Talk:Back to Basics (Christina Aguilera album)/Archive 1

Highest Note

Anyone who has the album can you tell me whats the highest note she hit on this album and in what song. Thanks yo—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.91.36.133 (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

The Album Cover

As of today, June 16, Christina has no official cover for "Back to Basics" The cover that is being posted is unnofficial and was created by a fan over at www.christinamultimedia.com please stop reposting it until an official cover is released. thank you. visit Christina Multimedia for more info on the subject—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.191.60.21 (talk • contribs) .

Tracks

Is the tracklisting accurate? I remember hearing Christina say that there's 23 tracks including interludes, on the Making the Video: "Ain't No Other Man" episode. Does anyone know what tracks are included? Ain't No Other Man, Thank You, I Got Trouble, Candyman, Save Me From Myself, Naughty Nasty Boy-for sure because these tracks were posted on her website (before it was changed)

The following tracklist is found on the Press Area for Sony/BMG Website, wich means it is most likely true. Note that it is still not 100% confirmed. The last track on CD 2 is supposed to be an Enhanced CD ROM part

Disk 1
01 Intro (Back to Basics)
02 Ain’t No Other Man
03 Back in the Day
04 Still Dirrty
05 F.U.S.S. (Interlude)
06 Thank You
07 Here to Stay
08 Slow Down Baby
09 Without You
10 Understand
11 Pray
12 Oh Mother
13 On Our Way

Disk 2
01 Enter the Circus
02 Welcome
03 Candyman
04 Nasty Naughty Boy
05 I Got Trouble
06 Hurt
07 Mercy On Me
08 Save me from Myself
09 The Right Man
10 Enhanced CD

This is the one posted over at Christina Multimedia, it looks pretty decent, it has 23 tracks incluiding the Enhanced part, plus it says its from BMG (who owns RCA) so you think we should post this one as 'subject to change'? --Xionel 07:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I heard that the enhanced CD part is actually a documentary about "Back to Basics," which goes behind the scenes with Christina in the studio and everything...

1. "F.U.S.S (Interlude)" — 02:21 whoever created that page should be ashamed of themselves. They mispelled Christina's name. Hello, it's Christina Aguilera, not Christine Aguilera.

Second Single

The article says that "Tell Me" will be Christina's next single off the album, which features P. Diddy. Well, that single isn't listed on the track listing. I think whoever wrote it got confused. I heard that P. Diddy is going to release his last album "PD5" and that he was thinking about releasing either a single with Christina Aguilera or a single that featured Nicole from the Pussycat Dolls. Maybe "Tell Me" is the Diddy track and not Christina's...

Yes, in fact "Tell Me" appears to be Diddy's 2nd single of his new album "Press Play". It was mentioned recently on TRL.--Xionel 07:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Early Reviews

I've just found a praising review From Back To Basics by Tammy LaGorce in Amazon. com which explains accurately (but somewhat subjectively) the reasons why the album seems to be quite an artistical achievement from Christina. It would be biased to put it, since the album has not come out yet and no other reviews have been written, but when the album DOES come out (despite the leakage) you may find in Amazon a place to start an objective and precise review. Just in case you end up using some of it in the final cut, I'll post it right here:

Back to Basics, Christina Aguilera's first disc in four years, refines and clarifies the--let's call it "sexy"--aura surrounding this platinum firebrand. Now 26 and married, the best belter in a class that counts Jessica Simpson and Britney Spears on its roll call has turned her attention to love songs: the supercharged and ubiquitous first single "Ain't No Other Man," for one, and the hushed stunner "Save Me from Myself" for another. That doesn't mean she's foresworn being nasty, though. Dive deep into this set, past the gorgeous crackle that frames the old-school jazz-, blues-, and soul-inspired tracks on the first disc, and you'll reach a playful and familiar raunch; "Candyman" celebrates a "one-stop shop" who "makes the panties drop" to a boogie-woogie beat, and "Nasty Naughty Boy" sends out a heated, big-beated invitation to "sip on my champagne/Cause I'm gonna give you a little taste/Of the sugar below my waist." Thoughtful listeners should snap out of their fascination with Xtina's undiminished yet newly un-tramp-like sexuality, though, because what they'll really want to focus on throughout these 22 tracks is the honest-to-God artistry. While the rock producer Linda Perry helps disc two pop in interesting and unexpected ways (check the muffled blues number "I Got Trouble" and "Mercy on Me," an obvious nod to Fiona Apple), DJ Premier, a mainstay on Jay-Z and Nas projects, pipes a batch of aural high-fives into the nostalgia-bitten first disc (the deep-down funk of "Back in the Day," the strut-strut early hip-hop sound of "Still Dirrty"). Their nudges aside, though, Back to Basics is all Aguilera's baby--she executive-produced, and she's found herself artistically. Nobody would argue, in fact, if she swiveled around the chorus to "Ain't No Other Man," written for her husband, and aimed it at herself: "You got soul, you got class/You got style, you're bada--." --Tammy La Gorce

I'm truly hopin' Mr. Erlewine does the review of Xtina's album for allmusic.com since he's an objective reviewer that gives solid credit to his claims. Thanks a lot!

Pepsi and "Tell Me"

Details about the Pepsi campaign and the track with P.Diddy should be discussed in the main Christina Aguilera page and not in the "Back to Basics" page since the relation to the album is minimal. I understand that it should be stated that "Here to Stay" is being used to promote Pepsi, but the details about Elissa and Rain don't have anything to do with "Back to Basics". Neither does "Tell Me", since it's not on Christina's album.--Xionel 07:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The information is entirely irrelevant to the topic of this article. I'll move them to the artist page.

Album sales and Competition

I have removed a short paragraph about Christina's upcoming album sales, and her supposed competition with the new Jessica Simpson album. It is extremely biased in the fact that whatever shall happen with both of their respective sales shall just be proven when the album comes out. Whoever added that in, kept referring to the fact that Jessica and Christina will be equal in album sales and that is not a proven fact. If a reliable source is noted, the passage may be submitted again. .--AfzalsaysYO 10:53, 31 July 2006

Channel 4 Christina Aguilera Special

If u don't know, the special is on Channel 4, Friday 11 August at 8PM(UK only) for 30 minutes. It also states on the TV Guide she will be performing "Beautiful" as well as brand new tracks off her new album!!!Can't wait ,then gonna buy her album on Monday!!!ITS GONNA BE HUGE!!!I hope it out sells "Stripped" though AND her self-titled debut!!!

Overseas Debut

Do you include these details? In Japan she debuted at number 6 according to the Oricon charts. http://www.oricon.co.jp/rank/ja/d/

Ron Fair?

does anybody have an idea whether Ron Fair is on this album? He was on Stripped as executive producer, but since she kicked Scott Storch out (which is quite good news!), I thought she'd abandon Ron as well. Anyone has any idea? -- Omernos 13:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, A&R:Ron Fair

Yes, Ron Fair is only listed as A&R on this one, but that's rather unusual as he no longer works for RCA Records; according to HDD, he was recently promoted from president of A&M to chairman of Geffen--both within the Interscope Geffen A&M group of Universal Music, not Sony BMG. Clive Davis likely did more actual A&R work on this album than Ron Fair did. --RBBrittain 01:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Reviews Section

I've been reading a lot of reviews on "Back to Basics". Rolling Stone gave it 3 out of 5 stars, All Music Guide gave it 4.5 out of 5 stars. I don't know how to do this, but could someone add the ratings on the album info chart on the right??

Done =) Omernos 04:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

--Chronisgr 19:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Chart success

140 000 sold copies in Australia. 91 000 worldwide!!

How can this be???

u just have to check media traffic on 25 aug(next friday)to see the first week sales, though it has sold 140,000 in Australia, though i think it sold only 70,000 because i think they double it in australia caus its a double album

Anyway, how could it have sold 91,000??it already sold like 180,000 in US even though it only got released 2days ago!

Plus who has been putting up that B2B has one no.1 in Uk and US the new charts aren't even up yet?

And B2B doesn't debuted in Germany yet!!!!!!!!!!

Now Back to Basics debuted in Germany...its written on christinaaguilera.de

Has it been released in all European countries? Because i can see in the list of releases only a few of them and not Greece :( --Chronisgr 08:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It's safe to assume that it has now been released everywhere in Europe. There were a couple of countries like Scandavia who were a week later, but that was last week as well.KittenKlub 08:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Also now that the charts have been publised for the ARIA chart, Back to Basics has only shipped 35,000 copies, so therefore it's been certified Gold status. -- Sarz 10:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey it's released in Greece and my brother bought it for me:P

Certification Rumor

Just to make things clear, "Back to Basics" will not get double certification. According to RIAA certificaiton criteria, in order for a multi-disc album to get double certification, it must exceed 100 minutes; "Back to Basics" is only about 75 minutes, therefore, it will not be double certified and will be counted as a single album. People have been saying that the album sales are doubled.

(Not same comment) Absolutely correct in the US (unsure about Australia as mentioned above). My MP3 rips (from a legal copy using EAC and LAME 3.97b2 with -V 2 --vbr-new) add up to only 78:54 in Windows Media Player 10, 0:01 less than the article states and only 1:05 greater than the single-disc Stripped; my rip of Stripped (same settings) takes up more hard-drive space than both discs combined. --RBBrittain 00:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC) (Revised) --RBBrittain 01:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The album has not been certified in the UK as of 23/09/06 so i removed it. Mysticmartin 19:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Executive Producer

Christina Aguilera was the executive producer of this album. Should it be added to the producers list on the right column? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.227.121.71 (talk • contribs).

Good point, I'll put it between brackets since it's not a standard field. KittenKlub 20:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced sales and chart data

Let's try to get the chart and sales data correct and correct data is data from a reliable source (Read: WP:V), so not messageboards or your friend who knows somebody who works at a chart company, but a newspaper, chart page or any other reliable source.

The following sales data have been removed and they cannot be reintroduced in the article UNLESS there is a reliable source.

• UK silver certification

* JP sales: 32,000

If you have a problem with the very complex ref system, just post the URL or post the website on this talk page and somebody will take care of it.

The reason why it is important: Many pages already exist which contain incorrect sales figures like Confessions on a Dance Floor which was last year's top seller and is currently unreliable and nobody knows what is right and wrong so the only solution is to check each and every item on that page. And there are many more pages like that.

KittenKlub 22:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

--Someone cited that "Back to Basics" debuted at #1 on Billboard. I checked the link and it is not stated; it only states the album track listing. Yes, the album will surely be #1, but before we can state it on the article, we must have definite proof. So, can someone take care of this?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.227.121.71 (talk • contribs).

After half a dozen reverts of that #1 we finally have hitsdailydouble.com (link at 1) and they published it. So it's now their reputation which at stake. KittenKlub 06:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Christina's album has been released in Greece but it hasn't entered the charts yet...I wonder why! :(--Chronisgr 19:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hurt single. Please provide an URL for this comment

Because without an URL it is just a rumour

RCA has confirmed that the follow up single to "Ain't No Other Man" will be "Hurt" not "Candyman" as many people thought they decided to release a ballad to help the album to stay strong in the charts.

KittenKlub 20:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

--Do you have a source/references?? We need proof to verify things. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.121.71 (talk • contribs)

The person who entered it replied and it was on a messageboard, so if it is true, we'll soon see a press release. In the meantime nothing is confirmed or denied. KittenKlub 22:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

--Okay, it is semi-official that "Hurt" is the second single. It was stated at www.allaccess.com (click on "Top 40/M" and scroll down to "Cool New Music"). It states that "Hurt" is being released on radios soon.

For You, F*ck You?

Sorry for the, somehow inappropriate title, but I was wondering if the interlude F.U.S.S. does stand for F*ck U Scott Storch or For U. I've edited this information in the original article, back at the release date, and it was removed since it has not yet been validated. So, I hope somebody can provide a source verifying that it actually stands for the swear word, rather than "For You". -- Omernos 00:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course it means Fuck You. That is what she meant. FCC rulings do not apply, so you can use the FUCK word on wikipedia if it is intended. So don't apply the false American censorship. KittenKlub 00:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It now has an reliable source from a reputable non-US newspaper (one of the oldest newspapers in the world as well) where censorship does not apply. KittenKlub 01:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

but in the song she said "this is FOR you", so it could mean 'for you' scott storch. just beause some newspaper said it is meant to be somthing doesnt make it true, newspapers get things wrong, or lie on purpose, they do that to have more shocking headlines and sell more papers, until christina actually says so herself what the 'f' stands for, nothing is really a reliable source, and where esactly did the newspaper get this info from......? some uncredited source no doubt....*rolls eyes*

im not saying that it doesnt mean 'fuck you' i think its meant to be an innuendo type thing, or somthing that could be taken either way, its like in candyman when she sings "he's a one stop shop, with a real big....*gasp*" it could be taken in THAT way...but she still doesnt say the word, but its obvious what it could rhyme with, but its isnt official that its meant to mean that, until christina says so herself, so what if the newspaper is old/started a long time ago? (yes, i did look at the article), does it make it any more truthful than any other newspaper?, no newspaper is 100% factually correct, especially when it comes to articles about people in the entertainment buisness. just because some newspaper worker who has no connection with the artist says when an initial in a song stands for, it deosnt make it any truer, how do THEY know what it means?, just because somthing in in an article doenst make it true.....81.1.112.20 23:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

as we do not know what the f stands for, i think we should say it could stand for either "for/fuck u scott storch" as there is no proof that it is either, it could stand for any f-word really.....there is no more FACTUAL evidence that makes one right and one wrong, so i think both ways should be mentioned

Russian album chart

Since I couldn't find an official Russian album chart (actually I could find only single charts) I asked a Russian friend and he just replied and as far as he knows there is no official chart since MTV Russia doesn't mention or broadcast it either and he has been looking for one as well. It doesn't mean that there aren't any unofficial charts because Japan has multiple charts as well. We still an URL and what to do with that chart, because there are probably other charts which are not official, ie. there is no centralized administration of sales in the country. KittenKlub 08:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Critical Response

Is this section needed? Wouldn't it be for the best if it was merged within the album's information? I mean, it's extremely short, needs citation, and there are like 7 Reviews to the album. I suggest either removing it, or merging it with the article. - Omernos 19:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Throwback

Is it important to keep mentioning that over and over again?

Back to Basics is a double-disc album. The first disc is a throwback album with elements of old blues and jazz with a modern day twist. The first disc is also more "beat-driven"

Aguilera has described her newest album as an urban soul record combining elements of 1920s, '30s and '40s blues and jazz with modern day influences.[2]

The album features what Aguilera describes as "a throwback to the 20s, 30s, and 40s-style jazz, blues, and feel-good soul music, but with a modern twist."[2]

Charts

Could we put how much the album sold each week something similar to the Loose page for Nelly Furtado. That way people interested can in the future can see how much it sold by each week.

Japanese edition

CD Japan Does not have any record of bonuses tracks. I corrected this part from the article (was vandalized, so I checked) -- lucasbfr ^talk 03:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Charts

On the third week in the Billboard HOT 200, christina is 4# and not 5# according to Billboard.

9/7/2006:Tracklist

#	Disc 1 Title	Songwriters
1.	"Intro (Back to Basics)"	Aguilera, Martin, DioGuardi, Hawkins, Darnell	1:47
2.	"Makes Me Wanna Pray" featuring Steve Winwood	Aguilera, DioGuardi, Harrison, Winwood	4:10
3.	"Back in the Day"	Aguilera, Martin, DioGuardi, Costa, Castor, Fridie, Gibson, Jensen, Manigault, Thomas	4:13
4.	"Ain't No Other Man"	Aguilera, Martin, DioGuardi, Roane, Beatty	3:49
5.	"Understand"	Aguilera, DioGuardi, Holland, Toussaint	3:46
6.	"Slow Down Baby"	Aguilera, Ronson, DioGuardi, Angry, Guest, Knight, Patton, Knight, Bernard, Harper, Jackson	3:29
7.	"Oh Mother"	Aguilera, Thornton, Rankin, Thornton, DioGuardi, Colals, Barratler	3:46
8.	"F.U.S.S."	Aguilera, Roane, DioGuardi	2:21
9.	"On Our Way"	Aguilera, Thornton, Rankin, Thornton, DioGuardi	3:36
10.	"Without You"	Aguilera, DioGuardi, Ronson, Lewis	3:56
11.	"Still Dirrty"	Aguilera, Martin, DioGuardi	3:46
12.	"Here to Stay"	Aguilera, Holley, Reyes, Allen, Jackson	3:19
13.	"Thank You (Dedication to Fans...)"	Aguilera, Martin, DioGuardi, Sheyne, Frank, Kipner	4:59
#	Disc 2 Title	Songwriters
1.	"Enter the Circus"	Aguilera, Perry	1:42
2.	"Welcome"	Aguilera, Perry, Ronson, Ill	2:42
3.	"Candyman"	Aguilera, Perry	3:14
4.	"Nasty Naughty Boy"	Aguilera, Perry	4:45
5.	"I Got Trouble"	Aguilera, Perry	3:42
6.	"Hurt"	Aguilera, Perry, Ronson	4:03
7.	"Mercy on Me"	Aguilera, Perry	4:33
8.	"Save Me from Myself"	Aguilera, Perry, Bottrell	3:13
9.	"The Right Man"	Aguilera, Perry	3:51
10.	"Back to Basics"	making of Back to Basics	10:07

Hey everyone...I created this because it looks so much more organized but user named "Extraordinary Machine" keeps changing it back where it looks confusing. Also "Thank you" is written by Aguilera, Martin, DioGuardi, Sheyne, Frank, Kipner and NOT Aguilera and Perry. Just wondering why it keeps getting changed back. I also did this for Christina Aguilera and Stripped albums (no ones changed that one). So please explain why? Thank you. (P.S. a lot of album track listings are like this) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tamara4006 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 8 September 2006.

The supposedly "confusing" format I keep reverting to is in compliance with the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Track_listing_2, under which all album articles fall. Wikipedia also suggests against inappropriate use of tables in articles; see Wikipedia:When to use tables. If you'd like to suggest changes to the current guidelines then please do so at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums, but I'm sure many users would oppose such changes because hundreds (possibly even thousands) of album articles use this format. I didn't realise you changed the songwriters and apologise for undoing that; however, it would have been useful if, instead of reverting without an edit summary, you had explained why you kept converting the track listing to a table. Extraordinary Machine 18:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh...okay...thanks for explaining it....I'm new to this and I dont understand most the rules and whatnot so I probably wont be contributing anything else. But thanks for explaining it and being nice about it. Enjoy your formats :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tamara4006 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 8 September 2006.

If you don't understand any of the policies and guidelines (they're not really "rules") then feel free to ask myself or any other editor; the last thing I want is for you to stop contributing. That said, I'm sure you understand the importance of maintaining a uniform look across articles. Extraordinary Machine 15:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you even read the page? Because it clearly says that a table is allowed and that it is a GUIDELINE. A table is perfectly fine! In fact a table is much easier to read unlike the chaotic page we have now. KittenKlub 19:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

From the guideline: "Using a table is recommended in more complicated situations" It does not say that a table is not allowed and besides that it is a GUIDELINE and not a rule. So instead of undoing other people's work, you might read a page first. Maybe we can actually improve quality instead of locking pages for a stupid word and not updating it for a week. KittenKlub 19:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. The page lost references and sourced data. But somehow the moderator was more concerned with other things. And the whole page looks chaotic nowadays. KittenKlub 20:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Israel sales

I don't know why do you people rely on a website's sales, when at the same time the CD isn't available at local music stores.

Argentina

Ain't no other man never peaked up to #1 in Argentina, please, edit it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.45.111.69 (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Candyman Confirmed As Third Single

Main article: Candyman (Christina Aguilera song)

'Candyman' has been confirmed as the third single off of Christina Aguilera's album 'Back To Basics.' There had been much confusion over what would be the third single and a lot of rumors were spread. Some said that 'Heart' was going to be the third single, which would be included on the re-release of 'Back To Basics.' There is no re-release of the album as it is already a two-disc set, and 'Heart' is just the name for the Japanese version of 'Hurt' Christina's second single. Slow Down Baby and others were also rumored to be the third single, which one will probably end up being the fourth single, but were just crazed fans wanting there favorite song to be picked as the third single. On New Years Eve in Times Square in 2006, Christina performed Candyman and Fighter, a song from her second studio album, later confirming 'Candyman' as the third single. The song will be released in January of 2007, but has already started climbing the charts, without even being released. It has peaked at #5 on the bubbling under hot 100 chart, and has already entered the Hot 100 in other countries. The song is expected to be a big success as it hasn't even been released, and is already climbing charts. In all, it has been confirmed that Candyman is the third single off of the album to be released in January.

there is going to a be re-release of the B2B. i have a reliable source and track-listings. Just because its not stated on the site,(neither is simply christina) doesnt mean its not confirmed.

United World Chart

How could you know the sales of this week? "Back to Basics" is out of the UWC, then there's no way we can know how much B2B sold this week. Kraft. 20:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah you can go to a music forums page and it has how much the albums have sold worldwide in the top 40, and also in top 40/out top 40, and also how much it has sold in top 40/out top 40/ and the 7.5% that the uwc does not cover. here is a link: REMOVED BLACKLISTED CITE TO ALLOW FOR ARCHIVING. Basinger19 21:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

indonesian chart

back to basic is certified 4x platinum out there why is it someone is deleting those infos... You can see it in Indonesia LIMA Top 50 Charts..!!! i saw it by my self.. so put it back!

Indonesia LIMA Top 50 Charts  !! 5xplatinum for 58 wks on chart! how many copies have been sold?--Chronisgr 22:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

german chart

B2B is certified platinum in Germany too..i found the article..but its in german..so you cant understand anything...so please..dont delete it... back to basic is certified platinum out there why is it someone is deleting those infos...

Certification and Chartpositions sources

Alot of the source of the certifications and chartpositions arn't correct. Or are linked to a site calles www.christina-aguilera.com wich is not a site on the internet about Christina. Need to be worked on!

Number of sales

I agree. Dont delete those infos. i want to ask, where do you (whoever wrote that) the sales each week on Billboard 200 and United World Chart. I am curious about this and will be very happy if i can check it. thx.. pls reply —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.247.53.106 (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Chart

Why you removed the chart trajectories for this album? well, wikipedia is for something that is not temporary.., and chart trajectories is something permanent, its a very interesting thing to study or just checking out how well does this album performed. Especially with the sales of it. It wont be changed, it is something for sure, like the second week of the album on the chart which was at #3, will it be changed to #200 or back to #1 ?? NO . put it back..

Singles section - OVERKILL

This is just way too much. Not only should these images not appear anywhere but on the articles for the singles, but they are way too huge and all of the information shown here should already be in the individual articles for the singles. All of this is absolutely not needed here - it looks like a fansite. - eo 17:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree. If you just want to read a little thing about the singles then this is the way. But I agree with you that its too big! (Electric Storm89)

UK Sales

is it reallr over 600000? wow! great for xtina! but it should be

2x platinum right?

Rerelease?

Where/When was this confirmed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.180.15.2 (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Proposed merge with Back to Basics re-release (Christina Aguilera album)

DELETE - NO MERGE - I thoroughly searched Christina Aguilera's website and Googled the internet for any info about a re-release. There is NOTHING on CA's website, and the only thing that turned up on Google was a rumor that had been posted on a couple of blogs. It seems that there is no substance to the idea of a re-release, at least not at this point. I oppose a merge because there is nothing to merge. The article should be deleted ASAP. It can always be added again if any solid evidence turns up. Ward3001 23:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Fourth single

Once again we face all the rumours of the next single. Can we just leave it be until we have some source at all? I've now seen people create articles for "Understand", "Slow Down Baby" and "Still Dirrty" and claiming all of these to be the fourth single. But these are only rumours among Aguilera's fan community, so please leave it until a somewhat credible source states anything.

It's not Understand. Im pretty sure she said specifically that it wont ever be a single.

I'm telling you it's going to be Makes Me Wanna Pray. They wouldn't play that song all through Grad Night at Disneyland if it wasn't meant for people to get a first listen. They probably tested it to see how people would react to it.

Fourth Single

i wonder what it is? yaeh. christina loves singing makes me wanna pray in front of an aidience. but understand is a great song. my favorite in b2b. its obe of the contenders. im thinking that still dirrty will be christina's last single.

Jazz-music-project

I noticed that this talk page was tagged with {{Jazz-music-project}}. First, let me say I've not heard the album. Perhaps someone who has, and who is familiar with jazz, can comment on whether this could be considered a "jazz album," i.e. enough so that the inclusion of {{WikiProject Jazz}} is meaningful. The album may be jazzy-sounding, but is it a jazz album? (Compare with the efforts of Dr. Buzzard/Kid Creole, they sound jazzy but I wouldn't say they are jazz.) --

I'm not sure this would necessarily count as a jazz album. It's got some elements, but only about 4 songs on the actual album really constitute the 'throwback' idea she was hoping for: Ain't No Other Man, Candyman, Nasty Naughty Boy, and I Got Trouble. The rest have some elements from blues and funk, and some I would have to say are pretty much pop. (Tyrannitar 07:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

Seeing how there are no objections, and no other comments for the past seven days, I am removing the template. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC) (P.S. I made the original comment, but apparently forgot to sign it, or it was deleted.)

Slow Down Baby

is that actually confirmed?

Yes, it has been confirmed as the fourth single through a mailing list. However, it's not included in the article since an email is not verifiable; it can be added as soon as there's an accessible source available. ShadowHalo 09:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

merging

Merging Back to Basics re-released extended version (2007) with this article needs to happen asap. Tainter 02:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Deluxe Edition

Pls put an article about the deluxe edition of Back To Basics. by: BritandBeyonce

yeah please put...

Is She Still Dirrty?

Many of us had seen the video in the enhanced disc of album and we also heard the songs used as backgroud in it. be keen. try lo listen it again. many of the songs have already videos and still dirrty was included in the background. meaning to say that it could be the Fifth Single. BritandBeyonce 12:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

yeah still dirrty will be a good final song to end the back to basics era

4x platinum in US

its only 2x cause even its a double album its under 100 minutes...

someone keep on potsing 4x platinum on the billboard 200... ITS'S NOT!!!

• • It's not even 2x platinum, stop being ridicolous!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.110.70.55 (talk) 11:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

4 313 000 + sales

this thing is wrong and has no source!

Sales

Please dont change the figures unless you have sited sources. the actual worldwide sales is 3.763.575: *Removed spam link* Strongsauce. BritandBeyonce 12:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Removed spam link* Strongsauce updated : 20/04/07 so now above 4.000.000

Actually it's 3,811,000 copies. READ the source. Kraft. 05:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Right! We should put the right figures only. BritandBeyonce 10:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That site isn't a reliable source. .tk domain names are registered free, and this one's done through *Removed spam link* Strongsauce/, meaning it's self-published. 17Drew 13:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Double platinum in the US?

Her official web site claims that it's been certified 2x platinum, BUT it doesn't specify where. The latest 2x platinum certification was in Australia though. Kraft. 05:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Platinum certification

Back to Basics hasn't been certified double platinum in the US by the RIAA yet. Check their database here. RIAA database

Are we all in agreement that Christina is only certified Platinum?Skinwalker03 23:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sales

The sales are up of 4.7 million, NO 3.8. Do you understand?

Who claims that? It's not even close, 3.84 million. Read the source: *Removed spam link* (Strongsauce) . Kraft. 20:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest someone protect the article. The album was not certified double platinum and even billboard has said that soundscan only has the album at 1.6 million copies in the U.S. and world wide the sales are 3.84 no where near 5 million as people are saying they are. I frequently changed back the edits to read platinum and 1.6 million but it's fruitless because in the next hour they are changed to read inaccurate information. So I just quit trying. Skinwalker03 03:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

2 times platinum in Ireland?!

How do you know, that Back to Basics is certified 2x Platinum in Ireland??!! There are no references!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.5.105.237 (talk) 11:51, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

CHARTS

definitely something is wrong!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.2.195.91 (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

someone changed the number of sales in many countries like NZ(for god sakes 1 million??) I think we should delete sales and leave only peak positions like other pages...--Chronisgr 23:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone changed the sales from 1.6 to 2mil in the US. Pfff !!!

Italian Chart

Please, stop writing that Back to Basics was certified platinum!!!! There are no reliable sources!! We know that she got Gold in Italy but nothing more Olliyeah (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "jazz" :
  • {{Cite web |last=Kaufman |first=Gil |title=2006: A Look Ahead |url=http://www.mtv.com/bands/m/most_anticipated_2006_news/news_feature_010306/ |work=MTV News |publisher=MTV Networks |date= |accessdate =2006-04-01}}
  • {{cite web| title=2006: A Look Ahead | url=http://www.mtv.com/bands/m/most_anticipated_2006_news/news_feature_010306/ | accessdate = 2006-04-01}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Save Me From Myself

Hey people, Save me from myself is nowhere a single, so don't put it there... It only has a video. It's neither physically nor digitally nor on the radio released. With Oh mother and Slow down baby it's another story, 'cuz they have physical releases, although I'm not sure about Slow down baby, maybe that one only has a radio release. But Save me from myself doesn't have anyone of those. --RuuBjAh (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

double disk?

from what I know of billboard when a multi disk album is certified platinum its when all the disk combined sell 1 million copies. Would this mean 500,000 need to be sold for this album to be certified platinum? even more importantly if its sold 1.8 million copies in the US wouldnt it be atleast 3x multi-platinum? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.137.146 (talk)

Back to Basics World tour gross $90 million worlwide

According to Jamie King (Tour Director), Back to Basics the tour grossed $90 million USD http://www.jamiekingofficial.com/ (Official site/work/director/christina aguilera back to basics tour) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.172.43.86 (talk) 03:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Back to Basics (Christina Aguilera album)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

The page got started in the right direction, but has severely slipped in quality. There are missing reference, deleted sourced data, and unreferenced information. The first thing which needs to be done is that it should be made consistent and then the missing references need to be retrieved. It also needs to be watched by somebody. This page has the potential for a Good Article and even better, but the main concern is that too many items are added unreferenced and it needs constant cleanup and watching until it has left the Top 20 or so. If it is kept clean and if the lost references are retrieved, it mainly requires some copyediting and then it can go for a Good Article / Peer Review and ultimately Featured Article. The whole problem is that somebody with experience needs to clean it and keep it clean. The currently rating is negative, but it has a lot of potential and it is a potential Featured Article. KittenKlub 20:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC) I also like to mention that this is one of the most important releases of 2006 and should have been TOP priority. KittenKlub 20:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC) Reassessment, implementing new criteria Article requirements: Y Categorisation: at least by artist & year (start +) Y Infobox: relatively complete (start +) Y Cover? (C or B) Y Completed, with most technical details? (B) Track listing: song titles (start +) Y Track lengths and authors? (C or B) Y Personnel: primary performers mentioned by name (start+) Y Personnel section? (C or B) Y All musicians? (C or B) Y Technical personnel? (B) Y Sections: lead section providing based overview (start+) Y Lead comply with WP:LEAD? (length and scope) (B) Y Other section(s) of useful prose? (C or B) Y No obvious extraneous information (such as "trivia") (B) Y No obvious issues with sourcing, including the use of blatantly improper sources. (b) Not bad at all! There are some iffy places that could use some sourcing. But these are minor and can wait before attempting a GA standard. Great job overall! B-status article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 02:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 14:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)