Talk:Animalize

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.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Metal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music 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.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal articles

Rockman gear[edit]

A citation to this source would be appropriate. I don't hear any Boston similarities to the sound on this album versus any other KISS album. I believe, more than the equipment used to record, the mixing of the recorded music plays a vital role in achieving that "Boston sound," as described in the article, though the Rockman was innovative and produced amazing results.

Still, a citation is in order here. 209.254.200.110 (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It said here: " Animalize is the first Kiss album to not picture the band on the front cover in some form"..... not true. Double Platinum holds that distinction, followed by Music From "The Elder". wikipediatrix 00:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're mostly spot on with that, with the following distinction...Yes, Elder cover = no band members...Double Platinum did not picture them either, but it is a "compilation" album, rather than a "studio" album, which is the distinction that most wankers on here make. Excellent try, though, you nailed it with the Elder example. Cheers! FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Weissman[edit]

I went to RockPages.gr to see if I could back up Mitch Weissman's statement about playing on "Animalize", but I came up empty-handed. Perhaps I should've looked first, but I can only assume the info is old; that would explain the lack of info on the website. Anyone else have any idea of how I may be able to back up the claim? Maggie The Doggie (talk) 07:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three different release dates in respected sources[edit]

The album was released in September 1984. Everybody agrees on that.

The RIAA says it was released on September 1, 1984.[1] That was a Saturday.

AllMusic says it was released on Thursday, September 13, 1984.[2] This same date was present at the AllMusic website in 2012,[3] and it was published in the All Music Guide book in 2002.[4] AllMusic has remained consistent. The 2017 book Encyclopedia of KISS: Music, Personnel, Events and Related Subjects also uses this date.[5] The 2008 book KISS: Behind the Mask uses this date.[6]

FMQB wrote on September 14, 1984, that the album would be released on September 17, a Monday.[7]

FYI, Billboard noticed the album on October 6, 1984, when it first entered the Billboard 200 at number 117.[8]

The release date sources are respected, but they don't agree. The album release days are strange in each case. Typical album release dates are Fridays, but none of these are Friday.

In Wikipedia terms, the September 13 date is the most widely published. Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of published material. But sometimes we have to look at how Wikipedia itself can influence later publications. This article was started by Cholmes75 in 2005 with a release date of September 13 (see the Old revision of Animalize.) The only reference was the fan page KissFAQ, unfortunately, now considered unreliable per WP:USERG. That "reference" gave the date September 13.[9] In 2009, J04n added a better reference to support the Sept 13 date. I am unable to tease out an archived copy of that reference which was hosted by billboard.com.[10] But we should respect the 2009 referencing effort as valid at the time. Binksternet (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]