Jump to content

Talk:Embrya

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

Release date

[edit]

I'm seeing two dates, June 30, 1998 and June 23, 1998. Billboard.com and Allmusicguide.com site the date as the latter. --NewSoulFan4Life 07:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Herald review

[edit]

Transcription using Google News Advanced News Archive Search. Boston Herald (Convey, Kevin R. 046. July 19, 1998) review of Embrya (1998):

Embrya (Columbia). Three stars. Maxwell's back doing the sexy new soul-man thing he does so well. He scored a solid success with his debut, "Urban Hang Suite," and "Embrya" is just as ambitious, just as smooth and just a tiny bit more daring.

— Kevin R. Convey

Dan56 (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Sun-Times review

[edit]

Transcription using Google News Advanced News Archive Search. Chicago Sun-Times (Little, Rebecca. July 12, 1998) review of Embrya (1998):

Maxwell, "Embrya". (Columbia) (STAR)(STAR) 1/2 R&B. Love. No one sings it better than Maxwell. And the man can sing, working fans (especially women) into a frenzy with his soulful Marvin Gaye-esque crooning and lyrics hot enough to melt even the coldest heart. His 1996 debut, "Urban Hang Suite," garnered attention in part because its music and lyrics strayed from R&B's lust- and sex-littered beaten path. Instead, Maxwell delivered messages of love, romance and relationships, on top of sensual '70s-style grooves. With his sophomore effort, "Embrya," he continues that trend, but unfortunately loses the momentum and excitement he created with "Hang." Nevertheless, "Embrya" is a nice collection of love songs, all earthy, not terribly exciting, but adequate for setting the mood. To his credit, he still offers supple grooves and romantic lyrics, including the first single, "Luxury: Cococure"; the toe-tapping "Gestation: Mythos," and "Matrimony: Maybe You." The title cut - leave it to Maxwell to invent a word - is an instrumental that sounds at once like a fetal heartbeat and the slow drip of a faucet. Then it fades to silence. A nice (or weird) touch.

— Rebecca Little

Dan56 (talk) 00:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USA Today review

[edit]

Transcription using Google News Advanced News Archive Search. USA Today (Jones, Steve. June 30, 1998) review of Embrya (1998):

R&B: Maxwell, Embrya (# # # 1/2) -- With most R&B crooners, the journey to sensual fulfillment is like an express train ride to the final destination. But Maxwell prefers a more circuitous route, one with side trips to different erogenous zones and pleasure points along the way. His tantalizing wordplay slinks over pulsating grooves that are as hypnotic as those on his inventive Urban Hang Suite. At his debut two years ago, Maxwell was likened to Old School soul singers; with Embrya, it's clear he's set on creating a school that's all his own.

— Steve Jones

Dan56 (talk) 00:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Negativity

[edit]

What's the deal with all the negativity in the critical reception section of this critically acclaimed album? Dumaka (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Content removal

[edit]

Dumaka has removed the less flattering material from this article and has not given a valid explanation as to why, although they suggested in this edit summary that they don't agree with what the source cited (a profile of Maxwell by Vibe magazine) says; yet they left the more flattering aspects of what this source supports in the article, and removed a substantial portion of the reviews section to present a more flattering view of the album's reception that is not proportionate to the what the Vibe source clearly said--that critics panned the album. Despite my best efforts to communicate with them, they've responded with impolite edit summaries, a threat, and baseless accusations. Removing content solely because of personally disagreeing with it is against WP:TRUTH, and they have made dubious claims that certain sources aren't available (claiming Christgau's consumer guide doesn't mention the album, when in fact it does, and removing a Harvard-form cited book source). Coincidently these claims are for edits removing not-so flattering criticism of the album in that section. Dan56 (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remove the less flattering material (which was added by you I might add) from this article as you can plainly see. I also explained in detail every edit I made. Dumaka (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced some of the removed content if it agreed with the cited reference. The Christgau reference had the wrong URL, I researched the correct URL and replaced the content and updated the reference. What we have here is a content dispute. Wikipedia has a clear guide to resolving these disputes. Both editors should review it and if necessary request official intervention to resolve. For now, please refrain from reverting each other, just make whatever changes you can support with a verifiable reference from a reliable source. Remember, neutral point of view means we should balance the positive and the negative as much as possible, even when our personal opinion leans more to one side. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 19:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I left those edits in there to begin with. Since you added them again it is now been duplicated in the article. Dumaka (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This Christgau ref. was correct, as in my original revision. And once again, Dumaka has reverted your restoration of the line saying how the album was received by critics. Dan56 (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't remove that citation in the first place! It was duplicated so I simply removed the duplicated information. Do you want the article to say that same thing twice? Dumaka (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You removed it in your previous revision here, claiming the album was not in the review. And please refrain from removing the material supported by Vibe's article. You have failed to address this issue. Dan56 (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not remove anything as I've told you numerous times. If you had simply waited for me to finish my edits we wouldn't even be having this discussion. I was simply trying to add balance of the negative and positive unlike you who are only focused on the negative reviews of this album Dumaka (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the source cited said the album received negative reviews, more weight is given to them, per WP:NPOV (fairly and proportionally balancing viewpoints). None of your changes to the section improved the article. You simply removed a source you disagreed with (although you left what it supported about Maxwell's alternative fanbase), and made a sloppy rearrangement of the section's prose. Dan56 (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've solicited comments from several experienced editors, so unless you will address why you removed the Vibe source, there is nothing more for either of us to say. Dan56 (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're only citing sources that gave the album negative reviews exposing your own POV. This album was critically acclaimed and certified platinum so how could it have more "negative" reviews than positive. And I'm looking through that source you provided saying the album was panned and I can't find it anywhere in the source. And for the last time I DID NOT remove the Vibe source. Dumaka (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the "diff" I posted above this talk page post (clearly shows you removed that source.) "Critics panned the record" (Hinds (2001) Vibe). Dan56 (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OMG I told you I wasn't done editing. I was going to re-add that info once I was finished. And Why are you reediting the article to undo all my edits? Dumaka (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the "diff" I posted above this talk page post (clearly shows you removed that source.) "Critics panned the record" (Hinds (2001) Vibe). And once again, you are making a false claim to support your content removal of less flattering material ([1]) Contrary to your edit summary, "confounded urban consumers" is not mentioned anywhere in the rest of the article, and the lead is a summary of the main points of the article, so you cant remove the critics line. Dan56 (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You never said you were going to re add anything. Use a sandbox for experiments. Your edits are not improving the article. The first paragraph in this talk page post fully explains why. Dan56 (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So it's against the law to make edits in a word document and then copy and paste them when you're finished? Had you not been so busy reverting all my edits I would have got the chance to re-add it. The only reason I removed some of it was because the source you provided was not found. Dumaka (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
you clearly told me in both your initial edit summary and your talk page that you disagreed with what the Vibe source said. You clearly had no intentions of restoring that information, and your removal of Christgau's consumer guide review and the RSguide book source indicated even more that your edits were not neutral in form. Don't play innocent. You've been around Wikipedia to long for me to believe you don't know you cant make massive content removal with an edit summary that says "One article dose not mean it was widely panned", followed up by this removal made entirely without an edit summary. You cant blame me for questioning your tact and questioning your changes in general. Every source I cited is appropriately formatted and accessible; if you have a question as to verifying what it says, the proper thing to have done was use the verification tag or bring it up at the talk page. Dan56 (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can't blame me for charging you with POV either. I re-add all the negative info after I edited it to make the article more balanced. If you chose to focus solely on the negativity of this album then I will be here to restore your POV revisions and add balance back to it. All my edits have summaries. All you've done is revert every edit I've made just like everyone else who has ever made an edit in this article. This article doesn't BELONG to you so stop acting like you're the only person who can make edits to it.Dumaka (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like every time someone makes an edit there you are to revert it. Dumaka (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can. And this clearly shows that most of your edits don't have valid reasons, particularly the massive content removals and false claims that sources aren't there (your removal of Christgau's consumer guide review and the RSguide book source). Making cliché WP:OWN accusations wont distract any of us from the fact that you've failed to justify your changes, which are not neutral in form and not proportional to how the reception is reported to have been (see Vibe article). I think we've established already this, that it's repeating what's in the article. Should we also establish that the simple purpose of the lead is to summarize main points made in the body of the article? (MOS:INTRO). Dan56 (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You keep repeating the same crap over and over again yet fail to realized I added that information back into the article after I was done editing. I'm done talking to you.Dumaka (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POV revision

[edit]

Dumaka is now trying to spin the leading sentence to the critical reception in a more flattering light by erroneously describing the music critics who panned the album as "urban music critics" and by repeating a line about consumers already mentioned in the preceding section on "commercial performance"; not only does he want to waterdown the truth and not stick to what the source explicitly says (source cited), he wants to add undue emphasis to a line already established in the lead and in the "commercial performance" section. I cant reason with him. Someone please do. And as a side note, he is reintroducing something that can only be verified by one's personal listen of the album. Dan56 (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, you're like a 5 year old boy throwing a fit because someone else wants to edit an article you think belongs to you. I simply repeated what was in the source material and added that urban music critics panned the album, even those the source doesn't even describe who these critics who panned the album are at all. Everything POV about this article was added there by you. All I've done was add balance to it yet you feel the need to revert everything everyone adds to the article. Dumaka (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK I took the "urban" portion out. Are you happy now? Dumaka (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now I am. Cliché ownership accusations wont compensate for how weak your case has been. You cant argue with the fact that repeating something about "commercial performance" in a "critical reception" section is undue emphasis. We don't repeat things simply because they make the album's reception sound better. Dan56 (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm far from throwing a fit; I've kept my cool and made a solid case at the talk page. You were the one using exclamation points and making threats towards me. I've been as polite as possible, but you're not welcoming any of my points. Dan56 (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you're ok with adding that it was panned 3 or 4 times in the article but your not ok with adding that it was received well by others? You're POV is ridiculous at this point. Also, where have I threaten you? By claiming to report you for violations of the rules? Are you seriously?Dumaka (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's mentioned once in the lead, and once in the body. Are you arguing that it's not a major aspect of the article and shouldn't be in the lead? (MOS:INTRO) Dan56 (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Only one source says it was panned. No other source says that. You obviously have a personal issue with this album or something. But I give up. Do whatever the hell you want with it. I'm tired of going back and forth with your childishness. Dumaka (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents: I believe if only one source says that it was 'well accepted at urban critics' it shouldn't be weighted only on it. Try finding more sources and in that way maybe the sentence will work. — Tomíca(T2ME) 21:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only one source said it was panned as well (the same source). Should that be removed as well? Dumaka (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would be fancruft. ...was considered a misstep by critics." Unless you're a fan of the album, editors are unlikely to challenge the Vibe source, which happens to be a profile and interview with Maxwell, so I don't know why you would be questioning it in the first place, Dumaka. Dan56 (talk) 21:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was quoting the Vibe source, the one and ONLY source that said it was panned also says that it was received well by alternative listeners. Yet you feel that only the "panned" part need inclusion. Why is that? Dumaka (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe because it's a "critical reception" section (dedicated to an overview of how an album was received by critics; MOS:ALBUM#Critical reception)??? Maybe because well written articles don't stray Off-topic? Maybe because I was reverting an attempt to regurgitate something that had already been established before in the body of the article, i.e. the "commercial performance" section? Dan56 (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yet you have no problem regurgitating the negative, right? Dumaka (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do u mean? Nothing is repeated in the body as it currently is. Dan56 (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the body, but throughout the article yes it is. Given the fact that only ONE source said it was panned with no mention of by who or by which critics, it doesn't warrant inclusion. So I will be removing it. I understand that you think this article is yours and no one has the right to edit it but this is a Wiki and people have the right to change things if they have good sources Dumaka (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you fancy this album, but this is an encyclopedia. We prefer to keep things accurate. So unless you have a specific issue with Vibe magazine or the writer of the article... Dan56 (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't fancy this album. I'm just trying to keep it balanced. I understand you must not like the album at all which is why you added all the negativity to it. But it doesn't matter, this album was released over 10 years ago. Nothing you say here will affect its RIAA rating. Have a nice day Dumaka (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, there is literally one paragraph in the whole article dedicated to the negative criticisms the album received, and they are from notable music critics, almost always used in most music articles on Wikipedia. This is not controversial. Teammm talk
email 22:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Embrya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 19:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Embrya&oldid=1201743427"