Talk:New Adventures in Hi-Fi

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Reverted song-by-song credits but used info to indicate bandmembers' instrumental contributions when not general. --Fantailfan 22:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Song-by-song credits 

message: Hey! Between the two of you, you have edited over 10,000 pages; I have edited over 3500. As a disinterested observer, I am citing the unofficial "way too much time on our hands" doctrine: Let's 
compromise!
(a) Dudesleeper is correct on the dating. The reason for this is very simple: for many years now release dates have standardized on Tuesdays in America and Mondays in other places. The difference of a single day is not worth this craziness.
*Proposed:  We can use (as as has been the case elsewhere) one date with the UK release date and the second with the US one. You can even use cute little flag icons for them.
(b) There are no explicit guidelines on how to incorporate an album article in a discography.
*Proposed: We add a second discography using this format, with the albums discography taking top spot, the chronological one the second:
| Misc         = 
Discuss, please. -- Fantailfan (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please stop the revert wars! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Revolution claim 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  I removed an un-sourced claim about the relative quality of REM albums 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  REM is not Guns n Roses