Talk:The Element of Freedom

Tracklisting,

Can this be added to the album?

1 The Element Of Freedom (Intro) 2 Love Is Blind 3 Doesn't Mean Anything (Main) 4 Try Sleeping With A Broken Heart 5 Wait Til They See My Smile 6 That's How Strong My Love Is 7 Unthinkable (I'm Ready) 8 Love Is My Disease 9 Like The Sea 10 Put It In A Love Song / Beyoncé Knowles 11 This Bed 12 Distance And Time 13 How It Feels To Fly 14 Empire State Of Mind (Part II)

sourced from Barnes and Nobel and HMV? (Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

Deluxe Edition

A deluxe edition will be released with a bonus DVD and two bonus tracks. Details are on: [1] It also has a different cover which is available here: [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.194.148 (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

earliest release date is in Germany (11. Dec)

The earliest release date goes in infobox and it is the 11 december in Germany!!! [3] Please change!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.224.52.115 (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Drake

Un-thinkable (I'm Ready) doesn't feature Drake, he only provides background vocals. As confirmed by her official site [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.65.35 (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Corrected. — ξ^xplicit 06:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

iTunes pre-order track

The album has a track called Stolen Moments as a pre-order bonus from iTunes. [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.139.202 (talk) 03:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Genre

This album explores different genres, as noted by music critics: first of all it is an R&B album, but the whole feeling is given by synths. The point of the album is exactly this: new influences. this is not a pop album: the only conventional "pop" track is Distance and time, even if this track has a strong synth backbeat too. Try Sleeping is synth pop with an hip-hop vibe, Unthinkable is R&B with synths and so on. But you can't say that this album doesn't comprehend soul songs: How it feels to fly is a soul song, just like Empire state of mind. Why we have to generalize things even when they need to be explained with many words? --93.151.255.230 (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Reception

the album received positive reactions from critics: the metacritic score is highly depending on the Popmatters review; not counting that, the score would be far higher. So if we insert that negative review, it has to be preserved the effective response from music critics, which is favourable, not mixed as it seemed before. --Anthony Wilde (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There are far more negative/mixed reviews than just PopMatters and Slant. Slant has a better review, NOW is a weak paragraph of a review. Keeping the NOW review in place of Slant would show bias, b/c of its higher score 4 the album. Average out the scores of the infobox reviews w/Slant and it will come out around the same as Metacritic's score. But u cant say all critics gave it a positive review. It did received mixed reviews as well, which were not included by metacritic, such as Spin, Chicago Sun-Times, and The Independent. Dan56 (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It received mixed review, but globally it was well received by music critics. It received approval from most music critics, with many giving it 4 stars (or 3 out of 4). I think that if the album had received more negative reviews, it would be fair to show that, but since the only negative review came from Popmatters, it should be considered that the real response from music critics has actually been positive. This configuration doesn't respect the effective reception of the album and so it results unbalanced, since we accept metacritic as a reliable source. If we didn't consider the score given by metacritic as a unit of measurement, then your reasoning would be acceptable. --Anthony Wilde (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What do u mean "real response" and "effective reception" or "globally", like they came together as a group and reached a consensus? And "unit of measurement"? It is what it is. PopMatters gave it a negative review, Slant gave it a mixed review, NYtimes gave it a mixed review. They r good reviews that attempt to analyze the album better than the NOW review. Metacritic is a reliable source, but for encyclopedic purposes, it shouldnt be depended on as much as u propose. It received "mostly" positive reviews (wheter they were mildly favorable or acclaimed the album), and that is noted in the article. Dan56 (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, the Metacritic score is also dependent on one acclaimatory review, entertainment Weekly's, similar to how u said of the PopMatters review. Otherwise, w/out it, the score would have been very different. Dan56 (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been looking up more reviews, finding a lot more negative or mixed than I expected. If Metacritic includes Billboard and DotMusic reviews, and not reviews by Spin (normally included on Metacritic), Washington post, NYDaily News, or The Independent, it shouldnt be depended on entirely 4 an encyclopedic article. Dan56 (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that Metacritic should be used for encyclopedic purposes, but that's what happens. Since we do that, it's clear that most music critics reviewed it favourably and i only thought that the choice of reviews which had been made didn't represent the reception illustrated by metacritic (which is, as i said, favourable: even without the reviews by PM and EW, the score would be positive). Actually, the most encyclopedic thing would be not showing the scores and just make a sum of the reviews and i've noticed that many articles are organized in that way.--Anthony Wilde (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

From what I've seen, Metacritic did not get it completely right. Even w/out the PM & EW reviews, not to mention the curve they give 4 scores, they did not include some significant reviews, even ones they would normally include. I find the way movie articles are done here is more accurate, as they have more than one source 4 reviews, Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes. But the scores are fine they way they are now; when calculated/averaged, it comes out to around 65, which according to Metacritic is generally positive. Dan56 (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Certifications

Is there any information about album's certifications in US and Europe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.99.225.201 (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Single Chronology

The correct single Chronology is as follows

1. "Doesn't Mean Anything"
   • Impacted: September 22, 2009
2. "Try Sleeping with a Broken Heart"
   • Impacted: November 17, 2009
3. "Empire State of Mind (Part II) Broken Down"
   • Impacted: February 22, 2010
4. "Un-Thinkable (I'm Ready)"
   • Impacted: 2010 but it clearly says the video will be released before "Put It in a Love Song".[6]
5. "Put It in a Love Song"
   • Impacted: 2010

Remember according to WP:Songs the release date for a single is when you can first BUY the song as a single. The release cover will be different from the album cover as will the release dates. Radio impact dates DO NOT count as release dates. Therefore on this basis the chronology above is correct. Please do not change. Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Commercial Performance

The head said it was certified platinum in its first month of release. Well it sold 417,000 in its first week, 280,000 in its second, 80,000 in its third, then 62,000 in its fourth week of release. Thats 829,000 copies. So it wasn't certified platinum in its first month of release.Paul Knightling (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Since it was released in the US on December 15, and according to RIAA source in the article, certified platinum on January 14, then it was within its first month. Dan56 (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh okay. Doesn't make any sense but oh well. No big deal. Appreciate it. Peace-Paul Knightling (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that certification are based on album shipments, not album sales. — ξ^xplicit 19:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

RE: Whats the difference? The article on RIAA certification seems to use the two terms interchangebly. Dan56 (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I have no idea. I'm assuming it's the amount of albums that are sent out to be sold, as opposed to the actual number sold. For example, This Is Not a Test! sold under 700,000 copies, but was still certified platinum. — ξ^xplicit 19:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Shipments referrs to the number of album units ordered by retailers and therefore technically speaking 1,000,000 copies are either on the shelves of retailers or have been sold already. If it says 1,000,000 sales then it means that there are that many copies out there with customers. does that make sense? Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Singles chronology (again)

Okies so based on the fact that "Put It in a Love Song" 'only recieved a radio release I'm proposing which change the chronology to:

"Doesn't Mean Anything"
September 22, 2009

"Try Sleeping with a Broken Heart"
November 17, 2010

"Put It in a Love Song"
January 19, 2010 (radio)

"Empire State of Mind (Part II) Broken Down"
February 22, 2010

"Un-Thinkable (I'm Ready)"
May 18, 2010

"Wait till You See My Smile"
November 28, 2010 what do we think? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 12:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)