Talk:Monster (R.E.M. album)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Gradual loss of commerical standing"?[edit]

I wouldn't call it "gradual" in any way. The group went from three consecutive 4X platinum albums to one that merely went platinum and then the next album was gold. This album had two top 25 songs; New Adventures and all subsequent albums failed to have any top 45 songs!

In the U.S., they lost most commercial standing with New Adventures and the rest with Up and the subsequent albums. I think "gradual" is the wrong word to use. Bsd987 20:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - looking at the charts, it would seem to be less overwhelming, in the way a 15,000 foot mountain has less standing than a 22,000 foot mountain. Fantailfan 19:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"its radical artistic change is generally believed to have instigated R.E.M.'s gradual loss of commercial standing in their homeland, the United States." is really funny and without any source it should be removed. NAHIFI was a chart success. I would say that Up was the record when their sales in the USA started their "gradual loss". --Tbonefin 17:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Let Me In" for Kurt Cobain?[edit]

I disagree - I believe it was for River Phoenix, not Cobain. Stipe is kind of ambivalent on it but the "For River" note seems to make this clearer.Fantailfan 17:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. David Buckley's "REM: Fiction" biography states it's for Kurt Cobain, and I've always thought so too - but I suppose we should have some kind of further backup. Wezzo 17:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to concede.Fantailfan 16:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The most of REM books refer to Cobain, eg. Marcus Gray ICFTS pp. 258. --Tbonefin 17:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King of Comedy[edit]

I have merged this article into here - individual tracks do not merit their own article. BlueValour 22:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But why are so many Warner-era R.E.M. albums/songs so heavily NPOV? --Fantailfan 00:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the female voice in king of comedy? starts at 1:05 and i just cant figure it out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.129.151 (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Band members vs. Personnel; Guests vs. Addiional Personnel[edit]

While I think that "Personnel" is kind of impersonal, it is a standard used for Wikialbums; Guests for Additional personnel follow under the same argument (I would prefer Additional contributors or something like that). Until the standard is changed, I'd prefer keeping to it. --Fantailfan 01:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing reviews[edit]

Please do not remove professional reviews that are deemed acceptable by WikiProject Album standards. --Fantailfan 22:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Massive reversion[edit]

No comments on why this was massively reverted? Please explain. --Fantailfan 01:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the revert wars![edit]

Hey! Between the two of you, you have edited over 10,000 pages; I have edited over 3500. As a disinterested observer, I am citing the unofficial "way too much time on our hands" doctrine: Let's compromise!
(a) Dudesleeper is correct on the dating. The reason for this is very simple: for many years now release dates have standardized on Tuesdays in America and Mondays in other places. The difference of a single day is not worth this craziness.

  • Proposed: We can use (as as has been the case elsewhere) one date with the UK release date and the second with the US one. You can even use cute little flag icons for them.

(b) There are no explicit guidelines on how to incorporate an album article in a discography.

  • Proposed: We add a second discography using this format, with the albums discography taking top spot, the chronological one the second:
| Misc         = {{Extra chronology 2
  | Artist     = 
  | Type       = 
  | Last album = 
  | This album = 
  | Next album = 
  }}

Discuss, please. -- Fantailfan (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. I'm just amused at the American(s) being offended that they have to wait an extra day for the album. - Dudesleeper / Talk 09:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is because we have this Monday holiday thing here, so new releases of books, CDs, etc., are standardized on Tuesdays. --Fantailfan (talk) 11:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article?[edit]

I've been trying to clean this article up a bit, and then it was massively reverted recently by a user i am ignorant to know of, and i think the article is good material for a 'Good Article'. Any thoughts? RedParakeet28 (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lynda Stipe[edit]

Michael's sister features on the album, why is she not mentioned on the page? 84.92.140.217 (talk) 11:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Head/Tail sides or C/D sides?[edit]

I remember I had the album on a cassette and the two sides were called "C side" and 'D side". I don't know if that is relevant to point out, but I thought I'd do so anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.235.147 (talk) 07:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel to Murmur?[edit]

I seem to recall that, at time of release, this album was being touted as a spiritual follow-up to the band's debut album, Murmur. Hence both albums being two-syllable words beginning with M and ending with R. This also explains the 'Side C' and 'Side D' thing; essentially this was the second part of a double-album. Anyone else remember this?--81.151.136.14 (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again false Sales Numbers[edit]

This album was not sold 4 million times. It was sold 2,9 million copies. But here I see 4,000,000. It was shipped 4 million times.

But what hurts me. This album was overshipped. Meaning retailers ordered it and thought they will sell it but as a result the album was sold only 2,9 million times

in the 90s club sales had been popular. This album may have been sold 200000 copies via this way but not in total 4,000,000 times

please stop claiming false things. And this link 

Let's R.E.M.-ember: 31 Billboard Chart Milestones Over The Band's 31-Year Career". billboard.com. Billboard. Retrieved 2011-09-24.

is error. Some cannot see numbers or so. Just photographs. But years ago when they broke up there were numbers. No idea why removed `?

And then I saw 2,9 million — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.111.57.236 (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Monster (R.E.M. album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Monster (R.E.M. album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Monster (R.E.M. album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Monster (R.E.M. album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Monster (R.E.M. album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JohnWickTwo (talk · contribs) 16:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


This review may take a day or two to prepare. Meantime, could you take care of the cite requests at the bottom of the article, and possibly have a look at the paragraph breaks used in that same section with the cite request. The single sentence paragraphs look a little short and unbalanced. Let me know when you are ready to start. JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnWickTwo: of all the GANs I've handled, I believe this is the third-fastest reviewer I've received. I've had one take just over an hour and another take two days. I sent this to copyediting as soon as I nominated this, and quite surprisingly I have a GA reviewer before a copyeditor. While I am extremely appreciative and very happy about your willingness to review, I was anticipating this would be reviewed in a few months. Is it possible we can hold off on a full review until the CE is completed? In the meantime I'll address your initial requests. dannymusiceditor oops 17:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyMusicEditor: This was initiated by me after being in the queue for about 2 and a half weeks. You are fairly advanced in the GOCE queue now and its your call if you would like to give them another week or two. The section you started editing today still has a somewhat awkward paragraph structure which can be made to look more peer review quality. Your call as to when you want to start. JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JohnWickTwo: I think it'd be best to wait until the copyeditors are finished. That way you'll be saved the time of re-reviewing everything after they fix it up. You're right in that I'm pretty high up there so it should come and go in not too terribly long. dannymusiceditor oops 16:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyMusicEditor: That was a good choice to submit the article for GOCE clean-up. It would be nice if you could add to the article something more about how the album and its songs did on REM's own top ten lists. For example, did any of the tracks come close to rivaling "Losing my religion" or some of the other very popular tracks in the band's history. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyMusicEditor: Any plans for doing this update I requested over this week-end now that GOCE is completed? JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot. Meant to say this earlier today. I'm going to be out of town tomorrow and most of Sunday. I will get right to it when I get back. I've got ideas on expanding per your request, but nothing quite ready to put in yet. dannymusiceditor oops 00:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnWickTwo: the first two singles ("What's the Frequency, Kenneth?" and "Bang and Blame"), at least, seemed to have strong charting success, doing better than any single from Automatic for the People but not quite as strong as Losing My Religion or Shiny Happy People. The other three, less so. Does writing something along these lines (in a more encyclopedic tone) sound alright? dannymusiceditor oops 19:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyMusicEditor: That sounds useful and pertinent to the article. The group has had a sustained career and knowing how songs in this album compare to their others albums provides a useful addition in this article. Also add any cites you might have found for this. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyMusicEditor: Any updates from the week-end? JohnWickTwo (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are now. Adding a bit more this evening. dannymusiceditor oops 17:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Updates from 10 July checklist[edit]

@DannyMusicEditor: That looks good and I'll look for your new edits this evening. I think that your new edit should also be reflected into the lead section right before you introduce them going on tour in the second paragraph. After you try that, then it might be useful to start a third paragraph in the lede for the start of the promotional tour. You can decide what's best for the lede section in terms of 2 or 3 paragraph format once you try it. JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyMusicEditor: If possible I am planning to do a final read-through for assessment sometime over this week-end. This might be a good time for any edits you have had in mind, and you might want to look at your link for 'OBI strip' in your article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing assessment comments[edit]

This article has received the benefit of a GOCE copy editing which has worked to its advantage. The nominating editor is knowledgeable of the band and its previous recording history, and has responded directly to edit requests made in this review by directly placing the edits into the article itself. The narrative of the article reads well and the images used are useful and all check out properly. The option of moving the lede to a three paragraph slightly expanded version may be useful if the article development is continued towards further peer review promotion. If the nominating editor has an interest in other article upgrades he may contact me on my Talk page. This article in now promoted to GA level. JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, JohnWickTwo! Appreciate the review and pass. I was planning on putting in some more song list achievements, but I'll do that soon enough. dannymusiceditor oops 18:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monster_(R.E.M._album)&oldid=1211272086"