Talk:Nine (Blink-182 album)

Buddha Is a Studio Album

Mark has announced that blink's newest album will be titled "NINE". This is because he and Travis consider Buddha to be a studio album. So if Mark and Travis consider Buddha to be a studio album, I think that Wikipedia should consider Buddha to be a studio album.
Source: [1]
RugratsFan2003 (talk) 04:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a similar situation as Sum 41's Half Hour of Power, where some publications states as an album, while some states as an EP. With Blink-182 I have not seen as much dispute as the Sum 41 situation, and from what I can see, Buddha is widely considered a demo, rather than an album. Unless other reliable sources/publications can back up this claim and people on here come to a mutual agreement, I think Buddha should be left as a demo. 49.195.91.158 (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. Mark and Travis have authority over this, NOT us. If they say Buddha is a studio album then it is. That's how this works. MARIO^Fan78 00:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

No, the band members do not have authority over Wikipedia or over reality. They can say they consider this their ninth album, and we should report their point of view in the article, but we don't have to pretend that we can't count. They can't retroactively make Buddha a studio album when it's been considered (even by them) a demo album for over 25 years. Barker hasn't even said so, by the way, just Hoppus (which makes sense, since Barker had nothing to do with Buddha). Remember when they got back together and did Neighborhoods, and they updated their smiley logo to have six arrows instead of five and they said that was because it was their sixth album? Wikipedia doesn't have to abide by numbering conventions that Hoppus is making up on the fly. They're also not the first band to do this...VI was the Circle Jerks' fifth album; the title was a deliberate joke meant to confuse people. This is more like that example than it is like Sum 41. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Or, another example: New Years Day. I've seen interviews in which the frontwoman calls Victim to Villain their first album. That's because in the 6 years between it and My Dear she completely revamped the lineup, image, and sound of the band, and I don't think they even play songs from My Dear anymore. But Wikipedia is not obligated to pretend that My Dear doesn't count and to start numbering their albums with Victim to Villain. The artist may consider it however they wish, as an artistic statement, and we should describe their point of view in the article, but we don't have to change numbers or other things on WP to conform to their artistic vision. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

On the subject of Nine as both the sequential number and title, I think it would be worth expanding on Hoppus' quote that it is "the number of universal love, and the number of Uranus", if there are additional sources such as interviews to provide more context. I found the quote confusing...in the Wikipedia article about the number 9, there are plenty of tidbits about religious and philosophical significance but nothing suggesting it as "the number of universal love" (of course, various belief and philosophy systems assign a myriad of meanings to just about every number). And of course Uranus is the seventh planet from the sun, not the ninth... So either there's more to explore/explain here regarding Hoppus' explanation of the title, or it's just some stuff he's making up (which wouldn't be surprising). --IllaZilla (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Yep, well you're IllaZilla so of course you can't discuss this rationally, lol. Blink does get to decide which albums of theirs are studio albums, not yourself no matter how much that bugs you. 184.157.21.230 (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, on Wikipedia we base information on what reliable sources say, and sources like Pitchfork consider it their eight album. Issan Sumisu (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by that comment, 184.157.21.230...I don't think we've ever interacted before. But as Issan Sumisu correctly points out, Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, and a preponderance of reliable sources count this as their 8th album and do not count Buddha as a proper studio album. Again, we don't have to rewrite the band's whole discography based on a remark that one band member made on Reddit. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we have, maybe we haven't. You're not exactly the most well-liked Wikipedia editor, lol. You have a reputation for being, shall we say, difficult? Stubborn? The list really goes on, tbh. 184.157.21.230 (talk) 02:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Since you seem only willing to make ad hominem attacks rather than answer any of the contentions I've made, I think you've made it clear that you have nothing constructive to contribute to this discussion. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

No, rather I'm saying that IllaZilla is here so making any rational discussions is pointless because you're a control freak and refuse to let any other version of the page go up, regardless of discussion. Sorry, but you just do not have a very good reputation around here... and you know exactly why. 184.157.21.230 (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Is Buddha actually a demo? From the wikipedia article Demo (music)

• "A demo (shortened from "demonstration") is a song or group of songs recorded for limited circulation or reference use rather than for general public release"
• "Demos are seldom heard by the public, although some artists do eventually release rough demos in compilation albums or box sets”

(emphasis added)

Buddha was released publicly, being sold at concerts and record stores c1993/94 (on tape). It was then re-issued in 1998 (on CD). These facts alone establish Buddha as a bone fide studio album, not simply a demo.

^ I agree completely. I've always known it to be a studio album and there's no source saying they "retroactively counted it" which is completely OR. 69.29.208.197 (talk) 02:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention we have reliable sources flat out calling this their ninth studio album. However, stubborn editors are stubborn so what can you do. 69.29.208.197 (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be quite a consensus, however, by reliable sources to say this is their eighth album see:pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/blink-182-nine/, www.billboard.com/articles/columns/rock/8521628/blink-182-announce-new-album-release-date, www.spin.com/2019/07/blink-182-nine-new-album-track-list/, www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/blink-182-new-album-nine-863416/, www.iheart.com/content/2019-09-19-blink-182-teases-songs-from-new-album-nine-one-day-before-release/, and that is what we base info off here. Issan Sumisu (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I have the book Blink-182: Tales from Beneath Your Mom in front of me (ISBN 0-7434-2207-4). It is a biography of Blink-182, written by the band with Anne Hoppus (Mark's sister), published in 2001. It is cited many times in the Wikipedia article about Buddha, which is rated a Good Article. The book describes Buddha as a demo tape several times:

Quoting Mark Hoppus: "My friend Pat, who was also my manager at the music store, listened to the same music that I did, and we would talk all the time. He wanted to start his own label, and we wanted to put out a demo tape. So he was like, hey, I'll front you the money, and we'll split the profits until you pay me back. So, with some of his money and some of ours, we went into the studio." (p. 24) It then continues, not quoting anyone this time: "This demo tape became known as Buddha." (p. 24) It goes on to describe the recording, and how it didn't even have a title, just the band's name. It only got to be called Buddha because they took a little Buddha statue, put it among some flowers, and took a picture of it for the cover..."It was definitely an amateur release." (p. 25) Then it goes on to say "Years after the demo was originally recorded, the songs were strong enough to attract the attention of Kung Fu Records who finally released the album in CD format and for the first time made it widely available. But in the days before Blink even understood what distribution was, getting the demo to their fans took a lot more work." (p. 25) It talks about how they got the cassettes made, photocopied the liner notes, and put them all together, and how they took them to local record stores to sell on consignment and sold them at their shows.

So there you have Mark Hoppus himself calling it a demo, and a biography co-written and authorized by the band calling it a demo three more times. All of this 18 years before he hops on Reddit and says—exactly once—that he now "counts" it along with their studio albums. If you truly care about sources, how do you answer that? It fits exactly the definition you have given above for a demo tape: "A group of songs recorded for limited circulation rather than general release" — Selling handfuls of copies on consignment at local shops and at gigs qualifies as "limited circulation", not "general release". "Demos are seldom heard by the public, although some artists do eventually release rough demos in compilation albums or box sets” — If Kung Fu records had not happened to re-release Buddha on CD four years later, you'd look at it exactly the same as Flyswatter and have no question that it was a demo tape. These are the same circumstances under which countless other bands have released demo tapes; see for example List of Metallica demos, especially No Life 'Til Leather. I own a bunch of demos from various local bands, that I bought at local shops or from the bands at shows. The mere fact that money exchanged hands does magically re-class them from demos to proper studio albums. That Buddha was a demo tape is further evidenced by the fact that the band re-recorded half of its songs when they finally made their first non-demo album, Cheshire Cat...again, just like countless other bands before them and since. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Who says a demo can't also be an album? #OR And still, point being Blink said straight up this is their ninth so blink > your opinion. 69.29.208.197 (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand the meaning of original research, and continually throwing the term about does nothing to advance your argument. You have failed to address any of the arguments made. A single Reddit post by one band member does not dictate what we present on Wikipedia. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Noting: It seems highly likely from their contribs that the IPs 69.29.208.197 and 184.157.21.230 are the same person. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Wow, what a 200 IQ observation... Look man, I just don't like you and know your reputation so any attempt on my part to discuss things rationally is going to be completely wasted. Consider this my retirement from this conversation. 69.29.208.197 (talk) 03:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

So can this conversation be started up again? Because clearly many fans consider Buddha to be an album, just like Mark does. And yes, him saying it's an album once vs saying it's a demo three times matters when he clearly changed his views after 18 years. It seems like one or two people badly want it to say "demo," and won't let it say otherwise. Rorys1989 (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Genre

For those who already tasted the album, hoe can you classify it? The same as Untitled (2003)? (pop/punk - alt. rock - punk rock, sonically) ManneredMan (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The critics seem to think so. Why do you ask? dannymusiceditor ^oops 04:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

'Cause if this genres are added to the article they'll soon be removed by not being sourced. I haven't found any webpage that said so. ManneredMan (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

"Stylized as NINE"

Typing in all-caps is not a stylization. If it is, then I submit that several of this band's other release titles are "stylized as" DUDE RANCH, GREATEST HITS, NEIGHBORHOODS, DOGS EATING DOGS, CALIFORNIA, and so forth. In fact, it would follow that some huge percentage of all album titles are "stylized" as all upper or lower case...I own thousands of albums and very few use proper sentence capitalization in their artwork. By the way, if you bother to buy a physical copy of the album as I did then you'll see that it's actually "stylized as" NiNE (lowercase "i") on both the album spine and disc. For purposes of writing an encyclopedia, we are not obligated to present every variation of capitalization that may pop up (including the band member's Reddit post) as some alternative stylization of the title. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)