Talk:The 20/20 Experience

Should it be included in the article that:

The album cover art AND title are a straight copy of the Saga band's album of the same name?

It can't be a coincidence, but I have yet to find any info regarding the reason why JT chose to use the same album art and title for his album... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.253.250.210 (talk) 00:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

LP release in Germany

In Germany the LP will also be avaiable on the the 15. (http://www.weltbild.de/3/17856409-1/musik/the-20-20-experience-vinyl.html). — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingSiriUS (talk • contribs) 07:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Genre

Could someone please add R&B and Pop to the genres please? Listing the entire album as just "Neo soul" seems a little narrow.

Especially since all of the individual songs on the album that have their own Wiki pages are listed as either R&B or Pop.27.252.136.190 (talk) 07:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Generalizing is the point. It's the album, not the song(s), which have their own sources cited, right? And only three songs have articles. Dan56 (talk) 07:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Many sources call the album neo soul, which is a combination soul and contemporary R&B, with elements of jazz, funk and hip hop to pop, fusion and African music. Which is exactly what the album is.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 07:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

If the album is to be generalized, then changing the genres to R&B, Pop and Rock from "neo-soul" gives the more accurate description, since "neo-soul" is not a generalized music style the way Pop and R&B are and these are all genres broad enough to encompass this album. Additionally, the very beginning of the Neo-Soul article in Wikipedia gives the reference to person who coined the term "Neo-soul" as a way to market a certain group of artists during a certain time period. Kingofpositivity (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

That's the etymological root of most popular music genres—R&B and rock and roll were "coined" for marketing purposes as well, but the terms' acceptance by music journalists and critics is evident. Dan56 (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Attention should be given to the fact that just as many critics refer to the album as R&B and Pop such as Metacritic, which is listed in the article giving the album its normalized rating , AllMusic, , and The Independent, . The reviews that mention neo-soul such as the Spin Review, or the Pitchfork review do not conclusively name this album neo-soul, they state that the influences are there and they make comparisons to other classic soul and neo-soul artists such as D'Angelo and Quincy Jones. However it would be ill-advised to ignore the fact that the reviewers understand and compliment the Pop aesthetic, and the Pop references found in the album. Kingofpositivity (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It would be ill-advised to ignore the fact that Jody Rosen ([1]), Ken Tucker ([2]), and Steven Hyden ([3]) all called this a neo soul album. Metacritic is not a professional critique, which is the kind of source that should be used when describing aesthetic opinions such as genres (WP:SUBJECTIVE). It is instead a tertiary source that compiles professional critiques. We disregard their labels as we do their listing of an album's credits and personnel, opting for more appropriate sources. Allmusic's sidebar is a source to be avoided, and it lists "pop" and "contemporary R&B", along with "dance-pop", as "styles", and genres instead as "pop/rock". Either way, the review doesn't discuss any of these; "Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides". There's no reason not to give this much weight to "neo soul", considering how many and who of how many have said it and explained it, elaborated on in this article's "Music and lyrics" section. You don't have to agree with Rosen, Tucker, or Hyden, nor this article; it's aesthetic classifications are almost always subjective. We're just deferring to the "experts". Dan56 (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

If the album is to be defined as Neo-Soul then, what gives it that exclusivity if other artists such as Miguel, Alicia Keys, Erykah Badu, and others don't get when describing their albums, which have the same roots, the same influences, the same marketing, but yet critics aren't explicitly calling these albums strictly "Neo Soul" albums? Alicia Keys' last three albums do not have "Neo-Soul" affixed in their list of genres on their respective articles. In fact, in addition to soul, Pop and R&B are both listed on the pages of those albums Girl on Fire (album), The Element of Freedom, As I Am. Take those labels off if her albums are just supposed to be "Neo-Soul" like the way it is on The 20/20 Experience. And perhaps if Byron Lee and the Dragonaires, whom are known to be Calypso/Soca band put an album out and a critic calls it Zouk or Zydeco, but yet the music is clearly the same as the music they've put out before, when is the line drawn before we decide that maybe the critics may have judged it hastily or perhaps they are misguided if the music obviously falls in the band's native style? Wikipedia has an article on the Punta Music, which is music of my culture the Garifuna people, but what stops a critic from saying it's pop, or neo-soul, then having Wikipedia and the people who read reviews accept it as such? Would that not be taking away the cultural context? Would that not be debasing the originality of the said style? Would that not give way to confusion to a person who knows nothing about the music? Where is the line drawn? I'm saying, where's the consistency? Why not describe the music in a holistic sense and not just based on what a couple people, no matter how credible, might assume it to be? The reviewer Steven Hyden ([4]), described "Mirrors" as "Zepplinesque", does that make it a rock song, because he said so? In Pitchfork, the writer described "Don't Hold the Wall" as having "Bhaṅgṛā rhythms", does that put the song in that genre? I'm not following this logic. Speaking to the claim that Pop and R&B describing the root of most popular music, The 20/20 Experience can be Neo-Soul to some people, but it can't be denied that it is also Pop, since it's on the pop charts, and the argument of whether it is pop or not is moot because of it's popularity and extent of exposure, and it is R&B, because it's presence on the R&B charts, which just as easily gives way to how the album is marketed also, the way the Neo-Soul style was when it first emerged. Yes, Pop, Rock and R&B is the etymological root of most popular music, but that does not stop writers of album articles on Wikipedia from using them to describe the popular music they are describing. If that mattered, then those aforementioned genres should never be used to describe the music on an album released under the scope of popular music if the aim is to describe it so perfectly and narrow-mindedly. Kingofpositivity (talk) 23:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• The first few sentences in the above rant are addressed by WP:GWAR ("it can't be denied that it is also Pop"). Also, you do realize that these are "aesthetic opinions", right? "Wikipedia articles about art and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have a tendency to become effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia. Aesthetic opinions are diverse and subjective ... However, it is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts and the general public ... Articles should provide an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations to notable individuals holding that interpretation. Verifiable public and scholarly critiques provide useful context for works of art." Dan56 (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• There's no consistency with regard to the prose of each articles, because they deal with different topics (duh?), in this case albums. Every article should be based on multiple reliable third-party sources, not what we think of them. This is an encyclopedia, not a personal project or forum where we ignore the sources considered reliable in order to condense aesthetic labels to generalities, like some kind of online music store. Dan56 (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence." Three reputed music journalists quite literally called it a neo soul album. Multiple notable individuals that hold this interpretation (WP:SUBJECTIVE) are cited and incorporated in this article's prose. Hyden describing one song as "Zeppelinesque" ("-esque" means resembling something, and you're assuming Hyden thinks of them as a rock act {WP:STICKTOSOURCE}) is one interpretation, not commonly held by the majority of the viewpoints available on the song. Dan56 (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Citing "Pop charts" isn't consistent with your previous point about the use of a marketing term. You're also reaching with this logic: So Whitney Houston (album) and any album that charted on Billboard's Top Black Albums (designated as such during the 1980s) should have [[Black music|Black]] written in the infobox's genre parameter? Dan56 (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• You misinterpreted what I said about the "etymological root". The origins of the terms "neo soul, "pop", "R&B", and "rock and roll" were that someone coined those terms to market a certain kind of music. I didn't say "Pop, Rock and R&B are the etymological root of most popular music". What does that even mean? Dan56 (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Again, just grasp this core policy: "Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides". In this article, I not only added "this is a neo soul album" and so on, but the sources happened to explain themselves and why it is such an album, and I added that information; read Jody Rosen's quote on why it isn't a pop album, which is paraphrased in the "Music and lyrics" section. The readers don't have to go the article on "neo soul" to understand it, because it is explained here in context of this article's topic. You have yet to provide a source that explains how this is a pop or R&B album, which you're basing on your own view of what those genres are? Dan56 (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The genre of this album should be tagged as R&B and Pop. Labeling it 'neo-soul' is inaccurate, ridiculous and frankly erroneous. - The Real One Returns (talk) 05:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Duly noted. Dan56 (talk) 06:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

References

Blurred Lines

There is an IBT bit that claims that Timberlake wanted to record Blurred Lines. The use of International Business Times as a WP:RS has been [debated] (it is website, not a newspaper as such - though that doesn't necessarily mean anything) - and this particular cite is suspiciously poorly written, unsourced, about how Justin Timberlake wishes he was Robin Thicke, and this particular quote is a tag-on at the end. It is not corroborated anywhere by any RS I could find. Especially since it has to do with actual living people, it just doesn't meet standards for inclusion in a WP article. EBY (talk) 05:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for removing it. Yeah, the article cited is basically, excuse my language, full of shit in almost everything they said. — Status (talk · contribs) 06:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

"Pusher Love Girl" a single

According to this article by Billboard, "Pusher Love Girl" was released as a single. For some strange reason, it doesn't list "Tunnel Vision" as a single release. Possibly an intentional omission as it didn't chart on the Hot 100 or a genuine error. Et3rnal 17:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I think that there might be plans to be released, but obviously we don't have a radio date or a digital download link... I guess it was scrapped. "Tunnel Vision" is definitely a single lol :). — Tomíca^(T2ME) 17:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Guess it's best to leave it as it is currently, until/if a digital or radio release can be found. Maybe Billboard are just confused. Et3rnal 18:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

SOS

I just found out a Sound on Sound article about these two albums was released, but online it requires a subscription to read the entire article. There seems to be lots of in-depth info that can be use here, and if anyone can read the article, please put the info here and cite the following article:

• http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan14/articles/inside-track-0114.htm

Thank you. 和DITOREtails 03:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)