Talk:Untitled Korn album

Name of article

I don't really care what the title is, but shouldn't this article just be called something like 'Korn Album (untitled)', rather than 'Untitled Korn Album'. Because the way it is now makes it a bit... not an album-article, it should have more of a title. So I suggest the name 'Korn' is used, as that is what is on the cover, and then add '(untitled)' (yes, including brackets) to indicate it was untitled. Together with the fact that, according to Davis or perhaps everyone in Korn, he/they wanted to let the fans make up the name. Which is fine, so I just thought the article's name should be more direct, instead of looking like it's describing some upcoming album or something.

Also, I think a similar thing is mentioned earlier under the header 'Title'. And then someone replies that it shouldn't be called something like this because the album isn't titled 'Korn'. Well, it is called a "Korn-album" but then just no title for the rest, I know that the title 'Korn' is to indicate the band(-name). But perhaps it's to more or less indicate the album too, however not necessarily as a title, still leaving it untitled. In the end, the way it is now just looks silly, and the person's other suggestions are just too similar.

Bottom line: The ARTICLE should be called something along the lines of 'Korn (untitled)' or 'Korn album (untitled)'. Maybe even add "2007", making it something like 'Korn album 2007 (untitled)', so that it will look more direct, clean and logical. WITHOUT implying that any of those are the ALBUM/CD-titles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DamageIncM (talk • contribs) 10:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

IMO, it should be "Korn (II)" or something, seeing as its a self-titled album, and the following album is Korn III.--Львівське (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

List of names

I would like to know all the names given to this album. Here's what I've seen so far.

• Devolution
• Korn II
• Korn 2007
• 8
• Birdcrank? (something liek that)
• Untitled
• No Name
• Korn's 8th Studio Album
• The 8th Korn Studio Album
• The 8th Record —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.80.214 (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've called it, and also heard others call it "The White Album" (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2010

Korn's 8th Studio Album

is the real name to the Album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Motaros (talk • contribs) 11:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is the real name, Korn wanted their fans to have a name given or to think or of a name for the album. Tambocho / Tambaso

Genre

How can you already know that the genre is Nu-Metal? I'll remove it.

Itl b nu-metal bcuz all korn is new metal, its rock thats compatible w/ rap, the same thing as predicting what Nelly's upcoming album will be —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.38.64.234 (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Not really rock with rap but metal with rap. Red Hot Chili Peppers, Faith No More and Rage Against The Machine all rapped but they weren't nu-metal. Also I agree, it may not be nu-metal but who knows so far? Only one song has been released and that could just be the only one nu-metal sounding. See You On The Other Side wasn't nu-metal and that was a Korn album so this may be going further from the nu-metal sound of their early albums. Defunct Lies 19:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This album to me, so far, sounds like a very progressive Untouchables. What do you guys think?URFG 18:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)URFG`

I am removing the "progressive metal" label for several reasons:
1. The citation currently says absolutely nothing about progressive metal.
2. I did visit the citation link at one point, soon after it was posted, in which it mentioned quite briefly that "one or two songs" would have "some proggy influence." This does not make Korn progressive metal any more than "I've Just Seen a Face" makes the Beatles a country band, because "one or two songs" involving "proggy influence" does not reflect on their overall sound.
3. This new album has not even been released yet. If they prove they have indeed switched gears to be a progressive metal band, that will justify adding "progressive metal" to their listed genres.
4. It says on Korn's own Wikipedia page that Terry Bozzio has already left the band for yet unknown reasons. He may have recorded a few tracks with the band, and being a progressive rock drummer, they may be "proggy" songs, but it sounds like the new album will only have a little bit of dabbling in progressive elements at best, so I think this justifies removal of the "progressive metal" tag
Ratiuglink 00:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The album is clearly Industrial fused with rap metal. Maybe they just stated pioneering on a new genre? It has the hip hop bass lines with the drumming seen in most new metal, but it has very dance like Industrial keyboard fills. Who knows what the genre truly is. BUT YOU CANT LABEL IT AS NEW METAL OR PROGG METAL OR EVEN IDUSTRIAL.SexyLui 01:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

These genres came out of Jonathan's mouth himself. The album features a vast amount of different stylings. What would you like for us to put if not any of those as a general idea of the genres heard in the album, cuz it's as industrial as it is other genres. R-Tiztik 03:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

your missing the point, its a new style of music, its a new genre. Doesn't have a name yet but its new. Like nothing heard before.

SexyLui 05:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Except taht it sounds like everything else they've ever done... kind of flaw in the logic of an unnamed genre. --linca^linca 05:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall hearing this before. This is all I've heard from Korn since Brian left, they just delved further into their experimental genre on this album than what they presented on See You on the Other Side (and its b-sides). It isn't a new genre, it's too experimental to be. R-Tiztik 14:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesnt sound like anything they've done before, wow listen to the album LINCALINCA SexyLui 02:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Pretty sure Lincalinca's heard the album actually but if I'm wrong, I've heard it anyways so I'm gonna agree that they've done this before. It might be a far stretch from their debut self-titled album in 1994, but they've been progressing towards this style ever since Untouchables (with the exception of Take a Look in the Mirror). It's very reminiscent of the experimental direction of the songs recorded during the See You on the Other Side sessions, just further embraced and glorified. It's not something that has absolutely never been done before. Korn particularly pioneered the nu metal genre, but they have yet to pioneer another. R-Tiztik 02:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As a music reviewer, I have had a copy for 2 weeks now (legitimately, mind you) and in my review, I stated simply that the album was much like Untouchables and See You, though with a few (welcome) throwbacks to their earlier era. Unfortunately, I have to say it's not enough like their old stuff. But to say it's a "groundbreaking new style" is not something I've written, and won't, while others may, I haven't read any reviews that state this yet (and I highly doubt any will). There is diversity, and I won't dispute that, but it's industrial nu-metal. Nothing too crazy, though with a little less on the rapping side than before. --linca^linca 09:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Track listing

"Madness"

i didn't want to put link into the article, so i post it here : http://www.sendspace.com/file/4k160t —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.28.188.28 (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

Okay, that clip doesn't sound anything like the sound Korn has been describing. It's a decent riff, but nothing that I would expect. It's not even official. Then again, it is all speculation anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.162.239.238 (talk) 03:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

"I'm the One"

Why do people keep changing the mention of "I'm the One" to say that it will be featured on the album? The song is used as a live intro on the current tour. Instead of just speculating that just because it's a live intro that it won't be on the album, it would be best to look at the facts regarding Korn's albums, and the fact is Korn have never used an intro on any studio album to date. They've hardly even had "cold openings" to the opening tracks of the album. The only example I could think of where they even did this was on "Blind" from their 1994 debut album, that was a long time ago lol. It's similar to Marilyn Manson's 1998-1999 live intro "Inauguration of the Mechanical Christ". Just because it was an original introduction piece by the band, doesn't mean they had to record a studio version for the subsequent studio album (2000's "Holy Wood"), neither does Korn. It's just a live intro. R-Tiztik 17:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"Intro"

There are websites that say there is and there isn't an Intro. I believe there is one. It will probably be similar to the Intro from Twisted Transistor (Album Version)

Twisted Transistor's intro wasn't a separate track on the album.

I know, but I mean similar to the sound of the intro, but as a seperate song, duh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.169.189 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 27 June 2007 UTC

Well I guess since YOU think there is an intro there is one and everyone else is wrong. Is there really any reason you think that?

First of all, sign your posts. Second, go to this page http://www.amazon.co.uk/Untitled-Korn/dp/B000RPCJYI/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/026-1135433-1757253?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1183111625&sr=8-1

Amazon says there is an Intro so I am right, just like i've been saying the whole time 80.229.169.189 10:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

15 string bass?

Can someone provide a link to that pic please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IndigoJones (talk • contribs) 10:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Well it was right there on Korn's website. It isn't there now that they revamped their site again recently. R-Tiztik 13:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Article title

This article is having frantic title changes. First it went from the fair Korn's eighth studio album, then Untitled (Korn album) (another fair title considering the album is not titled), and now Korn (2007 Album) (the most non-reliable title yet). I think the confusion over the title being self-titled (due to the lone text of the logo or otherwise), is still no reason to speculate the album title and publish it as the title of the article. Tod Martens claimed the album was called Untitled, but this is as of yet the only source of a sufficient album title. I think until a real source come up, like a member of the band referring to the album by title (even if the title really is Korn or Untitled), that this article should be reverted back to Korn's eighth studio album. R-Tiztik 15:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The PRP says: "Korn have decided upon Untitled as the title to their new album which will see a July 31st release date through Virgin." How reliable is that? = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 20:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was deciding on, but when I moved the article to Untitled (Korn album) someone made a Korn (2007 album) containing the exact same information. This source is good, but it should be included in the article (maybe it already is, not that I recall though). I've redirected Korn (2007 album) back to Untitled (Korn album). R-Tiztik 15:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyways I re-added that source multiple times, but the problem is again arising due to Lincalinca being fixated on the belief that Korn have produced a second untitled record. The PRP has reported the album as Untitled, also among band members themselves referring to it as such. The PRP report reads:

"Untitled Title - wookubus

(4:25 PM PST 06/01/2007)

Korn have decided upon "Untitled" as the title to their new album which will see a July 31st release date through Virgin. An early preview of the album can be found here."

The album has been reported as deliberately titled Untitled, and even if that were not the case, it would not be self-titled. Even a Korn II is out of the question as there have only been reports of a sole logo and no "II". I still recommend that until the album is directly referred to on the official website or something, that the article be re-titled Korn's eighth studio album. R-Tiztik 18:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm for the reversion. The reliability of the sources reporting Untitled as the title do not meet notability guidelines (see WP:NOTE) but there's an abundance that do so, meanwhile only Billboard and MTV report that the album will be the second self titled album by the band. Both titles are very inexplicable and so may not be referenced by the band for some time, so to save confusion until there's absolute confirmation from Virgin Records or Korn themselves, I'm also for the reversion of the name. I do, however, believe it will be under the name Korn as that name is even mentioned in the Billboard interview where the band gives their reasons for a second album called that. --linca^linca 06:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if you're right, that isn't what the problem is here. It's just that there are so many reports citing the album as Untitled or Korn, but not one word from the band itself regarding the title. Martens [the interviewer] included in his report that the album was titled Korn, and while he featured direct quotes from band members regarding specific song descriptions, Martens fell short of including any quotations from the band members as to the album title; and so the question remains. The point here is that with all these titles coming up and all, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Anyone else think the article title should revert? R-Tiztik 13:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of any of this—"Korn (Korn album)" is unacceptable as a title. Korn was also written by Korn, and this is just getting confusing. It needs to be moved back to Untitled (Korn album), or, reluctantly, Korn (2007 album). = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 16:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think both titles are unsuitable at the moment as at the moment neither are in favor of each other. While an implicit second self-titled sounds silly, it could happen if the band went with it. While an untitled sounds also somewhat arbitrary, it also could happen (I can see how it would make more sense too), but neither are sourced by the band itself. To revert the article title to Untitled (Korn album) would be in favor of that title and not neutral to the latter, and Korn (2007 album) would be in favor of that title and not neutral to the former. To avoid such confusion and abide to the neutrality of articles in Wikipedia, I still believe Korn's eighth studio album is the best possible choice for a title at the moment. R-Tiztik 16:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the page to Korn's eighth studio album yet again, and changed all title mentions (I was amazed to see that people actually allowed there to be mentions of it as Korn AND Untitled multiple times) back to reflect the neutrality of there being no title ("The album is . . ." instead of "Untitled is . . .") and such. I've also included mention of the disputation of the album's title in the Current Status section. Now everyone, just leave the article title alone for now! R-Tiztik 22:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The album name is officially "Untitled", as stated by the band and their representation. They did so fans could call it whatever they want. I'm not going to change it based on this information but it's something to consider.

The album has no official title, so why would the article be changed to Untitled or any other fan title? Titling the article with one fan name would make the article obviously in favor of that respective name, and that wouldn't make it very neutral now would it? Alternate fan titles are listed in the article but as far as the title is concerned; Korn's eighth studio album it should best remain. R-Tiztik 15:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this page should be called "Korn (2007 album)" since the other page is called "Korn (1994 album)".

Yeah well that's because that album was self-titled, literally titled Korn. Its article should be Korn (album), which it was last I checked the page (as early as a few days ago). Regardless, that album is titled Korn whereas this album has absolutely no title; there's a logo, there's no title as in the case of their debut album. R-Tiztik 21:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the article title to "Untitled Korn album", as the information that it is a studio album and the band's eight of that kind are unnecessary to sufficiently disambiguate it from any other article/record covered on Wikipedia. That's also a bit easier to work with, speaking from an editorial perspective. And since there is no actual title to receive the respective formatting, the album should really not be referred to in italics and/or title case, yet come with an article when necessary (like "the untitled album" instead of "Untitled Album"). - Cyrus XIII 22:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's been clarified multiple times in this topic of the talk page, and it is also included on the main article page as well. Regardless, "Untitled Korn album" is a bit primitive for a notable Wikipedia article. R-Tiztik 22:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is no such thing as "notable Wikipedia articles", at least not in any capacity that would influence its naming and the current title is functional without being detracting or obtrusive, which makes it entirely appropriate. - Cyrus XIII 23:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

New Album Cover

Ok so i tried uploading the new album cover, which was revealed on myspace today. I filled out the form and nothing seemed to happen. Can someone help me? Passenger91 23:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit:: Ok my bad, i just saw that it was being protected for vandalism. Passenger91 23:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Two Wiki Pages

Why is there 2 pages for Untitled and Korn's Eighth album? both with the wrong album cover 80.229.169.189 15:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The cover on this article is correct, but what other article are you talking about? --linca^linca 15:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The final cover is orange-tinted. It was here last time I visited this page, so someone must have reverted it for some reason. R-Tiztik 17:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

And now it's restored. R-Tiztik 18:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference

Can we get some sources for what the new album is being referred to because I have never seen it referred to anything but "Untitled" so where does "Pioneer" and "Turn the Crank" come from? Jay316 10:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ive never heard of it called "Pioneer".....but I've heard people call it "Turn The Crank" and "The White Album" before. Machinehead09 10:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no citation or any valid point to calling it turn the crack or the white album, therefore they are invalid titles 80.229.169.189 11:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

In a recent Rockline interview with Jonathan Davis, he said that fans are calling it and I quote "fan titles like Turn The Crank and The White Album. Machinehead09 13:30 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I've heard and read Pioneer, but haven't seen white album or turn the crank. What's your source? --linca^linca 01:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"David Silveria on Forced Hiatus"?

I thought he left the band to spend more time with his family/recuperate/run his restaurants? This statement makes it seem like Jon, Munk and Field told him to "get out." I'm removing it, at least until we can get a verifiable source that states this. Dark Executioner 02:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner

"Medically forced" would probably serve for better terminology. He has wrist issues that are reported to be getting better, but had to take time off to recouperate to ensure he didn't permanently injure himself. That's how I understand it, anyway. --linca^linca 14:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Leak

Alright, so the album has finally leaked, and it seems like the many, many album articles I've been involved in, this discussion was inevitable. The album leak is worth noting; it's part of the record's background history, but it's too prominent to place in the Current Events section. It's not something that should be removed in the coming months either as the leak was ultimate (Nine Inch Nails' With Teeth's article still has a section regarding the leak over 2 years ago). I went through this on the talk page of the article for Marilyn Manson's Eat Me, Drink Me, basically with the argument that sourcing a leak promotes piracy. Stating it leaked doesn't directly promote piracy, but at the moment the only way to reference the leak would be to link directly to a torrent site or to the respective torrent itself, and that would directly encourage piracy; something Wikipedia is not to be a doorway for. The leak doesn't need to be referenced anyways, its common knowledge by now that it has been leaked for soon to be an entire day; otherwise it can't be referenced. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be noted though, since it is clearly a fact that it is on torrent networks. The only time I've ever seen a leak officially referenced is on Linkin Park's Minutes to Midnight article where Mike Shinoda released a press statement, and I don't think Korn's going to do that. The only reason Shinoda did it is because Linkin Park knew the album sales wouldn't slump that much regarding the leak, after their 4-year gap between albums. R-Tiztik 13:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It is blatantly inappropriate to list that the album has been leaked, irrespective of where it has been leaked to. Cynically speaking, every album is leaked. It's common knowledge. To mention it here is just fuel to the fire indicating to viewers that it's out there. Potentially, their response may be that they sought the information on Wikipedia, which leaves Wikipedia liable. For this reason, do not restore the information. Legitimacy of leak dates has been discussed several times on the WP:ALBUMS talk pages (here, here, here and here). --linca^linca 13:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

In response to your comments, the only time I've agreed with it being listed is where the band themselves have made reference to the fact. Irrespective, in all other cases, unless you can provide a solid source, it's going to be removed because it has no place being listed as encyclopedic content without a reliable referential source. --linca^linca 13:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see why we need to source that the album has been leaked, we all know it has been leaked, we all know 1000's of people already have the album, is that not enough of a source? I think it would be fine just to state "The album was leaked on to bittorrent networks on 20/07/07" is that not sufficient? 80.229.169.189 17:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Addition to Trivia Section, Please

It has been factually reported that the track, "Innocent Bystander" includes an actual guitar solo. This qualifies as trivia given that it's a Korn first and so unique for the band itself.

So no fighting, it's just common sense - put that into the trivia section.

Well until the album is released it's better off in the Song descriptions section. When the album is released this section will be basically pointless since the album will be legally available and brief descriptions won't be necessary. It can move to the Trivia section after July 31; it's definitely notable though. R-Tiztik 03:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

What guitar solo? there isnt none

Yeah now that you mention it there is no guitar solo here, or anywhere on the album if I'm not mistaken. There's a drum solo in "I Will Protect You", but we've known that for a month since it was on MySpace. The section in reference to the guitar solo featured in "Innocent Bystander" should be removed. R-Tiztik 05:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Album title

According to website such as Amazon, the title of this new Korn album is actually "Untitled", so I will be moving it as such. Or I would do, if someone hadn't already made it a redirect. Could an admin please delete the redirect so the page can be moved? Jasca Ducato 16:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You haven't been listening to a word anyone has said on this subject in this talk page have you? What else should Amazon and HMV and other online vendors call it? They have to write something in the title placeholder; if it's not titled then the first name you assume to call it is "Untitled", that is not to say the specific title is Untitled. Korn has not titled it, so it officially has no title. Anything Amazon or any other site calls it is simply a placeholder title because you can't just leave that blank; something has to go there. R-Tiztik 17:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Also note that all reviews listed so far (with the exception of the one by BostonNow) consent on the issue. Those aren't retailers that have to write something in order to fill a slot in the shopping cart, but journalists that actually deal with the record in their writing. - Cyrus XIII 00:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

So, the title has been changed without any prior discussion. Not sure if I'm the only one who noticed by now. But I think it should be reverted back to Untitled Korn album. Lovetoadmire (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Nay, the album is titled "Untitled." dude527 (talk) 23:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"My Arm Hurts"

based on what its thought 'my arm hurts' to be 'killing'? there aint no hard riff in that. i think its 'sing sorrow'. if you look the 'making of' dvd you see like munk said in that interview jonathan showing a pretty tricky riff, which is in the middle section of the song. 'trained response' was probably the first name for 'killing', since its a line in the chorus.

Yeah "Trained Response" was definitely the original title of "Killing", but I think "My Arm Hurts" was also a title originating before any of the two former titles. "It's a hard riff to play, and if you keep playing it for an hour, your arm hurts. Jon was in writing the song with us, so he's the one who came up with the riff — because he's not used to playing hours on end. He was kind of the second guitar player, filling in the blanks for me." Munky said this about "Killing" which definitely seems to constitute the possibility that both "My Arm Hurts" and "Trained Response" respectively were former titles of "Killing". R-Tiztik 05:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

huh? 'munky said this about "killing"'? he said that about the yet untitled song and called it 'my arm hurts'. it could be 'killing' yes of course not sure but i dunno if you play guitar if so you'll notice there isnt really a hard riff and on the dvd you see jon showing and playing along this riff for 'sing sorrow' which is pretty tricky. the end riff of 'killing', the black metal part, the guitars sound fast and so somehwat hard, that would be the only reason, but on the dvd jon shows munky how to play that but jon doesn't play along, not 'filling in the blanks'. but whatever. i was just really looking forward to hear it but turns out i cant really find out where it is.

He's probably referring to the death metal portion at the end of the song with the fast riff. That could be something that would "hurt" your arm if you played it for a few hours. I also think so because JD said in a recent interview that he loves death metal, leading me to believe he brought up the idea.--Zahveed 13:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Title

Instead of Untitled Korn Album It really should be Korn (2007 album) I belive it should be that way for numerous reasons. Look at it just like what Quiet Riot did EX: [[Quiet Riot (album) & Quiet Riot (1988 album). Skeeker _[Talk] 05:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

But this album's not called "Korn". It has no title, and so it would be undue speculation to simply "apply" a title to it. --linca^linca 05:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The album is not called "Korn", not called "Untitled" - it simply has no title. It could be called 2007 Korn Album if for some reason it was decided that that was a better title, but we can't use any article title that implies that this album has a title; e.g., the difference between Untitled Korn Album and Untitled (Korn Album) John R S 02:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Columbia Records

When did they get put on this label? Dark Executioner 02:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner

Critical Response

Shouldnt the listed Sputnikmusic review be the one written by the actual staff and not a contributing reviewer? Or maybe have both listed? I dont know if they both count as official or not, but if so, then its fine to just have the one already listed stay.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DevilsAlwaysCry (talk • contribs)

The one listed is a staff review. Next to the guy's name at the top it says "STAFF". It's the only way to distinguish staff from non-staff reviewers. And yes, only staff reviews are acceptable from sputnik, as per WP:ALBUM#Review sites. --linca^linca 03:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

At one point, the review score listed on the Wiki Untitled page was the score from a contributing reviewer (which was a 4.5), not the staff review of 2.5.--DevilsAlwaysCry 03:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate article!

Hey did anyone notice that there are actually two articles about this album?? The links to the two articles can be found at the bottom of the page of the album art (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UntitledKornalbum.jpg). Someone should sort through them both and add here whatever info the other one has extra, then delete the other one (I'm assuming this is the original since the other has NO discussion page). W.Darwish 14:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Taken care of. Thanks for the heads-up. - Cyrus XIII 15:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

See WP:OR.

"Taking into consideration the number of downloaded albums as opposed to official sales, 123,000 would be the equivelant to about 400,000 official sales in 1999. Korn's first week on the charts is impressive, and the album is expected to have steady sales for the months to come."

wow, that's MASSIVELY original research (see WP:OR for info on why not to do that). 123,000 units is the lowest sales a US album has achieved to attain #2 all year, even for albums not in their first week of sales, so it's not accurate to say it's "impressive" or "equivalent t 400,000 units in 1999" considering album sles in general have not decreased by 78% on average. music downloads are believed to affect the average album by 4% and at worst, just under 10%. --linca^linca 09:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's possible that he's implying that 277,000 copies of the album have been downloaded (presumably from sources such as the iTunes store)... but unless that's the case, you can't convert to "1999 sales". John R S 23:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Singles secion, etc.

From the Singles section thereon, the whole formatting is destroyed. I have no idea how the formatting works, so I was wondering if this could be fixed Budtard 19:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 19:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

guitar solos?

article states (many times) that there are 2 songs with guitar solos.. whoever wrote that should go and learn what a guitar solo means.. absolutely ridiculous.. --88.106.28.137 23:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

- Agreed. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.225.70 (talk) 06:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for admin intervention with vandal

207.210.25.208 has been constantly changing the genres in the infobox to capitals even after repeated reverts and warnings. This is getting extremely annoying. Can someone please stop this? = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 16:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Slideshow Gallery

I was lucky enough to get the deluxe edition. The song played in the background of the photo gallery is Evolution. I've only watched the DVD once, but I know the song Evolution well enough to remember that it is the song in the gallery. I've added this to the article, but for those of you with the standard edition, it is okay if you remove it. 12.214.76.88 20:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Italics

Aight Ima get straight to the point. Some half assed faggot keeps changing the italics on the board at the bottom of the page which gives the link to the Untitled page, which reads 'Untitled album'. It should be in italics, dont you agree and if the guy whos changing it reads this send me a message cos Ill be happy to deal with this one way or another —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ash48GotdaLife (talk • contribs) 21:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Bitch We Got a Problem and Innocent Bystander articles

I'd like to know why they were removed. I fixed them up a bit and later on they were redirecting back to the Untitled album page. Lovetoadmire 18:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:MUSIC. "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song .. a song is probably notable if

• It has been covered in sufficient independent works.
• It has been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups.
• It has been ranked on a national or significant music chart.
• It has been recognized by journalists, biographers, and/or other respected cultural critics as being significant to a noteworthy group's repertoire.
• It has won a significant award or honor.

These songs, as album tracks, didn't appear to hit any of these guidelines. ELIMINATORJR 18:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense, thank you. Lovetoadmire 05:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to support move to Korn's eighth studio album at this time. JPG-GR (talk) 06:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Untitled (Korn album) → Korn's eighth studio album — By definition, "Untitled" cannot be the title of any work (instead, it is a lack of a title), unless the namer is deliberately going for irony. In this case, the album was deliberately not given a name, so it should not be given a name on Wikipedia (it should be Korn's eighth studio album or Korn's untitled eighth album, or a derivative). — Sceptre ^(talk) 14:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose - The album is registered at the RIAA as "Untitled." It's also on Korn's official website as "Untitled," and those are the two most reliable sources we have. The Guy _complain ^edits 20:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep at Untitled Korn album, see rationale and explanation for intermediate article name change below. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 15:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

That's quite frankly not true. While conventionally, the album does indeed lack a title, it's registered at the RIAA database as "Untitled." No album is not titled, because every album needs a name to register with the RIAA, and that's considered the official name, and shall be used here. The Guy _complain ^edits 20:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I purpose a different move. I believe the article should be moved to distinguish the untitled album from albums entitled "Untitled" (e.g. Untitled (The Byrds album)]), but moved to Untitled Korn album to conform with the one other untitled album of Wikipedia, Untitled Nas album.--Darknus823 (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

But that wouldn't be accurate. This album's name is Untitled. It's registered at the RIAA database as that, so it's the official name of the album. In other words, this album is entitled "Untitled", and we have many different references for that, INCLUDING the RIAA, which is THE guys for record names. The Guy _complain ^edits 01:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the album's name isn't Untitled because it's like that at the RIAA database - what something is on a database, especially one where "Untitled" is a placeholder for works that aren't titled, can never override a band's original intentions. The band deliberately left it untitled, so we should reflect that on Wikipedia, not give it a title of "Untitled" (which are two different things). Sceptre ^(talk) 14:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand how naming works in the record companies. Every album has to have a "title" to register for promotion purposes, and for the RIAA. The title they choose, even if they chose "Untitled", if the official title, whether or not they want it to be referred to that or not. It's not simply a "placeholder" because the band can't simply tell the record company "we don't want it titled," the record company would say "we need something for promotion," and the band probably said "register it as Untitled". Untitled is the official name, and its the most suitable name for this article. The band's official website, and the RIAA database reflect the name of the album. Just look at the sources. The Guy _complain ^edits 19:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a placeholder. Unless the word "Untitled" specifically appears in the CD case (either the front, the back, or lyric booklet), it is not called "Untitled". In fact, the band's official site explicitly says "Korn's eighth studio album may lack a title, but there isn't much else that remains undefined about the band more than 10 years into its career.", which supports a move to something which doesn't title the album. The band have the absolute say, not the record company or conglomerates thereof; remember what happened when Atlantic overstepped James Blunt's wishes for a Weird Al parody: it got released anyway and Atlantic got lambasted. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually, the CD case says "KoRn" on it. But the DVD that comes with the Special Edition, is called "The Making of Untitled". Not to mention, there's many reliable sources that call the record "Untitled", and singer Jonathan Davis has gone on record by calling it "Untitled". The Guy _complain ^edits 20:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That's the band's name and doesn't imply a title. And the band's official store doesn't say anything about the DVD's title. Whatever other sources say cannot override original intention: to let the fans name it for themselves. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, in that case, if it is just a placeholder, should we not follow in suit? The official website has it listed as "Untitled", so does the official store, and the RIAA, but the sources go on to talk about it as Untitled. I think it's completely appropriate as-is, and most people do refer to it as "Untitled", including the band in many interviews. Also keep in mind that DVDs are reliable sources that can be cited. The Guy _complain ^edits 20:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The official site does not call it untitled; it says it has no title. Two completely different things. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, why does it show me, "Untitled -- Released 7.27.2007."??? It also imports into my computer as "Untitled". The, when it plays, it says "Korn:Untitled CD/DVD". The Guy _complain ^edits 21:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Because it wouldn't make sense if it just said "Released 7.27.2007" - when sourcing things, you have to consider the intention of the sources and not just cherry-pick facts from it. And stuff like Gracenotes is imperfect; you get several hits for one CD. Even then, it will only say "Untitled" because the database (which, in Gracenotes' case, is user-submitted) needs to have a title. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

So then you see my point, that it's a placeholder, and we should follow suit. They could've listed it as "untitled eighth album", but they listed it as "Untitled" instead, and so, too, should we. The Guy _complain ^edits 21:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a placeholder, for rigid naming systems such as databases. Wikipedia is much more fluid and not constrained by "X (Y album)" conventions; we can have articles named "X" (cf Made in the Dark), "X (Y album)" (cf Zeitgeist (Smashing Pumpkins album)) or, where an album isn't titled, "Untitled Y album" (cf Untitled Nas album). Sceptre ^(talk) 21:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I still propose that we follow in suit of what all of our sources do -- And that is list it as simply "Untitled". If you have a better suggest (not what you already suggested), tell me. The Guy _complain ^edits 21:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't give it a title (which is easily done by rewriting the line and removing the parentheses from the article title), because the album is officially untitled. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think WP:COMMONNAME should be taken into consideraton here. Led Zeppelin IV officially has no title, yet we don't name it "Untitled Led Zeppelin album" or "Led Zeppelin's fourth studio album". These titles are both uncommon and improper when most people and media sources refer to it as Led Zeppelin IV. I mean, we obviously can't title this as "new Korn album" since it won't be new forever, and "Korn's eighth studio album" will hardly ever be searched for and is too descriptive. So, the choice seems to be between "Untitled Korn album" and "Untitled (Korn album)". Both of them will probably be searched for equally, but Untitled (Korn album) is probably the most neutral name Wikipedia can give it. Of course, the issue of the album's name (or rather the lack of a name) can be clarified in the lead section. Xnux the Echidna 22:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

  Precedent is to not include parentheses with untitled works - it's not Untitled, the Korn album, it's the Untitled Korn album. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, but there is no rule stating that we have to use the exact same formats for every article. This article could very well be an exception. By the way, you bring up an interesting point. Whenever this album is written/typed down, it is generally referred to as Untitled. However, in speech it could be just as referred to as "the Untitled Korn album". Then again, the "Korn album" is more of a descriptor rather than part of the title, so I'm still for keeping the title as Untitled (Korn album). Xnux the Echidna 23:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but most people refer to it as "Untitled, the Korn album" simply because its listed as "Untitled, the Korn album" for promotional purposes. The Guy _complain ^edits 22:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Earlier cut/paste move

Please note that about a month ago, this article's title was changed from Untitled Korn album to Untitled (Korn album) via an unsolicited cut and paste move, robbing it from its previous edit history. I have reverted that move and added the intermediate changes back in (along with additional formatting and citation updates).

Regarding the current discussion, I have to agree with Sceptre, if an album is deliberately (and verifiably) left untitled, we can hardly pretend otherwise. A published work can be genuinely untitled, as opposed to being named Untitled; in some contexts, the English language offers lower case and capital letters to provide that kind of distinction and on Wikipedia, we also use italics and quotes to denote the titles of major and minor works, respectively (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles)).

Now, whether or not common usage has indeed given the Korn album in question an informal but universally accepted title might be worth looking into, but please keep in mind that it has only been out for about a year, so a three-decade-old record like Led Zeppelin IV is probably not a good choice for comparison (also note that that one's stand-in title merely follows the naming-pattern of its predecessors, Led Zeppelin II and Led Zeppelin III). – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 15:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Following the cut and paste move, I have merged the edit history from Untitled (Korn album) relevant to this article to this title (Untitled Korn album), keeping the history in one place. If the article is moved to a new title, please do so using the move page feature or request the help of an administrator at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Please do not move pages by cutting and pasting the contents. Thanks, mattbr 17:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Charts

Here is a source for the chart positions: [1]. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Then cite it, but it's still illegal POV violation to say in the lead that it charted poorly, unless you have a citation to show that it charted poorly, and in any case, that doesn't earn a place in the lead section, but in the Reception section, provided you can cite it. --The Guy _complain ^edits 17:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Kiss

Why is there no article for Kiss? Just wondering?die (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently it's not notable enough to warrant one. :/ It's an absolutely beautiful song, especially as the only Korn song to have such a pace, but yeah, it was deleted. Can't really see why it's the only single since B.B.K. from Follow the Leader to not be worthy of an article, I would of thought that such a notable band should have an article for every single. Robo37 (talk) 11:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Untitled Korn album/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Start Class has been selected for this article as it requires much work to elevate to B-Class. In particular, it needs some experienced moderation, arrangement and wikifying. Information needs to be broken into segments for background, recording and production, personnel needs to be tidied up, song descriptions need to be improved and sources need to cited adequately and noy underused, as is in most of the article, or overused, as appears in other parts of the article. --lincalinca 13:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Substituted at 01:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)