Talk:The Emancipation of Mimi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

How is this a concept album? --Madchester 08:34, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bonus Disc

Does anyone know about this? I recently found out about a bonus disc which includes the tracks

Sprung
SecretLove
It's Like That (Remix) feat. Fat Joe
Shake It Off (Remix) feat. Jay-Z & Young Jeezy
Your Girl (Remix) feat. Cam'ron & Juelz Santana
Don't Forget About Us (Remix) feat. Bone Thugs-N-Harmony & Juelz Santana

(Rishi B 01:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Concept album?

As has been asked already, how is this a concept album? While the spirit of the album may have a concept of 'freedom,' the songs themselves do not. If any Mariah album is a concept album, it's Daydream as pretty much every song on that album is about a daydream/fantasy.

[edit] Yeah, I agree

TEOM isn't really a concept album at all. I don't see Daydream as a concept album, but it's more of one than this (Rainbow, Glitter, and CB) would even be better examples.

[edit] "Mine Again"

I think a page should be created for "Mine Again." Someone could mention it charting on R&B/Hip-Hop Singles, as well as the utilization of live instruments.

Well, theres been debate of whether there should be pages for these unsolicited singles that chart anyway, but for now, Mine Again charting should be mentioned in the main article.

It has been revealed Mine Again will go on to UAC formats on August 29th,: mariahdaily.com, allaccess.com

[edit] Section titled "Current promotion"

We read that To promote the album to her Dutch audience, Mariah also gave a free concert in Copenhagen, Denmark where she encountered some humorous publicity when she suffered a minor wardrobe malfunction (not caught on tape).

1. Copenhagen is an odd choice of venues for appealing to a Dutch audience. Is "Dutch" a mistake for "Danish", or is the city wrong?

Oops, you're right, it was at the German concert two days before apparently.

2. Did her tit fall out, or what?

Apparently it did, but she caught it quickly.

3. The article for this ludicrous term says that her dress fell off when performing in Germany. Different incident?

We also read: Most recently, Carey was seen promoting the album in a very intimate fashion by going to a European amusement park and spending it was friends like Mark Sudack, "Dat Baby" and various fans. One of the fans at the event, Mari is deemed as a minor security threat for stalking Mariah. (Mari is the infamous stalker-fan who took a plane from Spain to Mariah's TriBeca apartment, after Carey made a joke on MTV Cribs asking fans to come over.)

1. "Most recently" is built-in obsolescence.

2. What on earth is "intimate" about visiting an amusement park?

It was intimate because she was just hanging out with fans and going on rides with them very casually.

3. Mari (the link is irrelevant) sounds a pain in the posterior. But he or she is only a "minor security threat". Do minor security threats warrant sentences in articles? Sounds like a nobody to me. Yes, I think I'll zap this bit right now.

Well, I put minor security threat, because she's not like the type of stalker fan who is going to kill her (or at least anytime soon), but they thought she was a minor security threat after she came from Spain to Mariah's NY apartment, and this girl seems to follow Mariah everywhere.

-- Hoary 11:32, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the replies -- though (cough) I do suggest signing ("~~~~") in future. Some I understand, some I don't. But I'm afraid I have to take a break from this and most other articles during a period of a week or so in which my net access is very slow and expensive. I expect and hope to be back a bit later. -- Hoary 14:47, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I normally don't forget. Hah, I will patiently wait for you to come back to edit again :p OmegaWikipedia 19:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other corrections

Under THE ALBUM, why did you write that Rainbow is the album critics consider her best? Daydream is her only album to make multiple appearances on year-end critical lists, and Butterfly is the album that now gets mentions on all-time lists. One of these is probably the one critics call her best.

Also, commas and periods belong within quote marks, not outside of them. For instance, a series of songs should be written as: "Circles," "I Wish You Knew," etc.

This is indeed one convention. Another is the opposite: to write '"Circles", "I Wish You Knew",' etc. The former convention is commoner in the Youess than the Youkay, the latter commoner in the Youkay than the Youess. I believe that both conventions are used in the English-language WP. -- Hoary 01:08, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ms. and Mr. are not Wikipedia usage

Even notables like Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton are not referred to as Ms. (or Mrs.) in Wikipedia articles, and male notables like John Kerry are not referred to as Mr.. That's why I am removing such references from the Mimi article. Moriori 22:04, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Replies

We should keep the R. Kelly section because it was part of the making of the album (even if it didnt work out), and at the time, the fact the two were even working together was high profile. And it's Trackster OmegaWikipedia 23:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sub Reply

Oops, I spoke too soon. It's not Trackster, or Traxster, but "The Legendary Traxster" OmegaWikipedia 23:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "International", "worldwide"

We read: "Get Your Number" will be the next U.K./international single. But surely "international" includes the Youkay and (at least in principle) everywhere else. Does "international" have a special meaning here? If not, why is "U.K." necessary?

The words "international" and "worldwide" are bandied about quite a lot in this article, sometimes in what seems to be the normal way, sometimes apparently meaning non-US (or non-US-or-Canada?), and sometimes obscurely. Perhaps somebody here who knows about these things can check the uses of these words. -- Hoary 07:35, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SGML Comments

What does that last sentence mean?

She heard the hot beat and she liked it and wanted to know who made it?

25,000 NZ dollars? US dollars? Zloties? And "to" Carey?

I didn't write that, so I don't know US or Zloties.

What does this mean?

Well, thats a direct quote from Mariah. It means that the song is sort of a happy song, but at the same time retains elements of roughness. OmegaWikipedia 23:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, thanks for trying, but I still don't understand. Here's the passage (abridged):

As the people in the crowded studio were still chatting, Jones immediately came over the studio that enraptured Carey, causing her to demand who produced them.  [stuff omitted here] Rumors claim the group asked for a 25,000 pay-out to Carey for the rights of their song.

I don't know what to "come over a studio" means. And surely it wasn't the studio that "enraptured" MC. Did the rotund New Zealanders want 25 thousand somethings from MC, perhaps?

I can't fix these, because I know squat about this album. (I don't believe I've heard a single track.) -- Hoary 12:04, August 30, 2005 (UTC)\

You should really listen to the album. It's a decent album. I may have been a bad edit from a certain person trying to edit these articles, but the jist of that article was that a beat started playing in the studio that caught her attention. OmegaWikipedia 22:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Er, thanks for the invitation, but no thanks. I've heard older stuff by her and didn't like it. (I particularly dislike what this article rather aptly calls "belting".) And while I like much of R&B down to the early 70s or thereabouts, almost all the newer stuff seems saccharine. -- Hoary 04:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Commented-out text

I've just commented this out of the article:

"her diva-like antics of demanding water and a microphone stand"

Am I alone in thinking that asking for water and a microphone stand fall a long way short of being "diva-like"? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, you'd have to watch it to see the context of that. Would you like a link to her performance? In any case to avoid any POV type problems, she was labeled by the media as a "diva", it wasn't the opinion of the person who wrote it. OmegaWikipedia 22:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I rather agree with Mel Etitis. How do those demands make Carey diva-like? Winnermario 01:54, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spurious precision, dubious accuracy

We read:

This is a week-by-week breakdown of sales of The Emancipation of Mimi. To date, the album has sold 3,270,864 copies

I edited that to "has sold over 3.2 million copies", or similar, adding the SGML comment:

Previously "3,270,864 copies": this degree of precision is obviously ridiculous.

The edit was reverted, and the following comment added:

Hoary, we get our information when soundscan which is very exact and accurate. These numbers are real. Everytime you buy an album at any store, its eletronically recorded, adding to Soundscan's total

The last time I bought an album at any store was about four days ago in Thelonious, a (very literally) underground store in Vilnius. There was no electronic recording: the proprietor excused the delay while he jotted down the record numbers in a notebook. Such a procedure is very normal; the comment about Soundscan seems US-centric. (The article on Nielsen SoundScan is obscure.)

Precision aside, perhaps "copies" should probably be followed by "in the US", "in the US and Canada", or similar.

The section "Chart performance | Album" seems to be about the US. In it we read that the album continues to sell above or around 100,000 copies weekly. Let's assume 24/7 retailing: this works out at roughly ten copies per minute. Thus "3,270,864" implies precision to less than one minute (as it informs us not of tens of copies but of individual copies). Right then, here's an imagined (fictitious) example that makes sense: By 16 Sep 2005, 03:47:00 GMT, the album had sold 3,270,864 copies in the USA and Canada."

But even though it makes sense, even this is pretty absurd. For what is the significance of 3,270,864 over 3.27 million or perhaps even 3.3 million? I suggest: none. Unless perhaps you have pointy (Vulcan) ears or are nuts about Carey trivia. -- Hoary 04:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC) Slightly tweaked for clarity, 02:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

You're exactly right, and have hit the nail on the head of what is an increasingly widespread problem on Wikipedia articles about contemporary albums and singles. Editors seem to dwell on insignificant details (such as listing every single U.S. chart movement the album/single has ever made), and forget to look at the bigger picture, such as what critics thought of the work (weasel terms such as "[unidentified] critics have called this a great album" don't count). The gargantuan size of this articles creates various problems as well: in addition to the excessive wikilinking (Charmbracelet needs to be linked to four times?), parts of the article contradict each other. For example, in the article's lead, it states that the album is Carey's most successful since Rainbow, but further down, it says that it is her most successful since Butterfly. Further elevating this problem is that there are zero references, so you don't know where to look to find your answers. I also agree with your point about the unacceptable U.S. slant to these articles: most of them are written under the assumption that the reader is a) American and b) familiar with music terms such as "A/C", "airplay" and the like. Extraordinary Machine 19:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Hear! Hear! At last some editors who agree with me about these articles (and whose sleeves are rolled up). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Of course I'm glad to find agreement, and I in turn agree with your new points, but I think you're slightly overstating the American slant or rather the problems with this. My guess is that the articles are not written under the assumption that the reader is American; rather, the writer is American and is making certain unconscious assumptions here. Yes, the writers of these articles are careless in various ways, prolix, and too reluctant to cut what you and I regard as trivia; but on the other hand they have been tremendously energetic and the one I've been corresponding with recently (e.g. here) is open to critical suggestions. Mel has written elsewhere that The deeper trouble is that [the vast majority of these pop-music articles are] defended to the last drop of blood by their "owners" (including poor Wiki-style, poor English style, fanzine language, fan-gush descriptions of minor videos in enervating detail, etc.): I agree with these criticisms of the articles, but not with the criticism of their "owners", who I have found to be reasonable, accepting improvement of the articles. Perhaps I've had the good luck to encounter the more amenable writers, but this would imply that they're not homogenous. Let's try not to make assumptions about other authors' assumptions, but instead concentrate on the articles themselves. -- Hoary 02:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

On your main point, I agree (though I think the difference between you and Extraordinary Machine is only verbal). With regard to editors... hmmm, yes, you've been lucky (or I've been unlucky). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zirconium Edition rumors

(Till I know for a fact that it's the "Platinum Edition", I feel free to refer to it as the Zirconium Edition or anything else. Zirconium: makes good tweezers.)

We read:

It had been reported by Jeramine Dupri that a charity single he had been producing to help victims of Hurricane Katrina would be included. Its reasons for exclusion are not known. The remix of "Shake It Off" was also initially reported to be on the album. Its reasons for exclusion are also not known.

Well, maybe the inital reports resulted from misinformation or mere idle guesswork. Who cares about predictions once they have turned out to be wrong? How is this kind of thing encyclopedic? -- Hoary 06:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, its definitely the Platinum Edition. It's been confirmed by MTV. Seeing as youve been editing the Mariah articles now and you seem to know a bit more about her, I would recommend you buying it. Perfect oppurtunity to start listening to her. Well those were definitely reported information ,not rumors. I think cancelled plans are definitely encyclopedic. Like if you look at Desperate Housewives, we can see them mentioning plans which got cancelled. Its always intresting and informative to know of cancelled plans on any subject. OmegaWikipedia 06:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

It could be interesting to read of canceled plans if those plans can be verified and are somehow significant, or if they can be verified and their cancelation is somehow significant. Where's the significance here? As for Desperate Housewives, I didn't bother to read it: a quick glance at it suggests to me that it could be a good illustration of why not to describe canceled plans: the article is immense (and is screwed up on my browser). (And thanks for the purchase recommendation, but Lol Coxhill is more my taste.) -- Hoary 07:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Can we please repost the “Chart Trajectory” for this album?

[edit] WARNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please don't ever update those chart, soundscan tracker if you don't know how. I don't know who is that, but he/she messed up the alignment of the table every week, and makes me have to take care of that! Stop editing if you're an IDIOT!!! (comment left by User:60.48.107.25, 010:51, 20 October 2005; edited by User:60.50.155.141, 07:01, 21 October 2005)

Please calm down, stop shouting, and don't make personal attacks on other editors. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, since precise week-to-week sales of the album are probably only of interest to fans of Mariah Carey and the album, I'm removing the SoundScan tracker section. Extraordinary Machine 17:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone bring back the week-to-week sale of the album and the charts? Why do they have to be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.51.136.203 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 27 October 2005

Because, as mentioned above, the information presented within those sections is probably only of interest to Carey fans (and chart enthusiasts). Don't worry, though: the success of the album and its chart performance and sales have been summarised in the "Chart performance" section of the article. Extraordinary Machine 13:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you so much Extraordinary Machine! I hope you will keep updating the information of sales and charts in the summary. You rock! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.131.6.121 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 27 October 2005

Thanks :). However, anybody can update the summary in the "Chart performance" section (and I'm not in the habit of checking weekly chart positions and Nielsen SoundScan figures). Just remember to update the number of weeks the album has been in the top twenty, the number of copies it has sold in total and the "as of" date for the number of copies sold. Also, please sign your comments on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~), and consider creating an account here. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 14:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I think they should be brought back. If you want us to update it every week, how are we supposed to know, unless its actually here? OmegaWikipedia 04:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that section should be removed either. I don't see how official sales figures and album positions are only interest to Carey's fans. If somebody is researching or wanting to write about this album, that is imporant and useful information. --Musicpvm 05:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Then they can do their own research. This is an encyclopedia: we're supposed to summarise facts, not present them all no matter how trivial they are. Just because the article is now within the guidelines for article size doesn't automatically mean that some of the excessive detail previously removed can start being inserted back in again. Please think about this: would a typical non-fan of Carey who came across this article want to know that the album sold 60,726 copies in its twenty-fourth week of release? Or that it was at number thirteen on the chart the following week? This level of detail is ridiculous, as myself, User:Hoary and others have already said (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pop music issues).

I'll highlight the points that can be updated weekly:

After twenty-eight weeks of release, it remains in the top twenty of the Billboard 200.

Nielsen SoundScan figures reported that 3,612,524 copies of the album had been sold as of October 25, 2005, making it one of the best-selling albums of the year in the U.S.

Extraordinary Machine 12:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Without discussion, User:Ultimate Star Wars Freak has my reverted my removal of the SoundScan/chart trajectory table, with the edit summary "rv vandalism". If you have an explanation as to why you undid my contributions to the article, please provide it here. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 21:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey put back those album sales, most of the articles here are of fans of a subject and like it or not it's interesting to see the sales. So if you think that every thing that is only interesting to the fans should be erased. Why don't you immediately erase a quarter of all the articles here. PUT IT BACK

[edit] My God...this page is readable now!

Great work, Extraordinary Machine! --FuriousFreddy 11:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Don't forget about us #1 in japan ??

is don't forget abou us #1 in japan??

i've never read about that!

[edit] Can we please repost the “Chart Trajectory” for this album?

I think it should be posted. Most albums that are currently charting have trajectories.

In the words of user:FuriousFreddy: do we really need to know exactly how a record performed week-by-week on the charts, in the context of an encyclopedia article? Extraordinary Machine 01:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course we do. Everyking 19:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

When will you make the chart trajectory. Maybe I can help you with the record sales of Charmbracelet and TEOM.

[edit] International chart performance! GONE!

Now that the charts have been removed, there is hardly, if any, a mention of the album's international success! I think the information that was removed should be put back, which includes its international certifications. Until then, I'll be adding a section on its international success. -- Grey Pursuit February 22, 2006 (UTC)

After a closer inspection, I've realized that I've overlooked the closing sentences to the first paragraph of 'Chart Performance' to find a brief, yet mention nonetheless of the album's international success. I apologize for the overcite, but I still feel that the article is lacking of any substantial coverage of its international success (or non-success).

Well, considering it sold 9million+ worldwide and got to number one on the world charts, hardly non-success!

WHY DOES EXTRAORDINARY MACHINE KEEP DELETING THE CHART TRAJECTORIES?!

WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Lots of users have restored the trajectories (going to so far as to create entirely new articles for them), but none of them have explained to me why every single week-by-week chart movement of the album is worth mentioning in an encyclopedia. We're not "all-inclusive", we're supposed to provide succinct summaries of information.

You should also take a closer look at the version you insist on reverting to: Fly Like A Bird is a redirect link back to this article, and it was incorrectly capitalised anyway. Extraordinary Machine 18:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If alot of users have restored them and you are the only one to delete them, surely that means you are the only one who doesn't like them. I thought the page for TEOM's chart trajectory was brilliant and must of taken whoever did it ages, and you just go around deleting them. I personally feel chart performance is a vital part of a song/albums page, and if we can get them there is no real reason not to have them. Lots of other song/album pages have them, so they are popular, we like having them on the Mariah pages, if you don't like them, tackle the pages where they are not wanted.

A lot of users who have provided no good reasons for the re-insertion of the chart trajectories, compared to one user who has quoted official Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not a democracy; it's not simply a case of "majority rules". This issue has been discussed elsewhere (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pop music issues), with the general consensus being that listing every single week-by-week movement of an album or single should not be done. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a compendium of all human knowledge. Just write "It has remained in the top twenty for x weeks": it's succinct and saves space while preserving the actual meaning of all those numbers. See also Wikipedia:Trivia and Wikipedia:Fancruft. Extraordinary Machine 22:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, but let's be honest. This article is primarily for fans of Mariah Carey. They want the chart trajectory. I wanted to see the chart trajectory just now, and I was unable to find the information that I was looking for on Wikipedia. This was disappointing. I don't understand why it's such a big deal if there a little table that has the chart trajectory on it; if people don't need to know it they can easy pass by it since it's inside of a table.

I propose not just the inclusion of the trajectory, but a chart performance subarticle to go into further detail about the chart performance both in the U.S. and internationally. I think there is a lot to say here, plenty to fill a subarticle. Extraordinary Machine's concerns about being concise do have some merit, but in general we should look towards creating subarticles if the main article is getting too lengthy, instead of trimming detail and not putting it anywhere else. I am quite certain that there are many people who would be grateful to us for the info. Everyking 19:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If you believe that the information belongs in the article, then be bold and include it yourself. After all, we are here to build an encyclopedia! :) —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

extraordinary machine, how am i supposed to get the weekly sales for the album now? (what website?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.144.80.175 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 11 November 2006.

[1]. Extraordinary Machine 17:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 10 million yet?

Has this album gotten to 10 million in worldwide album sales yet?
Yes It has. The album has officialy shipped 10 million this month.[2]

No way, that is just a newspaper article on a fansite. The only official data is 7.7m in 2005 (IFPI). I see Orane is quick to request sources for other artists, but accepts the highest bidder for Mariah, even if it comes from a fansite.I find it hard to believe it's sold 2.3m extra since, as it has sold only in the US since its release, and it had already lost steam by January.

Also, of the 7.7m shipped declared by Island to the IFPI as per 31st dec 2005, 5.5 were shipped to the US, 2.2 to the rest of the world (including the final shipment to the EU). There have not been shipments outside the uS since, and about 500K in the uS. That means 8.2, which by the way, is what Island declare. So, 8.2 shipped seems to be the real data. It's a lot and soes not need boosting.

Billboard and the Today show said TEOM shipped/sold over 9 million by early May of this year. Her newsletter officialy stated that TEOM has shipped/sold 10 million worldwide. Here are the sources [3][4]

I just wanna ask. Is it true that TEOM has reach 7 million copies. Because from what i saw in mariahdaily.com in 2006 TEOM has sold 1,968,531 copies. So if we add that sales with the 2005 sales so now TEOM has been sold 6,937,137 copies. So it must be 7 platinum now. But is it true?

No, those were sales for the 2006 Billboard Calender year (Nov. 2005 - Nov. 2006). The album has sold 5.75 million so far.72.94.46.100 02:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The singles chart

I placed a chart in to show the chart positions all six singles in the countries listed. However, the last two singles Say Somethin' and Fly Like A Bird I do not know the chart positions for them in Canada, Austrailia and other European countries. If anyone knows them please add them in. Plus does anyone know if there will a UK release for Fly Like A Bird?

I removed them. This is an article about the album, not the singles, and it is quite long anyway. Extraordinary Machine 20:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The album's value

The album wasn't as good as critics described, but most of the songs were pretty good. I really bought the album like four times. --So Fresh and So Clean_Wish U Was Me 18:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ninth studio album?

Isn't this her tenth studio album? I would consider Merry Christmas to be a studio album. The Mariah Carey article also displays ten studio albums in the discography section. --musicpvm 01:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

This article desperately needs references. That is why I added the tag up there. All her quotes need to be attributed. All the background about how songs came about has to be referenced as well. I can't find any info on Brenda K. Starr's quote on Mariah Carey. The only pages that mention this are copies of earlier versions of Brenda K. Starr. And when was she Mariah's best friend? All of these things (and more) need references. SKS2K6 01:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beyoncé look alike

Someone should find the picture of Beyoncé that looks just like this album cover --58.163.148.240 04:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture!!!

Put the albums picture somebody...

plus... can someone learn me how to put pictures on wikipedia and how to choose where bad should refer!!! its really annoying cause i want to put michaels jacksons single bad and it takes me to a weird completely unrelated page. if someone can help me please do!