Jump to content

User talk:Status: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 68: Line 68:
Wrong again Tomica: You are picking and chosing here as the next sentence clearly states:
Wrong again Tomica: You are picking and chosing here as the next sentence clearly states:
'''Promos are normally sent directly to broadcasters, such as music radio and television stations, and to tastemakers, such as DJs and music journalists, in advance of the release of commercial editions, in the hope that airplay, reviews, and other forms of exposure will result and stimulate the public's interest in the commercial release.'''
'''Promos are normally sent directly to broadcasters, such as music radio and television stations, and to tastemakers, such as DJs and music journalists, in advance of the release of commercial editions, in the hope that airplay, reviews, and other forms of exposure will result and stimulate the public's interest in the commercial release.'''
Oops your bad...
Oops your bad...[[Special:Contributions/174.102.31.108|174.102.31.108]] ([[User talk:174.102.31.108|talk]]) 17:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
;Online promotional distribution - from [[Promotional recording]]
<blockquote>Since the advent of broad-bandwidth Internet access and professional tools such as iPool or Haulix, the online promotional distribution of music has been established. Record companies make their music available as audio files and use the Internet as a distribution channel. In contrast to the conventional way of distributing promotional recordings, this kind of promotional distribution is faster and cheaper.

Companies specializing in this type of promotion, such as zipDJ, EatDigital and Potboiler Promotions, have become more prominent in recent times.</blockquote>

Revision as of 17:28, 11 September 2012

User talk:Status/Header

Archives

User talk:Status/Archives

Closed discussions

The following discussions are closed. Please do not modify them. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. No further edits should be made to these discussions. Threads will archived every Sunday.

Hold fire with the cover.

Sainsburys has a this as a deluxe cover whereas Play.com has this and Leona's competition to design the album artwork is still on going. — Lil_niquℇ 1 [talk] 17:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also I believe "Collide" was left in because Leona said during UStream it would be a deluxe edition bonus track. — Lil_niquℇ 1 [talk] 17:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, there is going to be some sort of deluxe cover. For "Collide" being a bonus, I was just going by what the source beside it said. I was not aware of that. Zac  17:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah that's ok. I assumed you were going to upload the cover and i was like NOOOOOOO! haha. Erm yes, i'm not sure what to do about that. I've got a YouTube link to the uStream, i think i'll add that just until we get the track listing. I don't wanna remove the Collide information and then have to add it all back that's all. — Lil_niquℇ 1 [talk] 17:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, no, I wasn't. Just re-adding the note. I noticed a user kept removing it before, since there was "no confirmation" of a deluxe cover. Zac  17:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was gonna leave "Shake You Up" out, simply cause that's original research. We know she worked with Darkchild but we don't know that "Shake You Up" is the single they produced, or that he's even made the track listing. — Lil_niquℇ 1 [talk] 00:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

taylor swift discography confusing

template says one thing discography says another shouldnt both say the same and as far as i see the template is the correct one not the discography page so i put it back to what the template page says — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.31.108 (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There; the template is fixed now. Thanks for letting me know. Zac  21:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable

Can I ask what gives you the impression this is a reliable source for sales? It looks pretty questionable, but I'm not too familiar with it. Care to shed some light?--CallMeNathanTalk2Me 01:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a reputable website. Just found that it is copied from a press release, so reverting myself. Zac  02:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Found a good source for 7 million for On the 6 :)--CallMeNathanTalk2Me 02:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, thank you so much! I'm finding it so hard to find worldwide numbers for her albums. Zac  02:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing! Found another for J.Lo for 7 million :D--CallMeNathanTalk2Me 02:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, again! I've updated the discography with them. Sorry it took so long to reply, reconstructed how the notes are done so I won't have to go and change the letters and shit when a new note is added. If you can find anymore, feel free to share. ;) Zac  02:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe no prob :) Glad I could help! Actually, I found an up-to-date source for J.Lo listing 10 million.--CallMeNathanTalk2Me 02:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that earlier, but I wasn't so sure if it's good to use as a source or not. Zac  02:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why not. Its used for professional reviews all the time in GA level articles. Also, About.com is published by the The New York Times Company so I would definitely support its reliability.--CallMeNathanTalk2Me 02:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reviews are a different thing. They could have got that number from wherever; I see a lot of that number floating around, but I can't seem to hunt down where it originated from. It could have just been a number that spread around and is deemed as true, you know what I mean? Also, knowing as of when it sold that many copies is important. Zac  02:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, its your call!--CallMeNathanTalk2Me 03:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a question for ya, do you think it's worthy of a note on J.Lo's main article that she has sued her ex-driver for threatening to release "disruptive and potentially damaging" information about her unless she paid him $2.8 million? Zac  03:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not too familiar with her, so I don't know how publicized (if at all) this was. I think it can go either way. It can be over-looked or you can add a few lines in the appropriate section. As an example, Carey's at-the-time step-father sued her in the first years of her career. Its in her bio books, but we decided to not include it.--CallMeNathanTalk2Me 03:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just decided not to include it. If it turns out to be some big public thing, then it's worth a mention, but right now, it's just a filed case. It may not go anywhere. Thanks. Zac  03:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

Current discussions

you need to learn the difference between a single and a promotional single

A single is a song sent to radio stations has a music video and has been confirmed by the record label as such, a promotional single is a single release to digital download and may have a music video to promote a movie, charity, etc. it is not always free from your argument on the discography page and has not been confirmed by the label as an official single off the product if you have no source claiming it is an official single then it is a promotional single. you need to stop acting like you own the taylor swift pages. i noticed you ruining a lot of them and you need to stop. its not right of you to confuse people by posting wrong information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.31.108 (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional singles are songs that are free and they don't have a price. When song is made for digital download means people are able to buy it thus they are becoming singles. Zac's theory is totally fine. — Tomica (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some artists do refer to songs as a promotional single as to promote something else they are doing though, regardless if they are free to buy or not. AARONTALK 16:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

exactly so zac is wrong in that aspect and so are you tomica. all singles that aren't released to radio are promotional singles, eg. "Today was a Fairytale" was used to promote Valentine's Day, Safe & Sound was used to promote The Hunger Games and i'd like to point this statement in the promotional recordings section:

Since the advent of broad-bandwidth Internet access and professional tools such as iPool or Haulix, the online promotional distribution of music has been established. Record companies make their music available as audio files and use the Internet as a distribution channel. In contrast to the conventional way of distributing promotional recordings, this kind of promotional distribution is faster and cheaper.

Nothing about free there sorry... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.31.108 (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: Promotional recording, or promo, is an audio or video recording distributed for free, usually in order to promote a recording that is or soon will be commercially available. Am I clear now? The first sentence of the article Promotional recording says they are free. Meaning If Taylor made the song available for digital download on iTunes or Amazon or 7digital and didn't refer the song as a promo single (although they rarely name their songs) that makes it a single. — Tomica (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again Tomica: You are picking and chosing here as the next sentence clearly states: Promos are normally sent directly to broadcasters, such as music radio and television stations, and to tastemakers, such as DJs and music journalists, in advance of the release of commercial editions, in the hope that airplay, reviews, and other forms of exposure will result and stimulate the public's interest in the commercial release. Oops your bad...

Online promotional distribution - from Promotional recording

Since the advent of broad-bandwidth Internet access and professional tools such as iPool or Haulix, the online promotional distribution of music has been established. Record companies make their music available as audio files and use the Internet as a distribution channel. In contrast to the conventional way of distributing promotional recordings, this kind of promotional distribution is faster and cheaper. Companies specializing in this type of promotion, such as zipDJ, EatDigital and Potboiler Promotions, have become more prominent in recent times.