Talk:The Slip (album)

Correct title?

People can't seem to decide if it's "The Slip" or "the slip" or "The slip". For what it's worth, the ID3 tags from the MP3s on the website say "The Slip", so I'd go with that. Micpp (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, that makes the most sense... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.254.33 (talk) 07:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, as per Wiki naming policies, I believe the correct title for the article should be The Slip (album) (or The Slip (Nine Inch Nails album), but there are not other album articles for The Slip at this time, so it's not a necessity to include NIN in the article name). We went through this sort of hullabaloo over Year Zero Remixed/Y34RZ3R0R3M1X3D. 74.74.65.213 (talk) 07:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In the ID3 tags of the mp3 files, it is listed as The Slip. StevePrutz (talk) 08:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Day One?

Is this day one of Year Zero? Nuclear detonations? ELE? 58.6.178.206 (talk) 08:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm really curious as to how this relates to the Year Zero concept... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.254.33 (talk) 08:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Corona radiata is a neurological term. "Seeing lights" may be a reference brain/neuro problem. And, with "The Four of Us..." maybe it's Quadrophenia-esque. StevePrutz (talk) 08:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's referring to the four horsemen of the apocalypse... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.254.33 (talk) 08:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure it is referencing the Twilight Zone episode, "The Four of Us Are Dying." 75.80.250.124 (talk) 03:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If you looked into year Zero and the alternate reality campaign it's already 2 months after year Zero. The Slip is not a sequel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.28.160 (talk) 21:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? Even though that ended 2 months ago, they're still trying to get a TV series up. This might be a sign of Year Zero relativity... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.245.72 (talk) 01:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The 5th page of the album art PDF file has to be a modified Art is Resistance logo, and I have my suspicions that there is some connection to Year Zero lyrically, but we can't say anythong on the article unless a reliable source points something out. Patience guys, I'm sure something will emerge in an interview or something. -- Reaper X 03:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Cover art

This is a great day for denim jackets. 203.87.59.107 (talk) 08:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need pages for all of the tracks?

Keep it down to the single releases, which technically is only Discipline and NOT Echoplex... Although they all come with they own cover artwork, there isn't enough info behind them for their own articles. Any insight? —Vanishdoom (talk) 09:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

-Well all of the tracks come with their own artwork/cover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.28.160 (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd support merging the "Echoplex" article, given that the NIN website only denotes "Discipline" as a single. If memory serves right, portions of Year Zero were also purposefully leaked/made available in advance for promotional purposes, I'm sure we all agree that this does not make that material notable enough for standalone articles. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 09:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking something similar since I couldn't find any info supporting Echoplex was released as a single, (I don't think it was released to radio) - But it was just released over the weekend, I say let's see what happens this week. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 10:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, given that the release of "Echoplex" garnered a number of articles in the media, particularly for the method by which it was released, I don't think it should necessarily be merged into this article. Though it might warrant not counting it as a single for the purposes of the infobox at the bottom of the article. 74.74.65.213 (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because it was leaked, doesn't mean Echoplex should have its own article. Like Cyrus said, during YZ some songs were leaked that never became singles. Storung (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A similiar discussion is going on over at Talk:Echoplex (song) Naufana^² : talk 20:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Gathering news sources

Ok, it's sparse now, but let's pool possible news sources to article integration.

• TV3 (New Zealand) article [1]
• Gigwise.com [2]
• NME.com - [3]
• Idolator - [4]

AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

More

• Wired.com - [5]
• BBC - [6]
• Copy of email sent to members on NIN mailing list [7]
• Billboard Magazine - [8]

AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

More still...

• The New York Times - [9]
• CBC - [10]
• The Globe and Mail - [11]
• Pitchfork Media - [12]

Jmcbns (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I think that is good for initial coverage. Most of the sources are reiterating the initial release of information. We should now focus on news media which may support information about sales, distribution, community reaction, and reviews. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Some interesting blogs posts from Ian Rogers [13], who previously was a VP at Yahoo! Music [14]. And from Bob Lefsetz some commentary on the release of the album [15] AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth mentioning the last.fm shows the album topping the songs chart. http://www.last.fm/music/+charts/?charttype=weekly&subtype=track&range=1209902400-1210507200 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.184.114 (talk) 08:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Tracks 9 and 10 are mixed up

I'm surprised that I haven't seen comments, anywhere so far, on this issue. I downloaded both the official 24/96 WAV and the FLAC. Although the tracks have the same names in both releases, track 9 on the FLAC is actually track 10 on the WAV, and vice versa (10 on the FLAC is 9 on the WAV).

This is confusing for several reasons. The iLike link (which the official Slip site links to) coincides with the FLAC running order. But you would imagine the 24/96 WAV would be "definitive" version. Also, from a subjective standpoint, it seems that the WAV running order makes more sense. In the WAV release, Corona Radiata blends into what's called Demon Seed on the FLAC pretty well, and then the album ends with what the FLAC calls The Four of Us Are Dying. So... any ideas on this? Someone obviously goofed over at NIN.com. Star shaped (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The official download MP3 and FLAC versions correspond to the iLike stream. Also the MP3 files contain images and embedded lyrics that make sense for the given names and order in the PDF. The Hi-Def WAV appears to be the one that is wrong. -Jmcbns (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the lyrics for the MP3 version, it states the name of the track. For example, Demon Seed says "DEMON SEED" in the lyrics right above the actual lyrics themseleves. The website has a track listing, in which Demon Seed is #10. WAV files are wrong. - 75.16.73.187 (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok guys, that clears it up I think. I've also noticed that the WAV version is about 19-20 seconds longer than the FLAC version, and also has a larger number of samples. It appears most or all of the difference is silence between tracks (which interrupts the seguing, i noticed, compared to the FLAC version). Weird, huh? Star shaped (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The wav file for Discipline fully fades out, unlike the mp3s and flacs where it abruptly cuts out Ameyer17 (talk) 05:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Would it be worth noting that not all of the "definitive" WAVE files they offer are at the true resolution as stated? http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=63086&view=findpost&p=563493 --75.2.5.79 (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. I was aware of that and figured it might be worth mentioning. So if someone doesn't edit the article to mention that, then I guess I might. Star shaped (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

They're fixed now from nin.com:

• • UPDATE

Some friends at hydrogenaudio pointed out an error with the high resolution WAVE files we didn't catch. The corrected files are now posted along with high resolution FLAC files as well. If you're interested in these, simply re-download the new files. Sorry for the hassle!

- 75.17.11.59 (talk) 09:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Genre

On the ID3 tags of the tracks, it says (253)

any ideas? i dont think its a mistake. 76.217.116.31 (talk) 02:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Washington dialing code (US)? 80.42.228.142 (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Remember the 'bio-terrorism attack' on Seattle in the Year Zero ARG? Could be a link maybe? R Landgren (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Art is Resistance

In the song 'letting you' the id3 jpg is the 'art of resistance' flag. who agrees? Nineinchsin (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't bring the ARG into this page, that crap is already being debated at Echoing the Sound. tribestros (talk) 2:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.246.136 (talk)

It doesn't matter what you think about the ARG. IT doesn't even have to have anything to do with the ARG at all. The point is the picture on the ID3 tag for 'Letting Go" is the same image used for the flag designed for Year Zero. One in the same. That makes it relevant enough, b/c it is connected to another NIN topic. Nineinchsin (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You can't use Wikipedia as a source. As such it should remain out of the article until it's importance is established. By a reliable third party source. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

So when will we see Trent get interviewed about The Slip? Is there a way to request an interview via the nin website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by R Landgren (talk • contribs) 23:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Relevancy

There is absolutely no reason a small indie band should have The Slip domain over a Nine Inch Nails album. Stop reverting it. 98.196.246.136 (talk) 07:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason that when searching for "The Slip", one shouldn't just be thrown to a disambiguation page either. Irrelevant problem, universal solution. --75.2.36.65 (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What else is called "The Slip"? Leave it with NIN, it's what most people are searching for anyways.

- 75.17.11.59 (talk) 09:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Echoplex a Single?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was Merge into The Slip (album). -- AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've yet to see Trent Reznor or the so-called NIN PR make any mention of "Echoplex" being a single. Maybe we shouldn't identify it as one? Spira12 (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• No we shouldn't Jgrizzy89 (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Maybe it's not a single, but it deserves its own article based on it being released before the actual album and it being released through iLike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.137.70 (talk) 11:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Unless the song turns out to be a bonafide single, I think it should be merged with the slip. Just because it was released slightly differently doesn't mean it needs a separate article. "Me I'm Not" and "My Violent Heart" were released in a unique fashion (USB drives), but they don't have their own pages. Nor should this one,at least until any further developments. Drewcifer (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The criteria for warranting an article on Wikipedia also includes whether or not the subject has been considered significant by journalistic sources. There have been a number of articles in the media written about the release of "Echoplex," primarily because of the method of its release. That makes a reasonably sound case for not merging this article, especially since it wasn't even known with any certainty at the time of the song's release that it was going to be part of any album. 74.74.65.213 (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• I agree that it's not a single (and in no way does the article identify it as a single), but it was released with its own album art, so to me it has more importance than other songs such as "Me I'm Not" and "My Violent Heart" etc. Note that there are also other NIN songs released as promos witht heir own pages (e.g. "Hurt", "Starfuckers Inc" etc), although these have been released to radio and a few of them have their own videos, which "Echoplex" doesn't. I'm indifferent.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.253.91 (talk • contribs)
• I think this is a song-only. The 'cover-art' is specific, yes, but all other tracks on "The Slip" have custom cover art. I don't think it's a single, but I don't support merging it.--Gen. Quon (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• merge, I think people saw the artwork and, perhaps justifiably, thought it was going to be a single. Now that we see it was only a teaser leak it ought to be placed in either the slip album article or in the discipline article. Naufana^² : talk 20:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• I remade it into a song, removed it from the singles discography and the NIN infobox.I did it under these following justifications:

It was never promoted as a single.

It never charted.

Every track from "The Slip" has its own cover art.

Many people support this decision.

--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• I cast my vote in for merging this with The Slip (album). There simply isn't enough to warrant a seperate article. On the subject of press coverage: every news article that mentions Echoplex and the nature of its release ALSO mentions Discipline and its release and mentions the impending "May 5th" mystery. I haven't seen a single major press article anywhere that was limited solely to covering Echoplex itself. -Jmcbns (talk) 23:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Do either of these qualify?

http://strangeglue.com/news/nine-inch-nails-release-free-single/1828 http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/NIN-Moves-Forward-with-Free-Music-Model-94135 http://torrentfreak.com/nine-inch-nails-give-away-new-single-on-facebook-080504/ http://mashable.com/2008/05/04/nine-inch-nails-keeps-on-giving-offers-new-single-for-free/ Those last two do mention May 5, but not "Discipline." But in what way should that disqualify the song from deserving an article? Honestly, it seems to me the fact that the song is also mentioned specifically in a plethora of articles about the new album strengthens rather than undermines its significance. But that's just me. 74.74.65.213 (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC) I think both articles could be merged into the slip article. Bmc152006 (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think what threw a lot of people off was the fact that this song has custom "Cover Art." General, people associate cover art with singles. This is, however, not the case. ALL of the songs on the album have 'cover art' specific to their design. Besides, "Echoplex" has been released as a promo nor has it charted. If a promo was released, it did chart, or nin.com mentioned it as a new single, then it should count, but not until then.--Gen. Quon (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• support merge A few people in this discussion seem to be gripping tightly to the notability criteria. However, I fail to see what potential this has to expand. Yes, lots of sources have mentioned its release. But without something like official production notes, or a critique of the track from a notable source, this article will never be anything beyond a couple sentences. So why would it be such a crime for those scant few sentences to be located within the album's article? Anyone searching on this song will be redirected to the same information. What is the importance of having it's own article? Is there some unspoken contest for band article counts that I haven't heard of? The information in lovely, but it doesn't need to be sectioned off so I have to follow a link away from the main album just to read a couple sentences that would fit neatly in the existing space. If the content grows, we can unmerge it later. -Verdatum (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Even though I tossed out those articles above in support of the idea that the song is notable enough to at least potentially warrant an article, the fact that it would never amount to much more than a stub is a perfectly valid counterargument. If you wanna go ahead and merge, you won't see any complaints from me. 74.74.65.213 (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• support merge This is akin to the pre-release of album tracks to build up hype, just like on Year Zero... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.254.33 (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge it with the album article! There is no proof as of yet it is a single, so unless it begins to chart, remove the page. It was a promotional download in my opinion. Nineinchsin (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• support merge Its probably been said before, but if we want to put anything about the publicity, it should go with the album. The whole thing generated quite a bit of publicity, it being free and all. Fluke (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• I think of merging it, but not with The Slip. Why not merge it with Discipline? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.245.72 (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? Its a song from the album slip and it's not part of the single Discipline, so why merge to an article about a single? AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Because the two singles were released in the same week... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.245.72 (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think we should wait and see how the article develops over the next couple weeks, and if there is more content added, such as a reference or two we should keep it, if not, then we merge the two —Preceding unsigned comment added by BHynes10 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• I say nay. The song was released before the album and at a time when no album was announced, so it's obviously more important than the other songs, of course not including "Discipline". "Echoplex" deserves an article. Whiffle Ball Tony (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Saying "it's obviously more important" than other songs is a bit of original research don't you think?.AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merge. Fails WP:MUSIC. Rehevkor (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into The Slip article, per Gen. Quon and others. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 10:39, 12 May 2008 (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.

Discussion regarding The Slip namespace

I've started a discussion over at Talk:The Slip#The Slip namespace regarding whether the NIN album or the band should inhabit the un-disambiguated namespace. Please take a look and comment. Drewcifer (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

shocked

im surprised no one has mentioned the joke (anywhere) about how Nine Inch Nails have given us The Slip. :D 210.54.8.253 (talk) 03:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Year Zero

I've noticed links between the art of The Slip and Year Zero. For example the arm on the cover may be the presence and the Art Is Resistence logo. There should be something in the article about whether or not this is a follow-up or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.77.111 (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless there's a nerochip on the arm's wrist I don't think there's a connection between the two albums.

More specific information regarding retail version.

"A retail CD version of “The Slip” is due shortly before Nine Inch Nails starts its tour on July 25 in Vancouver." - The New York Times. I don't know if I should fit it in, since there's a sentence that claims the same, only with no specific date. Litis (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Mistake

May 5th was a Monday this year, not a Sunday. I know this because May 3rd was a Saturday. So "The Slip" couldn't have been released on Sunday May 5th because May 5th was a Monday. May 5th was the day that "The Slip" was released, but not on a Sunday. This is just a clarification though. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Slip (album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   The lead seems very short and it would be best to summarize the entire article, per here.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Dates need to be unlinked, per here. Also, in the lead, why are "2008" and "July" linked? In the lead, italicize "Billboard", per here. In the Recording section, it would be best if "Atticus Ross", "Alan Moulder", "Robin Finck", "Alessandro Cortini", and "Josh Freese" were linked once, per here. In the Music section, italicize "The New York Times".

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Reference 2 needs to be formatted.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Does Reference 3 cover all this ---> "Before the release, a single, "Discipline" was released freely on the official Nine Inch Nails site, and another song, "Echoplex", was released for free download from iLike. The ID3 tags of these MP3 files indicated that fans should visit the Nine Inch Nails website on May 5, 2008. On May 5, a free direct download link to the album in MP3 format was posted on the official Nine Inch Nails website, with a message from Reznor that said: "thank you for your continued and loyal support over the years - this one's on me". In the Release versions section, are there any sources available for the first two paragraphs?

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to fail the article, since its a week since the GA review. If the statements above can be addressed, then the article may be renominated for GA. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Slip (album)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

• "The album was released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike license.[11] The album was initially released digitally on the Nine Inch Nails official website without any prior advertisement or promotion. A limited-edition, physical release followed two months later." Repetitive wording. The first sentence could perhaps be merged into "The Slip was released for free, with the message from Reznor, "this one's on me"."
• "It was recorded, performed, and released in three weeks, with Reznor himself releasing the album's only single, "Discipline", to radio stations himself." Uses "himself" twice.
• "The song had been mastered by Moulder less than 24 hours before it was released to radio stations." Is this album necessary for the lead. Although it would be a nice fact to include in the body.
• The way you incorporate both the day of the week and date in the Recording session is awkward. Try re-writing it in such a way that it could be read aloud easily, without parentheses.
• "IGN commented" Who from IGN commented?
• "Richard Cromelin of the Los Angeles Times called [...] and adding" Should be added for consistency.

• I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here... sorry. Drewcifer (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• My bad, that note was really unclear. I fixed it, there was grammatical tense inconsistency between "called" and "adding", which should have been "called" and "added". --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Gotcha, thanks for taking care of that. Drewcifer (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• "The Cleveland Free Times commented that" same as above
• "The New York Times commented that" same as above, and needs italicizing
• I notice that a few of the publications with reviews in the infobox aren't in the Critical reception section, including some notable ones like allmusic, Rolling Stone, and the NME.

• Yeah, that's since WP:ALBUM requires a limit of 10 in the infobox. I opted to get a wide range of reviews in the infbox, then just quote the more quotable ones in the text. Drewcifer (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think the critical reception section should include opinions from all notable sources which have been known to comment on an album. It's OK to be selective with what's included to a degree, but if it's in the infobox and it's as important as Rolling Stone than their opinion should be in the reception. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Expanded the reception section a bit by adding quotes from Spin and Rolling Stone. Also swapped the About.com review for the IGN review in the infobox. I would have also swapped out something for the LA Weekly thing I sourced in the reception section, but I'd hesitate to call that particular source a full-fledged review per se, so I think it's better left out of the infobox. Hopefully all of that helps cover all the bases of the more important/notable review sources. Drewcifer (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)