Talk:The Sickness

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

The Hidden Track Between Stupify and D.W.T.S.[edit]

It's not a hidden track. It's part of Stupify. If you were to buy Stupify off of Itunes it would have that instrumental on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.226.246 (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about itunes, but when you rip it with a secure CD ripper like Exact Audio Copy, the extra 30 seconds is ripped along with the rest of the track. Unsecure rippers probably can't see the missing audio. --blm07 04:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stone Review[edit]

Should this article be featured? This technically isn't a review of the album, and has no bearing, it appears to be a long diatribe on nu-metal and it's various shallow ills, out of nine paragraphs only one even mentions Disturbed, and then it's only in passing, if no one is against removing it I'll do so. --Revrant (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC

Same as with the Indestructible talk page - Rolling Stone reviews are absolute shit but Wikipedia insists on having said shitty reviews. Leave it, nothing we can do about it, unfortunately. Dan (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no, the Indestructible talk page reached a consensus and the consensus was to remove the review, and this doesn't qualify as a review unfortunately, therefore it will remain out. Revrant (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please, though, do not use consensus on other articles to dictate these ones. The Guy complain edits 09:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will use them as examples of why a review will not be featured if they are in direct relation to the article, in this case they are. Revrant (talk) 09:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well you basically said "hey, we reached a consensus there, we're using that here, too." I will need to take a look at this review before I can judge. --The Guy complain edits 05:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a review, it's an article discussing nu-metal with one-paragraph mention of Disturbed, it does not qualify for addition just on that fact. Revrant (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What The?[edit]

What's up with: "Unlike their later albums, which are mixed in style, The Sickness consists primarily of softer tracks." The Sickness isn't softer that the other albums... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socom88man (talk • contribs) 15:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that was me a while ago lol, cuz Nu metal isnt heavy is it.86.166.248.128 (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Tracks[edit]

On my CD there are 5 more tracks and there's no sign of limited, extended or what so ever edition. (http://www.amazon.de/Sickness-Disturbed/dp/B00006CTC6/) 

13. God of the Mind
14. Stupify (Live)*
15. The Game (Live)*
16. Voices (Live)*
17. Down with the Sickness (Live)*

79.242.59.110 (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Same here, I have the import version.[reply]

God of the Mind is an unreleased song but I'm not sure why there's no mention of these 5 tracks in the articleLiquinn (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genre changes, yet again...[edit]

Alright, who's the wise guy that keeps on changing the genres for the album and the singles for The Sickness? The genre for the album's article was changed from "Nu metal, alternative metal" to "Alternative metal, indsutrial, rap metal" and all the singles for the album were changed to "Rock".

I mean, get real! How many times do we have to debate Disturbed's genre be it an album, a song, or the band itself? (Please don't answer that) Whatever the issue is now, I've changed everything back to what it was and if the person who keeps vandalizing is reading this, I'll askt hat you do not do it again but if you wish debate your opinion, then so be it. We'll have another debate on this matter until we reach a consensus if you wish to discuss this.

Also, if I see this crap happen to any other albums or singles without discussing it first, heads are gonna start rolling. --Madroxxide17 (talk) 03:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The albums and songs need significant sourcing stating that that specific album or song is in a certain genre in order for it to be stated as such. The edits you describe aren't vandalism. They reflect what is sourced. Undoing edits based on your opinion instead of what the sources state is vandalism. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Since when do we need sources for every single or song from an album? I'm not saying the sources are useless, but look at all the other Disturbed singles or singles from pretty much any other band. Do they have sources for every song and single? Nu metal and alternative metal is the dominating genre for the album anyways so we base the genre classification for those singles on that.
Besides, the genre classification for some songs are pretty obvious. I mean, it's obvious that Stupify is a Nu metal song and definitley not a Standard rock song (no song on the album is any kind of rock music for that matter; the band's later material, maybe but not on this album). If we don't have sources for every single or song by Disturbed or practically most other bands before, why do we need them now? It all went so well before you arrived and began saying so, no offense.
And would you please stop changing the album's genre to "Alternative metal, industrial, rap metal" We're not gonna change the album's genre to that just because Allmusic classifies the album as that. Allmusic also classifies Indestructible as alternative metal and Believe as heavy metal, both of which are misleading. Plus, we have more sources that classify the album as nu metal and alternative metal so we go with multiple sources and not just one, see? So please leave the genre as it is unless we reach a consensus saying otherwise. --Madroxxide17 (talk) 03:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having sources for a band being a part of a certain genre doesn't mean that every album is a part of the same genre. You could try -- instead of repeatedly reverting any change made to the article - listing all of the sources that describe the genre of the album, not the band, and determine what should be listed. Do the same for the songs: list sources describing the genre of each song with its own article, and determine a genre based on that. Also, "rock music" does not mean "standard rock" or "rock and roll". It covers all types of rock music, including heavy metal and its subgenres. (Sugar Bear (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
True, the term "Rock" does cover all kinds of rock music and even heavy metal music but "Rock" is also used to describe a genre of rock music what I like to call "standard rock" instead of just "rock". For example, songs like Paperback Writer by The Beatles, Behind Blue Eyes by The Who, Start Me Up by The Rolling Stones, Turn Me Loose by Loverboy are all classified as "Rock", not because they have mutliple forms of rock music, but because that's what genre of music they are.
I believe that the only time "Rock" should be used to describe multiple forms of rock music is when a song, album, or band (on rare occasions) contains so many types of rock music that listing every form of rock music would be sloppy or take up too much space. The White Album by The Beatles is a good example of this; only a handful of songs on that album have the same genre, all the other songs have either one or more other genres.
I don't think "Rock" should be used to describe a song that we obviousley know what kind of genre of music it falls under just because we don't have the source for it. As I've said, us not having the source for the singles was going so well before until you arrived and began making it an issue (once again, no offense). If you really must get the sources for what genre the songs are, then be my guest but can we at least keep the genres as they are until we're "sure" on what genre of music they are? It sure beats the hell out of just calling them "rock". --Madroxxide17 (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really would classify the songs "Enemy", "Fear", and "Shout 2000" not Nu metal, rather alternative metal. So yeah, the majority of it is nu metal, but there are some alternative metal songs. Marauder09 (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Industrial metal should be added due to the extensive usage of electronic instrumentation and distorted vocals. RadiumMetal (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is this exactly even Nu Metal? There are no connections to it except scratching, but that's it. Radium's right, this is more likely to be classified as Industrial Metal. Lide the Rightning (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Errors On Album[edit]

On my copy of the album, the song "Fear" repeats a bit in the intro. I thought it was part of the song, but I recently heard it on Pandora and it didn't have the skip. Also, on my copy, "A Welcome Burden" doesn't exist. It says it's A Welcome Burden, but it plays "Bodies" by Drowning Pool for an unknown reason. Does anybody else have these errors, and are they worth mentioning? 173.52.111.6 (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL you got the Walmart bootleg. 72.182.33.219 (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)Eric[reply]

Nu metal and alternative metal[edit]

Nu metal is a subgenre of alternative metal. That Allmusic album review came out in 2000 when the term "nu metal" wasn't as known as it is today. If the Allmusic review came out today, it would probably call the album "nu metal" instead of "alternative metal". The consensus for the genre of this album is simply just "nu metal". The consensus is to only have nu metal in the genre field. Statik N (talk) 23:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, nu metal is not a subgenre of alternative metal. That's like saying that avant-garde metal is a subgenre of death metal. --50.39.248.216 (talk) 09:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Sickness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on The Sickness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Sickness&oldid=1211486769"