog section where random bloggers submit stories. Do you? If not, then a minor typo like this hardly discounts the source as a whole. Sergecross73 msg me 15:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Typo is weird, but happens. The author has written other articles with Revolver, as well as Alternative Press. Not that this source should be taken as a realistic wiki source, but his linkedin profile states, he has been a journalist from 1996 to 2013 "specializing in music, video games, new products, and modern parenting, I’ve had 2,000+ credits in major media outlets such as SPIN, Rolling Stone, Disney’s Babble.com, The Onion A.V. Club, Blender, eMusic, Revolver, Guitar World, Alternative Press, and the Phoenix New Times.". Good enough for me. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Quick google search also shows his work with Spin. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Good searching. Yeah, that's all more than enough to be considered usable/reliable. Sergecross73 msg me 16:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
It's an opinion, but it still conflicts with evidence. Stylus magazine calls Rammstein a nu metal band here, so should we ignore all the conflicting evidence and label Rammstein as nu metal? 63.155.164.33 (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
This isn't a court case, where "evidence" points to "one true answer" on who murdered someone or something. Its a subjective thing. So we go by what sources say. Multiple reliable sources say its nu metal. I'm sorry you disagree, but the word of reliable sources trumps editors personal opinions. It's not like we need to limit the genre we use. There's no limit is space. It can be added in there right along metal and prog just fine. Sergecross73 msg me 19:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
If you ignore the evidence and go by random whim rather than the sources against nu-metal, you cannot possibly be operating on good faith. Reliable sources DO trump your opinion. You can't pick and choose which sources you like -- look at the overall picture, which clearly goes against your opinion. 63.155.164.33 (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
That argument only makes sense if I was trying to say they were only nu metal, and nothing else. I'm not trying to replace all their genre and just have "nu metal". I'm saying its one of many genre. Multiple reliable third party music sources state it clearly. Sergecross73 msg me 20:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Other genres shouldn't be ignored, but like most things, genre is subjective, it's open to interpretation and it's not written in stone. Nu-metal has a good chunk of sources here, but we're of course accepting of other views here too. Just dig them up from good sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)