Talk:Reign in Blood

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Reign in Blood is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 15, 2008.
This article was the featured article of the Music Portal in July 2007.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
User:M3tal H3ad
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[edit] Itune

Any reason this album was taken off Itunes? That could be added to the article. 70.59.72.101 02:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

This article is on hold for GA status because:

The album was the band's first with record producer Rick Rubin, resulting in shorter, faster song structures with clearer production. The album has been hailed by critics as "the heaviest album of all time" and a breakthrough in thrash metal. (Both of these sentences need sources)

Reign in Blood's initial release was delayed due to concerns regarding graphic artwork and lyrical themes. (source this statement)

The album became Slayer's first to enter the Billboard 200, peaking at number 94 and attaining gold status in 1992. (Source this statement)

Hanneman states the band was listening to Metallica and Megadeth, getting bored of the guitar riffs quickly. "If we do a verse two or three times, we’re already bored with it. So we weren’t trying to make the songs shorter—that’s just what we were into." King states that hour long records seem to be the trend; “You could lose this part; you could cut this song completely,” and make a much more intense record, which is what we’re all about. On finishing the record the band met with Rubin who asked “Do you realize how short this is?” The members collectively looked at each other and said “So what?” The entire album was on one side of a cassette; King stated it was "neat", as "You could listen to it, flip it over, and play it again. (Unless all of this is covered by number 3 on the inline reference, these all need a source. If it's all covered by one, then it's ok).

Fix these and it will probably pass. DoomsDay349 19:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  • For your three first suggestions, they all are already referenced further in the article ("Reception" and "Controversy" sections). In case a certain fact is mentioned both in the lead and on a different part, it's preferable that it will be referenced there. As for your fourth suggestion, the quotes are indeed found on these sources. Referencing the entire paragraph with a one reference makes more sense than adding separate references to each sentence. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
In that case, GA'd. It's a very good article otherwise. I would suggest a peer review to work towards FA. DoomsDay349 19:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Album reviews

The line, "Regardless, critisicms (sic)of the album include low-quality guitar solo recording and repetitive song structures", sounds like it was just stuck there arbitrarily... The word "regardless" as used in this case is almost a non-sequitur; the referenced paragraph describes the overwhelmingly positive reviews of the album, followed by this cryptic line with an external link-reference to some forum with a poorly-written review. The claims of low-quality recording of guitar solos and repetitive song structures is very dubious as well; Slayer's solos are famously unique -- what is the basis for saying their recording quality in RiB is "low"? Likewise, the album is infamous for its brevity and fast pace; this very article quotes King indicating that they didn't want to repeat a verse or guitar riff more than two or three times. I propose deleting this line as it seems to bring the quality of the article down. -Daniel Villalobos 16:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed. M3tal H3ad 01:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The album wasn't perfect, so I think we should add some minor criticisms. I'm sorry if you didn't find that addition flowing, maybe it should be split to a separate paragraph? Also, Sputnik is often seen as a reliable source due to its approval process, and I don't think we should ignore its comments unless a more reliable source providing criticisms could be found. Michaelas10 (Talk) 10:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation for KMFDM riff sampling from Angel of Death

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/10/05/190907.php

Used in the song "Godlike". I'm not good with citations at all; could someone add this in? It would be appreciated. TheKillerAngel 16:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say they sampled it - "A slashing guitar line reminiscent of Slayer opens the medium-tempo chugger "Godlike," M3tal H3ad 07:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deathrash?

I removed that from the genres because it isn't a genre and it looks like "Death Rash" which is the lamest word I've ever seen in my life. BrainRotMenacer 12:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is stupid. An anon added it roughly a week ago - i didn't notice it. Thanks for removing it. M3tal H3ad 11:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I've heard that term before but I'm not sure if I thought it myself:P --fs 10:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
it's tough when adding genres to a band that were not around during the inception, although genre seems to change. i prefer to stick with 'death metal' because thrash was reserved for bands like Suicidal Tendencies, given the time. But genres change. I'm still trying to get acquainted with all 'Post- and Pre- genres.' the_undertow talk 10:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thrash is quite accurate considering what others are usually called thrash, early metallica, early sepultura, early megadeth, etc. they just sound similar. not of course the same, e.g. slayer's vocals are original and their speed is usually faster but the idea is similar. In any way it shouldn't be a matter that should spend so much time to a researcher or listener on the the subject since no band is exactly the same with another, not even albums of the same band, so there's almost never a "100% right" answer. --fs 13:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Angel of Death is talked about too much?

I read this from beginning to the end, and once I got halfway through it I thought that I was actually looking at the page for Angel of Death. Perhaps some stuff could be removed or more information about other songs or the album in general could be interspersed throughout the last half? BrainRotMenacer 04:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the second half focuses a lot on AOD but thats because it is the song talked most in critical reviews, played live and is featured/covered a lot. If you find any appropriate information regarding other songs feel free to give me the link your add it yourself (with appropriate references). I will do a once-over to try and remove some AOD references. M3tal H3ad 08:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree, there's too much of that - I would have thought there would be more critical commentary on "Raining Blood". I'm sure you're right that the Mengele thing, being controversial, has been written about more; but "Raining Blood" was presumably a much more influential song. Tempshill (talk) 04:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] For those interested

For those interested, the article previously looked like this. M3tal H3ad (talk) 12:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Critics notes

I found the quotes from the All Music Guide critic to be jarring because it didn't exist when the album came out. I think it would be an improvement to the article to note when each of the statements was made: "John Smith from Such-And-Such Magazine said in 1999 that it was a stone cold classic." I think this grounds the criticism a lot better than not giving dates. Tempshill (talk) 04:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Reign In Blood" v. "Raining Blood"

Surely a quote from the band can be found somewhere in which they discuss why the album is named one thing and the song, another. Tempshill (talk) 04:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What could it be other than "it sounded like a good idea"? ps. best thrash metal album ever. --fs 09:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:HannemanRainingblood.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:HannemanRainingblood.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Papa November (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Page

This only lessens Wikipedia's integrity, for a Slayer album to become a featured page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.121.70 (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, the ability to write good stuff about things no other encyclopedia would touch is one of the foundations of our superiority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but Slayer's Reign In Blood is not one of those articles.-RiverHockey (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Especially Slayer, a band whose lyrics talk of rape, murder and other despicable acts. -71.240.30.12 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Would you condemn an article on Titus Andronicus on the same grounds? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
You seem to fail to see the point of a featured page. I don't give a flying so and so about an Apollo mission or whatever, but that could be a featured page. A featured page has NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING to do with the subject matter. It is a featured page because it is well written, well structured, and is an example of how every page ideally should be on Wikipedia. As mentioned above, Titus Andronicus also features so called "despicable acts". Would you disagree with that? The British Invasion in WW2 was recently featured. Surely that had many "despicable acts". Would you disagree with that? You need to wake up to reality. These things happen in life. Ignore them and be a hermit if you like. The rest of us will accept that they occur. Slayer consists of some of the most intellectual members of the Hessian community, and this is a landmark album in the world of metal, I would argue 100% derived from classical music, and a hell of a lot of a higher quality than 99% of other albums on this planet (Even though I personally don't like it, as a musicologist I can acknowledge quality), and it deserves a well written page. The quality of this page has now been acknowledged by being featured. Well done Wikipedia editors.
You are obtuse, comparing the article on the WW2 British invasion to Slayer lyrics.... I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you, but for this to be a featured article just adds to wikipedia's poor reputation and is an awful merit towards its academic reliability. -RiverHockey (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's a pretty good article, and the notion that articles about thrash metal don't belong next to articles about more academic material like military history or documentaries about gays seems silly to me. If it exists, we write an article about it, basically (unless it's insignificant). Although I don't understand the user's comments about the British invasion - it never happened, so no "despicable acts" occurred. ? Brutannica (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I could write you a very long essay about Reign in Blood and its classical composition. It's very academic indeed. So academic I dread the thought of such an essay. Would be too long for my liking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.203.40.102 (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
"Auschwitz, the meaning of pain; The way that I want you to die," yes quite academic indeed. -RiverHockey (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Like the man said, featured article status is denoted by being well written and referenced. Just because you don't happen to like the subject matter doesn't mean it's not valid in the encyclopedia. Also, trying to argue that lyrical content makes the work unworthy of inclusion is tantamount to censorship. Onesecondglance (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I see you have some nice Featured and Good Articles that you rewrote User:RiverHockey, oh wait, you don't. M3tal H3ad (talk) 02:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Probably time to leave it alone. the_undertow talk 02:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
On a side note, since when does Wikipedia have integrity? :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 20:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SS Connections

"The band utilized the controversy to attract publicity, incorporating the Reichsadler into their logo (also the S in the bands name resembles the SS lightning bolts), and writing a song titled "SS-3", which mentions Reinhard Heydrich, the second in command in the Schutzstaffel."

They are not lightning bolts, they are actually runes. See Sig rune. The Nazis were big on incorporating ancient Germanic religious symbols into their own symbolism. If no one objects, I will change this soon. VincentValentine29 (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)