Talk:Blonde (Frank Ocean album)

Comment

This is the album formerly known as Boys Dont Cry. This background of "Endless" should be this, FYI

23:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Someone should add the producers Rtjfan (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Alternative art

Image in question - File:BlondeAlternate - Frank Ocean.jpeg.

Since it's not actually used as the packaging artwork in any releases confirmed as of yet, is it appropriate to keep this image? I'd argue that the only reason for the use of this image is purely decorative, rather than illustrating the product in question according to Wikipedia:Non-free content, which File:Blonde - Frank Ocean.jpeg already does. It was an image Frank Ocean shared on his tumblr, not an artwork used as the cover for any releases of his album. At least not at the moment, anyways. Philip Terry Graham 08:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, keep the art. Xboxmanwar (talk) 08:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Why, though? It's a copyrighted image being used for decorative purposes... Philip Terry Graham 10:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Christopher Breaux

Why is Christopher Breaux listed as the writer of the songs? According to his own article he changed his name to Frank Ocean in 2011. --2A02:8388:6181:6400:3D3D:852D:5D8A:4530 (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

"Different versions"

It appears that, despite what some people have reported, the only differences between the pop up shop version and the Apple Music version is that an extended version of Nikes appears on the former. What's being reported as the tracklist comes from the physical magazine, but does not correspond to the tracklist on the actual CD. It's probably just an out of date tracklisting and they didn't want to bother reprinting the magazines to correct it.

To be clear: "Mitsubishi Sony" and "Easy" do not appear on either version, and the two releases have all the same songs.

https://twitter.com/speriod/status/767165062146625536

Note: this tweet is from the journalist being cited as the source of the "alternate" tracklist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteadilyTremulous (talk • contribs) 16:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Album Name

Is there a reason the page name is "Blonde" and not "Blond" like the title of the album? It's stylized in lowercase but the name doesn't change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.169.30.176 (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

It is the official album title on iTunes, along other publications. You can see this through the refs. Zamaster4536 (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Yup, but the official name on the actual album is Blond — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.92.250 (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The album title should reflect the cover art, (vinyl/compact) disc label, etc. — coverage in The Atlantic claims both titles are valid, relying on Blond(e) as a way to split the difference. — HipLibrarianship ^talk 05:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

First sentence reflects album title just fine. Against changing. Icarus of old (talk) 12:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2016

Please update the Professional Review box by changing the "Guardian" review from four-out-of-five to five-out-of-five stars, because the original four-star rating refers to a "first-listen review", while the official review (released August 25, 2016) rates Blonde at five stars out of five. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/aug/25/frank-ocean-blonde-review-a-baffling-and-brilliant-five-star-triumph

100.33.141.187 (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Done KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 19:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Ivy production

Can someone please tell me the source about "ivy" producers. Alineosasco (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Revising paraphrased reviews

GentleCollapse16 has disputed my paraphrasing of certain reviews--if not all--in the article's reception section. In response, I'll list them here (my paraphrases and whatever sentences from the reviews I drew from); interested editors may comment any which way they like: Dan56 (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• The Quietus writes in the same paragraph that this is "an album that unfurls its nuances" before describing the songs as "finely-drawn earworms"; in another it calls it "an accomplished R&B record, beguiling in its dreamy, abstracted production" My paraphrase: Tara Joshi of The Quietus deemed Blonde a consummate R&B record featuring nuanced songwriting and charmingly "dreamy, abstracted production" This was disputed by Gentle as biased/inaccurate paraphrasing; I explained in this edit summary how the meaning is not lost in my paraphrase. Dan56 (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
• Rolling Stone called it "an R&B album in only the most elastic and expansive sense of the term"; my paraphrase: Rolling Stone critic Jonah Weiner believed its music was R&B only in the loosest sense of the word, describing it as "by turns oblique, smolderingly direct, forlorn, funny, dissonant and gorgeous: a vertiginous marvel of digital-age psychedelic pop". Dan56 (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
• The Guardian writes "the follow-up to Channel Orange is one of the most intriguing and contrary records ever made"; "Where Stevie Wonder was his debut’s key influence, Blonde seems to have more in common with records such as Big Star’s Third or Radiohead’s Kid A, where texture and experimentation are given free rein." In subsequent paragraphs, the review elaborates on the experimentation and emphasis on texture in Ocean's album: "the songwriting is unconventional rather than unfinished. The shapeshifting structure of Nights or the minimalist guitar chug of Ivy – a song on which the distinction between verse and chorus is almost imperceptible – wrongfoot you at first, yet reward patience through their subtle hooks ... numerous A-list guests here remain camouflaged – nobody is deemed important enough to intrude on a sound that is Ocean’s alone." My paraphrase/summary: Tim Jonze hailed it as "one of the most intriguing and contrary records ever made" in his review for The Guardian, comparing it to the experimental and texture-driven albums Kid A (2000) by Radiohead and Big Star's Third (1974). Dan56 (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't forget the rest:

• The Telegraph review is represented here as a negative one, despite the fact the actual review is 4/5 stars and the author significantly concludes that it "in its defiant strangeness, Blonde should be celebrated as part of a generational shift away from the obvious in pop [...] Whether it’s the exact shade for you or not, I suspect Blonde (or Blond) is an album that will make an indelible mark on pop culture." The review clearly has a more distinct conclusion about the record than you bother including, if only so you can allocate more room to the curdled, kitschy Xgau review, which then requires you to awkwardly extrapolate compete thoughts from sentence fragments:

It's not being represented; a viewpoint is being represented, which is the point of these sections (WP:CRIT). The first paragraph adequately represented positive viewpoints regarding its unconventional music and Ocean's visceral, emotional content--which McCormick cites (where the ellipsis you placed is, between what you quoted) as the reasons he says it "should be celebrated" and may have an impact with, as being a part of "an increasingly soul-searching hip-hop culture", "eccentric introspection", "pushing from the inside rather than leading from the front"... the mealy-mouthed overlong quotes you seem to favor. Well, his conclusion on the actual quality of Blonde's music seems to say while it "should be celebrated", he's not exactly celebrating it: "Ocean’s idiosyncratic way with sound, song form and lyrics ensures that startling details suddenly come into focus through the musical miasma revealing songs in gorgeous new lights. But if you dive in looking for a hit then you are likely to sink, confused and gasping for oxygen." Dan56 (talk) 04:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• The Christgau paraphrases are overwrought and simply put words in the mouth of the review, whose phrasing and brevity should be considered as integral to the review's "meaning" as whatever you take the content of its words to be.

What do you take the content of his words to be? Dan56 (talk) 04:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• The Independent review says lots of explicit things about the record, all of which you gracelessly boil down to "deeming much of the music lethargic, aimless, and devoid of strong melodies while describing it as a "glitchy, miasmic" brand of R&B.[42]" You're just vaguely paraphrasing according to your own interpretation despite that fact that the review speaks for itself.

As usual, your editing betrays a desire to "mold" the sources according to your interpretive preference rather than just let them be as they are. Not sure why your dull paraphrasing is necessary in this section at all, considering critical reception sections typically rely on direct quotes, and in this case clear ones exist in abundance.

GentleCollapse16 (talk) 01:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I've ever seen an article get promoted very far with quotefarms like this one of yours, with no sense of what the distinct idea of each paragraph is, and a reliance on undue mealy-mouthed quotes that could easily be boiled to terms the average reader can understand. Esteemed high-strungbrows such as yourself will be more likely to know what "vertiginous" means than Wikipedia's general audience, let alone connect to what it means in the context Rolling Stone was describing this album, rendering your quote(s) useless. Perhaps you would like less accessible records to be treated in a less accessible language. Dan56 (talk) 04:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blonde (Frank Ocean album). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130306032310/https://www.ascap.com/Home/ace-title-search/index.aspx to https://www.ascap.com/Home/ace-title-search/index.aspx

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 07:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

We need a music section

User:Dan56 This article could really use a "Music" section to delve into the specifics of the album's sound, and to alleviate the overstuffed Critical Reception section of having to contain both descriptions and critiques of the album. Sounds like your type of thing.GentleCollapse16 (talk) 08:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should "minimalism" remain listed in the infobox?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Reverting over this genre's inclusion in the article's infobox has led to this RfC. Dan56 (talk) 07:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Votes

• Yes - It is supported by the COS review of Blonde cited in the article --> "R&B crooner returns with avant-garde minimalism..." Dan56 (talk) 07:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - I support this genre because it in the source, if it doesn't say it in the source, it doesn't belong there. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• No - Genre-tagging should involve something more than simply matching words. User:I am the radiohead and User:DetectableNinja have made a compelling argument. They demonstrate that, whatever Ocean's reviewers meant when they used the word "minimal" (or its variations), they certainly didn't mean the genre that is the subject of the minimal music article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• No - I've made my argument below, but to reiterate: while several reviews use the words "minimalist/minimalism," they seem, IMO, to be referring to a sort of bare-bones production style in contrast to other pop albums released this year, not the genre/style of music described by the wikipedia article on minimalism or anything close to it. I am the radiohead (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• No - I largely echo User:I am the radiohead. I doubt sincerely that the critics cited genuinely meant minimalism in a technical sense, and if they did, I think it's fair to say, from looking at what characterizes minimal music, that they'd be wrong. Simply put, Blonde is not of the genre being linked-to by the inclusion of minimalism in the list. As such, we shouldn't say it is. DetectableNinja (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• No - I concur with I am the radiohead, further reasoning below. —BLZ · talk 09:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
• No - BLZ's input has confirmed the validity of my suspicion about whether minimalism in style and minimalism as a genre can be conflated in the case of this album. It is now quite clear that they can't. I will thus be voting alongside the other "No" voters. AndrewOne (talk) 17:16, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
• No - Clearly, this music and minimalism are two different things. Any doubters should listen to anything by Philip Glass. Jschnur (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
• No - Summoned by bot. Agree with I am the radiohead. "Minimalism" refers to the production style, not the style of music. Meatsgains (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• No (summoned by bot) – Appears to be another attempt to stuff any available descriptor into an infobox. The genre field should aim for generality and be limited to the two or three most widely recognized views. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Currently, one of the listed genres is minimalism, with a citation to a Consequence of Sound review describing the album as "minimalist, avant-garde R&B." However, the reviewer, in my opinion, is clearly using the adjective "minimalist" as a modifier for R&B, obviously not claiming the album has a lineage in the likes of Terry Riley, Steve Reich, or Philip Glass, all of whom are specifically named in the article for minimalism. "Minimalism" as a genre tag signifies something completely different. If anyone disagrees, I would like to hear an explanation before my edit is reverted. Thanks. I am the radiohead (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Dan56 Please read this I am the radiohead (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Dan56 (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Have you actually read the article?

• "the album presents his brand of minimalism in the guise of lazing." (noun)
• "Blonde is R&B minimalism that only Ocean could have made" (R&B as modifier, minimalism as noun) GentleCollapse16 (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I have, but I also have a grasp of what minimalism signifies as a genre, which you apparently do not. There is no indication that the reviewer is tying Blonde to the actual genre of music of minimalism, only describing it as being minimalist as far as R&B goes. Can you please explain to me why the album is currently described as belonging to the same genre as this or this? I am the radiohead (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Believe it or not, your pretentious opinion of what qualifies as "minimalism" is irrelevant here. And Jesus, did you just link a Steve Reich video to teach me about minimalism? Buddy, I've worked at La Monte Young's Dream House. You're no expert source. Thanks for explaining to me that the reviewer doesn't actually mean what they literally say several times. What an insight. Stop being so strict about genres tags, they're arbitrary and it's no fun. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 09:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

You're the one who pulled the "Have you actually read the article" card? If you think I'm being so strict about genre tags, why is it so important to you that this album is described as minimalist? I'm not claiming to be an expert source by any means, I'm just flabbergasted that anyone with even a working understanding of minimalism would even stop to consider that this album falls under that category. Not even popular music albums like Low or Peter Gabriel's third album, which directly cited Philip Glass and Steve Reich as an inspiration, have minimalism listed. You're right that genre tags are arbitrary, but even so, it's probably best to keep them from including what is ill-informed at best and a blatant lie at worst. You've failed to provide a compelling argument that this album's genre is minimalism, only served to be condescending and told me it's a pointless fight. I have provided actual evidence. If you would like to do the same, you are more than welcome to do so.I am the radiohead (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Friend, you literally have no evidence. Your entire argument is a negative one: the author doesn't explicitly mention Philip Glass or Steve Reich so for some reason they must not mean "minimalism" when they explicitly say "minimalism" several times, including the phrase "minimalist avant-garde." Your entire argument is the groundless assertion that their use of the term means something different than what it means, and you have no evidence. If there are Wikipedia album articles that are described as minimalist, by all means add a citation and genre. Oh, and here are two more articles describing the album's music as minimalism (a noun), not simply "minimalistic" (an adjective). Here's another invoking "noted minimalists Brian Eno and Rick Rubin," although I'm sure because neither of them have direct ties to Philip Glass they don't count. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it seems to me that there are two different senses in which one can use the term 'minimalist': formally and colloquially. Given that minimalism is usually used to describe composers rather than more popular artists, it would seem to me that in a media outlet's review of a popular artist, they would mean the colloquial sense. The use of a phrase like "minimalist rock guitar" by the Rolling Stone critic in the article seems to support this, because rock seems to be what is getting described, or rock guitar. DetectableNinja (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

"For what it's worth" it's not worth much if it's just an opinion without a credible source. Several articles use the noun "minimalism" (not an adjective).GentleCollapse16 (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

That one instance of 'minimalist' as an adjective is meant to illustrate the larger difference between senses in which the term 'minimalism' is used as a noun. I definitely can speak of 'minimalist' or 'minimal' music in the very technical, academic sense, or I can use it in an everyday sense--that is, not as that genre/tradition of music, but to refer to other genres of music that have a stripped-down or bare-bones feel to them. Further, listening to the examples given in the Wikipedia article for minimalism and comparing them to the actual album Blonde shows a clear difference. Honestly, this may just be a difference of approach to how strict one wants to be with the genre list, as you mentioned earlier. My point was just that I'd be disinclined to want to call the album an example of minimal music because, independent of a critic's intention (that is difficult to know anyway), I don't think this album genuinely is minimalist, given what this very website calls minimalist. Again, maybe we're just taking two different approaches? In any case, that's my case. DetectableNinja (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's take a look at this headline: "Frank Ocean's minimalism sets 'Blonde' apart from recent releases by Beyoncé, Rihanna and Kanye West". Okay, sure, minimalism is being used as a noun. But the headline is describing "Frank Ocean's minimalimsm" in comparison to the recent maximalist pop albums by each artist featured in the headline. The headline is not asserting that Blonde features (and yes, I am going to copy paste from the wikipedia for minimalism here because it so blatantly does not describe this album) " consonant harmony, steady pulse (if not immobile drones), stasis or gradual transformation, and often reiteration of musical phrases or smaller units such as figures, motifs, and cells". Again, the sentence "almost ascetic in its clean-lined minimalism" describes technique, not genre signification. I could go on, but I feel we are likely never going to see eye to eye on this. I would honestly be willing to back down, but I propose we add a tag to the genre after the source, because—again—I really strongly feel this album does not feature any of the characteristics minimalism is described as having in the wiki article, and I think the only way to settle this dispute is to hear more sides. I am the radiohead (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@I am the radiohead:, @NewYorkActuary:, Wikipedia is not a source, yet you seem to be trying to reconcile content in this article with that of another article, the one on minimal music, which is stupid; the passage one of you cited, about "consonant harmonies..." and so on, is presented in that article's lead as fact when a closer look at the article's body would show it is the opinion of one source, Richard E. Rodda. Even dumber is you putting words in the figurative mouth of the source you questioned above; where the fuck does it say anything about "maximalist pop albums"? Or is that just a half-baked inference? Dan56 (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, fair point about me using Wikipedia as a source, so why don't we turn to literally every online overview of minimalism as a genre? Or even any of the not one, but five critics cited in the Wiki page for minimal music? There is no description of minimalism that would accurately also describe any of the music on Blonde. Regarding my reference to maximalism, you're right in that I was "putting words in the figurative mouth of the source [I] questioned," and I apologize for misrepresenting the words of that critic or publication. However, I don't believe music criticism exists inside a vacuum, and plenty of reviews for the aforementioned albums by those various artists used the term "maximalism." Whether you like it or not "minimalism" doesn't mean 'stripped down' or 'bare bones,' which is how I read the term used in most of the reviews used to cite the genre here. It signifies something completely different, and I am still not persuaded that Blonde is a minimalist album for the same reason Blue isn't a soul album even if dozens of people describe Joni Mitchell's voice as 'soulful.'I am the radiohead (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I just love how you seem completely unable to separate your personal opinion--even of the unrelated, irrelevant sources you're stringing along--from this matter. Perhaps Consequence of Sound should sack Nina Corcoran and hire you instead :) Dan56 (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

You aren't addressing any of my claims or providing any evidence apart from "somewhat said it so it must be true." There is no need to transform this discussion from the music and the evidence I've provided to personal attacks on me. You've used expletives and made several ad hominem attacks. You have failed to back up your claim. I don't care what Nina Corcoran said because critics aren't arbiters of genres. Thirty critics could call Revolver a hip-hop album, but that doesn't magically make it one. I also suggest you take a look at the etiquette guidelines for talk pages, as at this point you are failing to add anything productive to this discussion besides attacks on me. I am not going to respond to any more of your updates unless you dramatically change your tone. Thanks! I am the radiohead (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Um, critics kind of are arbiters of genres, considering they're usually the coining them -_- These are subjective interpretations of music; they'll always be opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE), and unless you're someone in a position to have your opinion published... *ahem*... your opinion, and DetectableNinja's, of this music doesn't mean a fucking thing :)))) Your role here is to incorporate what published people have said, not make your own original claims about the article's topic. And don't respond unless you dramatically change your thinking skills :) Dan56 (talk) 05:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

So, okay, yes, perhaps in part critics for popular media outlets are responsible for shaping how we understand what constitutes certain genres over others. That said, it's not solely up to them--it's also up to academics, enthusiasts (as I think it's fair to say all of us, at minimum, are), and also just the traditions about what constitutes a genre that we inherit which can certainly be challenged and pushed and expanded, but not entirely redefined in a single moment. I guess I'm mostly confused, though, by your claim that simultaneously all determinations about genre will always be subjective, but also that we should still favor a select few number of critics' (likely colloquial) usage of the word 'minimalist' as describing the genre itself, when the preponderance of evidence and consensus--see User:I am the radiohead's sources, for instance, and the understanding of minimalism as it is given on this site for internal consistency--suggests that Blonde simply is not minimalist in the sense that is being linked to. This would be akin to a couple of critics calling 11/22/63 a 'modern' or 'modernist' novel and because it is written in what is colloquially called the 'modern era', now, and is also set in the 60s, and it being grouped with literary modernism. Clearly, the actual genre and tradition is not meant to be invoked, and a great number of published sources suggest that it would be inaccurate to do so anyway. So I'm not entirely sure why we ought not favor the general consensus, which you yourself seem to be aiming toward. DetectableNinja (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The both of you and your ideas on how "radiohead"'s personal research on minimalism "suggests" what Blonde is or isn't is getting tiresome, and I'm beginning to question your competence on some basic encyclopedia concepts that are supposed to guide are editing. Are you really calling a couple of strung-along articles you found online that are unrelated to this article's topic a "preponderance of evidence", and are you seriously using them as a means of disproving an opinion shared by music critics? Have you even bothered looking at the sources you say form that consensus? If nothing else, the sources "radiohead" named as overviews of minimalism hardly match up to each other; AllMusic mentions "harmonies that change over long periods of time", while Fact says nothing about harmony in minimalism. Some consensus. And what a blight on this article it'd be if "minimalism" was kept all the way at the end of the genre list! Because readers can't think for themselves, "enthusiasts" ought to govern content like fascists and moralize why certain words be kept out of sight for the sake of the poor, impressionable reader, who'll get the wrong idea about the precious "minimalism" genre -_- Dan56 (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I would like to add that reviewers for The Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, and Rolling Stone have also applied the term "minimalist" to Blonde or to certain elements of the album. On a side note, however, User:I am the radiohead has good reason to be frustrated by User:Dan56's incivility, which breaks one of the encyclopedia's five pillars and is thus no small fault. To address the former, it would be appreciated if you could expand on the difference between minimalism as a genre and critics' usage of the word "minimalist" in relation to this particular album. It seems that you are trying to call attention to the difference between minimalism in composition and minimalism in audio mixing or instrumentation. If not, please be more specific about the distinction that you want those voting "Yes" to understand. I have not yet voted above as both sides appear to have good points. AndrewOne (talk) 05:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment from BLZ (long)

I voted no. Here's my essay-length rationale after reading the discussion so far (I think I also specifically address your concerns, AndrewOne). @Dan56:

Beware, a very long comment follows:

The discussion has circled around the issue of (at least) two meanings of the word "minimalism" (and "minimalist".) The first meaning is the one addressed in the Wikipedia article minimal music, and it is a formal genre/category/tradition within modern classical music — your Steve Reichs, etc. The second meaning is more general and describes an overall aesthetic, style, technique, or tendency. Just so it's clear which I'm referring to, I'll capitalize Minimalism the genre and leave minimalism the style lowercase (but not lowercase.)

The second use of "minimalism" or "minimalist" is a descriptive word equivalent to "minimal," "bare bones," "stripped-back," "spare," "stark," "skeletal," "simple," "repetitive," "no-frills," etc. The word "minimalist" in this sense indicates, not specific continuity or inclusion within that composing tradition, but rather a style or approach for a piece of music relative to genre expectations. This minimalism is for music that is using as few components as possible: "striving to be minimal," not "being Minimalism." The "relative" part is important, because a minimalist approach in one genre or musical work wouldn't necessarily be that way for another—think "R&B minimalism" from that review cited above. A punk band like Sex Pistols could be described as minimalists relative to, say, an earlier rock band like The Rolling Stones, but not relative to Suicide or Young Marble Giants. Nebraska is only minimalist because Bruce Springsteen made it and he tends to include, you know, a few ripping saxophone solos on his albums; if all the Boss's previous music was also folk singing accompanied by acoustic guitar, a critic wouldn't think to call "Nebraska" minimalist anymore. There is no unifying, much less formal, "musical minimalism" for this reason, it just becomes a descriptive and relative adjective that gains meaning only relative to the context of some preexisting style.

The same definition split exists with several other examples. Another that comes to mind is "baroque," which can refer to Bach and his cohorts or just something that is ornate (or baroque pop.) This review in Pitchfork of Joanna Newsom's Divers notes its "baroque poise," but that just means its ornateness, its attention to detail, its particular elegance of the type we associate with baroque art. It's also not even saying that Divers is baroque pop, since that is a genre with specific characteristics that go beyond being baroque and being pop. To be fair, a pop musician being "Minimalist" classical is more plausible than the chances of a pop musician being Baroque classical, because Minimalism is modern/avant-garde and much Minimalist works carry pop influence and vice versa. That said, what matters is that there is that same distinction between general use of a word to convey style and a particular use of a word to define a particular category of music.

Going back to the first use of the word, I want to clarify what Minimalism as a genre is. I'm relying throughout on a source I've read previously and will quote from: The Rest Is Noise by Alex Ross, a prominent history of modern classical music from the late 19th century to today, specifically the chapter "Beethoven Was Wrong: Bop, Rock, and the Minimalists". First and foremost, Minimalism is a type of music within the composing tradition of Western classical music/art music (as distinguished from folk, jazz or pop styles). Minimalism names a form of modern and contemporary classical music that emerged in the United States during the post-WWII era. For a few reasons, Minimalism was not necessarily a great choice of name for this genre. Very few if any of the composers most strongly identified with the genre prefer to use it to describe their own work. Additionally — in a way that is of secondary interest for most classical musicians or classical music writers, but primary for this discussion — the name "Minimalism" carries the problem of confusion with the broader definition of "minimalism." If critics back in the 60s had only christened this fledgling genre as "New American Tonalism" or "Repetitive Modern Classical," we wouldn't be having this discussion. But the point remains, problematic and somewhat ambiguous though that word is, it is the one entered circulation as the name for that school of American classical music, and though there is ambiguity it is resolvable.

From Ross, here's a nice description of the music from composers associated with Minimalism, some of its forebears, and some characteristics:

"Riley, Reich, and Glass came to be called minimalists, although they are better understood as the continuation of a circuitous, difficult-to-name development in American music that dated back to the early years of the century, and more often than not took root on the West Coast. This alternative canon includes Henry Cowell and Lou Harrison, who drew on non-Western traditions and built up a hypnotic atmosphere through insistent repetition; Morton Feldman, who distributed minimal parcels of sound over long durations; and La Monte Young, who made music from long, buzzing drones. All of them in one way or another set aside a premise that had governed classical composition for centuries—the conception of a musical work as a self-contained linguistic activity that develops relationships among discrete thematic characters over a well-marked period of time. This music was, by contrast, open-ended, potentially limitless."

"It was a purely American art, free of modernist angst and inflected with pop optimism. Reich said: 'Schoenberg gives a very honest musical portrayal of his times. I salute him—but I don’t want to write like him. Stockhausen, Berio, and Boulez were portraying in very honest terms what it was like to pick up the pieces of a bombed-out continent after World War II. But for some American in 1948 or 1958 or 1968—in the real context of tail fins, Chuck Berry, and millions of burgers sold—to pretend that instead we’re really going to have the dark-brown Angst of Vienna is a lie, a musical lie.'"

So Minimalism is classical music. It is unified, despite its vast diversity, by a central ethos, aesthetic, characteristics, and techniques. And it is historically rooted in a time, a place, a context. These are all clues we can use to discern whether these critics meant Minimalism as such or something else. To address the parts of this discussion earlier about harmony, Minimalism does have many specific harmonic tendencies that help define it. The works of many Minimalist composers, especially Reich and Riley, were a rejection of the atonality in vogue from the influence of Schoenberg and other serialists from Europe. As Ross notes about an early performance of Reich's music: "Since the Schoenberg revolution began, audiences had been pleading for contemporary composers to return to the plain old major and minor chords. Now the minimalists were giving them more tonality than they could handle." Further, "minimalism made hardly a dent on mainstream European music—its reliance on consonances and steady pulses broke all the modernist taboos at once."

The reason I'm talking about a seemingly peripheral issue like harmony is to say that it wouldn't be enough to conclude that Frank Ocean uses conventional tonality and, thus, that supports him being a Minimalist since consonance is a feature of Minimalism; Frank Ocean would have to be using conventional tonality, judged relative to Arnold Schoenberg or Steve Reich. The closest we get to a list of reference points for the kind of minimalism reviewers detected is Pitchfork, which namedrops Rick Rubin and Brian Eno, as cited in the discussion above. Both Eno and Rubin are pop musicians with a minimalist style, not Minimalists as such. Further, there's a reason reviewers jumped to namedrop both of them: it was mistakenly reported, based on a list of artists included in promo material for the album, that Rubin and Eno both appeared on the album, when it became clear from the liner notes later that many artists listed in the promo magazine were not actually collaborators, Eno and Rubin among them. When we're using sources to support a genre designation, we have to make pragmatic, holistic reading of the text to make sure we're not reading too much context into an ambiguity.

Minimalism doesn't signify the same thing even stylistically as the broader meaning I discussed above, because Minimalism in classical music doesn't necessarily mean a tendency to reduce to minimal elements. There are Minimalist operas, elaborate productions with tons of cast and instruments used. Nixon in China is not minimalist in the sense that it uses as few components as possible, because it doesn't, but it is Minimalist in the sense that it uses shifting repetitive phases, eschews atonality, and most importantly, is classical music with those characteristics. You could even have a musical work described as "minimalist Minimalism," if for example Steve Reich did a Minimalist opera adaptation of Waiting for Godot with few characters and an austere atmosphere. The fact that "minimalist Minimalism" can mean something that "R&B R&B" can't should prove, really, that there are two quite distinct uses of the word.

I think this alone should be determinative: Frank Ocean is simply not a classical musician, even in an avant-garde or inclusive/open-minded sense, and his work is also just not part of that school or post-minimalism. I don't think any of those reviews compare his work to other modern classical composers, or assert that he is adopting a radical new approach to his work. Just to be clear, in most contexts the classical and popular music traditions are sufficiently different, even mutually exclusive, that for Frank Ocean to actually become a Minimalist (and not just Minimalism-influenced—but he's not even that), he would have to virtually abandon R&B. Pop and classical music are different disciplines plain and simple, and for Frank to become a bona fide Minimalist would require a break as profound as Michael Jordan switching from basketball to baseball — at the very least, Frank would have to undergo some conscious reinvention and explicit association with the work of Minimalist composers, beyond influence alone.

Now, there is some cross-genre influence between Minimalists and the pop tradition — but importantly, influence from a genre is not inclusion within it. Ross says in his book's intro, "minimalism has marked rock, pop, and dance music from the Velvet Underground onward." Ross cites the Velvet Underground, David Bowie's Low, Sonic Youth, and The Who's "Baba O'Riley" for their influence from Minimalism — but he's not including them as Minimalists or classical musicians of any sort, just noting the cross-genre dialogue; he similarly cites Miles Davis's influence on Reich, but that hardly makes Reich a jazz musician. Another very prominent example of Minimalism's influence are Eno's ambient music and the genre it spawned. Ambient music is not inherently classical, but some pieces are sometimes considered in the context of Minimalism/modern classical, and there is compatibility between some ambient and classical that doesn't exist between any pop and classical. In other words, ambient music doesn't have the same mutually exclusive divide between pop and classical/art music because ambient is sort of its own thing, not a subgenre of popular music. Speaking of Low, Philip Glass's Symphony No. 1 is an interpretation of David Bowie's album. Bowie's is classical-influenced pop, and Glass's is pop-influenced classical, and it's easy to tell the difference.

But besides, even once we've acknowledge that there is some cross-pollination between pop and modern classical that makes Blonde=Minimalism somewhat plausible, the sources don't support it. Even if we are to "stop being so strict about genres tags" as Gentlecollapse6 earlier in the discussion, we would still lack any source that would really allow us to place Blonde in even a very inclusive, generous understanding of the genre. Ocean has not stated any influence from modern classical music, and no critics have written about any influence from modern classical music. So, while Minimalism and modern classical are quite inclusive and even pop-friendly, we lack any textual reason from the sources to believe they meant that Frank falls even within a generously broad understanding of Minimalism, and influence alone is not inclusion within a genre. To be Minimalism, Frank's music would, categorically, have to be classical music in the first place, and popular music is categorically not classical music, even if it is influenced by classical music, which Frank doesn't seem to be by any indication anyway.

There are many reviews that used "minimalism" or "minimalist," but among the ones I've looked at there is not one indication that any reviewer meant formal Minimalism. You'd think if critics meant that — a quite novel thing to associate with an R&B singer — even one among them would clarify their intentions and write something like, "Frank Ocean's new album is minimalist — and I don't just mean that it's pretty minimal. It is a radical reinvention and adoption of the modern classical style as pioneered by Terry Riley and Steve Reich." We would need something that unambiguous, that goes beyond mere use of the word "minimalist" alone, something that alludes to modern classical, something specific and decisive that would resolve the ambiguity in modern classical's favor. I don't think that's being "strict" or "fascist." I just don't see any of the kind of clues that would allow even an expansive definition of Modernism to apply. It's guarding against a form of synthesis by inferring specific meaning from an otherwise ambiguous word. The closest textual support is "This qualifies as minimalist avant-garde" from the CoS review, but that's not nearly enough. "Avant-garde" has the same ambiguity issue as "minimalist," and mashing two squishy terms together does give us something solid. And it's clear from the rest of that same sentence that the reviewer means something very squishy: "the reflection of what’s perceived to be known and the dismantling of it into reworded lessons, something that challenges what you know, what you’ve been taught, what you’ve learned, and then questions what remains, what can be discovered, what’s still ignorantly regarded as truth." By "minimalist avant-garde," he meant basically "it's not aggressive compared to most R&B" and "it's emotionally challenging and innovative relative to most R&B," but I can't read into that sentence that he meant "Frank reminds me of Steve Reich," much less "I am intentionally evoking modern classical music in particular and, not only is this influenced by it, it indeed is modern classical."

Last side note before I conclude, which is aside about Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not a reliable source to support substantive, factual content in the encyclopedia itself. But in meta arguments on talk pages, it's often relevant to refer to the contents and subject matter of other pages. That's especially when the discussion is about linking to another article when there is an ambiguity, because in that case discerning another page's subject matter is an essential component of the whole argument. Wikipedia can be a source to persuasive effect on talk pages, just not for substantive sourcing in the main encyclopedia space.

A good overall rule of thumb: if there's any ambiguity about whether an album falls within a specific formal genre, or if it's just critics using general descriptive words, it's not part of that genre. Genre categorizations are the kind of thing that so easily lead to big heated disputes and confusions that they really should only be applied when it is totally unambiguous what a source meant — and that what they meant is not just description, or even influence, but inclusion within a genre. It would be almost always be better to err on the side of not listing the genre, especially when as here it's strikes a few people as a bit of a stretch. I wrote a similarly long-winded (but thorough!) argument against describing OK Computer as "experimental rock" (which is a formal genre, not just any "rock" described as "experimental"), which can be found here under the "Genre in the lead and infobox, with in-depth evaluation of "experimental rock" as a label" subsection. —BLZ · talk 09:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. For other users: some of BLZ's quotations of Alex Ross can be verified here. AndrewOne (talk) 17:16, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nights / Night.s

The track "Nights" appears as "Night.s" on the vinyl version of blonde.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2017

Nights needs to be fixed in the track listing. It currently says Night.s. Thanks! 71.87.228.183 (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Already done in this edit. Gulumeemee (talk) 06:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Is Blonde Frank Ocean's third studio album?

The consensus is that Blonde is Frank Ocean's second studio album.

Cunard (talk) 06:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An editor named Bluesatellite added sources saying Blonde was Frank Ocean's third studio album right here, however there are other sources calling this his second studio album [1] [2] [3]. Is this considered Frank Ocean's second studio album or his third? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Votes

• Second - I personally believe this is his second studio album not his third. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Second - Numerous reputable sources say so, and the preceding album Endless was a film release (music videos). Dan56 (talk) 11:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• Second and add an Efn-style explanatory footnote. See my reasoning and proposal for a footnote below. I'm completely convinced that Blonde is second, but I think Endless represents enough of a gray area that it's worth briefly explaining why it doesn't count. —BLZ · talk 02:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment: There are sources saying second album and sources saying third album. Below are some of the "third" sources. Binksternet (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Complex magazine: "Late last month, we learned that Blonde—Ocean's third studio album—had been certified platinum by the RIAA."
  • Okayplayer.com: "...his long-awaited third studio Blonde..."
  • The Quietus magazine: "...In Frank Ocean's long (long) awaited third album..."
  • Hypebeast.com: "Released in 2016, Ocean’s third studio album features tracks like 'Nikes', 'Ivy' and “Solo'..."

Comment - Retrospective articles that comment on Ocean's discography place Blonde as the second studio album, Channel Orange the first, Nostalgia Ultra a mixtape, and Endless a video album, leaving no "third" studio album:

• Jack Macguire of Hot Press says, in this article: ...his second studio album Blonde and his visual album Endless...his debut mixtape Nostalgia, Ultra...;
• Matt Nixon of The Independent says in this article, ...his second studio album, Blonde...debut LP Channel Orange...the visual album Endless...;
• Jon Savage in GQ says in this article: ...his first mixtape, Nostalgia, Ultra...first full solo album, Channel Orange...his second studio album, Blonde...Endless, a 45-minute video album...

Dan56 (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Going through the sources that are listed above, something worth noticing is that the articles describing it as "third" mention so only in passing. It's not clear whether they believe it is third after Nostalgia, Ultra and Channel Orange, or third after Channel Orange and Endless; both of those can't simultaneously be correct, or else there'd also be a case that Blonde is actually Ocean's fourth studio album. On the other hand, the sources Dan56 pulled explain why Blonde is the second studio album and describe the full sequence of Ocean's longform releases in greater detail.

So why an explanatory note? This is the kind of thing that is easily disputed and, after all, there are sources that say "third" to fuel the misunderstanding. So it's worth clarifying not just to future editors, but also to future general readers who may not understand why N,U and Endless don't count. Also, while I think it's obvious that N,U is a mixtape and doesn't count as a studio album, the situation with Endless is a lot more complicated.

Endless is so crucial to answering this question that this RfC could be framed as "Is Endless Frank Ocean's second studio album, or a video album?" Further complicating things, video albums and studio albums are not inherently mutually exclusive concepts. Lemonade debuted simultaneously as both a video and as an album purchasable as standalone audio, and it is both a video album and a studio album—but primarily a studio album. If the video version of Lemonade had instead premiered on HBO a week or a month prior to the studio album release, I'd remain skeptical that it should be called a "video" and not a studio album. What's important is not whether Endless is a studio album or a video album, since it is both; what we're really asking is whether it is primarily a video or an album (i.e., a longform audio-only release).

There are many factors to consider. First, in the anticipation and announcements before Endless was released (when it was still thought to be called Boys Don't Cry), critics (understandably) assumed the project that we now know as Endless would be Ocean's upcoming studio album. I suspect that most of the subsequent confusion stems from this initial reporting, when things were developing very rapidly and it wasn't clear what exactly was being announced. Then Endless was released as a video album, but the music is still a collection of studio recordings. And crucially, it does exist in a studio album version! That version just happened to appear as a remastered physical release almost two years later. Finally, Template:Frank Ocean lists Endless in its studio albums category. It could be listed in a custom "video album" section, but that's not necessary. I don't think it's entirely wrong to include it among studio albums in this template, even with it preceding Blonde in sequence, but it does contribute to the confusion and the risk of more confusion in the future.

So why shouldn't Endless be considered (primarily) as a studio album? Because it wasn't released as such until well after the video release—so much later that another studio album came out before that time. It can't retroactively become second. I think enough time has passed that the audio-only version should be properly understood as a secondary release. The audio-only version is essentially a reissue in a different format. It would be like the first sentence of the Nevermind article saying "Nevermind is the third box set by American rock band Nirvana" on the basis of the 2011 box set reissue.

So, I'd propose a footnote that looks like this:

Blonde (alternately titled blond)^[1][2] is the second studio album by American singer Frank Ocean.

[...]

=='''Footnotes'''==

The simulated references (refs 3–8) I placed within the footnote should be the same sources included on both sides of this conversation. Again, I think a footnote is essential here since Endless is an unusually extreme edge case in terms of what formally qualifies as a "studio album" and why or why not. If it's confusing enough to confuse the press and dedicated fans, it's worth clearing up. —BLZ · talk 02:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I would support a footnote, but would prefer something simpler; just have the footnote summarize the album discography rather than our observation of some of the sources; attributing it to either Macguire, Nixon, or Savage: "According to music journalist Jon Savage, Blonde is Ocean's second studio album, following the video album Endless, the first studio album Channel Orange, and the mixtape Nostalgia Ultra. Even the average reader should be able understand this, not requiring an elaborate explanation. And the statement "although some sources have described..." is, not blatant, but somewhat synth/OR, citation clutter, etc. As an aside, I've reverted the edit that rearranged Endless in the template. Dan56 (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I added it, using the Savage source; he appears to be the most reputable writer in the available sources, and his article is an extensive profile on Ocean, so it can be considered a superior source for this instance. Dan56 (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I like your footnote. I'll admit, citing every source that says it's "second" vs. "third" would be tedious and not all that beneficial. The only benefit is it could prevent people from saying "what about X source that says it's third?" because X source would already be there, but that's not really worth cataloging every instance of "second" or "third" and it risks drawing a false equivalence between the value of the sources. Relying on a single high-quality well-reasoned source makes sense. However, I still think it's worth unpacking why Endless is not a studio album. To me, the obvious question a reader or fan might have remains "well most modern 'video/visual albums' are considered studio albums, so why not Endless?" The bare assertion that it is a video album doesn't fully answer the question because they aren't mutually exclusive terms, and then the question is even further complicated by the subsequent reissue of Endless as a conventional audio album. Additionally, without unpacking the gray area at least a little bit, the reason for the footnote itself may be lost on readers. If we make it sound too self-evident, without providing the context that "Endless is easily mistakable for Ocean's second studio album but it's not," we risk making the footnote seem like a head-scratching redundancy. Readers should understand that there has been some confusion or mistake in the past and that's why there's a footnote. I've added a sentence about the release history of Endless that hopefully conveys both the source of the confusion and the reason why Endless shouldn't be considered his second studio album. I think we could still include a handful of sources that have incorrectly called Blonde third just to account for the discrepancy and why we're bothering to explain it at all, but it may not be necessary. —BLZ · talk 18:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Easy (Frank Ocean song)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Easy (Frank Ocean song). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit war

Closing discussion per WP:EVADE.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:TheAmazingPeanuts keeps on removing the genre soft rock saying that it's not on the source while it simply is, plus keeps on restoring a not neutral choice of reviews that only picks the higher ones.--Hotbox eron (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC) @Hotbox eron: You are the one who is edit warring, you been here today and already starting trouble. The HipHopDX source says Much of Blonde sounds more like a minimalist soft rock record, that's not explicitly calling the album sock rock at all (WP:GWAR). And Entertainment Weekly and The Guardian doesn't need to be replaced in the reviews template. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC) first and foremost i would like to ask you to moderate your language please. Then, i repeat, the article has not neutral choice of reviews only picking the higher ones, and you still ignore to answer this, and at this point you make me think about the reason why you're avoiding the point Plus, the page history is there, we can clearly see who started to revert and keeps doing it without any approval--Hotbox eron (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC) @Hotbox eron: That's just your opinion, at Metacritic the album only received a least one mixed review. To me, you are just cherrypicking. Pinging Binksternet and Throast in this discussion. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC) I'm not cherrypicking, i was reading the article after listening to the album, i looked though the reviews and i was surprised that, with all those high ratings, at metacritic the rating was less than 90. So i checked and i found two/three star ratings that where nowhere to be found--Hotbox eron (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Taking a quick look at Metacritic, the album seems to have received mostly positive reviews which the table currently reflects. I think it can be left as it is. I also agree with TheAmazingPeanuts regarding the genre. @Hotbox eron: Actually, an edit war is not started by the person who reverts first, as you claim, but by the person who then decides to revert back to their version. The burden is on the editor who introduces the change to seek consensus on the talk page. Throast (talk | contribs) 19:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Thank you for the clear explanation Throast--Hotbox eron (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC) @Hotbox eron: Glad you understand. In the future, I suggest you read WP:MOS and WP:ALBUMSTYLE, also when you adding reviews in articles such as Pegasus make sure they are reliable, we have a list of reliable sources for albums WP:RSMUSIC. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• BrianWilson1960s.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Article title

Why is this article named as Blonde when it's clearly Blond as per the album cover. If the references all say Blonde then they're wrong. The album itself is the primary source. Tuzapicabit (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Tuzapicabit: Album covers doesn't count as an reliable source for album titles. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't need to have a reliable source when it's the primary source. ie, the thing itself! Tuzapicabit (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The cover art of Ye (album) has text on it "I hate being Bi-Polar its awesome" and it doesn't the album title. So whatever text on the cover art, it's not necessary to become the title. Silencetooloud (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)