Talk:New Adventures in Hi-Fi

Removing reviews
Please do not remove professional reviews that are deemed acceptable by WikiProject Album standards. --Fantailfan 22:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Song-by-song credits
I don't like this. Not at all. I'm trying to find out why this would be more useful than a straight track listing. I would like to revert it but am kind of tired of doing snap reverts without a reason. Unfortunately, I cannot contact the user who made the changes, because its an IP address. I'll give it a few days. --Fantailfan 17:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Reverted song-by-song credits but used info to indicate bandmembers' instrumental contributions when not general. --Fantailfan 22:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Why I removed Metromusic reviews
(1) It's not on the list of WikiAlbum Project professional review links (2) It refers to a San Jose newspaper review (3) The redlink.

If you're interested, here it is. Metromusic (positive) link

Please stop the revert wars!
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.

Discuss, please. -- Fantailfan (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Proposed: We add a second discography using this format, with the albums discography taking top spot, the chronological one the second:
 * Misc        =

Revolution claim
Really? I have both the Batman and Robin soundtrack and Out of Time, and I don't recall any differences between the two. If no one provides a source for this, I'm deleting it. And besides, this was recorded for Monster as memory serves. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

'X' Side and 'Y' Side
I believe.... that we should not include R.E.M.'s charming elpee side designations, except as a note below the track listing. --Fantailfan (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What about in the track listings of those albums initially released on vinyl only, and as notes below in albums thereafter? - Dudesleeper / Talk  14:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just noticed you (had) said as much on the talk page of the Reckoning article... - Dudesleeper / Talk  14:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To add to that... which I was trying to save when you posted...!
 * Upon reflection, what you say makes sense to me. Keep in mind that in the long run, idiosyncrasies of vinyl side nomenclature are ultimately insignificant. The larger issue is that separating track listing by side is important only so far as track sequencing goes, and only to the extent that conscious artistic effort was made to make each side more than a mere collection of songs.
 * (If you look at cassette track sequencing you will frequently find it is different than the vinyl sequencing. It is probably not worth noting because it is most likely a marketing decision rather than an artistic one.)
 * In the case of R.E.M., whose releases through 1996 covered the transition from vinyl to CD (for the vast majority of music listeners) determining whether vinyl-side sequencing is important should be possible. I think that category applies only to Chronic Town, Murmur, Reckoning and Fables of the Reconstruction. Every other album (I believe) was subsequently released on vinyl, CD and cassette simultaneously and we should relegate the 'charming side designations' to notes below.
 * -- Fantailfan (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Really? I don't see the big deal, honestly: it provides a little bit of information and it doesn't really harm the credibility of the article, so I don't see the argument for deleting it. The name of the album itself is just as fanciful and arbitrary, it's simply a necessity to discuss it. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't a big deal, but article-to-article consistency is among WikiProject Albums biggest problems. Well, to me it is. No, I'm not compulsive.Fantailfan (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Consistency I'm all for consistency myself, so I would be in favor of consistently naming albums that have this feature. And it's definitely the case that the album articles on Wikipedia vary widely in quality and content. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's completely unnecessary. Just give a straight tracklisting. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ...in your opinion. It seems the consensus is to include them. - Dudesleeper / Talk  03:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the WP:ALBUM guidelines, listing separate sides for primarily-vinyl releases is fine, but the sides should be listed as "Side one", "Side two", etc. No need for the cute side names. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * From March 30. - Dudesleeper / Talk  04:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I still stand by that comment. I don't see how not listing "Side 1" or "Side 2" if we're going to list vinyl/cassette sides is helpful, though. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Idiosyncratic side naming is a notable (if only marginally for WP purposes) part of the presentation of R.E.M. information. However, I argue separately that discrete vinyl-side listing is completely unnecessary ONLY for CD-age releases but (probably) necessary for releases that came out when vinyl was the chief release medium. (I am deliberately ignoring the brief period when cassettes were the best-selling medium.) It is a question of at-the-time consistency rather than Wikipedia article presentation consistency. I'm sure that this argument has been made many times before. Besides, I don't like peremptory page reversion without discussion. --Fantailfan (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 01:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I removed an un-sourced claim about the relative quality of REM albums
Alongside Automatic for the People, Murmur, Green and Out of Time, it is regarded as one of the band's best albums by fans and critics

Really? Realistically, I'd guess most people consider NAIH middling. But more importantly, the list of their supposed best albums seems pretty arbitrary - anecdotally, I don't know anyone who considers Green or Out of Time to be a superior work to, say, Lifes Rich Pageant.

Anyway, it seems far too subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgefst (talk • contribs) 15:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

REM is not Guns n Roses
The "hard rock" description is inappropriate, and per WP:EXPLICITGENRES it is not stated explicitly in any of the cited sources that this is a "hard rock" album. Saying an album "rocks long and hard" or "the hard rock flair of Monster (is) present here" is not the same thing as assigning it to the same genre as Motley Crue and Van Halen. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hard rock is a broadly defined genre, see Foo Fighters, Live, Alice in Chains, Queens of the Stone Age, My Chemical Romance, Led Zeppelin, etc. Even the article for hard rock states it as "loosely defined subgenre of rock music." Motley Crue and Van Halen are classified as hard rock, but are also classified as heavy metal and glam metal. Van Halen even is classified as pop rock and arena rock. The hard rock article suggests that hard rock and heavy metal are separate genres. My point is that first, R.E.M. ventured into hard rock with this record and Monster, and it is sourced. Second, once again, I have to say that just because your interpretation of "hard rock" is the bands you mentioned, does not mean that subgenre is limited to the composition of songs, bands, records, etc. that are identical to those bands' musical style.

--AppalachianCentrist (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * It is still WP:SYNTH. You are jumping to a conclusion not explicitly stated by the sources you cite, and giving it far too much prominence while you're at it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)