Talk:The Fame Monster/Archive 1

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

Orphaned references in The Fame Monster

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of The Fame Monster's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "guardian":

  • From The Fame: Petridis, Alexis (January 9, 2009). "Lady Gaga: The Fame". The Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited. Retrieved 2009-04-28.
  • From Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song): Petridis, Alex (2009-01-09). "Lady Gaga: The Fame". The Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited. Retrieved 2009-04-30.
  • From Just Dance: Petridis, Alex (January 9, 2009). "Lady Gaga: The Fame". The Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited. Retrieved 2009-04-28.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Changing Redirect

Since The Fame Monster now has its own page, should we change the redirect from The Fame to The Fame Monster? --A.z888?z.a (talk) 00:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This should remain a separate page!

As all re-releases, it should be added to The Fame page, the original page. Like Rihanna's "Good Girl Gone Bad" album that was re-released 3 times and Taylor Swift's debut album that was also re-released! No reason for a different page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zefron12 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Re-issues are not studio albums. There should not be a separate page for this. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This should stay its own page because, as Lady GaGa has stated NUMEROUS times, she dislikes re-releases, and that The Fame Monster is pretty much its own album, since it contains eight new songs. Most other re-releases contain somewhere around two or three songs. Anyone who says otherwise is completely wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.225.158.89 (talk) 09:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This needs to stay a separate page. Most re-releases only have a couple of new songs. This album is set to have 8 new songs! Gaga has said herself that this is pretty much a whole new album. Therefore, its not just a re-release anymore. Its a new album which just happens to also come with her last album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.95.132 (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This needs to be merged. It's a RE-RELEASE, Is that difficult to understand? It has 8 new songs, WHATEVER, It contains ALL SONGS FROM THE FAME, therefore, it's a RE-RELEASE OF THE FAME, The media, the industry, are all treating it as a re-release or calling it as a repackage, so, no reason for us to make it a separate release! And if Lady Gaga herself doesn't want to call this a re-release, she should learn what a NEW album means! If it has old songs and it's not a Greatest Hits album it's a re-releae and therefore not a NEW album! This has ALREADY been discussed since "The Fame Monster" already redirects to The Fame, and "The Fame: Monster" still has a stupid separate page. The sales of this RE-RELEASE, again, RE-RELEASE, will count towards The Fame sales, re-releases are efforts to put high numbers on a previous released album, The Fame Monster sales won't be counted separately, and the fans will love to say The Fame sold 5 million copies, counting ofcourse if the re-releases sales but won't admit that it's a re-release and not a NEW album. Gaga doesn't want to show that she's trying to make her first album to have more sales stating it's a new release therefore she's not the one who decides what's new and what's a re-release or repackage, since the music industry is referring to this as a repackage or re-release! --Zefron12 (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Its not just a re-release though. Yes, The Fame part is the re-release. However, the "Monster" half is brand new. Its an entirely new album that just happens to come with the original "Fame". Re-releases are just the same album with a couple of new songs. This album has two SEPARATE albums, the new one being Monster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.95.132 (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No. Not separate. Fame Monster sales will count towards The Fame sales, That's A FACT! It's a RE-PACKAGE, Not an entirely new album, it's a double-disc, so an extension of the original The Fame and therefore STILL The Fame. --Zefron12 (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The Monster side is going to be released seperatly as the standard edition. If Billboard counts the sales of the 'The Fame Monster EP' to the regular album The Fame, wouldn't that be very confusing? Just because these 8 Tracks are not on The Fame. --It's Flo (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


This issue has been solved. If you would like to further comment on the issue, please start a new discussion for this one was based on the facts available a month ago before consensus to make the new page was reached. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

THE Fame (CD2) TRACKLIST

According to [1], which is being posted as an only reference for the tracklist, the tracklist is NOT like the standard Japanese edition, it is the UK/Irish Edition + "Retro, Dance, Freak" as a Japan bonus.

01. Just Dance

02. LoveGame

03. Paparazzi

04. Poker Face

05. I like It Rough

06. Eh, Eh

07. Starstruck

08. Beautiful, Dirty, Rich

09. The Fame

10. Money Honey

11. Boys Boys boys

12. Paper Gangsta

13. Brown Eyes

14. Summerboy

15. Disco Heaven

16. Again Again

17. Retro, Dance, Freak (Japan)

Should I change that?? --PlatinumFire 21:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This will be confirmed in due time. For now, we're speculating that this is the correct listing. I think we can safely presume that tracks 1-14 are correct. CycloneGU (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Telephone

Leaked. Listen here http://www.hall-musique.net/2009/11/en-exclusivite-decouvrez-le-duo-beyonce.html

There are many sources on the net which say this is the next single —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.96.81.144 (talk) 05:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Are any of these sources NOT a blog or personal fansite with an unbiased report saying such? If not, none of them can be considered a valid reference and the article cannot contain this information.
I've personally contacted TheAdmin at Lady Gaga's official site and asked myself whether this information is true. Hopefully we'll get some kind of answer in the coming days. Usually, however, the first single rides until a little while after the album is out (Beyonce made an exception posing as Sasha Fierce and put out a single from both discs), then the second single is later made official. Right now, Telephone has not been confirmed by the label and even Gaga herself hasn't said anything. If the next single is anything BUT "Telephone", a lot of blogsites are going to be eating crow. CycloneGU (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Release Dates

Are we sure these are still accurate? After all, the album design was changed I think after Oct. 30, which is the source for the Nov. 18 Japanese release...so far, sources only quote November 23 since then. CycloneGU (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Alternate Cover

I don't think the alternate cover is a specific deluxe edition cover. I think they both are standard and deluxe covers. I think the consumer can choose which cover they want for any edition. http://www.popatemyheart.com/2009/11/popatemyheart-exclusive-fame-monster.html If you go down a little and watch the YouTube video, it shows the thought to be standard cover and flipped over it shows The Fame cover. So I don't think the editions are cover specific. So change the alternate cover's title to Alternate Cover instead of Deluxe Cover. Sdoo493 (talk) 18:23, 13 November 2009

I read in an article (it was a reliable source that we used somewhere) that the covers are random. Like if you order online, it may have one cover or it may have the other. I assume that in stores you would be able to chose assuming they have a few copies in stock. Then again, MTV is specific here. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Lady Gaga's online store through ladygaga.com also links to the various types of editions and how the cover appears with each. With online orders, it says that the Standard Edition cover is random. Therefore, "Alternate Cover" would be a better term. CycloneGU (talk) 05:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Telephone (Again)

I'm going to say something aloud here that seems to get unread by users before thinking they are editing new information into the article.

"TELEPHONE" HAS NOT BEEN CONFIRMED BY LADY GAGA, HER LABEL, OR ANY LEGITIMATE SOURCE OF INFORMATION TO BE THE SECOND SINGLE!

"GAGADAILY.COM" IS NOT A LEGITIMATE SOURCE OF INFORMATION!

ANY BLOG SOURCING GAGADAILY AS A SOURCE FOR INFORMATION IS NOT A CREDIBLE SOURCE OF INFORMATION!

If this continues, I'll recommend we protect this article again. Thank you. CycloneGU (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It's already semi-protected, so the next step would be full protection which would mean no one (well besides admins I guess) would be able to edit. With the album going out soon and information changing so quickly, this might be more of a hindrance than helping the situation. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I trust you'll keep an eye this way until something official does come out, then. =) CycloneGU (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

GaGa has said herself she would release atleast 4 more singles from the album and it has obviously been told in her trailer video for the album here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQzYFKWBSbA&feature=sub that the next one will be "Telephone" ft. Beyonce, then "Alejandro", and after that "Monster". --Ifuseektylerr (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

A video with songs in it is by no means confirmation of singles. --Shadow (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say they were confirmed but usually the trailer features the lead single plus future singles. --Ifuseektylerr (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Cherrytree Sessions

I'm not familiar with this work. Was this an album or EP on its own, or was it always part of a The Fame rerelease? If it WAS a separate EP, we need to factor that in. CycloneGU (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I know it is available as a digital download EP on iTunes. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
And it was never notable enough. Wonder why that user re-created the deleted article again. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I reviewed every deletion discussion or mention of it and they all stated lack of third part sources was the reason for deletion. Those third party sources are available now. --Shadow (talk) 05:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh and what third party sources do i see? Amazon and amazon. A complete unreliable, bad source. I have a feeling you might want to take a deep look at WP:Reliable sources before re-creating the article again. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Talk about a split personality. Amazon is used as a source plenty of times on this site and no one removes the links or throws a fuss about them. --Shadow (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Again, you might want to check on WP:WAX please. If you feel like this article is worthy of a namespace, then pelase develop it likewise adding notable third party sources, critical reception, background etc. I would advice you to work on it in the user page sandbox and promote it after consultation with the deleting admin whether it passes WP:NOTABILITY.--Legolas (talk2me) 06:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Since semi-protection expired today, I started looking through today's history and found at minimum two separate instances of singles being added without sources again. I see the information has since been reverted or simply changed again, but I have taken the time to add a comment at the top of the page discouraging addition of singles for the time being, and clarifying our position on sites like gagadaily.com right at the top of the article itself. In the future, we can remove that comment, but until information is confirmed, it might be useful to keep that there so anyone who does try adding wrong information anyway will be literally doing the very thing we ask them not to do, and then it's a matter of teaching them how to read. =)

That isn't meant to be negative, either...I just think the comment is necessary. Is there any additional comments we should mention at the top? CycloneGU (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

more professional reviews are required

There are many more professional reviews that could be added and i think as it is now, it is only showing reviews that put this album in a good light, when i have seen many (professional) reviews that were not so pleased. I think this is misleading and needs to be updated to be fair. How is this done? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myrev0lver (talk • contribs) 04:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Using "like" and "etc"

I'm new here and I'm not sure if this is against the rules but I've never seen the words "like" or "etc" in wiki before, atleast not in the way its shown here. I'm referring to "It topped the Canadian chart while reaching the top ten in countries like the USA, Australia, United Kingdom, Ireland, Sweden etc." Why the like? why the etc? Why not just specify which countries or remove the sentence? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jford123 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I addressed your concerns. That is way too informal. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed this is a public formal site, the use of like and etc makes it look less professional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.24.54 (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think those words are still a concern, but the entire article sounds too informal. Does Perez Hilton have a Wikipedia account?--Evananders (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No Way (Bonus Track)?

I'm pretty sure No Way is NOT a bonus track. There is no source as to this information so it should not be included in the track listing. A previous link led to a file-sharing blog which is not a legal source of downloading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamj2004 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This was brought up to me by another editor as I was the one who added "No Way" to the listing. I can't source it and expect it to be considered reliable, but when ordinary people on the forums at ladygaga.com are posting that they received a ninth track called "No Way" with their purchase of the album, I can't dispute it. Multiple people have said it; if only one person said it, I'd turn a blind eye to it.
As for the source I DID quote; the illegal download thing was what was brought up to me. I must have missed that and will not argue the source being removed. I WILL keep looking for valid info about this, however; usually I'd use AllMusic but they completely botched Gaga's discography recently by completely removing the title "The Fame" from their records. CycloneGU (talk) 04:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The New Islander's Review of The Fame Monster

{{editsemiprotected}} The New Islander has reviewed Lady Gaga's The Fame Monster, giving it 4 out of 5 stars. You may add this as a professional review.

Thank you for this suggestion. However, looking at the website, it says (see About New Islander: The New Islander is a refined yet rich, independent and original, web [& soon to be print] publication that offers natural, creative fiction & nonfiction works, from any willing [and capable] young adult in the U.S. and U.K., while at the same time implementing, in a most forward fashion, commentary and reporting on culture, politics, university, lifestyle, media, writing, entertainment, the economy, literature, news, academia, & the arts, from some of the most keen minds across the nation.. The review in question does not have a byline (it merely says "by The New Islander (11.23.09)") - so we have no way of knowing who the reviewer is, and whether they are a professional reviewer or not. As such, I do not feel that it is suitable for inclusion in the article. There are mentions of the critical reception already in the article - from world-recognised press like The Independent, The Guardian, the BBC and The Times - as well as a couple of others (Slant Magazine is well-rated by Roger Ebert, while PopMatters is recognised as a cultural criticism website) - unfortunately, The New Islander does not appear to be recognised much outside of their target area (again from "About New Islander") Northeast culture of the United States (Martha's Vineyard, Long Island, Greenwich CT, Cambridge MA, Manhattan NY, Providence RI, New Haven CT, to name a few). I can see no indication that it is what would be counted by Wikipedia as a reliable source. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 12:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The release in Mexico

The album was released on the 23th and it is now in the top ten of itunes, being only available in the deluxe version. Label: interscpe records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.152.197.246 (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Too expensive?

At the top of the page, GaGa quotes it's too expensive. However, I just went in to Tesco and got the deluxe edition for only €11. 86.42.199.115 (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Have removed the bit in the lead about it being expensive. Seems to have been Made up. SunCreator (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I have reinstated the the too expensive comment per the source [2] and will make it more obvious that it is sourced. There are msrps, but retailers ultimately control the price of the cds. Also from the fact that you bought it in euros, keep in mind the favorable exchange rate. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, agreed, didn't read that headline. SunCreator (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Not to mention Gaga was referring to the deluxe edition featuring both discs. Also, in the U.S. albums are normally sold at $13.99, while The Fame Monster is being sold for $9.99. --Shadow (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
If anyone can think of a better way to incorporate the price aspect into the article better, that would be great. It needs to flow better. I was surprised to see that Tower.com is selling the deluxe edition for $11.99 and single disc for $8.99. What a sale lol. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Genre Changes

You keep changing the genres that I've edited. Why did you keep changing it? I mean, there's not much urban in the music, so why bother including it? There's much pop and electronic music in it, so we should include that!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrperfect125 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you visit your own talk page recently? Also, four tildes ~ "signs" a post. CycloneGU (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Having one R&B song ("Telephone") does not make this an R&B or urban album, and Allmusic is not exactly a good reference for genres. The album's main genres are definitely pop and electronic. Funk Junkie (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Monsters

I think that each track should be paired with what monster it represents. Anyone else agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.179.249 (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No, that would look stupid to the passer-by. If we can find sources for all 8 songs, a small section would do. --Shadow (talk) 04:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
How would that look stupid to the passer-by? The article already says each song represents a monster(s), so I think people would be curious —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.179.249 (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Not everyone reads the article before they see the track listing. You wouldn't find it strange to see a bunch of monster pictures next to track names on a random album page? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 05:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Tracklisting

I'm a bit confused about the tracklist. I'm from Ireland and found two The Fame Monster albums. One of these was the album with the blonde Lady GaGa cover, entitled The Fame Monster and the traclist read as this:
DISC 1:
1. Bad Romance
2. Alejandro
3. Monster
4. Speechless
5. Dance In The Dark
6. Telephone
7. So Happy I Could Die
8. Teeth
DISC 2:
1. Just Dance
2. LoveGame
3. Paparazzi
4. Poker Face
5. I Like It Rough
6. Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say)
7. Starstruck
8. Beautiful, Dirty Rich
9. The Fame
10. Money Honey
11. Boys, Boys, Boys
12. Paper Gangsta
13. Brown Eyes
14. Summerboy
15. Disco Heaven (bonus track)
16. Again, Again (bonus track)
16. Retro Dance Freak (UK Limited Edition Cover - Dark Hair)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.24.54 (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The other album I found was the cover of Lady GaGa with the dark hair entitled The Fame Monster Limited Deluxe Edition. The tracklisting was as follows:
DISC 1:
1. Bad Romance
2. Alejandro
3. Monster
4. Speechless
5. Dance In The Dark
6. Telephone
7. So Happy I Could Die
8. Teeth
DISC 2:
1. Just Dance
2. LoveGame
3. Paparazzi
4. Poker Face
5. I Like It Rough
6. Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say)
7. Starstruck
8. Beautiful, Dirty Rich
9. The Fame
10. Money Honey
11. Boys, Boys, Boys
12. Paper Gangsta
13. Brown Eyes
14. Summerboy
15. Retro Dance Freak (bonus track)
16. Disco Heaven (bonus track)

I'm confused with all the different editions of The Fame Monster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomEnigma (talk • contribs) 18:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Different countries. Top one is UK. Bottom one is International version. SunCreator (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Wait...now I'm confused. I guess Canada and the U.S. fall into "International" here, as iTunes shows the second set.
This begs the question. Which release did NOT include bonus tracks? That way we can refer to international being anywhere outside that area. And if that bottom one is the U.K. version...I apologize Sun, you can put that listing in (the 15-16 area at least since the rest is identical). I thought you just added Disco Heaven as track 15, which was already covered in the above entry, but seeing this tells me either I was mistaken or the edit was still mistaken - I tend to think the former sometimes. CycloneGU (talk) 05:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


Just so you know the Limited Digipack Edition released in the UK has Retro Dance Freak instead of Again Again, the jewel case version features only Again Again as a bonus track. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.24.54 (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the US and I purchased the Limited Edition with both CDs. There are only 14 tracks on The Fame, there are NO BONUS SONGS included in the US editions. Someone please update the tracklist to reflect this. If you live in the US you only get the US version of The Fame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.149.41 (talk) 05:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Cover art

I think the positions of the two covers in the infobox need to be reversed. The "dark hair" cover is being used on the regular edition of Monster on iTunes, which contains the new tracks only. By contrast, the "light hair" cover is being used as the cover of the deluxe edition, which contains The Fame as well. Therefore, doesn't it stand to reason that the "dark hair" cover is the default cover, and the "light hair" cover is meant as an alternate cover for the deluxe edition only? Just a thought. 76.107.137.39 (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The covers are interchangeable. When I was at Target the blond cover was used as the cover for both and the brown hair cover was the back cover of the deluxe edition. When I was at Wal-mart both covers were used as the cover for the Standard Edition. --Shadow (talk) 07:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It is an EP

Firstly, Billboard have labelled it as an Ep [3] and havent included it in her Albums Discography.

Secondly, its no different to Katy Perry's Re-Release of One Of The Boys. She released One OF The Boys again with a second Disc with new material and remixes (same as The Fame Monster with The Fame but without new remixes) then, for people who already had the album, they released it as a Tour Ep (The Fame Monster EP) so its not the first time its been seperate.

Thirdly, Since when has an artist ever released a second studio album as a re-release of the first. They may release it as an EP as well, but never release a second album as part of thier first.

Lastly, The Fame Monster is an extended version of The Fame otherwise they wouldnt have said "The Fame with 8 new tracks" but they would have said "The Fame plus her brand new album".

Please change it back to an EP, as the first reason (a reference from Billboard) is enough to change the type of album!--Apeaboutsims (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgan3136 (talk • contribs)

See discussion EP_or_Sophomore_album above. SunCreator ([[User
Japan at #7? (on behalf of an IP) A8UDI 19:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
^ what do you mean Japan at #7? makes no sense at all. explain.--Apeaboutsims (talk) 05:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The Fame Monster has charted everywhere (other than Japan) as The Fame, not a seperate/new album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.160.123.192 (talk) 00:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Simply not true(that it's chart as The Fame everywhere except Japan), check the charting references in the article. SunCreator (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

Added the About.com review since the review was part of the reception section.--Sevilledade (talk) 04:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Recorded

The "Recorded" section in the infobox should be 2008-2009, as all of the tracks from The Fame were recorded then. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The tracks for The Fame Monster where recroded in 2009. Hence 2009. SunCreator (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
But editions of the CD contain songs which also feature on The Fame and were recorded in 2008. Therefore, it should be treated like a greatest hits album; see The Singles Collection (Britney Spears album), Keeps Gettin' Better: A Decade of Hits and The Hits (Will Young album) for just 3 examples. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I understand what your saying, but you are mistaken. It's a Studio_album, the first line of the article asserts it. The Fame Monster contain entirely new material. While there is considerable confusion because of the deluxe editions, I don't think that should mislead or that the article should claim it's a studio album and show conflicting information in the info box. SunCreator (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
It's not a greatest hits album like your examples though: it is a new studio album. It was recorded in 2009 whether or not the bonus tracks were as well does not affect this. The "Monster" tracks are the main topic of this article. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 05:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
The song "Telephone" was recorded in 2008, so that should really be changed to 2008-2009. --PlatinumFire 21:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

All Songs Charted?!

This has to be the FIRST album ever to have every single song chart when just releasing the album. All songs charted on the UK Singles Chart. The Highest ones being Bad Romance and Telephone. Amazing :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.47.251 (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Taylor Swift's Fearless Platinum Edition has 19 tracks and all of them charted, most of them in the Hot 100, so GaGa wasn't the first :) Decodet (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
In the UK it was cheaper to buy all the singles individually(if you already owned the fame) rather then buy the album(only deluxe edition available). Hence many people bought the singles resulting to all the singles charting first week of fame monster release. SunCreator (talk) 10:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate text

{{editsemiprotected}} The text "Contemporary critics gave a mixed to positive review of the album" from the last sentence on the second paragraph of the overview section is repeated almost identically at the beginning of the next paragraph. I suggest that this text be removed the second time it appears. 06:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done Ilyushka88 Talk to me 07:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


Dance in the dark and Alejandro

should we mention that dance in the dark and alejandro were available on iTunes as promotional singles, but were taken down as a problem occurred (according to cherry tree records on twitter). i was one of the people who went on iTunes and found it, but then a few hours later, they dissapered--58.161.68.159 (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This is an EP

This is not an album, first of all it charted in Billboard as an EP. Also, the only place in the world where it is sold separately (legally) is The US, other than that, in the rest of the world is just a reedition of The Fame therefore it has charted as The Fame, not The Fame Monster. She said she "considered" the album her sophomore effort, but that doesn't make it an album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.243.98.122 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 1 December 2009

The US is not the only place. SunCreator (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

And?, and it's still not a worldwide release as a proper studio album should be. But it's ok, I guess Billboard itself is not a reliable source, thank you very much for your attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Of course Billboard is a reliable source. I don't understand what you are trying to say. Billboard does not cover the whole world if that it what you are implying. SunCreator (talk) 03:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's own description of an album: "An album or record album is a collection of related audio or music tracks distributed to the public." The EP definition merely sets a time limit of "up to 36 minutes", while placing an album at "30-80 minutes". This album places at 34 minutes, making it in that hazy area, but definitely on the longer spectrum of EPs. EPs only have an "up to" limit because there is a longest EP, and there wouldn't be EPs if artists didn't choose to label them that way. If the record label and Lady Gaga have deemed it to be an album, then it is, because there is no true way to define an album other then a distributor's intent. The fact that you can buy a separate album in addition at the same time of purchase or in conjunction doesn't prevent the distributor's intent and self-chosen definition of it being a separate album. Dvnwlkr (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

look, the fame monster is a studio album, however its only because it has the fame attached. We can either have it as a re-release on The Fame Page or as an EP on a separate page. this is not its own studio album and shouldn't have a page telling us it is so. please change it!--58.161.68.159 (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
also, on certain sites, it says that the EP is a U.S. thing only. Im in aus, and you can only buy the re-release. if its an EP in the U.S. and the rest of the world its a Re-release, what should it come under? i still think its should be an EP or part of The Fame page, but i wouldnt consider it a seperate album. and it doesnt matter what wikipedia says about EP's and thier length and all. rules and standards can always change. if Billboard label it as an EP, its an EP! or re-release in other countries.--58.161.68.159 (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Billboard is in no way a definitive, deciding association on the status of a set of music.The only group that has that right is the creator. If an artist paints what someone believes to be a tree but claims it is a bird, then it is a painting of a bird. Furthermore, just because it isn't available solo in your country doesn't mean it doesn't exist as a studio album. You can't buy cars at the local mini-mart, yet that doesn't mean they don't exist. Availability doesn't mean anything. Dvnwlkr (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Tracklisting for The Fame side

I live in America and I bought the 2 disc deluxe edition of TFM with Monster on the first disc and The Fame on the second disc (blonde cover). When I came onto the article, I saw that for the 'The Fame' side of the album, the track listing included I Like It Rough as number 5. However, on my disc, I Like It Rough is actually the 13th track. I know that The Fame itself had many different track list variations, so I just wanted to be sure there wasn't a mistake.

Incase it's needed, here is my track listing for The Fame side:

1. Just Dance 2. LoveGame 3. Paparazzi 4. Poker Face 5. Eh Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say) 6. Beautiful, Dirty, Rich 7. The Fame 8. Money Honey 9. Starstruck 10. Boys Boys Boys 11. Paper Gangsta 12. Brown Eyes 13. I Like It Rough 14. Summerboy

and no Disco Heaven or any other bonus tracks. Sorry if I'm posting something that's unnecessary, but I just wanted to make sure there wasn't a mistake in the track list. Coinboybrian (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The current Track listing for the second CD in this article is quite a mess. SunCreator (talk) 12:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

NME review 8/10 can some body add it please?

http://www.nme.com/reviews/lady-gaga/10984

thank you :) RainBell (talk) 07:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


anyone could help? hello? RainBell (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Germany Release

In Germany, the Standard-Edition with only one CD wasn't released (only the Deluxe- and Digipack-Edition). Please change it in the Release-History and make a note in the next. Thanks. --91.9.120.162 (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It's shown on the German Amazon. SunCreator (talk) 09:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but only as an import. In stores there's no standard-edition. --91.9.106.71 (talk) 13:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the same for the UK release, please also change for the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.24.54 (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Alejandro intro

If anyone feels it necessary to add this bit of information to The Fame Monster wiki, the violin intro to the song Alejandro is from Vittorio Monti's Csárdás. An optional spelling is Czardas.

--Clarinerdette (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)clarinerdette

you need to provide a source. --Legolas (talk2me) 07:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


I am not sure how to provide a source saying that Lady Gaga used this song in the intro, since if you are familiar with the Vittorio Monti song, it is quite evident. Listen to any recording of Vittorio Monti's "Csárdás" and then listen to the intro of "Alejandro".

Examples:

"Csárdás"/"Czardas" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BF9uQI-SRv4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK_sUfa4LU4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3fYZDqb7qw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5n0qXSO7Z-Q http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYOsNp4O7AU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5n0qXSO7Z-Q


"Alejandro" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVDvrzCWuzM

Clarinerdette (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Clarinerdette

UK Release Information

Please can it make clear that The Fame Monster was NOT released as a stand alone album in the UK. Only the deluxe edition and digipack version was released here, please stop changing it back, I live in the UK and have looked for the stand alone on UK music sites and in shops - it does NOT exist in this country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinsimpson1992 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm this. Only the double-album is availible here. Please make the page correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexanderb101 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Page name

This album is called "The Fame Monster", not "The Fame: Monster", as you can tell from the album covers. Could someone please rename the page, or tell me how to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcusdw (talk • contribs) 15:35, October 10, 2009

The actual name of the album is infact The Fame Monster, however the page The Fame: Monster does redirect to the true page so either way, the page correct. -- Nyxaus (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Censored vocals in the songs, uncensored lyrics in the booklet

Could someone add to the tracklisting section that the profane words (bitch, fuck) are muffled in the tracks 'Bad Romance','Monster' and 'Dance in the Dark'? This applies to all the album releases so far, US, Australia and EU alike, even the ones with the 'parental advisory' disclaimers. It's also weird the record label made the decicion, considering the cd-single and the music video are uncensored. However, the tracks on 'The Fame' side of the album are still uncensored. Also, the lyrics booklet coming with the album sports the original lyrics. Many fans are annoyed by the fact the album got sterilized this way. It's not even pointed out in iTunes or Amazon. Want sources? The release date for Finland was today, 25th of November. --MakkeBernhard (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I'm sure I read this in the article before, but can't find it at the moment. Errors in distributor labelling most likely don't belong here however. SunCreator (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Nearly all my sources are from the forums. Can they be used here? On Gagadaily there is that article with the album scans, and someone asks a question in the comments section if the Australian limited deluxe edition is uncencored, but regardless of the disclaimers it is. I really don't want to mess up a good article so someone else could do the changes here. --MakkeBernhard (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Sources are welcome but don't be surprised if some editors want to remove them, see Digital Spy topic above for example. SunCreator (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay. Well here's the Gagadaily article, check the comments. [4]
Here's the amazon (US) review and all the comments for the one-disc edition. (Yes, it's me there, too.) [5]
And forums: [6], [7], [8]
In this case, forums can be accepted as a source, if the new info is written in the form "Fans have reported that this and that that is so sad..." --MakkeBernhard (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Fame_Monster&oldid=327785826 That version had two sentences, in release section, about censored vocals but no references. Cannot find offical twitter. SunCreator (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


HERE, found the Twitter-link!!! [9] MakkeBernhard (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


Does anyone know if the Super Deluxe Box Set will feature the explicit versions of these songs? I don't fancy paying that kind of money for censored songs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.24.54 (talk) 23:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


No, it's hasn't been released yet, so we don't know. If it does, the the label should really release an explicit CD alternative for the rest of the albums, too.
Anyway, could someone add to the 'Tracklisting' section that all the current releases feature only the censored songs for the 'Monster'-side of the standard and deluxe editions? I've been through all the forums and I am 100% sure about it. However the 'The Fame' (deluxes only, obviously) -side still features the explicit ones. And yes, it sounds as stupid as it is. Trust me, I've been annoyed by this since November 23rd...MakkeBernhard (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


[10] Another link, can be used as a source. It really doesn't have to be an official article to make it true, when it's common knowledge?
So please just add the info that all the current releases feature the "clean" edits of 'Bad Romance', 'Monster' and 'Dance in the Dark'?MakkeBernhard (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The explicit version has been released onto Australian iTunes now so it is defo out there now. Anyone know if the super deluxe package is explicit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinsimpson1992 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

EP/Album situation

I understand that Gaga said this was an album, and the consensus was to call this an album, but why not an EP since Billboard and every mainstream source refers to The Fame Monster as an EP? Candyo32 (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Billboard is only US and not worldwide as this article is. Many sources refer to it as an album, just check google. If there could be any doubt after that, then finally Billboard call it an album. Case closed. SunCreator (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I am for keeping this listed as a studio album. It's over 30 minutes in length, and the deluxe version is an hour longer. Chase wc91 22:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Retro Dance Freak

Please add that "Retro Dance Freak" was also included on the German Editions. I'm from Germany, I've got the CD, it's on the tracklist. --It's Flo (talk) 13:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Please also add that it's on the UK digipack version, I have this CD with it on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinsimpson1992 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Digital Spy

The digital spy review was removed, why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.139.26 (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

They seem to hate anything by digital spy dunno why though :S —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.24.54 (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Digital Spy

Why is digital spy a bad source, you keep saying that is unreliable, how can a review be unreliable? is the review copied from another source?, one thing is reliability and notability another. Digital Spy is a notable web page, specially in the UK, if this is removed then About.com should also be removed, is it reliable or notable the review from an X person?, everyone can write in that web. Double standars? 190.233.37.136 (talk) 04:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Digital Spy is notable for plagiarism. A website run by a bunch of 14 yr ods can hardly be considered reliable. General consensus amongst the GA reviewrs were reached long ago that Digital Spy cannot be considerd reliable. On the other hand, About.com at present is considered reliable, though ongoing discussions are there at WP:RS for validating its reliability. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Where does it said that about.com is considered reliable, there are always questions in the noticeboard in regard to its use in featured and even good articles nominations. You keep saying general consensus, where is the consensus, neither of those two are listed as professional reviews in the album wikiproject. 190.233.37.136 (talk) 05:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
To counter the allegation that Digital Spy is "known" for plagiarism: how? Are there any recent examples of plagiarism? It is one of the leading British entertainment websites run by journalists - the reviewer Nick Levine who wrote The Fame Monster's review is an experienced reviewer. Just because Americans don't know the website does not discredit it as a source. It is a highly popular and widely-visited site in the UK so obviously has a certain amount of credibility; if all it did was plagiarise other sources, then it would not have become so successful! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexanderb101 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Plus Digital Spy are always correct about their news information, I personally think they just do not want a UK site to be used for an american singer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinsimpson1992 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Bonus tracks

Can anyone confirm where "No Way" and "Reloaded" are coming from? I've never heard of them being included on any physical or digital release of the album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.249.191 (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not on this album to my knowledge. They are unreleased tracks. See List_of_Lady_Gaga_songs#Unofficially_released. SunCreator (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

"No Way" is NOT a bonus track for The Fame Monster. Fernando Garibay released this statement: "we're saving that one for the future". As for Reloaded, the song's state is currently unreleased, and due to the link most likely won't have a physical release. The song was recorded around late 2008-early 2009, which might have caused rumors that it would appear as a bonus track.
HEyyy XxMjF (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Alejandro (Lady Gaga Song)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Alejandro (Lady Gaga Song)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "uk":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sold Gold in Sweden

The Fame Monster has sold gold in Sweden now aswell; http://www.sverigetopplistan.se/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.15.71 (talk) 13:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

EP?

Why is it considered an EP? With 8 tracks it might as well be an album. For example, Madonna is an eight-track album. And was a cosensus reached in order for this to have its own page? --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes consensus was reached that is how it became unprotected and EP was just the choice of one editor. I wouldn't object to it being an album since that is what the sources say. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It is NOT an EP. First it was considered a re-release, but then Gaga herself said shes ripping this and the original "Fame" apart. Therefore, The Fame Monster will in fact be sold as a single album.

The Fame Monster is not an EP. Not many people still call it an EP. Whoever rumored that it depends on the length is correct. All forms of music below 30minutes is an EP, and above 30 minutes is an studio album. The Fame Monster is approximately 34 minutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.58.192 (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

According to her website, The Fame Monster is still a studio album, for it is not marked as an EP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.95.132 (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Besides, I would MUCH rather have this page be a part of the original "Fame" page, instead of having it sit here as an EP (because that is completely false information). This page needs to be fixed right away. My suggestion, let the fame monster have its own page as a studio album (because thats what gaga says it is) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.95.132 (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, new information has surfaced, so you must be behind. In an interview, Gaga stated "I would not add, nor take away any songs from this EP. It is a complete conceptual and musical body of work that can stand on its own two feet. It doesn't need The Fame." [11] Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Explicit found an MTV source where Gaga says it's an EP. Therefore, unless more current references (such as AllMusic) say otherwise, it's an EP. CycloneGU (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

On her official website, ladygaga.com, it says on the front page in large letters "the new album" so i'd say it's an album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.242.82 (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Then here is what to do. Since MTV quotes Gaga's own comment that it is an EP, we'll leave it alone for now. AllMusic will eventually clue in and get around to adding this, we'll be linking to it in any case. When they do, I for one will carefully look to see if they list it under albums or EPs. Whatever THEY list it as...I will recommend WE list it as that. Further, the album comes out in a week and a half; let's just wait before jumping to conclusions, all right? No need to get into an edit war over this. =) CycloneGU (talk) 03:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, in that same interview, she also calls it her "Sophomore album": "In the midst of my creative journey composing The Fame Monster, there came an exciting revelation that this was in fact my sophomore album. I would not add, nor take away any songs from this EP. It is a complete conceptual and musical body of work that can stand on its own two feet".


SOURCE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.229.85 (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

WOW!... some of you wikipedia people are really stupid.. The definition of an EP is a CD containing 7 songs or less. OBVIOUSLY the tracklist in 8 songs, so it has to be considered an album - If this is an EP, than Madonna's first album was an EP. --YourBadRomance (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

86.96.229.85 (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not the number of tracks which determines whether it is or not an EP, but the length. For example, Animals has 5 tracks, but it is an album because it is 40 minutes long. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I cant belive you wikipedia people.....now your taking her words literally......before when she said that its her sophmore album in numerous interviewws you were like "a third party source has to confirm its her sophmore album like billbord"............and now just because in one intervirew she sliped the word EP, then ur considering it an EP.........lol....i dont see any site condierding it an EP...including billboard....she said its her SOPHMORE ALBUM....you better change it to SOPHOMORE ALBUM......NOW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.228.91 (talk) 11:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

--Agreed, I think this should be considered an album.

Something we must learn is that an EP must have a certain amount of songs, but also must have as long as 35 minutes maximum. Information in the article is mentioned that lasts 34 minutes, so I think the standard version is an EP and deluxe version is a studio album Tbhotch (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The Fame Monster #1 in Finland, not #2

Today, 3/4/2010, had The Fame Monster sold so much, that it's number 1 in Finland http://voice.fi/index.php?mw=&option=com_sbsarticle&tmpl=blog&cid=13377&cat=1 or http://www.ifpi.fi/tilastot/virallinen-lista/artistit/lady+gaga/the+fame+monster+-+dlx. --Squidoh (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Alejandro confirmed as next single?

This article from the Sun says she will make a video for new single "Alejandro". --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 10:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

A bogus gossip newspaper. Let's wait for more reliable sources. I think I heard she is shooting for the music video of "Telephone". --Legolas (talk2me) 10:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like Alejandro is the third single Digital spy also confirmed it http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/news/a195012/gaga-wants-david-walliams-for-video.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinsimpson1992 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh there it comes, another kid website. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
better than nothing...
fyi the sun is not a bogus gossip newspaper, its the most read tabloid newspaper in the uk. but thats another discussion altogether. had a memo at my work today that alejandro will be the next eu single and telephone for the us. but wont add anything till a postable source is available. 78.145.18.68 (talk) 11:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
That is where The Sun loses its credibility, because its a tabloid. However, if Alejandro is really being released, repuptable sources will soon report it. Although my personal opinion says that Sun reporter Telephone as Alejandro, the former being confirmed for a video shoot by Rap-Up. --Legolas (talk2me) 11:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
What Legolas2186 said: For a source to be a reliable source, it needs "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", which is what The Sun repeatedly lacks. Amalthea 12:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
hmmm interesting, Sky News, an undoubtedly reliable news site, uses digitalspy to announce alejandro video. would this be an example of a reputable source using another, thus showing digitalspy as a reliable source? http://indepth.news.sky.com/InDepth/topic/Lara_Stone_And_David_Walliams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.75.177 (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
also, with regards to The Sun being reliable, the Official Charts Company website lists The Sun as an official licensee of the uk charts. surely they wouldn't do that if the newspaper was unreliable? Mister sparky (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
official licensee most likely means the Sun pay the OCC for there chart information. That doesn't make the Sun a relieable source, if your in the UK and ever read the paper you will know it's rather unreliable, indeed many blogs are more reliable. SunCreator (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Allaccess.com has listed Alejandro in the Cool New Music section of Top 40/Mainstream radio for play in the US. 2 radio stations have already added the song to their play lists as of March 2/2010 according to Allaccess.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.30.223 (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Spelling error

In the introductory paragraphs, someone wrote "complimenting." It should read "complementing." Too bad the page is locked so I can't fix it.70.134.72.99 (talk) 07:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Contemporary critics gave a positive review of the album, with the majority of them complimenting the songs "Bad Romance" and "Dance in the Dark".

From a dictionary definition, it appears the existing text is appropriate. SunCreator (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The Fame Monster Peak position 2 in Mexico

The album Fame Monster is right now in position number eight, but had its peak position to number 2.

Data is collected from Amprofon in its top 100 list http://www.amprofon.com.mx/top100.php?item=menuTop100&contenido=lista

So in general, the wikpedia entry has to be corrected to number 2 (insted of 14) in mexican charts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.234.99.85 (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Alejandro IS the third single

Ok, so I know there wasn't concrete information, but I think I now have some. GaGaDaily is Lady GaGa's biggest fansite, also been featured on her official site. They revealed that the third single would infact be "Alejandro", confirmed here http://gagadaily.com/2010/03/lady-gagas-next-single-is/. Please could we add this? I mean this isn't the only source to say that it is the next single. (78.149.49.149 (talk) 08:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)).

Album covers in infobox

I have combined the two covers into one image in the infobox because, as one is not the primary cover, I feel they should both be represented as the main infobox image. I'm not sure if this was the best idea, so I'm posting here to see if there are any oppositions. –Chase (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Strongly opposed - Contrary to the subtitle description, the album is NOT randomly released with either cover- different covers are assigned to different editions; there's absolutely nothing 'random' about that. The alternative covers infobox function addresses this issue perfectly, and I do not see why The Fame Monster would be a special case. Imperatore (talk) 05:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
From what I have seen in record stores, the covers are indeed not assigned to special editions. I have seen the blonde cover issued with both the EP and the rerelease, and same with the brunette cover. The only place I have seen that assigns the covers to specific versions of the album is iTunes. –Chase (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, my mistake - there is a randomness in the covers. Thanks to the guys over at Gagapedia http://ladygaga.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_international_editions_of_The_Fame_Monster, it seems like the album's native market, the US, got random cover pressing. However, most other Universal Music Group companies outside the US did not go for a randomness it seems. 03:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Chase, actually Imperatore is right, its the US which got the mixed album covers. In the opther markets, the first cover is the main cover, with the brunette one as the alternate cover for the combined version. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Did not know that. In that case, I support the revert back to the original version. –Chase (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Alejandro Music Video

Does anyone by any chance know when the Alejandro music video is going to be shot? Some say that Gaga asked if David Williams and Lara Stone can be part of the video, but I just thinkt that they said they couldn't work on it.

Also, is Dance in the Dark the last single of The Fame Monster? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.84.74.182 (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Concept album?

Lady Gaga has said that all of the songs on the album are themed to various "monsters" associated with fame, and this is mentioned in the article. Wouldn't that make it a concept album? I hate to use Madonna as a comparison (Lady G gets that enough already), but it seems like a similar case as Erotica. Just throwing this out here, I don't think anyone has brought it up yet. The Mach Turtle (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Dance in the dark promo single

I made the page for dance in the dark since it was released as a promo single. - RebornRocks —Preceding unsigned comment added by RebornRocks (talk • contribs) 22:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Dance In The Dark

More Info for dance in the dark Radio Add:http://www.aumreport.com/Chart_News.html (For Aus)

plus the original promo single:http://itunes.apple.com/be/album/dance-in-the-dark-single/id338738402

So an official add by Australian radio stations, the radio network, and a promo single. does this give enough for its own article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.185.98 (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

EP or Sophomore album?

Since after all the discussion, It ended up on a new page, but following Lady Gaga's own statement, it's not an EP, but a sophomore album, so we should put it in the article, instead of saying it's an EP... --Zefron12 (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

According to Lady Gaga's own statement it is an EP [12]. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Gaga called it both her second album and an EP, so we need further sources such as Interscope. --Shadow (talk) 05:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I'm waiting on AllMusic to clarify this. Whatever they do, I'll do. Problem is right now, they still seem to think it's a re-release and haven't published the track listing yet. [13] CycloneGU (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Wait for Billboard for this. I'm more inclined to think of this as an LP rather than EP, since the EP criteria by OCC denotes no more than 4 songs and 20 mins of track length, hence waiting for BB to clarify again. Allmusic will take it frm BB though. :) --Legolas (talk2me) 03:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
4 tracks for an EP? I've seen more than one Tori Amos EP that has five tracks on it. CycloneGU (talk) 04:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Either of it. 4 tracks or 25 mins track length. That is how OCC decides an EP, but Billboard might have some other rule. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
It has 8 tracks and 32 minutes length, So I think it will be considered an album.... Hope BB/AllMusic clarify us very soon! --201.19.226.158 (talk) 13:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

"The New Album" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZvQWcBPEs4 - official commercial —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.252.227.40 (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's an album.. like the first Madonna album(Madonna (album)), with 8 tracks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.117.254.62 (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

IT IS NOT AN EP. The confirmation has been made through various radio shows and through a German television programme. Please change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.226 (talk) 13:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Changed to album

I've changed the page to an "album" for the meantime as that appears to be what consensus has decreed. Please discuss any changes here before making them. Dale 20:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Good, the official record label article cited at no.23 confirms this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.242.82 (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
125.238.242.82, I have indented your comment. Also, feel free to reg. an account if possible. =)
I was one of the ones who originally settled on the EP thing, but since there appear to be many sources stating "album", I will agree. CycloneGU (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Gaga stated in an interview that she is releasing the album like Jay-Z released The Blueprint 3 (which is a studio album) so I think it's an album, let's stop wondering over something already confirmed! + The trailer says it's an album so it's an album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedfarhat (talk • contribs) 20:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Lady GaGa is lesbian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.101.23.193 (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

On the release dates can someone change the format for the UK edition as the UK is only receiving the deluxe edition, the standalone album will not get released here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.24.54 (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I know. I'm really annoyed about that. I might order the stanard edition from overseas. Sadly, I have no table-fu. -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 15:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Billboard magazine labeled "The Fame Monster" as an EP in a recent post about her possible first week sales.. I think it should be changed again into EP. Decodet (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, Billboard have labelled it as an Ep [14] and havent included it in her Albums Discography.

Secondly, its no different to Katy Perry's Re-Release of One Of The Boys. She released One OF The Boys again with a second Disc with new material and remixes (same as The Fame Monster with The Fame but without new remixes) then, for people who already had the album, they released it as a Tour Ep (The Fame Monster EP) so its not the first time its been seperate. Thirdly, Since when has an artist ever released a second studio album as a re-release of the first. They may release it as an EP as well, but never release a second album as part of thier first. Lastly, The Fame Monster is an extended version of The Fame otherwise they wouldnt have said "The Fame with 8 new tracks" but they would have said "The Fame plus her brand new album". Please change it back to an EP, as the first reason (a reference from Billboard) is enough to change the type of album!--Apeaboutsims (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

^agreed, billboard say ts an ep, then it is an ep--61.68.181.237 (talk) 03:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
it is an EP becuase of all those reasons and billborad has confirmed its an ep. no exceptions, it needs to be changed back. Plus, where did the Cherrytree sessions Ep dissapear too? its an important part of her discograpy and needs to be on here.--Morgan3136 (talk) 04:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
it is an ep, as it says on billboard. there is no debating this or voting as what it should be under! please change it back to EP. it was never an album, and never be considered as such. its an EP full stop. thats it. find something else to argue over. this is an EP and it should be mentioned as an EP!--Jackex56 (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The Fame Monster can NOT be labelled as a studio album. It was released as a re-release of The Fame in most countries (it also charted as The Fame in some charts, such as Australia and Ireland). The solo disc, however, was labelled as an EP by Billboard and MTV in the references cited below. I think these reasons are enough. Decodet (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
It's a Studio Album, it's also an E.P. Maybe the article should just switch to saying both? SunCreator (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The Fame Monster (the solo disc) is an EP. The Fame Monster (double disc) is a re-release of The Fame, her debut album. But it's not her second album as some of GaGa's articles are saying. Decodet (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
"Bad Romance is the first single from Lady GaGa's second album The Fame Monster. " and "The Fame Monster is the second album by Lady GaGa released in 3 different versions." - Top left from Official Lady Gaga site. SunCreator (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
That's not her official site, it's just a fansite. However, I checked ladygaga.com and they cite The Fame Monster as "The New Album". It can be treated as her second album but it won't chart in most charts, since it was released as a re-release of The Fame in several countries. Decodet (talk) 17:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes at the moment, but only The Fame Monster deluxe edition is available. When The Fame Monster is sold on it's own then it will likely chart in those countries. SunCreator (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If its a new album then why has 'The Fame' been taken off the shelves and off i-tunes? 81.106.148.147 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC).

It should be reverted/changed to an EP. If you look at the definition of an EP it is a collection of songs which is two big to be a single but not quite big enough to be a full album. When they advertise the project on tv they refer to it as the next album, an EP! which is available in deluxe edition with a bonus disc containing the fame. stores like HMV also advertise it is a an EP and it was listed under the re-issues section. Lil-unique1 (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe there needs to be a vote between album and EP as this issue is very debatable. It states on the fame monster edit page that "CONSENSUS HAS BEEN FORMED ON THE TALK PAGE - DO NOT CHANGE TO EP ANYWHERE IN THIS ARTICLE" however that comment is unfair and untrue as over 50% of the comments on the talk page agree the fame monster should be classified as a EP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SexyBlondeGuy (talk • contribs) 04:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't it mean something that the billboard charts reference it as "The Fame Monster (EP)" i find that to be a more reliable source then any contradicting statements made in any interviews Blackballoon222 (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't it mean something that the billboard charts reference it as "The Fame Monster (EP)" i find that to be a more reliable source then any contradicting statements made in any interviews Blackballoon222 (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Singles from The Fame Monster

Here are the singles in order:'

1. Bad Romance
2. Telephone
3. Alejandro
4. Dance In The Dark

Yes, Dance In The Dark is the fourth single. She posted this list on Twitter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.58.192 (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

On her official website, she posted The Fame Monster album trailer with; 1.Bad Romance 2.Telephone 3.Alejandro 4.MONSTER Here is the link that basically says Monster is the 4th single: http://www.ladygaga.com/player/default.aspx?meid=5441 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.80.60 (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The Fame Monster

Monster song —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.70.58.189 (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Please give constructive opinions.Thank you. Lamelylame (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Dance In The Dark

Apparently, there was a page for Dance in the Dark . Now though, when I click on it, it doesn't work. It is a promo single, and somewhere below, someone said that it has been CONFIRMED as the fourth single. Anyway, please get this error fixed, because either way, the song will be the fourth and final single off the album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldFantasia (talk • contribs) 22:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Charts and certification

The Fame Monster just reached 2nd position on the swedish album charts. And sold platinum. http://www.sverigetopplistan.se/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.15.71 (talk) 10:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


Australian accreditation for The Fame monster ....

Currently The fame monster holds the #2 spot and has benn certified twice platinum http://www.ariacharts.com.au/pages/charts_display_album.asp?chart=1G50 AriandaGAGA (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC) AriandaGAGA

The Fame Monster has sold

http://2m-online.ru/news/detail.php?ID=5568 The Fame Monster has sold 60.000 (3*platinum) copies in Russian Federation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafmaz (talk • contribs) 04:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

UK 3rd run??

Could someone please add The Fame Monsters third run at number one this week in the UK. (Alexshunn (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC))

Limited Edition USB Drive

http://www.interscope.com/artist/news/default.aspx?nid=25841&aid=599 Could someone add the tracks to the track listing section? EDIT: never mind. --Sdoo493 (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


And just to be a pain the UK release date is May 10th —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.130.228 (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

GLAAD Awards

In the article is mentioned that Lady Gaga won the GLAAD award BUT the winner will only be announced on the 17th on April. That's tomorrow. She was until now only nominated to the award. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.125.190 (talk) 12:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga vs Stefani Germanotta.

Should Lady Gaga not be listed as Stefani Germanotta in the track listing? (As shown by BMI Gaga is known and accredited as Stefani Germanotta in songs she rights.)

e.g. Bad Romance → BMI Listing for "Bad Romance"

  • Artist = Lady Gaga
  • Songwriter = Stefani Germanotta

Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The tracklisting shows the listing as per the album liner notes. Hence it should be left as such. However, for the song's coming off as singles, Germanotta is preferred as that is what BMI lists as the songwriter. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that. Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

For the last time, it's an album!

Here we go again. Lady Gaga has already said that it's her sophomore album. We have proof that it is an album from the artist herself! Also, the focus on whether a recording is an album or an EP depends on length. Anything under 30:00 is an EP, and anything 30:00 or over is an album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.58.192 (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 121.220.101.108, 27 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please fix the track listing of Deluxe / Limited Editions

here's how it should read

1 Just Dance 2 Love Game 3 Paparazzi 4 Poker Face 5 I Like It Rough 6 Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say) 7 Starstruck 8 Beautiful, Dirty, Rich 9 The Fame 10 Money Honey 11 Boys Boys Boys 12 Paper Gangsta 13 Brown Eyes 14 Summerboy 15 Disco Heaven 16 Retro Dance Freak

121.220.101.108 (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the current listing is correct, as per the American Deluxe version - for example, see here.
There is a 'hidden comment' within the page, which says, Leave this track listing. Do not change it to the Japan version track listing. This is the U.S. track listing on "The Fame" side. This track listing is what's present on the back of the album in the U.S. .
If you still disagree with this, please reinstate your request, explain the reasoning and provide reliable sources.
I also suggest you get an account, then you can help us improve articles.  Chzz  ►  18:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Fame_Monster/Archive_1&oldid=1136384954"