Talk:No Love Deep Web

Thew album's been released for download from their site http://thirdworlds.net/death.php

Cover art (photo of erect penis with the title written on it): http://thirdworlds.net/img/nldw-419.jpg

Release date is listed as the 1st of October so you could list that as the digital release date.

Length is listed as 45:47219.89.227.45 (talk) 07:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Length actually looks around 4-5 inches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.84.152.38 (talk) 14:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Consider yourself upvoted. NIRVANA2764 (talk) 02:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.152.147.233 (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Phrasing

"The album's release was met with strong attention from online media groups, largely due to its sexually explicit album cover, a picture of Zach Hill's erect penis with the album title written on it, which received generally favorable reviews from critics." The manner in which this is written suggests Zach Hill's erect penis received generally favorable reviews from critics. I object to changing it myself due to how funny I find it, but thought you folks may care to know.

Album Art

Why was the album art taken down? I realize it's borderline pornographic, but this is the album cover. Is it because this may not be the official cover? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertWesker411 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Somebody's sensibilities were offended, probably. Until Epic comes out with a statement announcing that it isn't the official cover (unlikely) or they release the record with different art (more likely) it's the official cover.Snormax (talk) 13:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

But this is probably a misnomer and a huge problem to begin with. They released the album on their own, and pretty much told Epic/Sony to fuck off, mainly because Epic wanted to push back the album to 2013, which Stefan and Zach and Andy didn't wand happening. Even if Epic/Sony comes out and says that it's not the "official" cover of the album, it would be blatant censorship on their part, and apparently the person who edited this article to exclude the picture of the penis agrees with that notion. I mad like O'Reilly. --AlbertWesker411 (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)AlbertWesker411

Regardless of whatever reason the art was taken down, the original artwork must be preserved, as this is what the artists intended. If we have to tend to everyone's sensibilities, there would be no truth on this website. We wouldn't block Huck Finn's page because it has the word Nigger on it would we? Fuck no.

Spin's review should be removed from the article

If you read the Spin article, it's quite obvious that this "review" is not meant to be taken seriously. At the beginning of the article, they even say "Media Fire: SPIN's editors zip through a leak in 320 seconds or less". So it's quite obvious that it doesn't constitute a legitimate review as none of the people scoring it actually bothered listening to more than 320 seconds of the album (5 minutes and 20 seconds).

I don't find any compelling evidence to keep this here, and if this article wasn't in protected status as it is now (wrongfully, due to numerous ARG inaccuracies; for instance, Flickr was not involved), I would edit it myself. As it is protected, I hope whoever has the ability to edit the article does remove Spin's joke review. A review constitutes listening to an entire album and then reviewing it. No review should be considered if the reviewer has not listened to the album in its entirety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.42.74 (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)