Talk:Ghosts I–IV

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Ghosts I–IV has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.

Contents

[edit] Track listing table

Ghosts I

  1. "1"
  2. "2"
  3. "3"
  4. "4"
  5. "5"
  6. "6"
  7. "7"
  8. "8"
  9. "9"

Ghosts II

  1. "10"
  2. "11"
  3. "12"
  4. "13"
  5. "14"
  6. "15"
  7. "16"
  8. "17"
  9. "18"

Ghosts III

  1. "19"
  2. "20"
  3. "21"
  4. "22"
  5. "23"
  6. "24"
  7. "25"
  8. "26"
  9. "27"

Ghosts IV

  1. "28"
  2. "29"
  3. "30"
  4. "31"
  5. "32"
  6. "33"
  7. "34"
  8. "35"
  9. "36"

This is thinner and so suits more even lower resolutions/window sizes. Since the width of each column is predictable there isn't a huge need to have even column spacing, but I don't know whether anyone but me uses thin browser windows. –Pomte 04:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool, didn't know about that feature. Definitely better since it doesn't require a big gaudy disclaimer in the code. Though personally I'd prefer a 4 or 5 em gap rather than 2 em. It looks really squished right now. Would that mess with monitors you think? Drewcifer (talk) 04:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Problem is these aren't the track titles - track 1 is called "1 Ghosts I" not "1".

The layout currently in place more closely matches the standards of Wikipedia. There are many other multi-part releases that handle their different parts in this manor already. This layout allows for the full track titles, track lengths and proper writing credits, also in keeping with the standards. On these grounds I vote this section of the Talk page be closed. Jmcbns (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the table format, only if there is more than one disc/version (see MCIS). StevePrutz (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
What about something like this? I think 4 columns would pose a problem for lower resolutions. - Jmcbns (talk) 04:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Track listing

All songs written by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, except where noted.

[edit] Ghosts I

  1. "1 Ghosts I" – 2:48
  2. "2 Ghosts I" – 3:16
  3. "3 Ghosts I" – 3:51
  4. "4 Ghosts I" – 2:13 (Alessandro Cortini, Reznor, Ross)
  5. "5 Ghosts I" – 2:51
  6. "6 Ghosts I" – 4:18
  7. "7 Ghosts I" – 2:00
  8. "8 Ghosts I" – 2:56
  9. "9 Ghosts I" – 2:47

[edit] Ghosts II

  1. "10 Ghosts II" – 2:42
  2. "11 Ghosts II" – 2:17 (Reznor, Ross, Cortini)
  3. "12 Ghosts II" – 2:17
  4. "13 Ghosts II" – 3:13
  5. "14 Ghosts II" – 3:05
  6. "15 Ghosts II" – 1:53
  7. "16 Ghosts II" – 2:30
  8. "17 Ghosts II" – 2:13 (Cortini, Reznor, Ross)
  9. "18 Ghosts II" – 5:22

[edit] Ghosts III

  1. "19 Ghosts III" – 2:11 (Reznor, Ross, Cortini, Brian Viglione)
  2. "20 Ghosts III" – 3:39
  3. "21 Ghosts III" – 2:54
  4. "22 Ghosts III" – 2:31 (Reznor, Ross, Cortini, Viglione)
  5. "23 Ghosts III" – 2:43
  6. "24 Ghosts III" – 2:39
  7. "25 Ghosts III" – 1:58 (Reznor, Ross, Adrian Belew)
  8. "26 Ghosts III" – 2:25
  9. "27 Ghosts III" – 2:51 (Reznor, Ross, Belew)

[edit] Ghosts IV

  1. "28 Ghosts IV" – 5:22
  2. "29 Ghosts IV" – 2:54 (Reznor, Ross, Cortini)
  3. "30 Ghosts IV" – 2:58
  4. "31 Ghosts IV" – 2:25
  5. "32 Ghosts IV" – 4:25
  6. "33 Ghosts IV" – 4:01 (Reznor, Ross, Cortini)
  7. "34 Ghosts IV" – 5:52
  8. "35 Ghosts IV" – 3:29
  9. "36 Ghosts IV" – 2:19
More legible and better for lower rez folks.StevePrutz (talk) 06:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I did some more testing (and made some adjustments) and it appears this layout (when used in the actual article with the right hand side information; affecting the available space) would cause individual tracks to word wrap at anything below 1280 screen width. Is this really an acceptable resolution? I would think not. Anyone else? Is the word wrapping that big of a deal? -Jmcbns (talk) 09:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Ideally, the track listing will eventually come late enough in the article where we don't have to worry about it fitting next to the infobox. Ideally we'll eventually have some prose-based sections before the track listing, which would bump it into the safe zone. So should we save the above track listing format for when that actually happens? Drewcifer (talk) 07:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and just re-arranged the sections, so that the track listing doesn't come first. I'm not sure why it was first anyways. So I implemented the above format, since there seems to be room for it now even in low-res monitors. Any complaints? Drewcifer (talk) 09:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Creative Commons License

This album was made with the Creative Commons License, so feel free editors to post full length songs for the benefit of this article! 71.62.4.205 (talk) 07:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

OR we couldn't and people could spend the $5 to support the artist. Crazy, I know. 97.115.5.152 (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the CC liscense contains the "Non-commercial" clause, which means its not free to use on Wikipedia. Drewcifer (talk) 07:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Mention of the creative commons license, and the free download, should be made on the article page. Mathiastck (talk) 00:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It is. Drewcifer (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
If we use a fair-use rationale with that "Yeah, you can use it for non-commercial purposes" tag, that'll work... ViperSnake151 01:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It will still have to fall under all the rules of Fair-Use. i.e. 10% or 30 seconds of a track, whichever is shorter. So no full tracks, unfortunately. Drewcifer (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a non-commercial/non-profit organization. Is there some other reason we wouldn't want to upload music from this release? —Locke Cole • t • c 01:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The offical NIN Flickr account has posted some photos from the recording of the album. [1] These photos are all released under the same CC license as the album. Is it acceptable to post one of these photos on the article? Would it still need to be posted at a lower resolution, like when dealing with fair use? -Jmcbns (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Same exact issue. The Non-commercial clause. So we've gotta treat the same as if it was copyrighted: minimal use, low rez, etc. So close, yet so far. Drewcifer (talk) 07:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-free Creative Commons licenses ← For the sake of clarity when bringing up this subject in the future, here is the exact policy that forbids the posting of content licensed under Creative Commons NonCommercial and its variants. -Jmcbns (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That policy doesn't explain the rationale very well. Wikipedia seems pretty non-commercial to me. Does Creative Commons Non-commercial conflict with GNU FDL or something? Kethinov (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe the conflict has to do with the ways in which you can use the data collected on Wikipedia for other sites and purposes, and the contract governing that usage, but I'm not a lawyer. I doubt there would be a policy against it without good reason. The Talk page for the article I linked might be a good place to start a discussion about changing Wikipedia policy, if you're so inclined. -Jmcbns (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, even if Wikipedia's strict copyright rules prevent us from hosting a full copy of the album here, does it also prohibit us from linking to a site with a free download, since it's legal and all? Kethinov (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, the funny thing about that is, you could consider any file hosted on a site that has paid advertising, as drawing in viewers and thus revenue. By that logic (I've seen it used before, I'll try and find the Slashdot article about it), hosting that content makes them money, thus violating the terms of CC Non-Commercial licensing (which forbids making money off the content in any way, not just direct sale of the content). If you can find a torrent site without advertisements... that might be okay. But again, I'm not a lawyer, this is just my limited evaluation. -Jmcbns (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been in e-mail contact with Rob Sheridan (the photographer/designer for Ghosts I-IV) and he would "love to post some official press photos [on Flickr, which we] could use for NIN content on Wikipedia"... he seemed unaware of the noncommercial tag problem, however. We'll see if that can be rectified. BotleySmith (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! Excellent work. Keep up posted. Drewcifer (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hosting the music

Since it's under a creative commons license (non-commercial), I don't really see the problem with Wikipedia hosting entire tracks of the music (since Wikipedia is a non-profit, at least so far as the IRS is concerned). What am I missing here? :P —Locke Cole • t • c 01:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Because Wikimedia reserves the rights to sell products based on Wikipedia content, such as the occasional educational DVD. I'm not precisely sure where to find that info, I could scrounge around a bit if you really don't believe me. Drewcifer (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Right, but if the entity is non-profit and selling the educational DVD is done for fundraising, that's still non-commercial, yes? —Locke Cole • t • c 03:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't know all the details. I'll look around a bit and try to find out more info. I've dealt with this in the past, but if I remember correctly it's a difficult policy to pinpoint. Let me see what I can find. Drewcifer (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, as I've bought the album and was considering uploading a track or two for the article. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
It actually wasn't as hard as I thought was to find: here's the official word from Jimbo Wales ([2]), and here's a Wikipedia policy page that mentions it (Wikipedia:Image use policy#Free licenses). Along the same lines, here is a question I posed asking whether non-commercial stuff could still be uploaded under Fair-Use policy (Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Creative Commons vs. Fair-Use. Which basically means we can only upload stuff if it follows WP:FUC. Drewcifer (talk) 04:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
k, the Jimbo e-mail looks like he's talking about a combination of issues (non-commercial + permission required, not either/or), but the policy page is more verbose in saying non-commercial use is, by itself, not good enough. Thanks for clearing that up. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, although no one has really said anything more about this in over a month, I just wanted to leave something on the talk page that actually clarified why Noncommercial is incompatible with Wikipedia. Although this NIN release is effectively "free", to download, use, and distribute, it is not "free" to make a profit off of. In other words, you can't burn the tracks onto a CD and then sell them. Now, while Wikipedia is a non-profit entity, it's releasing all of its content under a broader "more free" license, which allows you to do anything you want with the content, up to and including making books out of these webpages and selling them on the street. So you are basically prevented from releasing something that's already "free" under a license that is "more free", which is what you'd be doing by hosting full tracks on Wikipedia. Hope that made some sense, and clarified things for posterity's sake. Malissin (talk) 04:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Before this goes too far, the bottom line is any Ghosts content that has a non-commercial clause added to it is covered by WP:FUC, and any discussion objecting this should be directed to the Village pump. Cheers. -- Reaper X 05:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genre

I feel this album fits more comfortably under an ambient industrial label, which is more specific than the dark ambient label it currently has. I don't want to change it without further consensus though. Orichalcon (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Of the two descriptors, I'd more closely align Ghosts I with ambient industrial. However, the 'industrial' descriptor itself is dubious. But, I think that one has been argued to death here on wikipedia. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I would say there are a couple of tracks here I would consider Industrial, but overall this is far from an Industrial Rock album by any definition I've seen before. As a whole the album is hard to categorize... Oddly it's closest to being post-rock as a whole I think, but it's contains a lot of synths, which isn't really very post-rock. Experimental is about the only thing I could say is for sure common amongst all the tracks. -Jmcbns (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

To avoid edit wars, any debates on genre should be based on verifiable sources so as to not have a debate on who's opinion is right. Once your options are laid out, everyone can come to consensus from there. -- Reaper X 19:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well judging by recent edits over at the Nine Inch Nails article, a consensus hasn't been reached there either [3]AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
It's all too common, therefore all too difficult to even stand. -- Reaper X 22:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
This album fits most closely to the ambient music definition. Any more specific than that and you're splitting hairs. I would also say all tracks are instrumentals rather than "songs". StevePrutz (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This album is nowhere close to industrial rock, outside of the few occassional songs, but it's definitely ambient music. I'm reverting it to ambient industrial, if you wish to change it, please discuss. tribestrs (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't exactly agree. Main reason being that it really isn't ambient industrial. Of course there's the whole argument over whether they're industrial at all, or just sub-techno mainstream whatevers (I'm not even going to get into the contradiction of "industrial" rock). But quite simply, click on the ambient industrial ink, and see how exactly it's defined, then listen to the album. By Wikipedia's definition at least, it certainly isn't ambient industrial. Suuri Shamaani is ambient industrial, but this ain't. Industrial rock it isn't either, again ignoring the industrial tag altogether, as only the 8th Ghosts I and 4th Ghosts IV track feature any heavy guitar for the rock half. I'm not sure what to call it, but I definitely preferred the much broader Dark Ambient. I don't know if a specific label would really work, given the variety throughout. Post-rock should also definitely be considered, or at least mentioned somewhere as it carries the general aesthetic throughout, even if the instrumentation has a bit too many samples (but this is NIN after all). Durandal1717 (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
No apparent qualms, so I'm going ahead and changing it. Durandal1717 (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Lack of responses doesn't equal agreement. As Reaper X above pointed out, to avoid edit wars, the genre should be attributed to a reliable source, not what you me or anyone else thinks it sounds like. That said, if you can find a source that calls it "dark ambient" then by all means it should be up there, but not without. Drewcifer (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
How about this then:

"Ghosts I-IV uses the same scratchpad as Brian Eno and Robert Fripp, although in modern parlance it should properly be described as 'Dark Ambient'" Source: http://www.popmatters.com/pm/music/reviews/55963/nine-inch-nails-ghosts-i-iv/ I'm terrible at citing things (I always manage to mess it up somehow), so if someone else could do it, that'd be great. Durandal1717 (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good source to me. Drewcifer (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Four EPs or four LPs?

The article currently refers to the album as being made up of four nine-track EPs, but could these "sections" be considered LPs? Their lengths (ranging 23:51 to 33:45) put them in the category of EP certainly, but in actuallity they are being released as 4 seperate LPs in one box (presumably as one section per LP) in April. So which side of the line should these fall on? If you put out an EP length of material on an LP at LP pricing, is it still an EP? Is there any other album we could compare this too? Jmcbns (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of misunderstanding and confusion surrounding what the definition of an "Extended Play single" is; however, more than 4 songs or 25 minutes definitely pushes the barrier. A lot of NIN articles on Wikipedia (without citation) describe Broken as an EP when it would be more accurate to say, as the RIAA does, that it is a mini-album. Ghosts is definitely an LP series of four volumes, so far. BotleySmith (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you (or anyone) find a reliable source that discusses what defines an EP, an LP or the so-called "mini-album?" Or even a citable source specifically on the topic of Broken or Ghosts? -Jmcbns (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recording dates

The official Ghosts website states the album was recorded during 10 weeks in fall of '07. Currently the front page says that the recording took place September-November (since wiki-guidelines don't allow the use of seasons to state time). But I believe this is innacurate. Adrien Belew stated on his blog that he was there from December 3rd until December 8th (he makes a post on Dec. 2nd stating "just in time for me to board a plane to trent reznor's home in beverly hills" and makes another post that day stating he'll return on the 8th.) Then on the official NIN website there was a post made on December 14th (no longer available at that location, but archived here) basically stating the album is finished. If we assume the 10 weeks statement is accurate, that would making the recording period October-December of 2007. Anyone else find any other references to the recording period online? If I were to update the dates on the main article how best would I reference my sources? -Jmcbns (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Trent posted the following on Echoing the Sound [4] "None of this music - not one note - was written before we started this in October." Not a citable reference but it's enough combined with my earlier statement to warrant an update. -Jmcbns (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I just guessed the months for when it was recorded since autumn was the only thing to go off of, but thanks for finding the correct date for me. :P —Vanishdoom (talk) 00:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible sources

Regarding Comments about Radiohead's In rainbows release vs Ghosts I-IV

[edit] Release Versions is slightly misleading

Release Versions section claims Ghosts I is free while the Digital Release is $5. Technically, since the entire album is licensed under Creative Commons, the digital release is only $5 when downloaded directly from NIN. From any other source, the download is free and legal. Kethinov (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have made an edit to reflect this distinction. Kethinov (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget about Amazon MP3, they're charging $5 as well. I think a more detailed explanation might be needed, but unfortunately I've not the time right now. -Jmcbns (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't that constitute as original research? -- Reaper X 06:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Yea, couldn't this be said for pretty much any music release? It might cost $x directly from the artists, but anything's free off of Limewire. This seems like an unnecessary qualification to make. Drewcifer (talk) 07:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The distinction here is that it's legally free on Limewire etc as opposed to any other release. Kethinov (talk) 04:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, true, but is it really necessary to mention various price at varying sales points? For instance, take Year Zero. It costs $15 at Amazon for the CD ([16]). But for the MP3s at Amazon it costs $8 ([17]). The album costs almost $30 in Australia ([18]). I'm sure more price points could be found too, all of which are legal. So, is it necessary to mention all of these price points? Of course not, that's an exercise in fancruft. I would say it's analogous to WP:ALBUM that says "Only the earliest known date that the album was released should be specified", thus eliminating the need to list multiple release dates for each and every territory. In the same vein, we need only mention the price at the original point of purchase. Drewcifer (talk) 04:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
A difference of one or two dollars or regional pricing is irrelevant. The difference between "costs money" and "free as in beer from third parties not making a profit from it" is far more notable. Kethinov (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ltd Ed Sold Out

Pretty sure that the limited edition sold out 2 days after release due to, you know, the order form not working (took me two hours to buy it on the release night). The source article actually points that out too (750k in three days). Who wrote that it was hours after release? That's pretty bad writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.179.195 (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seth Colter Walls of Newsweek quote

I think it's a little misleading to quote "Seth Colter Walls of Newsweek" the way he is in the article. He's positive about the album, but in a somewhat superficial, NIN-bashing sort of way.

“ OK, so how is the (increasingly expensive) music? Well, Reznor was right when he claimed this would be worth all the hassle. Making an all-instrumental record has saved him from having to write yet another sheaf of angst-ridden lyrics. In the past many Nine Inch Nails fans simply ignored his bad writing in order to enjoy the texture of the music itself. This time there's no need. "Ghosts I-IV" is cringe-free and all texture, welding banjo, piano, distorted guitars and funky electronics into an ambient pleasure in which no one idea is forced to outstay its welcome in the service of anything so conventional as a "song." It's the kind of absorbing musical experience that the surviving ranks of know-it-all record-store clerks would be pushing on customers, if only they could offer it for sale. ”

Not exactly textbook "favorable," IMO. (And where this guy gets his idea that "many Nine Inch Nails fans simply ignored his bad writing " is beyond me.) Quoting a guy who is more or less stating that the album is good in spite of being made by NIN just seems a bit... "off" to me. I dunno... RobertM525 (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The whole section needs a bit of reworking. I think your concerns are valid. The way the "Seth Colter Walls of Newsweek quote" is written now, it kinda sounds like the reviewer loves it to bits. But in context of the Newsweek quote its appears slightly derisive. I think it's a valid reception from a reliable source though, so maybe putting it elsewhere, with a clear understanding of context would help. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I think part of the problem is that it's only review quoted in the section right now. I'd say the first step to making this particular quote work better would be to actually leave it be for now and get some more reviews to surround it. It might not sound so overly positive in the context of other reviews. Drewcifer (talk) 17:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other Instrumental Albums

People seem to forget that the first all-instrumental album by Reznor/NIN was actually the Quake soundtrack. The disc is a playable audio CD. Just thought I'd throw out here. StevePrutz (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No one is forgetting the existence of that soundtrack. However, I would not categorize the quake soundtrack as formal NIN album. With that logic, Sonic CD had an album since it featured Red Book Audio. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 04:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit(s) that replaced Sputnik music with ABC blog and MSN ref.

See here [19] I think the link is a good source, though I question why the editor removed this link http://www.sputnikmusic.com/review_15396. I also, don't think "(extremely favorable) should appear. The editor also changed a references that previous referred to the sputnik review, to an msn article [20] which makes no mention of the Sputnik review. Comments? AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The removal of the Sputnik review didn't give a reason (or have a proper username), as did the reference changes. I'd chaulk it up to people who don't quite understand what they're doing and fix it. Sadly I'm too busy to fix it myself at the moment. -Jmcbns (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've gone ahead and reverted the changes. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The reason they chose to change it is because, according to Staff Writers there, only Staff Reviews are allowed. However, the people doing it obviously don't understand what they're doing. The review currently sourced is in fact mine, but I do believe that only Staff Reviews are allowed, so I'm replacing it with the correct one. tribestros (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. If you are in fact the reviewer, be wary of WP:COI issues. I don't believe there a problem with this edit though. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I am infact the reviewer, there are two profiles I use, and it is known on the website. I don't plan on adding my reviews, anyway. tribestros (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2008.

[edit] ZME Music Review

ZME Music doesn't seem to be worth the text posted on it. It seems to be just another music news blog made for getting ad hits with some badly written reviews by some other random dude. I could write a review of the album and put it on a blog with domain that has 'music' in it and link it in this article using ZME Music as a standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.172.111 (talk) 05:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Took it off. Drewcifer (talk) 09:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not intended as an EP

On ghosts.nin.com/main/more_info, Trent Reznor writes: "The rules were as follows: 10 weeks, no clear agenda, no overthinking, everything driven by impulse. Whatever happens during that time gets released as... something. [...] What we thought could be a five song EP became much more." Hence, it was never the intention to make an EP as such. Any suggestions on how to rewrite the part where this postulated? Mortengrud (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The quote you provided above seems to indicate to me that the project could have easily been a 5 song EP, but it grew. Also, it appears that they expected to come out with an EP, not a 4 disc album. But, didn't set out explicitly to make an EP. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I've changed the sentence "Initially intended to be a five-track EP" to "Initially expected to be a five-track EP" I think this better reflects the above quote. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Youtube 'Film Festival'

A select snippet from nin.com: "We've teamed up with YouTube to host a "film festival" around Ghosts. The concept is for you to take whatever tracks you feel inspired by from Ghosts and create what you feel should accompany them visually. ....and a team of us ... will be sorting through them and setting aside ones we feel are exceptional." The post goes on to say that this is not a contest. As this develops more, it probably deserves its own section. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

→Sorry. I am new to wikipedia and I went ahead and added that new film festival section before I saw this discussion page. Feel free to edit/remove it for the time being.Thorzkruse (talk) 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That's ok, I'm going to clean it up a bit.AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I propose a couple of small expansions.

  • There is a video posted on the official youtube channel in which Trent Reznor directly speaks to the project[21]. Article currently sources a written article, and there are probably a couple of things which could be incorporated and cited on this video.
  • As of today there are over 900 videos posted to the "ninghosts" youtube group - and over 5500 joined members.
  • The external link at the bottom of the article goes to http://www.youtube.com/ninofficial not the actual festival location, which is http://www.youtube.com/group/ninghosts.. I've differentiated the two in the external links section

AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a slippery slope to start using YouTube as a citation, even if it is official. Especially when solid reliable 3rd-party sources exist. And mentioning how many video are up is also a slippery slope, because then we need to keep updating it. The External link change was good though. Drewcifer (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand your concerns about the video. I had a similar discussion over here [22] though it was a television show being cited. The agreed upon solution was to not directly link to the video but use a {{Cite episode}} template. There must be something similar to cite this, and there is some good information in there, though I can't access youtube right now to specifically tell you what. I suggested the number of videos/members as a way to help quantify any success or lack thereof - What other ways can it be illustrated there has been community interest and response to this endeavor? AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Any comments by others? AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be for citing the official announcment video if a proper format for such a reference could be agreed upon by Wikipedia at large. You might know better than I where to post a Talk on this to engage in a larger conversation.
I would keep the number of entries in this film festival more ambiguous until the festival is closed or has something resembling a conclusion. Perhaps something like "over 1,000 videos" and maybe someday changing that to "thousands of videos", to prevent the need for constant updating and also prevent the article from seeming outdated if not updated regularly enough. -Jmcbns (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The video count actually went down by two yesterday. It's not past the 1000 mark yet, but saying "over 1000" would be general enough so that the number wouldn't have to be constantly updated. I'll get back about sourcing that video properly. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[23] Washington Post article on music video contests appearing in earnest recently. Makes mention of Ghosts, but probably not enough to use it article? AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see anything of worth in this article that isn't just a quote from Trent's video explaining the whole thing. Better to work on how to properly source an internet video. -Jmcbns (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As of Sunday May 4 - the number of entries to the Youtube Festival passed 1,000. Given this, we can now state " Over one-thousand videos" or "thousands" of videos were submitted. I'm leaning towards saying "Over one-thousand." Comments before integration into article? AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Section "Appearances in Media"

Ghosts is unique in it's Creative Commons License. Because of this, legitimate media arguably may be inclined to use Ghosts (with proper attribution of course). The first real world example of this that I've heard was in the March 15 2008, NPR broadcast of This American Life. The episode entitled The Ghost of Bobby Dunbar clearly uses track 6 and track 9 of Ghosts I. At the very least, I think it's important to note the broad implications. Comments? AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Quick update, you can now download this episode as a podcast, for those who want to hear it. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I see editor Siroxo(Thanks!) has added this information into the article. For any new appearances in media, please post to the talk page so that it may be vetted, before inclusion in the article. Lest the section becomes an indiscriminate bulleted list. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I really don't see this section as contributing anything encyclopedic to the article. Even though it's freely available, that doesn't mean we should keep a running tally of places its used. The same logic typically applies to articles about individual songs (even copyrighted ones): there's no encyclopedic value to listing every movie trailer, movie montage, or radio broadcast the song is used in. The same holds true for this release, as I would argue that it borders on WP:Fancruft. In 3 months, will anyone REALLY care that NPR used a few songs in a broadcast? Drewcifer (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
To clarify, I agree with you that this should not be, as you put it "keep a running tally of places its used." Nor should this section be, as I mentioned, an indiscriminate list. Whether this is fancruft is debatable, however, I think it's appearance in NPR is important and worth noting for several reasons. 1)The immediacy in which Ghosts I-IV appeared as being used in media. A less than 2 week time frame. 2)It's appearance comes from a nationally syndicated, notable radio program. In listening to the This American Life program, Ghosts I-IV was used multiple times in multiple section of the story, not a fleeting section or sample. 3)(Note: this my own synthesis)The nature in which the tracks were used. In this case, the tracks are used much in the way as intended by Reznor, with a 'blank canvas' concept. Ultimately, I think this situation is uniquely different from say Just Like You Imagined appearing in the 300 trailer. I welcome your discussion, because while I do consider this of import, I do not want the over-all quality of the article to suffer. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
To respond to your responses: 1) immediacy is not a good indicator of notability, 2) being used by a notable source does not in turn mean that it's use is notable. Take for example just about any film trailer in which a NIN song has been used: notable source/venue, but the use of it generally not considered notable enough to mention. 3) That is a reasonable synthesis to make, but on one hand it is OR, and on the other, that's not even mentioned in the article (nor should it since it's OR). Furthermore, as the article points out, the music is used incidentally (as background music). The fact that it was used multiple times, again, does not give its mention further notablity. Perhaps labeling it fancruft was a little harsh, but I would argue it's not all that notable. Like I said above, in 3 months, who's going to care? Drewcifer (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Didn't notice this discussion until just now. I don't have much more to contribute for or against including this, but it is different than any old song being licensed for use in a trailer for various reasons already pointed out. We needn't point out those reasons in the article until they are more verifiable (eg. A major blogger or journalist notes it). Why don't we be bold for now, and err on the side of inclusion of the mere fact that it appeared in the episode, which is verifiable. Then at some point a few months off if it doesn't end up contributing more deeply to the article, we will remove it. —siroχo 21:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I've also heard Ghosts I-IV being used in a wider array of NPR programming in recent weeks. Yesterday, it was used in a promotion for Morning Edition. I find it very interesting how often I am hearing Ghosts I-IV on NPR programming and podcasts. It may show a greater adoption of use across a radio network. But is not substantive enough to include in the article (yet, anyway) AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Ghosts I-IV is now appearing in amateur film making movement Kino. Here is a news article that makes mention of the use of track 34 for a film festival [24] AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This American Life used several tracks (different from those in previous episode)in the most recent episode #354 - "Mistakes were made." It appears that the Ghosts I-IV has become part of the This American Life repertoire. Edit: An additional clarification - at the end of the program Ira Glass says that music on the program is from Ghosts, though he erroneously states that it's Ghosts "One through 5." AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Albums free for download by copyright owner

I think it should be included there. Litis (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it would only be a half truth right? Or in this case, a ¼ truth. -- Reaper X 15:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
In Rainbows and The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of NiggyTardust! technically don't belong to this category no more, and yet they're still there, right? It got added somehow anyway. Litis (talk) 08:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you should be bold and remove them. Or actually, the category itself is may be too vague. In the case of Ghosts I-IV the license allows non-commercial redistribution with attribution. (Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike) - But, the full album (all four discs) has not been offered as a free download. Only Ghosts I has (though someone can legally share the entire album with you.) And in the same token, In Rainbows wasn't explicitly free in the same sense that Harvey Danger's Little By Little was. A price was offered. A more fitting category for Ghosts I-IV is Category:Creative Commons-licensed works, which I believe it already is AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
NIN uploaded the torrents to many sites, free for download from their servers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.148.3 (talk) 03:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Nine Inch Nails posted the Ghosts I (of IV) as a torrent on multiple trackers. Ghosts I does not constitute the entire album, as Reaper X put it, that's only ¼ of the album. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The category itself is ill-worded. I'd say that the spirit of the category probably includes this, but the category itself is a problem. —siroχo 21:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good article?

I'm feeling like this article is looking pretty good, so I'd like to nominate it at WP:GA soon. If anyone has any last-minute changes or content concerns, let me know! Drewcifer (talk) 01:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

Hi, I'm your GA reviewer. I'm going to read over the article carefully, and tell you what I think.

Normally, I don't use a GA list template, but in this case, I will, for organization.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I'm amazed. This is a good article already, pretty much all you need me to do is rubberstamp it as so.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    The prose is clear, easy to read, and comprehensive.
    B. MoS compliance:
    Follows the manual of style.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Good job! Most articles I find have problems with this and need a hold period. This one doesn't need it.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Yep, everywhere where there should be one, there is.
    C. No original research:
    Everything is cited and nothing appears to be OR.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    The article misses nothing. Everything is covered.
    B. Focused:
    The article doesn't stray off its course. Well done.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    No bias in the article, neutral point of view.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    The article doesn't appear to be in any edit wars, just some little fixes lately.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Every image under fair use has an appropriate rationale.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Every image is captioned suitably.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Excellent job! I'm impressed.


This is probably the first Good Article in a while that I have not had to put on hold or fail instantly. Congratulations, and keep up the good work! Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 21:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regen review

Ok, I'm at my 3 reverts. User:Sharingan87 is determined to replace this Blender review (link) with this Regen Magazine review (link). I have tried to argue via edit summaries and on Sharingan87's talk page that Blender is a more notable publication then Regen (hence Blender having an article and Regen not), so their review is more appropriate here. I can only image that the removal of Blender's review is because it is somewhat negative, but I can't speak for him/her since he has not explained his edits. Does anyone have any further opinions on this one way or another? Drewcifer (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the reviews. At the least, maybe there is something useful from which can be incorporated into the article. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
It's obviously someone who's trying to mask a review that gave the album a worse grade with a review that gave it a better one. Litis (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Official track listing"

Having recently acquired Ghosts I-IV, I was wondering what the official track listing was. Is it simply "1 Ghosts I" - "36 Ghosts IV", or are no actual titles, or is there a "fan-created" list of track names like with In Search Of The?
~~NaN 20:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC) ((Last minute edit: This is due to the track names on the version I acquired being "Ghosts I 01" through to "Ghosts IV 09".
~~NaN 20:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC))

These are the track names as tagged on the official digital download. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 11:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Appearances in other works" ... a couple months later

A while ago I brought up my concerns with the Appearances in other works section, and suggested we delete the section since it didn't add much to the article and was ultimately a very small section. But I was satisfied with the request of other editors that we wait and see if anything else notable turns up. Two months later, the section is still one sentence, and the section has been brought up as a negative in the article's current peer review. It seems clear to me that the section should be removed, as no additional information has been included to justify an entire section devoted to appearances in other media. Drewcifer (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I made some additional notes regarding the Kino Movement and some trivial coverage regarding that. This American Life did refer to the album by name when used in that second episode. Given the nature of the licensing of this album it may be too much work to keep an "appearances in other works" up-to-date. I think including adds some value much in the same way that Final_Cut_Pro#Selected_Films_Edited_with_Final_Cut_Pro adds to that article. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Given the lack of content and any compelling arguments to keep the section, I've removed it from the article, but put it here for archival's sake. If anyone thinks improvements can still be made to the section, please feel free to work on it below Drewcifer (talk) 04:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC):

==Appearances in Other Works== Several tracks from Ghosts I–IV were used as incidental music in episode 352 and 354 of the National Public Radio program This American Life, entitled "The Ghost of Bobby Dunbar", "Mistakes Were Made" respectively.[1][2]

I'm ok with that - I'll try to do some significant news gathering to see if this section can stand on it's own. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Releases table

Per the article's ongoing FAC, I've removed the table detailing the ins and outs of all the releases. I've moved it here, for archival sake. Drewcifer (talk) 14:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Release version Price
(US$)		 Featured content
Digital
download		 40-page
PDF		 2× CD 16-page
booklet		 4-LP
vinyl		 Data
DVD		 Blu-ray
disc		 48-page
book		 Giclée
prints		 Autograph
Ghosts I download free
Ghosts I only
Official site download only
Digital release $5
Two-Disc release $10
Vinyl release $39
Deluxe Edition $75
Ultra-Deluxe
Limited Edition		 $300

What was the specific comment at the FAC? AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Mainly that the table merely repeated info already in the bullet-pointed list above. I can see their point, but I guess I just like to provide visuals as a supplement to text. Drewcifer (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)