Talk:The Fall (Gorillaz album)

Album type
Regarding the Type parameter in the infobox, please check out this discussion: WT:ALBUM. There is a large consensus by Wikiproject Album members that this album is a as much a studio album as any other. "iPad album" is not a valid value for this parameter. Cheers. – Ib Leo (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It would have been more helpful to actually bring that discussion up on this page. The album was not written or recorded in a studio, so I don't understand what would make it a studio album. All albums are made on recording technology of some kind, but that doesn't make them studio albums. This definitely seems like criteria to classify it under "other". I don't really care whether or not it's called an "iPad album (that just happens to be the term that's been used in the infobox multiple times), but I don't see any argument as to how this qualifies as a studio album. Friginator (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, let me explain how I got here. I am not especially interested in Gorillaz, but I incidentally found this article in (and it still is, now that you have completely removed the type parameter). Initially I was actually in doubt about what would be the correct type to use, so instead of discussing it here I raised it as a completely open question over at WT:ALBUM to get some unbiased input. Now, I personally think that the arguments brought by other editors for it being a studio album are quite overwhelming; but if you don't agree I can only suggest you challenge that discussion. – Ib  Leo (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't challenge their discussion. They make plenty of valid points. But none of them are about how this counts as a studio album. Look, If someone is really so insistent on this being a studio album, I'm not going to stop them from explaining how. But it wasn't made in a recording studio. So it's not really a studio album, is it? I don't see how that's not common sense. As for the parameter, I removed "iPad" from the infobox because you objected to it. "If the type is unknown, leave the field blank." --Friginator (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is insisting anywhere in that discussion. I came with an open mind and asked an open question and some fellow editors kindly offered their opinions. Allow me to quote one of them: "In the case of The Fall, the group has released what are basically the liner notes on their official website which lists all the iPad applications used. It looks like the album was produced using the app StudioMini XL, which as the title suggests, is a mini studio for engineering music. The website also reads: "Mixed by Stephen Sedgwick at Studio 13. Mastered by Geoff Pesche at Abbey Road Studios," so this music did eventually make it to a studio at some point. I believe a lot of the confusion stems from the fact that the majority (if not all) of the music was created, rather than recorded, through digital means. This includes the digital drumkit known as FunkBox, the M3000 HD digital keyboard, the text-to-speech app SpeakIt!, and totally bizzare apps that almost seem more like games such as SoundyThingie and Gliss (sourced from the list of iPad apps on their site). In that sense, there was nothing to really walk into a studio and record; it was all saved as a file onto an iPad. However, the sounds created from all these different apps were combined and edited using traditional studio methods." It's all about how this album is a studio album, isn't it? And to my ears that argumentation is pretty convincing. Regarding leaving the Type field blank, I guess the rationale is then that the article will show up in . Then eventually some editor will come along and figure out what the right type is. Which is exactly why we are having this discussion right now. – Ib Leo (talk) 06:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A live album could be done using apps like StudioMini XL (which, obviously, is not an actual studio, regardless of the name). Almost all albums are mixed in some sort of a recording studio (in this case, only one song was, apparently), but that doesn't make them studio albums. As for the parameter, there isn't a category that this album fits into. So instead of just leaving it "other", people are trying to make it fit it into some sort of preexisting category. Which makes no sense. It's just lazy and unnecessary. It's just bureaucracy getting in the way of clarity. When it comes down to it, leaving it the way it is is just common sense, unless someone creates a parameter that accurately describes the album. That actually creates more problems than it solves. Just look at the infoboxes on Frank Zappa albums. They're a mess, and all they're going to do is confuse anyone who wants to understand the article. A lot of those pages would be improved if someone just used common sense about it and stopped trying to decide whether it was a compilation, or a live album, or a studio album. Friginator (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't see how it's "common sense" leaving the infobox without Type parameter. It sounds like an awful cheap argument to me (basically you can argue about almost everything by calling it "common sense"—it reminds me of my Dad actually :-). However, I am not going to fight about this so I will leave it like that. – Ib Leo (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for creating new templates when old ones won't do, but "studio" doesn't refer to a commercial establishment with specific hardware, nor does it mean the sounds have been played by a certain sort of instrument and not created digitally. There are portable studios and there are home studios. A person can set up recording equipment in their back yard or a cathedral or a boat on a lake, but the point is that wherever that equipment is becomes a studio, and whatever is recorded on that equipment is either a live recording (if before an audience) or a studio recording. Just as a recording is a single even if it is not pressed into wax, but rather digitally rendered, and that recording is officially released even if it is not physically shipped to brick-and-mortars, but rather placed on a site for download; that recording is a studio recording even if it was not played by a quartet and committed to reel-to-reel tape on equipment the size of a kitchen counter, but rather pre-programmed with software sounds on an iPad. I'm reminded of how Red Hot Chili Peppers' BloodSugarSexMagik was recorded in an abandoned mansion (which has since become a frequent recording site of its producer, and more of a traditional studio), yet that album is correctly classified as a studio album.

Think about it — a live album may be recorded on the kitchen-sink-size stuff permanently installed by the management in a performance hall concert venue, making it essentially a "studio" in a theater, or it may be on portable equipment owned by the band's sound technicians at an outdoor venue, and the categorization as live doesn't impinge on whether or not it's a major label release. And "live" performances often feature MIDI and other pre-programmed or pre-recorded/sampled elements, and often feature later overdubs and "sweetening", and may even be mixed between different performances at different times/dates or even different venues, yet that would be categorized here as a live album just the same as a straightforward acoustic performance. A live album can be recorded anywhere the live performance takes place, indoors, outdoors, in a traditional concert venue or someplace unexpected (I've seen performances recorded in abandoned factories, for example). Similarly, a studio album can be recorded anywhere that the presence of recording and/or programming equipment is situated in order to capture that input, even if it is whenever time permits on a tour bus moving from place to place, and/or hotel rooms and personal homes, as in "portable studio" or "home studio". Yes, if the technology is calling itself a studio and capable of serving as one, then that's what it is. Webster's defines "studio" in the music sense simply as "a place where audio recordings are made". Just like a computer was once something that weighed two tons and was housed in an entire floor of an office building with plenty of air conditioning and several highly trained technicians and analysts but is now simply an iPad; a music studio, that was once something similar, is now too simply an iPad.

Respectfully to lbLeo, who makes good points and has the right bead on this, it isn't primarily about whether it was mixed and mastered in a studio, as of course live albums are mixed and mastered in studios. It's about whether there is apparatus that is registering input consecutively in order to present it all at once.

I think the distinction here is whether it is a full, official release by a record company, which has nothing to do with where it was recorded, but how it was released. Some artists, after achieving success, find earlier material released for the first time or re-released by a previous label, which it is fair to say does not belong at that chronological point in their chronology. Other artists, particularly in the digital age, self-release material that their label passed on. It seems to me that if an artist records an album intending that it be released at the point in their career that it is, that is the artist making the decision that this belongs at this point in their official chronology, regardless of any variance from their norm. I've posted this at the WikiProject Albums talk page as well. Abrazame (talk) 07:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry if i shouldn't be adding this but there still isn't an answer. Edit wars etc. I think of it being a studio album, as i know there is lots of studio albums not recorded in an actual studio--92.237.84.183 (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No, you were right to call attention to the fact that editors are still stuck on this. Consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums is that this is a studio album.  In fact, it was unanimous but for Friginator above.  If there's a compelling argument to be made against "studio album", it hasn't been done so here or there, and there has not been a single refutation of any of my points, so anybody removing that parameter from the infobox is going against Wiki practices of discussion and consensus, much less rational logic.  Abrazame (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's pretty stupid this is being paired with the other three albums. True, you could say this is a studio album I guess but it's not Gorillaz "fourth album" or anything like that.  This was clearly just an experiment type thing Damon screwed around with during spare time in the tour.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.58.177.164 (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh, every Gorillaz studio album has been an experiment. Compare every studio album and you see an obvious change in sound. Just because it doesn't "feel" like an studio album does make mean it's not. ♫ Douglasr007  ( talk )  23:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Damon Albarn said himself it is not the fourth Gorillaz album: "Well it's not the next Gorillaz album, I wrote a diary, I used my time on the tour in America to make music every day. And I started at the beginning and ended a month later. And yes it's a diary of a journey, a sort of sonic journey around America. But in the conventional sense of a big commercial release, no, it's just a piece of music, it just continues a process, it keeps things interesting, and you know, for me, I discovered the iPad, fell in love with it, and made a record using it pretty much exclusively. So it's another record from Gorillaz. But the next Gorillaz album, I don't know if you could really classify it as that." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.58.177.164 (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How about we list it as a EP? Because it's was not written or made in studio. I think that's the most suitable thing to do... --121.216.15.125 (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Uniquely ununique
I've not heard this album or read much on it, so I'm not very well placed to do the re-wriet myself... but surely this is gibberish, isn't it?

"Lacking the unique feel of previous offerings, this album was praised for its unique qualities" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.146.148.240 (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Complete nonsense, redundant and inappropriate for Wikipedia due to its POV stance that the album is "unique." No one's saying it isn't, but this is the reason the section has a cleanup tag on it. Feel free to make any improvements. Friginator (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Album Charts
The peak position of the Swiss Album Charts is wrong. According to this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorillaz_discography the entry that says it peaked at 95 is the right one.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on The Fall (Gorillaz album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101222065738/http://radio1.gr/music/forthcoming_uk_albums.htm to http://www.radio1.gr/music/forthcoming_uk_albums.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110217110352/http://www.theofficialcharts.com/scottish-albums-chart/ to http://www.theofficialcharts.com/scottish-albums-chart/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on The Fall (Gorillaz album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110308223244/http://www.amazon.co.uk:80/Revolving-Doors-Amarillo/dp/B004Q6MASY to http://www.amazon.co.uk/Revolving-Doors-Amarillo/dp/B004Q6MASY

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)