Talk:Mother's Milk (album)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Getting Sued.

In the book Scar Tissue, AK says that the model on the front cover, whos's name is not given, sued the band for producing some nude photo posters (with her nipple showing). She was awarded $50 000, which quote "Was alot back then". Mike Jan 07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.137.245.200 (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Fire Video?

There is no video for Fire is there? Ive never heard of it. Cdylan13 16:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Felix Pappalardi was producer?

This album lists Felix Pappalardi as the producer, but he died in 1983. This cannot be accurate. --Eastlaw 05:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sexy Mexican Maid

Were there a censored version? The Columbia House copy I have list a whole bunch of lyrics that are never heard. MMetro (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"Pretty Little Ditty" track length

I see my changes to reflect the longer running time of the song "Pretty Little Ditty" on the 2003 remastered version were reverted. But it is a fact that the remastered version of the album contains a longer version than the original album and that should be noted in the article.

References:

http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/a73f5707-e5a3-3dbd-94b3-bd84ccc828d8.html (Check 2003 version, length is given as 3:08)

http://www.amazon.com/Mothers-Milk-Red-Chili-Peppers/dp/B000078DOI/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1244746526&sr=8-2 (length is 3:07)

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:7s67gjyrj6iw (click on "Bonus Tracks" version in "Other Editions" group, 3:07 for the 2003 Capitol CD) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.185.247.77 (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I inadvertently removed that. The 2003 remaster does indeed feature the original (longer) version. Sorry! NSR77 ^T 20:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Genres

Dear Mr. Helpful Genre-Adding Guy: This is a featured article, which means everything present is sourced to reliable sources. Please stop adding genres that are not accompanied by a reliable source. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

lead sentence

Previously, this article was led with the sentence: "Mother's Milk is the fourth studio album by American rock band Red Hot Chili Peppers, released on August 16, 1989, on EMI." This is problematic since it identifies the fourth album as its name, rather than as its characteristics.

Does defining the name "Mother's milk" as "the fourth studio album of the Chili Peppers tell us anything? What if an album were found that hadn't been released had been recorded fourth? Would that album then become "Mother's Milk? Of course not. No more than would discovering an heretofore unknown third planet between Venus and the Earth make it into the Earth or our planet into Mars. The planet Earth is the 75% water-covered planet orbited by a moon 1/81 of its own mass, not the third planet from the sun per se, just as Mother's Milk is the EMI album of the Chili Peppers released on August 16, 1989, not the fourth album, per se.

The MOS emphatically does not require that we create artificially odd sentences to fit into some bizarre title-driven format. The lead statement should be a naturally constructed and informative English sentence, not a straitjacketed formality. Let's demonstrate our mastery of elegant, high register, professionally and intelligently English, rather than a slavish adherence to artificial, least-common-denominator standards in wikipedia composition. μηδείς (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see the problem with the sentence. At the heart of an encyclopedia, an article is supposed to answer the question "what?".... "what is Mother's Milk"? "It's a studio album". I don't understand your concern with assigning it an ordinal number (e.g. fourth studio album). The criteria for classifying a studio album will never change like they do for planets and celestial bodies, and there is zero chance another RHCP studio album from 1988 will suddenly be discovered that was released to market that no one ever knew about. So the ordinal is never going to change. I don't understand how it's not intelligent to introduce the album like this. It's pretty much follows the same paradigm for video games, films, and songs, except in many of those cases, instead of an ordinal number, the work is identified by the year of release (e.g. Mother's Milk is a 1989 studio album by RHCP). However, if you really insist that things change, perhaps you want to bring this up at WikiProject Albums, since this would pretty much go against the way every album article's lead sentence is currently constructed. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 05:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Composition section

The composition section has a number of sentences which vaguely suggest opinions and a number of details that are written in a personal manor, as if written by a friend, but aren't in quotation marks. I think this section and maybe other sections(which I haven't read) need a serious overhaul to accommodate wikipedia's policy's, I can't name the particular policy but its to do with bias and personal opinions, and even if the sentences are referenced they need to be re-written or at least have quotation marks.