Talk:MCMXC a.D.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleMCMXC a.D. has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 7, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
November 11, 2020Peer reviewReviewed
December 18, 2020Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
January 2, 2021Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 28, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Michael Cretu of Enigma has been accused of putting satanic content into the band's debut album MCMXC a.D.?
Current status: Good article

Tracklisting for MCMXC a.D.[edit]

Hi 6, could you please provide your sources about the length of the tracks in Principles of Lust and Back to the Rivers of Belief? And also, I feel that the structure of these 2 songs should not be omitted, and the time should be placed at the end of the song title, as per WikiProject Albums. Thanks and regards. --Andylkl (talk) 17:46, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

(The above is a copy of the question left on my talk page, answered below.)

Well, I'm afraid I feel the new version to be less useful. I won't fight over it, though, I'll just provide my rationals once and then let you (and/or future other editors) ponder them for themselves:

  • About the tracks: I checked on Amazon the various existing tracklists for the official versions, choose the one that seemed the more relevant for encyclopedic purposes, then picked the length details on the matching FreeDB CDDB entry [1].
  • About "the structure of these 2 songs should not be omitted": I don't understand the point, since my reworked tracklist was providing both the structure and substructure of each of them, with the clear "Principles of Lust (part X)" prefix to each part. Since the band saw fit to later slice each song into three parts as CD tracks, I feel more encyclopedic to provide the exact duration of each part and use the later, simpler tracklist (with the footnote about the original tracklist). There has been plenty of versions and tracklists for this albums, IMO there's no need for Wikipedia to exhaustively list all of them, or necessarily stick to the "original one" when the later one has more details. (A factual mention that tons of versions has been made is encyclopedic, though.)
  • About "as per WikiProject Albums": my impression is that this Project isn't really followed/discussed any more, and that many of its "standards" are just first drafts that turned into old habits, never actually discussed and opposed to better standards, and simply cut-n-pasted by imitation of the style of the first album pages done. It doesn't look like the pros and cons of various tracklist formats have been discussed, nor that there's anybody authoritative left to discuss them and establish a standard...

Nothing personal, just my opinions for a better page, and anyway I'm done.

P.S. : Your wikicode for the tracklist shouldn't use hardcoded numbers, but numbered lists. Sub-items can be automatically handled too:

  1. First item with #
    • Subitem with #*
    • Subitem with #*
  2. Second item with #
    1. Subitem with ##
    2. Subitem with ##
  3. Third item with #

Regards, ←#6  talk 17:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Concerning the "incorrect abbreviation" statement at the beginning of the article: Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Latin, isn't there a rule that only the beginning of a complete sentence and proper nouns are capitalized? Under that rule, "a." (the abbreviation for "anno", meaning "year") would not be capitalized, but "D." would, since it is a proper noun ("Domini", the genetive masculine singular for God). In English, it is proper to capitalize "A.D.", but since there is so much Latin in the album, and the title uses Roman numerals, I'm thinking that the intent is for the title to be in proper Latin. If so, "a.D." would probably be correct in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.39.16 (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Can Dance[edit]

Why is there no mention that the start of the album's background music is actually sampled from the Dead Can Dance song "Mantra - Organics"? DcD may not be a mainstream band, but they did provide music for Baraka which is a fairly well known movie, where the track comes from, so it's not unlikely even if you ignore the fact that they sound exactly the same.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kittie Rose (talk • contribs).

I'm not sure of that fact since I've never read about the song before, but for what I know the beat in "Sadeness" is alike to Soul II Soul's song "Keep On Movin'", released a year earlier than "Sadeness". --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 08:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Mantra - Organics" is not a piece of music by Dead Can Dance but by Soemi Satoh and Michael Stearns. The soundtrack of Baraka is a collection of songs from different artists, with Michael Stearns as main contributor anc composer of the title theme. DCD only gave the classic "Host of Seraphim" (wonderful piece of music) and a rare, unreleased version of "Yulunga". What you say seems impossible, as the movie and soundtrack were made in 1990, same year as MCMXC aD. The intro of MCMXC aD sound like many Stearns themes, but also like any waves os synths.Clodomir17 23:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1:22 on "Mantra" and around 35 secs on the Enigma track... it's definitely not sampled but it's the exact same chords... as for the beat that's a generic "New Age" beat though I always thought it was Enigma that made it popular.

Not even close buddy.--2A02:8071:B693:BE00:1847:857A:D4FC:7704 (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the beat the one that was made popular a little earlier by Soul II Soul? The Seventh Taylor (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A glitch in the master of the limited release?[edit]

I came across a discussion (on a website I don't wanna advertise) where several users claim there is a glitch present in the left channel at 57:10 in the limited edition pressings (European editions) and in the French release of the audio tape. I'm curious to know if it is a well known error and in case it is was it present on pressings from other continents? --212.200.207.130 15:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MCMXC a.D.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MCMXC a.D.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • Reviewed: This is my third nomination, so a QPQ is not required.
  • Comment: The source is behind a paywall, so either the reviewer has to either be subscribed to the Billboard website or read it through an archive url through the Wayback Machine.

Improved to Good Article status by Lazman321 (talk) and Dhtwiki (talk). Nominated by Lazman321 (talk) at 00:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • GA received one day before nomination. New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. No QPQ needed for nominator with less than 5 DYK credits.
  • The hook though, doesn't make sense ("ninth longest time"?) and is possibly the least interesting aspect of the article. Please suggest something a little more descriptive of the subject that would make readers want to click on the hook and read more. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT2:... that Enigma has been accused of putting satanic content in MCMXC a.D. "The most unexpected result of the campaign was questions over possible satanist content in the music. The album deals explicitly with the themes of good being balanced by evil, but, for most in the press, there was no thought of satanic implications until Charisma issued a press release denying it." Source: [4]
@Yoninah: Yes, you can use that one. Lazman321 (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Since I added a few facts to ALT2a, we need someone else to complete this review. Pinging Kingsif for assistance here. Yoninah (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple times given for multiple versions[edit]

@Lazman321 and Kyle Peake: An IP editor has added a time of 1:00:57 for an "extended edition" here. The article says MCMXC a.D. is 40 minutes and 16 seconds long without making it clear that that time applies to the original version, as it was once labeled, later removed. There is "The Limited Edition", timed at 20:41, in the "Track listing" section, without a listing in the infobox (or text), but no extended edition. How should these differences be reconciled? Dhtwiki (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dhtwiki: You should not have different lengths from that of the original version in the infobox, as they belong solely in the track listing section. --K. Peake 19:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MCMXC_a.D.&oldid=1211263926"