Talk:Asylum (Disturbed album)

Meaning Behind Asylum

[1]... this info is relevant for the article? --201.207.245.14 (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Asylum track running times?

Where did the information about how long each track is come from? Are you affiliated with the band or the label? I don't see anytihng in the source listing that points to a specific place on the web where this information is available. It is not on the band's official website or on Amazon. If you're going to add info to this article, please cite your source(s)! Beretta89 (talk) 03:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Beretta, good practice, but give the guy a break please. The times listed are all accurate down to the second, with the exception of the last track by 2 seconds. My source, you ask? The times that are displayed on my monitor when I play the disc in my computer. Cheers! FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Album release date

The official release date of this album is Tuesday August 31st 2010. This is the official date as stated by the band as can be currently seen at the bands official website http://www.disturbed1.com. This page has a section titled "Release History" which is reserved for other(worldwide) release dates. The main release date should be reserved for the official release date which as stated above is Tuesday August 31st 2010. There have been many edits setting the release date to Monday August 30th 2010 for the reason that it is the first "world wide" release date. That is also not accurate as the album will be released on Friday August 27th 2010 in Australia and Germany. Setting the main release date to anything other than Tuesday August 31st 2010 should be treated as vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimv1983 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The US release date is not the only important one. Please read Template:Infobox album and WP:V. Do you have a source for the Australian release? BOVINEBOY2008 06:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I never stated that the US release date is the only important one. I said it is the OFFICIAL one. The album was recorded by the band Disturbed and produced by Dan Donegan the guitarist of the band. The band OFFICIALLY stated that the album would be released Tuesday August 31st 2010. If you are going to use the earliest date you should use Friday August 27, 2010, the release date for Australia and Germany. You can see those dates in the "Release History" section with citation along with the UK release date. Also, the only source listed for the Monday August 30th 2010 is a magazine and not official word from the band. Jimv1983 (talk) 06:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jimv, August 31st is the official release date, all others listed at the bands website are not present, and can only be found using third party sources. This isnt the proper date to use because it is American, just because it is official. I have changed the list to include both, with the official date first, the earliest date second.

Another point that is misunderstood here, the 27th isnt the worldwide release date. It is the earliest. The worldwide date is the one in which a majority of all countries release it, and we have absolutely no source stating any date as the 27th, 31st, or otherwise. John Holmes II (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay John. How about this? From the documentation of this template, "Only the earliest known date that the album was released should be specified; later release dates (incl. re-issues) can be mentioned in a Release history section." BOVINEBOY2008 19:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Now the date is showing August 27th 2010. All the date other than August 31st aren't even from creditable sources. Metal Hammer magazine is hardly a credible source. Magazines get information wrong all the time. The only actual credible source is the actual band and their managers/producers/record label. Jimv1983 (talk) 04:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

We consider magazines to be reliable, I'm sorry you don't. We also use third-party sources, not primary as you are suggesting. Please review WP:RS and WP:3PARTY. BOVINEBOY2008 04:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

If a magazine(or other non official source) gives a date that is not verified by the artist and no official date has been released I can see using that date, although I think a more appropriate date would be something like "TBA", "TBA 2010" or "Summer 2010". In the case with this album the band has released an official date. That date takes precedence over all others not because any location is more important than another but because it is OFFICIAL. While a magazine might be a reliable source in some cases it does not take precedence over the bands official release date. --Jimv1983 (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Note: Jimv1983 (talk · contribs) appears to be altering Template:Infobox album/doc in order to align it with his point of view in this discussion ([2] [3]). I find this inappropriate. Jimv1983, please do not drag your dispute onto other pages or alter the template documentation to attempt to win your argument here. Bovineboy2008 and John Holmes II are correct: the release date should be the earliest verifiable date that the album is made available to the public, regardless of whether it is only available in specific countries on that date, and later in other countries (even if the band's home country is one of the later dates). We do not use placeholder text like "TBA"; that is totally unprofessional and unencyclopedic. Nor do we use seasons in place of dates, as Wikipedia has a worldwide audience and seasons are not uniform across the globe (for example, it is currently August which is summer here in the United States but winter in Australia; therefore "Summer 2010" will have an almost 6-month difference in meaning for readers of 2 English-speaking countries). If no release date for this album can yet be reliably verified, simply leave the field blank until it is. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did update the Template:Infobox album/doc because it makes more sense to list the official date as the main release date. I agree with IllaZilla (talk · contribs) that dates like "TBA" or "Summer 2010" are not good to use but I have seen those used on other pages and figured it might be better than nothing until the official date is known. --Jimv1983 (talk) 05:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You should not change the template documentation without first establishing a consensus to do so at Template talk:Infobox album. The infobox is used in hundreds of thousands of articles; changing the field instructions will have a project-wide impact. Longstanding consensus is to use the earliest verifiable release date, which does not always necessarily correspond to the release date given on an artist's website. It doesn't get more "official" than being able to walk into a store and buy it. Internationally-released albums (as well as films and video games) frequently have different release dates in different countries. The artist may advertise one release date on their website as it reflects their home country or the majority of their audience. However the record label (or distributor, as there are often different distribution labels used in different countries) may release it on an earlier date in some countries. The earlier date should be used, because the album is, in fact, officially available for purchase in those countries on that date. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

←The recording artist has the final word of "official" release date, they created the music and hold copyrights to it, any other date is a deviation from the bands official statement. Any non-official release dates should be put in the "Release History" section. This my not be the established rule but this is Wikipedia, those rules can and in this case should be changed. Sorry for not going through the appropriate steps to change the template. I have never edited a template and was not aware there was a strict protocol to do so. Also, I completely disagree that a magazine such as Metal Hammer is a "verifiable" source. Sorry for the trouble but when I come to the page of the new album of my favorite band and I see information that I know is inaccurate I feel the need to change it. --Jimv1983 (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I also wanted to mention that approximate dates such as "Summer 2010" are used all the time here. When this page was first created it listed a release date of "Fall 2010". --Jimv1983 (talk) 06:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The Metal Forge, 2, 3? BOVINEBOY2008 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

http://neveragain.disturbed1.com/ --Jimv1983 (talk) 06:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The recording artist has the final word of "official" release date — Actually they don't in most cases, the record label does. As I said, labels routinely set different release dates in different countries (same goes for films, games, etc. etc... almost any popular media you care to name will have a list of different release dates in different countries). There have been many, many cases where an album's official (aka artist- and even label-declared) release date here in the States was a day or two behind its release in some other countries, just as there have been cases where an international artist's albums came out earlier in the States than they did in the artist's home country. That's why we go with the earliest verifiable date; that's the date that the item itself was released for public consumption. In this case there are clearly some reliable sources verifying that the album is coming out earlier in some countries than it is in the States. This isn't unusual. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Living After Midnight

The version of this album I have has Living After Midnight (Judas Priest Cover) from the recent Metal Hammer CD as the final track. Is this a proper bonus track? IF so can someone add it to the page please? thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.137.157 (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you buy the album, or download the album? Illegal downloads sometimes tack on additional tracks, or just make stuff up altogether. Allmusic does confirm a hidden/untitled bonus 13th track for the standard edition CD, but iTunes and Amazon list the 13th track as "Ishfwilf." Fezmar9 (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I purchased the record because the shipments arrived at the local store and my ex gave me an early copy, the final track is indeed Living After Midnight (Judas Priest Cover). But just 48 hours until it's in stores so I wouldn't bother taking photos or stuff. Kevon100 (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It's possible that "Ishfwilf" is just a digital bonus track, since only digital sources list that as the 13th track. If the packaging or liner notes explicitly refer to the song as "Living After Midnight," then you could add this information and cite the physical album using the {{Cite album-notes}} template. If not, then we should wait for another source to verifiy this information. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Ishfwilf is infact the U2 song "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For" and I didn't get that track so more or less I agree with your proposition and ideas. Kevon100 (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

At any rate, it might be best to wait until another source can be found anyways. When I said "Ishfwilf" could be a digital only bonus track, that was just my own little theory. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I just bought the UK standard CD album and it has a 13th song not listed on the cd case or manual - it just says Track 13 when I play it, its length is 5:26 but from the start to 1:35 there is no sound, with the music starting at 1:36. 82.36.166.73 (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Your both a pair of tards, theres something called a deluxe edition. Ever heard of it? I know what this person is talking about. I have the song. It is in fact Disturbed, they are distinctive. I don't have a source, but i know my bands when i here them. It could just be an unreleased track. Like "This Moment". It's a good song.John Holmes II (talk) 04:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Any cover recorded sounds the way the covering band's core sound is. Be it Eyeless by Slipknot covered by Bring Me The Horizon or Ishfwilf by U2 covered by Disturbed. Your point being is? Kevon100 (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Track 13(hidden, it is not listed on the cd case) on both the standard CD and limited edition is "ISHFWILF" a cover of the U2 song "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For". If you have the "Living After Midnight" you do not have the actual CD. At least not the one released in the USA --98.234.74.77 (talk) 01:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

youre not hearin me sweetheart, im not talkin about track fuckin 13. that is ishfwilf. i mean after the two live tracks, there is a a track, #17, called living after midnight.

There is only a track 16 on the iTunes Deluxe version and no track 17 on any version. The standard cd has 12 tracks listed + 1 hidden(ISHFWILF) = 13. The limited edition has the same first 12 + 1 hidden(ISHFWILF) + 2 live (Down With The Sickness and Stricken) = 15 tracks total. The iTunes Deluxe Edition has the same first 12 + 1 hidden(ISHFWILF) + 1 bonus iTunes track("Leave It Alone") + 2 live (Down With The Sickness and Stricken) = 16 tracks. I know Disturbed did a cover of "Living After Midnight" its pretty good too. But it is NOT on any version of the album "Asylum" that was sent to stores or released for download. It is not on either standard cd or limited edition cd. It is not listed on iTunes, Zune Marketplace or Amazon music downloads. The only track that is only available on iTunes is "Leave It Alone". No track listing from any source lists "Living After Midnight". When I googled "disturbed asylum living after midnight" the only results I got were for places like fileshare and bittorrent. Which means if your version of "Asylum" has "Living After Midnight" you obtained it illegally.--Jimv1983 (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay this needs to end. If you have proof that your purchase contains "Living After Midnight" Judas Priest cover you are more than welcome to show us some images and provide links. It is confirmed by numerous sources including the AllMusiGuide that the hidden thirteenth track (THE ONLY TRACK NOT LISTED ON THE CD CASE) is I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For which was "not cleverly" disguised by Disturbed and it is a U2 cover. Two other bonus tracks printed were Down With The Sickness (Live), Stricken (Live) and Leave It Alone. Be assured NO hints point out to Living After Midnight.

It is true also, that the leaked "deluxe edition" has the track Living After Midnight but it is not an official song. I personally know of someone who pirated it two days prior to release. Thank you. Kevon100 (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Need to improve

This article is hilariously bad in many ways: Necessity of certain information, accuracy of information, citations of information, lead section is hilariously terrible, formatting, the list goes on. So I figured, as a long-standing editor of previous Disturbed articles, I'll help out a bit and make a checklist of things that should be done to tidy up, and do what I can for the article directly.

1. Style and lyrical themes: This section jumps right into what "Another Way to Die" is about. It shouldn't do this. It should first give an overview of what Asylum as a whole is supposed to be about. I believe I remember a couple of different places saying Draiman titled the record Asylum because of the duality of the word: The album is about bad things in our world, yet we're supposed to feel safe in the world also. This should be explained prior to explaining any song themes.
2. Style and lyrical themes: The section can and should be expanded. I can think of several instances where Disturbed discusses Asylum musically, rather than lyrically. We should keep the emphasis on the meanings behind the songs lyrically, but there should also be a fair amount about the musical elements behind the songs. I know the references exist.
3. Promotion and release: Formatting is horrible. Last few bits read like a list.
4. Promotion and release: Comprehensiveness of information here is really lacking; the promotional campaign surrounding Asylum can be better fleshed-out than by a simple paragraph. This can be majorly expanded. Again, I've seen the sources myself that could be added here.
5. Track listing: First off, I recognize there is a dispute over "Ishfwilf" and I want to get this straightened out. Though the song is technically a cover of "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For," I have a German import of Asylum, and Disturbed renamed the track for this album (also of note is that this track is on every edition, not just iTunes; it's a hidden track). Titling it properly in the track listing will not create confusion; it will prevent it. All that needs be done is to clarify that the song is a U2 cover in a different (prior) section, in the track listing, and to link the song during all occurrences. Remember we're going for factual accuracy, not reader convenience. It should rightfully be titled "Ishfwilf."
6. Reception: Could use massive improvement. I recognize the CD releases in the US tomorrow, so not many reviews are currently available, but what's currently in that article is horrendously written, formatted, and explained. Needs general improvement and more reviews (as they become available).
7. Lead section: This is a big one; technically the lead section is supposed to be like a "mini-article"; a comprehensive-yet-brief view at all important points that exist in the article. As such, there should be little to nothing in the article that isn't at least mentioned in the lead, and likewise nothing should be in the lead that's not in the article. That said, the lead needs massive expansion and fixes, preferably after other fixes are made.

I have to go now but this list stands as-is for now: These are things that could and should be done to improve. I will do what I can to help, but I figure, to help the article I would post a list so that others can recognize what needs to be done, and do it. I will expand and clarify this list later. Thank you for reading it and contributing to the article. The Guy ^(edits) 20:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Nu metal

Their are sources on the main disturbed page saying they stopped playing nu metal after the sickness and all the sources for this album that I've seen so far say alternative metal and/or heavy metal. Provide a source that says this album is nu metal if you want to add it please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.158.140 (talk) 06:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Editing page wrong users keep editing the album page and making it look worse than it already is by Asterixking

In fact, heres a source saying this album isnt nu metal -- http://www.reviewrinserepeat.com/artist/disturbed/album/asylum/review —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.158.140 (talk) 06:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This is one persons opinion. Nu Metal is the best description of what Disturbed is. If people feel that heavy metal should be listed that is fine but not as the first listed. The first genre listed should be the one the album most closely identifies with. If you wanted to list "Alternative Metal, Nu Metal, Hard Rock, Heavy Metal" that would be reasonable as well. Slayer is heavy metal. Lamb of God is heavy metal. Megadeth is heavy metal. Killswitch Engage is heavy metal. Cannibal Corpse is heavy metal. Even Slipknot which is technically a Nu Metal band have more heavy metal influence than Disturbed. I love Disturbed they are one of my favorite bands but they are not heavy metal. Nu Metal or Hard Rock fits them the best. --Jimv1983 (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This is another person's opinion. Slayer is thrash metal. Lamb of God is groove metal. Megadeth is certainly heavy metal, but they've played thrash metal, too. Killswitch Engage is metalcore. Cannibal Corpse is death metal. Slipknot is nu-metal and alternative metal. Unless you're talking in terms of Metal as a whole, only one of those artists was technically traditional heavy metal. Heavy metal is Black Sabbath, Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Racer-X, etc., all of which heavily influences Disturbed's modern, trademark sound. There are too many guitar solos in Asylum (not to mention the guitars are not downtuned enough) to be nu-metal. The only times Asylum comes close to "nu-metal" is when it's displaying some alt. metal traits. Disturbed alternative metal, heavy metal, and hard rock? Most definitely. Nu-metal? I don't think so, not since "The Sickness." --(198.189.249.54 (talk) 05:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC))

Nu-metal? I don't think so, not since "The Sickness." - You are implying that they have changed their genre which is so not true. --Jimv1983 (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.132.103.116 (talk) 05:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Can we please stop turning this into a genre war? The general consensus among fans, listeners, and critics is that it's Heavy Metal, Hard Rock, and Alternative Metal. If we are going to include Nu Metal, I ask we at least cite viable sources. -- (Death0111 (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC))

Metacritic states "Heavy metal" as a general description and don't go to sub-genre level(nu metal, alt metal, etc). They also classify Disturbed as pop. Allmusic also describes Disturbed as pop and also lists them as rap metal. Putting Disturbed in genres like pop and rap metal really shows that those critics(referenced a lot on wikipedia) have no idea what they are talking about and should not be considered reliable. Both of these sites also say Linkin Park is metal which is odd seeing that none of linkin park's albums have even a remotely metal sound to them. Stop depending so much on the critics say and LISTEN TO THE MUSIC. I listen to Disturbed all the time. They are just as much nu metal as they were for The Sickness. If you can't tell than that's your fault. I can. --Jimv1983 (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's be clear, the genre of Disturbed, Korn, Metallica, Slipknot, Cannibal Corpse, Katy Perry, Miley Cyrus or whatever are Pop/Rock. In any record store that's how the records are sorted. According to the AllMusicGuide, Heavy metal, Alternative metal etc. are merely styles of Pop/Rock form. On Wikipedia we list those styles under the genre for specific purposes to atleast differentiate between Katy Perry and Korn. There are elements of rap-metal on Asylum on the album's second track, and yes we can tell but this article is composed of solid professional statements and sources, not anyone's personal opinion.

Besides, if your ears are that poor, the common man can tell a difference between The Sickness and Asylum. Cheers. Kevon100 (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course there is a difference between The Sickness and Asylum but not enough to put them in different genres. The second track on Asylum is Asylum. I just listened to it and there is no influence of rap-metal in any way. Rap-metal has hip-hop influences which the track Asylum does not have. --Jimv1983 (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I can agree with these genres. But the order should change Heavy metal, nu metal, hard rock, alternative metal. Heavy metal should be listed last because nu metal, alternative metal and hard rock are all more descriptive than heavy metal. I would suggest nu metal but I know no one will go for it. Alternative metal and hard rock would also be a good fit. Whatever it ends up being I think we should try and be consistent. --Jimv1983 (talk) 04:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not a nu metal album, the lack of rap influence (which you yourself stated isnt present), the more technical instrumentalisation and frequent presence of guitar solos are the major differences between this and The Sickness, which does make them different genres. Listen to Down with the Sickness and Stupifiy in comparison with Remnents + Asylum and Another Way to Day (lead singles from the albums) and you can hear the move away from nu metal to heavy metal/hard rock while still having Alternative elements... Not to mention what reviews shown on both pages call them...

Putting aside your remark of this not being nu metal which I think for the most part it still is. Since when does nu metal have a rap influence? The Sickness, stated by you as being nu metal....no rap influence. Korn, stated by many to be the creators of the nu metal genre....no rap influence(with the exception of maybe Children of the Korn and Play Me), System of a Down....no rap influence. Slipknot....no rap influence. --Jimv1983 (talk) 06:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you listened to droppin' plates or stupify recently? And no rap influence in korn or slipknot?????? ummmm Y'all Want a single? All in the Family? Right Now? Or how about the clip for Twisted transistor with all the rappers in it? Slipknot - spit it out, only one, my plague, duality etc etc, and soad's nu metal status has always been debated... either way this is about disturbed's album asylum, not those bands, and if your trying to make a point choose the bands you use more carefully next time (not all nu metal bands rap, the ones you mentioned do, but they all have rap influence pretty much) 121.219.162.209 (talk) 03:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The order of the genres doesnt particully matter, it says what the album is no matter what order they are listed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.132.103.198 (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It is more descriptive to show the most relevant one first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimv1983 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Decade of Disturbed

Does anyone here think that Decade of Disturbed should be given a small section on this page? Because although it's a documentary, it hardly warrants a full article like Some Kind of Monster or Flight 666. Thoughts? RedEyesMetal (talk) 10:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

M.O.L. got it's own article. I see no reason why D.O.D. shouldn't. (198.189.249.54 (talk) 05:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC))

I would support at least starting a small section here. If it turns out it could be expanded to a reasonably detailed stand-alone article, it could be moved to one. Earlier this year, I kind of got the feeling Decade of Disturbed would be it's own release, but then it became a bonus disc for Asylum. Fezmar9 (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Reception

Having read through it, I feel the reception section could do with some work, specifically being a bit more reflective and a bit less fan-page-sounding.

The album has (judging by reviews) been well-received, but not perfectly so, there are some average/mediocre scores in there and some such points made within the reviews, yet the section here is nothing but praise for the album, selecting only the positive parts of the reviews. Some of the negative points would flesh it out a lot more I feel. 87.194.171.224 (talk) 10:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Genre

Admit it that this is only hard rock? Unless they have sources... 112.203.225.151 (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Seriously dude! Don't even waste your time. Hard rock may be the best genre (or nu metal/alt metal) but the people here don't realize that and continue to revert it. Don't even bother. --Jimv1983 (talk) 06:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

and I agree that hard rock and alt metal should be added with heavy metal for the record 121.219.162.209 (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Old Friend

This B-side got released via Spotify apparently, and it's now all over the damn web! Can we list it down as an official song? Do we have to wait for a confirmation from Disturbed? RedEyesMetal (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)