Talk:Californication (album)/Archive 1

Themes Introduced

Californication definitely was not the album to introduce drugs as a theme in Kiedis' writing. One Hot Minute's first track has a lot to do with drugs. Death was featured on Mother's Milk (knock me down) and One Hot Minute (Tearjerker/Transcending) so i dont' think that that was feautred either 24.16.192.56 (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mo,cause

i think that doesnt matter very much, graue, because that the audience can't here the difference. I think someone should add the numbers of sold records. thx, kevinhecken,wilsenroth, germany ( i wrote the german article about Californication )

Everybody can hear the clipping in "Otherside" for instance. This album is a piece of crap, it's just not listenable. I don't understand how the artists can tolerate record companies screwing it up like this. 83.118.38.37 19:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 11th track

I just visited RHCP's site and saw that the 11th track from "Californication" is entitled "The Velvet Glove", not "This Velvet Glove". The cover of my album reads "This Velvet Glove". So which one is it? I'm getting really confused... By the way in [link to copyvio website removed] the song is listed under both names.

It's This Velvet Glove. The RHCP site is in a bit of disarray right now since the switch to the new format. For example, on the new album it says Billy Preston played piano on a track which he clearly played a different instrument, namely the clavinet. Cory 75.2.43.242 19:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B-Sides, Outtakes and Non-Album Tracks

I changed the formatting of this section to match that of Stadium Arcadium's page, it looks a bit cleaner and has more info like where the song can be found on an official release. I have the CD singles so I added the song length from the inlay. Also, Parallel Universe on the Around The World single is a studio demo so I added that too. It isn't listed as a studio demo though, just as a Non LP Track, so I just left it as is. In case anyone prefers the old look I've saved the code and will reinstate it if anyone objects to the changes I've made, but personally I think it looks a lot better and gives the pages a uniform look. JedEgan 22:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That's a lot. Thanks; incredibly helpful of you. G.AC 22:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of Album title

If you've read the Kiedis Autobiography, it is pretty clearly explained why he came up with Californication, and its prior meaning-as a cross between "California" and "Fornication" was in no way implied by Kiedis. I don't see why it needs to pointed out at the top of the page, in its irrelevance. Maybe somewhere else, but not at the top-it implies that the Prior meaning was the intended one. Just a thought. G.AC 13:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah to bad keidis didn't come up with the term as it's existed since the 70's.65.43.223.8 (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember that there was some legal wrangle a few years ago because a television show had used the title as their own with no connection to the RHCP. I don't know the outcome, but finding in the bands favour would indicate it was their own, whilst a finding against them would hint that it was a word already in use. Does anybody remember / know more that I do on this? Thank you, AndrewJFulker (talk) 08:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Savior

Everyone's got a quirky track they love, and this is mine. But what's it about ?? - a friend who comes to one's rescue or a loftier messianic idea ? Contributions welcome.John.McDougall 09:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought of it about Hillel Slovak- actually, listening to the lyrics carefully right now, i'm certain it's that. There are lots of lines suggesting this but i'll try and find a reference. Mz.Kiedis 11:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sound quality

This section in the article is in my opinion a fair criticism of the album, but I don't think it belongs in the article as even after extensive searching I've only been able to find one minor mention of it as a source to back it up. Does anyone have any references for this, and if not, does anyone object to me removing it in a few days or so? KamrynMatika 05:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I sourced it and moved it into the critical recognition section. Hope nobody minds :) KamrynMatika 05:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review - Pass

See Good Article Criteria for further details.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

Although the album is strong as it is, perhaps it would be possible to include sections on lyrical/musical themes in the album. This extension would make the article far more informative. See this article for an example. Well done! ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 12:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, thanks a lot! :) It's cool that the first article I made proper changes to has become GA. I agree with your comments - as I was reading the sources one big theme that jumped out at me was that they all commented on how the album sounded a lot different to its predecessors, so I'm working on including that. I can't find much commentary about the lyrics, but that's hardly surprising as half of the Chili Peppers' songs don't even make sense. Finding information on the internet isn't as easy as I'd have thought as the album was released eight years ago and most archives don't go back that far, but I'll search around anyways. Thanks again! Kamryn Matika 16:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small point. When reading this: "While most of the album progressed rapidly, Californication remained a difficult song to put together. Frusciante felt compelled to write an appropriate guitar ensemble to accompany the powerful lyrics, but encountered difficulty in finding the correct match. lyrics."; what is meant by "match. lyrics"? CloudNine 11:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have been a minor typo. Fixed. NSR77 ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FA

I think this article might be ready for FAC soon, based on the comments in the peer review and the fact that all the concerns have been addressed. Is there anything else to be done first? Kamryn Matika 04:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As of July 7, 2007, it's now a Featured Article. :) NSR77 ^T _C 02:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job guys. Looks good :) Xihix 16:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Track info

--More to do with the individual songs than the album as a whole, but I think improvements could be made by creating articles - however brief - for many more tracks: At the moment only 6 out of the 15 songs have links to info on them and I think this is something that could be added to in order to improve the RHCP Wikiproject. Mz.Kiedis 11:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, those articles were removed because there are no sources with which to write them from and they are not notable. 86.138.190.41 18:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chart information references

Wikitable code is hard enough to read as it is without citeweb templates cluttering it up, so I moved all the links to the general 'references' section. Feel free to revert me if you think it's a heinous idea. Kamryn · Talk 08:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not heinous, I just feel it looks too cluttered with this giant redirect dump in the Reference section. Regards, NSR77 ^T _C 02:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I think you misunderstand slightly - your edit summary says "must be sourced", which is correct as it is sourced. However, for uncontroversial and easily verifiable information like this, inline citations aren't required. However, do what you think is best :o) Kamryn · Talk 05:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emit Remmus

I have asked for citation for where it says the guitar part of emit remmus is backwards as I have seen clips of them playing this song live and it sounds exactly the same as on the album. This obviously wouldn't be possible if the guitar part was reversed. Also I can't find any reliable sources that agree with the statement. I'll remove it if no-one can provide a good source. --LeakeyJee 15:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Album cover

Does anyone know who did the album cover art? I expected it to be in the article...--79.68.36.147 (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Epiphanal"

"Epiphanal" is not an English word. I suspect what the person quoted in the article's introduction meant was "epiphanic". I introduced a [sic] after the word, and had it reverted for reasons unexplained. I would suggest that the [sic] stay, or that the quotation is removed altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.25.20 (talk) 09:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can only guess as to what the reviewer meant, but I'm thinking it is some form of derivative of "epiphany", though, I could be wrong. The [sic] doesn't seem necessary. NSR77 ^T _C 17:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

where is the cover?

its missing!please put it back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.192.68 (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

"Critics, however, dismissed the album [OHM], claiming it was weak and unfocused.[5][7]"
That's wrong ! Critics were mixed up, not unanimously enthousiastic like for BSSM, but there was a lot of good reviews and the work of Dave Navarro has been praised for not copying Slovak/Frusciante style.
"Shortly after the release of One Hot Minute, Navarro was fired due to internal differences.[8]"
Oh yes, 2 years after the release, it's really "shortly". From late 93 to late 97 Dave Navarro was the guitar player of the Red Hot Chili Peppers, and there was no question to replace him, he was the ideal choice.

Some questions

I'm reading through the "Background" section and have a couple of questions...

"One Hot Minute was a commercial success, selling roughly five million copies (although a let down compared to Blood Sugar Sex Magik)" Was this a commercial let down, or a let down in the sense that the critics note in the following sentence? The juxtapositon makes it somewhat ambiguous.
The Kiedis/ Mr Bungle incident is rather mystifying to someone who doesn't know the background. I'm guessing that Warner decided to release the RCHP album first because they didn't want to anger Kiedis? Who exactly feared the retribution - the band or the recording company? Are we talking death threats here, or someone leaving a label?

Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cant cite but One Hot Minute was considered a financial dissapointemnt, as there was a lot of money put behind it and I have the impresssion it yielded a net loss. Ceoil (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stable version

Hi all, there is a new stable template that I have placed on this talk page. The purpose of this template, as explained in the documentation and in a short discussion at the village pump, is to help against article rot (the deterioration of quality that can occur in articles), and to keep a link to a stable version, which will be reliable, and not so prone to those errors, vandalism, and erroneous information that can crop up at any moment. It has no effect on the actual article, and can be upgraded/changed at any time - ideally to reflect a newer, improved stable version. This being said, if you are against using it on this talk page (some have found it intrusive), feel free to discuss or remove it - I believe that it will benefit some articles more than others, and I accept that not all will see a need for it on each article. Falconus^{p t c} 22:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuit

An anonymous editor added a rather lengthy section about the band suing the show Californication. I think some of the material is OK in principle (with trimming) but most of the text was sourced either to a non-neutral primary source (a law blog published by the law firm who represented the show's network) or unreliable sources (answers.com, etc.). If anyone wants to rework the section with reliable sources, I think it could be re-added. --Laser brain (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Californication (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/redhotchilipeppers/articles/story/5923940/red_hot_redux

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Californication (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:

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) 03:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Californication (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/20111210041346/http://www.listsofbests.com/list/28003-definitive-200 to http://www.listsofbests.com/list/28003-definitive-200

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 22:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Californication (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/20150206002037/http://redhotchilipeppers.com/timeline to http://redhotchilipeppers.com/timeline
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nme.com/reviews/reviews/19990507104204reviews.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 04:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Californication (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/20071012130608/http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/robbiewilliams/articles/story/5923718/really_randoms_robbie_williams_eminem to https://www.rollingstone.com/artists/robbiewilliams/articles/story/5923718/really_randoms_robbie_williams_eminem

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 07:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Californication (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/20120602132920/http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/500-greatest-albums-of-all-time-20120531/red-hot-chili-peppers-californication-19691231 to https://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/500-greatest-albums-of-all-time-20120531/red-hot-chili-peppers-californication-19691231

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 01:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]