CORNELL, CHRIS, "The Keeper"

[(Artie Ziff)]

Premiered today on Sirius. No adds date yet. Might as well have been called The Sleeper.

[Devin]

pulsemusic.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=alternative&action=display&thread=3769

Please read the latest posts.

[(Artie Ziff)]

I guess I miss your point. 3 of 7437 members want a petty topic heading guideline? Doesn't make any sense. If any regular poster can't figure out the difference between users' formats for single titles or even the difference between single and artist, then I'd like to see who that is.

But if you're concerned about rules, you might want to check out #1 of the newly implemented site regulations:

1. Stay on topic. -- try to keep all conversation relevant to the original topic at hand. If it's a topic about a specific single, keep the discussion related to that song.

Example: This single is from the upcoming film Machine Gun Preacher. I know, weak. But still an example. It actually reminded me of some of the acoustic Soundgarden material.

Sept 3, 2011 21:34:47 GMT -5 Devin said:

pulsemusic.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=alternative&action=display&thread=3769

Please read the latest posts.

[Ron57]

Sept 3, 2011 22:30:42 GMT -5 (Artie Ziff) said:

I guess I miss your point. 3 of 7437 members want a petty topic heading guideline? Doesn't make any sense. If any regular poster can't figure out the difference between users' formats for single titles or even the difference between single and artist, then I'd like to see who that is.

But if you're concerned about rules, you might want to check out #1 of the newly implemented site regulations:

1. Stay on topic. -- try to keep all conversation relevant to the original topic at hand. If it's a topic about a specific single, keep the discussion related to that song.

Example: This single is from the upcoming film Machine Gun Preacher. I know, weak. But still an example. It actually reminded me of some of the acoustic Soundgarden material.

Sept 3, 2011 21:34:47 GMT -5 Devin said:

pulsemusic.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=alternative&action=display&thread=3769

Please read the latest posts.

To be fair, a very very small percentage of those members are from the Alternative/Rock portion of the site. Also, the post hasn't had time for enough people to even respond to it, and I have a feeling if there was an actual vote then yet, people would favor that format.

Also, you probably didn't even read the FIRST post in that topic, which certifies that this topic should be locked and moved to Album Tracks. You have not supplied a reliable source to indicate that this will actually be a single. Just saying "this station played it" is no longer acceptable Artie - you need to start doing some research and find a reliable link.

[Devin]

Pulse: 2
Artie: 1

We are winning in this losing battle, Mr. Ziff.

[jvandyck87]

I think this is a waste of time. Does Artie seem to go out of his way to be anti-establishment? Sure. Is anything we do going to change that? No. And a lot of the threads he makes, while potentially cluttering the board with questionable "singles", get the word out about new songs from fairly established bands. And he's the one with access to Billboard.biz which does give him that leg up on us.

I would say though Artie, the debuted on Sirius thing to me is a little bit presumptuous. You say they only play singles, but the truth is that they play album tracks quite often. It's just that, they'll sometimes treat an album track like a single and put it into rotation rather than just play it one or two times. I don't think Sirius adding a song makes it a single, but it certainly puts it on your radar as an indicator as Sirius does end up being the first station on a lot of singles before they're even announced.

As for the parentheses formatting thing...the only reason why your format feels like a mistake to me is that you put the artist's name in parentheses after the song title, but then what about songs that have a parenthetical expression at the end? To me that's the weakness of your format that the generic format does not have, and I think you'd have to agree with me on that.

[(Artie Ziff)]

Sirius is the source, as stated in the first sentence of the topic. I doubt this is an album track, as it's leading a movie release. Either way, not a strong song from Cornell. Hope he's more focused on the Soundgarden comeback.

jcvandyck87, I have used [] for song titles and () for artists in the past. Another user (oddly, one I've never seen post here before??) messaged me that for searching purposes it would be easier to list the artist first. I decided to try that, keeping the artist listed first using an alphabetical format.

As for Sirius, they're right almost every time. It's the XM stations that tend to lean more toward hot tracks or album songs not officially released as a CD single or to radio.

You're right there's nothing you can do about it, but I don't consider myself to be a rebel intentionally! I do find it important for searching purposes to list an artist at the beginning of the subject line. But I completely object to forcing everyone into a Foo Fighters - Walk format. This isn't communist Russia, right?

[HereIsGone]

This is asinine. What's so ridiculously hard about putting this title as Chris Cornell - The Keeper? If the mere issue of this formatting is driving you bonkers, you have problems.

[(Artie Ziff)]

Not at all. For archiving and research purposes, it's important to have the artist alphabetically listed first. An grammatically, it makes perfect sense to put song titles in quotes. I have gone through the first page and the first page of the most-viewed page to change what I can.

What's more asinine is coming into a song topic and NOT DISCUSSING THE DAMN SONG. Isn't that why we're here?

From Nielsen: The Keeper is +3 since yesterday.

[HereIsGone]

No, I'm talking about the fact you have it as CORNELL, CHRIS instead of Chris Cornell. All you're doing is adding even more unnecessary commas and honestly, what difference does it make for cataloging purposes? Any search you do once it's long gone from the first few pages is still going to show up the same way if you're looking up Chris Cornell's stuff.

All you're doing is making it look as ugly as possible just to be different. I don't care if it's Artist - "Song" or Artist - Song, for uniformity's sake -- the reason it was brought to attention in the first place -- do it one of two ways. This is stupid.

[Devin]

That's not a huge increase in airplay.

Besides having it CAPITALIZED doesn't help at all either.

[(Artie Ziff)]

I think the purpose of the new guideline is to make archiving and searching easier to do by artist. Clicking on the "Subject" link gives every topic in ABC order. Every alphabetical system in the world goes last name, first name. So this will make more sense in the future.

The reason is was brought up in the first place was not because I went Song (Artist), but because I listed the artist second. I have agreed to amend that and fix some incorrect grammar at the same time.

I was using the +3 increase as a point in saying Cornell should stick to Soundgarden releases.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

Sept 4, 2011 14:10:56 GMT -5 (Artie Ziff) said:

Another user (oddly, one I've never seen post here before??) messaged me that for searching purposes it would be easier to list the artist first. I decided to try that, keeping the artist listed first using an alphabetical format.

That would be me. I'm surprised you haven't seen me around before since I'm a. an administrator and b. I do make posts in this forum from time to time. Perhaps it's your inability to read your surroundings when you post here and see who some of the other posters are or a lack of attention to detail.

Sept 4, 2011 14:10:56 GMT -5 (Artie Ziff) said:

You're right there's nothing you can do about it, but I don't consider myself to be a rebel intentionally! I do find it important for searching purposes to list an artist at the beginning of the subject line. But I completely object to forcing everyone into a Foo Fighters - Walk format. This isn't communist Russia, right?

No. But it's also not America, Germany, China, Australia or any other country. It's a message board with its own set of rules made by the administrators and moderators with input from the members here and there has been discussion on other parts of the board regarding the format of topic titles when it comes to singles in the singles forums. The country forum has a rule in place right now about this same subject. The CHR/Pop forum doesn't but most topics do follow the general idea as it is. This forum does as well with the clear exception of topics you start. While you might not be intentionally rebelling against everyone else, it does seem like you're intentionally doing things different to make some sort of a point or to make things difficult.

Sept 4, 2011 15:12:09 GMT -5 (Artie Ziff) said:

Every alphabetical system in the world goes last name, first name. So this will make more sense in the future.

The reason is was brought up in the first place was not because I went Song (Artist), but because I listed the artist second. I have agreed to amend that and fix some incorrect grammar at the same time.

Unfortunately, we're not every alphabetical system in the world. And for years, most topics about solo artists have been listed as first name first and last name second. It's the format that has been officially adopted and the one we will use on this message board. For acts like Gnarls Barkley or Mazzy Star who sound like they may be solo artists but are actually bands, it would make it less confusing for them as newcomers when topics are made for them but listed as "Star, Mazzy" or "Barkley, Gnarls" because people don't know better when hearing their songs for the first time.
And I'm glad you have "agreed to amend" it but it's not a matter of whether you agree or not. If something is the rule here, you pretty much have to follow it.

[(Artie Ziff)]

Gnarls Barkley is a band and would never be classified as Barkley, Gnarls. I'm referring solo artists or people's names.

As shown earlier, rules are suggestions, and the dozens who post here do not follow them to the letter. Mainly sticking to topics and posting sources. But I certainly attempt to follow them in most cases.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

Sept 4, 2011 15:48:19 GMT -5 (Artie Ziff) said:

Gnarls Barkley is a band and would never be classified as Barkley, Gnarls. I'm referring solo artists or people's names.

My point was that back when they were new, people might assume they were a solo act. The same way people assume that Marilyn Manson is a guy rather than the name of the band.

[(Artie Ziff)]

Actually, Manson is a guy (I think, anyway??). But it's also his band, similar to Alice Cooper, Daughtry, and Bon Jovi.

[Ron57]

Sept 4, 2011 15:48:19 GMT -5 (Artie Ziff) said:

Gnarls Barkley is a band and would never be classified as Barkley, Gnarls. I'm referring solo artists or people's names.

As shown earlier, rules are suggestions, and the dozens who post here do not follow them to the letter. Mainly sticking to topics and posting sources. But I certainly attempt to follow them in most cases.

Seems presumptuous. I've always posted sources, except I think in one or 2 cases in which I explained why there was no source quite yet. I won't do that again, obviously as it's now a rule.

I just don't understand your need to be difficult. I don't care WHAT you say, you're being difficult. Now if people are searching alphabetically for a topic, the artist won't be in the same place as other past topics, as most of them go by first name.

[(Artie Ziff)]

Actually the sources rule is no longer a rule, so it does not matter.

I don't intend to be difficult. But there are at least 10(!) different posters who started topics on the first page of the subject page with the song title, then the artist. So the whole point of ARTIST/SONG seems pointless anyway.

It's the inconsistency that's the flaw. It would be a daunting task, but a group of the owners could go through the 89 pages of songs and switch the roughly 15% of them that do not start with the band's name.

And while we're add it, what's the point of locking a song up? Isn't deleting it and messaging the starter of the topic a far more convenient method? The 89 pages are clogged with padlocks that really offer nothing.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

We won't be locking them anymore. We'll be moving them to the Album Tracks forum which is where unconfirmed singles go until they are officially released or they stay there as album tracks.

As far as the source not being a rule. It's not per se but this is:

Chart Forums: To discuss individual songs as it relates to the individual formats. Also appropriate are general topics that relate to the specific format and its chart. One topic per song, current songs only and only songs confirmed as being singles allowed. Any topic not conforming to those restrictions will be locked and/or moved to an appropriate forum.

Pay special attention to the bolded section. Having (and posting!) a reliable source (ie. AllAccess or FMQB and not from the twitter of the artist or some random online zine works fine) helps to confirm your claim that a song is a single.

There's no point in arguing this anyway because it's something that we're trying to *fix*, as in, we're in the process of fixing it. We're all well aware that it wasn't always like it and that there are tons of topics that don't conform to these new rules. Perhaps in time, we'll go back and fix the titles. But from now on, it would be helpful to not have to for topics made after this.
Also, the more you argue this, the less this topic is about Chris Cornell. May as well simply make a new one as I rename this topic "Artie Ziff argues about the rules".

[(Artie Ziff)]

Not quite, as it falls under the "some progression of the discussion away from the original intent is okay if the discussion is a quality one that grew naturally out of the conversation."

But I will lead us to "come back to the original topic within a reasonable time" by saying that all proceeds from the sale "The Keeper" will benefit "Angels Of East Africa" charity.

I think you can obviously note that I've talked about the song in more posts than anyone else, and did not begin the diversion of the topic.

I did not see anywhere in the new rules, that I assumed supersede the old rules, about requiring a source to post a single topic.

Good luck, it will take some work. I hope the system is able to be fixed with the whole Song and Artist things being so inconsistent. I'm only doing my part now to help get it right.