Talk:Save Me from Myself (album)

message: Every page that references the article and the article itself claims the album to have a 2007 release, and I think Brian Welch's page claims it to have already been released.  Is there a new release date issued so we can fix these, or should be just change it to "2007-2008" to cover all the bases?  (Also, Tiztik is right and not only are your comments annoying to have to skip over when looking through this page, they're rather offensive too)John R S 06:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently there is no renewed release date set. Brian's website recently updated (for the first time), but only included information regarding his autobiography Save Me From Myself. The Fortitude Music website has not mentioned any specific release date, nor does any external source such as Blabbermouth.net. I would assume that the album would at least receive a review from magazines such as Kerrang! 2-3 weeks prior to the album's release, and that Amazon would set it up on their online store for pre-orders, which so far has not happened. I would say when we are presented with a review or the beginning of pre-orders online, then we can be sure that the album is definitely on its way. I would suggest just changing the Infobox release field to read "Late-2007". It's done; they can only prolong the release for whatever reasons for so long. R-Tiztik 17:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I took out the quote by Trevor Dunn as it is not nor should it be a part of a persons bio. It would be appropriate for the albums article, but not for Brian Welch's article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.169.90 (talk) 03:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: Why is this article been proposed for deletion? Wikipedia's not a crystal ball and neither is this article. It's filled with sources and background information, and it's coming, unlike some other future albums' articles that sport little more than an Infobox and a few lines of a summary. By formatting standards this article has a secure place at Wikipedia. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion?

message: As we all know, the single Flush was released.  So does this mean we add the track length to the article?  Certainly not.  Why?  Because the length could be different on the album.  For example, on the unedited digital version of Flush, the track length was 4:44.  On the CD version, the unedited track was 4:21, with the edited track being 4:15.  We have no idea if the album will use the edited track, and we have two unedited versions to go by, that makes three Flush track lengths total that could potentially be the album's Flush track length.  That's why I say we wait until we get a good source with full track lengths, because we don't know what version of Flush will be on the album, or if it will be the one with the alternate chorus at the end. (Life's not boring/A new story's/Waiting for you all the time/You are someone/You're not no one/Things must change/It's about time).  So, therefore, any posts of the track length will be reverted, and continuous re-posts of it, will be considered vandalism. dude527 (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The track lengths have been submitted to HEAD's official MySpace. --The Guy complain edits 20:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Alright then... I just submitted the news to Blabbermouth. --The Guy complain edits 22:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, Blabbermouth posted it. --The Guy complain edits 23:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I cited it in the "Promotion" section, Rtizik. --The Guy complain edits 23:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, well I didn't see it buried in the prose, and the last Blabbermouth update on Head in the news archive is August 21. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 00:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Track lengths and why they shouldn't be posted 

message: From what I can gather from articles, Welch's official site, and album covers Welch's solo project is entitled "Head". It's not a band, because Welch wrote music for many instruments and had others record them, like most solo projects. Welch always refers to it as his solo project, as well. The reason it's confusing is most people who record solo albums (including Serj Tankian, James LaBrie) usually just use their name. I guess what I'm saying is the intro should say something like: Save Me from Myself is the debut studio album from Head, the solo-project of Brian Welch. And the infoboxes for this album and his singles should read "Single by Head from the album Save Me from Myself". Thoughts? Blackngold29 15:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: His solo project is actually titled "Brian 'Head' Welch".  If you want, I could send you an audio recording, where he explicitly states that that is what he's going by.  This is because if he used simply "Head", he was under pressure of being sued.  Welch is simply following the style of using his name as a solo artist because he can't use "Head". The Guy complain edits 19:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, that makes sense. I was just kind of confused since both cover arts (this album and Flush) just say "Head". Sounds cool though. Blackngold29 19:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, he was under pressure of getting sued by the tennis equipment company, also titled "Head". I could send you the audio if you really would like. The Guy complain edits 19:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's alright. I just noticed that's how he's listed on iTunes as well. We'll just have to make sure we call him "Brian Welch" and his project "Brian "Head" Welch". Blackngold29 22:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The case of other solo artists is a good point. I think Brian Head Welch (musician) should just be integrated into Brian Welch, and the act in the lead and Infobox should appear as Brian Head Welch (but link to the artist). For example, the article for Highball with the Devil states the act as Les Claypool and the Holy Mackerel, while this actually links to the artist, Les Claypool. I think this article could probably use the same treatment. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it should be merged. Blackngold29 22:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

text: It doesn't need to be entirely merged. The history of the solo project has been moved to Brian Welch#Brian Head Welch; the "band" article's Infobox isn't necessary, the discography is noted in Welch's discography, and the other contributors are noted in :Template:Brian Welch and in ther personnel sections of the articles for recordings they contributed to. If you look up other artists who are or who have been involved in both groups and solo acts, there isn't a section of the article for their solo endeavors that reads like a new article specifically for the solo work, Infobox, lead and all. It doesn't need a 100% complete merge, only the prose for its background. Everything else was either noted on the artist's article to beg with, or is noted where applicable. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 04:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of the project 

message: The section needs to be cleaned up a little bit.  Also, I think the quote box should be integrated into the text, because it's cutting into part of the text, and the "Promotion" section. The Guy complain edits 22:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I re-wrote the whole thing this morning, but I think it needs split into a "Background" section about his break-off from Korn, a "Recording" section about well, the recording, mainly how the guys he brought in helped him there's a few pages in his book I can add and a "Musical themes" which he also has in his book. I think all the info in it is good, but I agree it needs split into more concentrated sections, and we'll obviously have more info to work off of as the reviews come out. Blackngold29 23:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just put the "background" information into a brief paragraph in the lead section, as I think that information is vital enough to be reflected there. The Guy complain edits 23:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The intro is supposed to be a summary of what comes later, so some background needs to be in the body. I wrote out some of the music and lyrical themes he included in his book. There are two songs, "New Orleans" and "It's Time to See Religion Die", that he also discussed, however neither are on the tracklist so maybe he's saving them or something. Though I wouldn't be surprised if "It's Time to See Religion Die" was just re-titled "Die Religion Die" which is on the album; if the lyrics are the same I'll add that info too. We need a citation for the one review, but overall I think the article is in good shape. I believe he talks about the recording in his book, but I haven't read it for a few months so I'll have to re-read some and throw that in when I can. Blackngold29 00:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "It's Time to See Religion Die" was probably reworked as "Die Religion Die," considering the chorus' lyrics go "I'll testify it's time to see religion die/Who cares who's right? It's time to see religion die/The truth can't lie, it's time to see religion die," followed by something I can't make sense of with complete certainty, and ending with another "it's time to see religion die." Yep, pretty sure "Die Religion Die" is just the final cut. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 00:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is, he's explained this in an interview before.  By the way, this is the chorus. (I testify! It's time to see religion die! The truth can't lie! It's time to see religion die! Who cares who's right? It's time to see religion die! I'll crush the fight! It's time to see religion die!) The Guy complain edits 00:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh lol, that's what I thought he said at the end, but I wasn't certain so I figured I wouldn't embarrass myself taking a crack at it, lol. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are the same ones in the book for "It's Time to See Religion Die", I think that'll be one of the most mis-understood titles on a religious album, so I'll type his explination now. Blackngold29 00:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

text: While you're adding all these lyrical themes, don't forget to add musical themes too. The Guy complain edits 01:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He doesn't say much about the music in his book, I assume he wrote the lyrics first. I've added all Music and lyric info I have currently. Blackngold29 01:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recording and production 

message: I don't expect to have many out, as the album's release is still over 15 days away, but I'm a little unsure about the ones that are currently included. What makes "Wildy's World" a Professional review? It looks like a blog to me. And a citation is needed for the Hit Parader review, as far as I know it is a professional review, but it has had a  tag on it for a few days now. Anyone have acess to it? Blackngold29 01:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wildy's World is a blog, but it was posted on Brian's official page.  Same with the Hit Parader review, they were both posted on Brian's official page.  Other than that, we got nothing. The Guy complain edits 01:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where on his site? I don't see it, but if it can be cited there it probably should. Blackngold29 02:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not on his official website, on his official MySpace. The Guy complain edits 02:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews 

message: Now that the album has been released, a genre is notable. The album has a fairly diverse sound though, so classifying it isn't exactly black and white (not to mention I'm getting sick of seeing someone add "nu metal" to the Infobox every other day). So how should we classify it? I say it falls under, but is not necessarily limited to, alternative metal and nu metal. Anyone else have any input? Vixen Windstorm (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Christian Music Today says "Sounds like … the defining nü-metal sound of Korn and A Perfect Circle...". From what I've heard—I'll listen to the whole album in a bit—sounds pretty similar to Korn which is one of the defining bands of nu metal. So I think Nu metal is safe to add. Blackngold29 21:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, nu metal can go under "Genre" for sure, but the entire album itself isn't limited to the sounds of nu metal though, which is why I feel it should be discussed beforehand. Like, Korn's first couple of albums were nu metal records, but the only Korn album I find Save Me from Myself compares to musically is Untouchables, which isn't a strictly nu metal record at all. The funny thing is that after finishing the last sentence I checked what genre Wikipedia defines Untouchables as, which turns out to be alternative metal and nu metal — kinda funny because without seeing this and before making the comparison to Untouchables, I personally defined Save Me from Myself with these genres. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Be sure to check that the genres you use can be sourced.  In the meantime, am I the only one making sure the genre on the article isn't changed? --The Guy complain edits 22:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been reverting it a lot as well. Machinehead09 has been changing it almost daily, and the album wasn't even out until today. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 23:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I noticed him doing that too.  What I was talking about was about 3 IPs changing it within an hour. --The Guy complain edits 23:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree the album deserves to be discussed, but the sound is undeniably one of the nu metal genre. But I don't believe it can be classified as simply as nu metal, as the album has progressive and industrial influences. Machinehead09 (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What you think doesn't matter.  It doesn't matter what any of us thinks -- Only what we can reference. --The Guy complain edits 00:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

text: So far, then, definitely Rock.  I'm going to check out the reliability of Christian Music Today. --The Guy complain edits 00:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It re-directs to Christianity Today, which states "circulation figures of 145,000 and readership of 304,500." Blackngold29 00:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I trust it, but I don't trust the prose that it states that in. --The Guy complain edits 00:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's cited to the website itself. I think it looks OK too. Blackngold29 00:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I searched Google real quick for reviews, but it's not turning up much. Although this pops up on the first page. ;) Blackngold29 01:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I know where it states it, but I much prefer the layout where a site states "Genre: _____" over the whole "This album is reminiscent to ____ genre."  LOL MY REVIEW!  :D --The Guy complain edits 01:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

text: You guys are clueless. Allmusic lists Slayer and Meshuggah as "Rock". How the website differentiates is under the "Styles" category. Which the website does'nt list in the case of Head.   Machinehead09 (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's all right, man, cause its all we have for now. --The Guy complain edits 01:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Right, I would expect that to be filled in with the full review. Blackngold29 01:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Genre

message: anyone know what tuning the bass and guitars are? i know its not A like korn, i cant find the tuning anywhere. Branden mellay (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Tuning