Talk:Slipknot (album)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleSlipknot (album) 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.
Article milestones
March 9, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
May 16, 2008Good article nomineeListed
August 7, 2008Featured topic candidateNot promoted
September 16, 2008Good topic candidateNot promoted
November 21, 2008Good topic candidateNot promoted
July 28, 2009Good topic candidatePromoted
April 17, 2015Good topic removal candidateDemoted
Current status: Good article
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Slipknot (album):

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Talk archives


Congrats on the GA[edit]

Well done to all the contributors to this article. Hope my comments helped in some way! -- αŁʰƏЩ @ 20:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternate Cover[edit]

There are actually 2 versions of the cover. Copies that have "Purity" have the band's logo on the side of the inside tray insert. Copies that don't have "Purity" have the band's logo at the top of the front cover. The one on this page would be from the "Purity" version. Should the cover of the re-release be uploaded, because of the difference? Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well we did have an image of the digipak version too but the issue arose during the GAC process and that image was removed because it was too similar to the original art work, and I know the difference of the covers your are referring too and that is way too slight to merit being used in the article per fair use. So no, we can't and shouldn't include any other image of the cover art in the article. REZTER TALK ø 14:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC
Okay. I'm fine with not having the alternate cover. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Should I have added the Original Digipak[edit]

Ok, I'm pretty sure this is notable, but I was just wondering. Should I have added the Original Digipak version, which was around when "Purity" was still present on the album? Is this version notable enough to be included in the article? Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I think so, I'm not sure why it wasn't already there. REZTER TALK ø 08:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. That's all I needed to know. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


In an attempt to end continuous edit warring the following list has been organized, please add any sources to the list so a consensus can be reached on what to add to the infobox. Thank you. Blackngold29 01:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Slipknot is Nu-Metal. They're not Heavy Metal or Rap Metal, I think it should be changed back to Nu-Metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roi Dumonde (talkcontribs) 17:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Only what is presented in reliable sources and is verifiable can be added, so unless you have a reliable third-party source that states this album is nu metal we cannot change it. Blackngold29 17:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This is goddamn stupid, the fact that we all of a sudden all have to name the genre of the slipknot albums based on crappy mainstream music websites that have limited knowledge on the metal genre. Howcome there was never one arguement about slipknot being Nu metal to this day and all of a sudden theyr rap metal? they dont even rap on this album, let alone any other ones. Okram 09 (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It's based on Wikipedia's policy that information must be from a Reliable source and Verifiable. It doesn't have to be from a "mainstream music website" if you can find a reliable, non-mainstream one. Blackngold29 04:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
This album is defintely Nu metal. Its not Rap metal, Corey raps only a little bit on this album, and Rap metal is pretty much non-stop rapping, such as Rage Against The Machine. There's no way this is Rap rock either because Slipknot isn't rock. They're metal. The genre should just be Nu metal in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
We're concerned with what RS, not fans, consider their genre(s) to be. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If they're so obviously Nu Metal, what defining traits of nu metal do they have? wait... that's right... none! there are no defining traits of nu metal, even according to our page on it. The article is as vague as hell about what makes a band nu metal "it is common to have elements of hip-hop" "it usually has an emphasis on groove" but nothing on what it has to have. Therefore, there is not enough infomation on what makes a band nu metal to call them nu metal without a reliable source. Xanthic-Ztk (talk) 03:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Things must have changed a lot while I was gone, because I seem to remember that the genre an artist was classified under was often different on just about every page about them! All these edits are ridiculous. Can't someone just put a lock on the article for unregistered and new accounts? Genre is such an obscure thing anyway, everyone hears different things and has different definitions of what makes it this or that. So long as people aren't calling it pop, country, top 40, or Christian, I'm happy. Frankly, metal is an umbrella genre which falls under rock, with the defining point being that it generally has harder movement, faster pace, and more violent lyrics; as well as multi-layering of instruments. Just pick one and go with it!

--Crimson Bleeding Souls (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Slipknot's debut album obviously spans many genres, but none of them are nu metal. This album is [[alternative metal], some elements of rap metal, and some elements of death metal and death/doom. MSome o fyou will probably argue this, but the page for "death/doom" says, and I quote, "death/doom combines the slow tempos and pessimistic or depressive mood of doom metal with the deep growling vocals and double kick drumming of death metal". This album has the growled vocals that are somewhat similar to those of death metal vocalists, and the clean vocals that are evident of alternative metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottthezombie (talkcontribs) 03:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This is Nu Metal. There are some who call slipknot a disgrace to metal because they have a dj and rap. These are aspects of nu metal bands and not heavy metal or death metal bands. corey never growls, he might not even know how to. It is not death metal, it is just nu metal. screaming apparently does not even qualify as a metal aspect and cannot be used towards any metal genre. This is simply a nu metal album no question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This is all I think should be added on the article of this album, it says nu metal,which is good, and I want alternative metal to be added because it has many things in it to be alternative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunscreamer (talkcontribs) 18:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Scottthezombie, but WTF!? Slipknot death/doom??? wtf have you been smoking?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 

Okay, I'd like to point out something. Slipknot doesn't like the label "nu metal". They try and distance themselves from the label. So if we must include nu metal, can we include some other genres too, so Slipknot isn't 100% the genre they don't want to be lumped in with. Add "alternative metal" or maybe "heavy metal".Rocker10000 (talk) 12:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

A consensus has been met as far as genres pertaining to the album is concerned. Kevon100 Talk! If you're ❺❺❺ then I'm ❻❻❻ 00:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Demos re-made?[edit]

Does anyone know if this is true? I think that "Interloper" is the demo version of "Diluted", and "Despise" is the demo version of "Purity". I know a lot of people think this, and I just want to know if it's true. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It probably is true but unless you have a source that says ""Purity" is a later incarnation of "Despise"" then it fails WP:OR. REZTER TALK ø 15:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Re-release section - possible new section[edit]

Should I add a section about the visual changes of the reissue? Because the album was changed visually as well when it was re-released in December of 1999. I think these visual changes should be here. I'm not actually adding images, just information about the visual changes. I won't add it yet, I just need approval from others. If it is not approved, I won't add it at all. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well unless you have a source that can backup your claims (which I know are true) then it fails WP:OR. REZTER TALK ø 11:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how to site a source. Can you explain how on my talk page? Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I'll add this section now, but if I find any sources that are reliable, I will add the section. Thanks for posting the instructions, I'll really be getting a lot of help here. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

How many copies of the original exist[edit]

Is it known how many copies of the original version exist? I've heard a rumor that only 1000 copies contain the song Purity, but is the number actually known? Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the exact figure... but it's DEFINITELY more than 1000. Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat. was limited to 1000 copies and anymore are bootlegs. It says in this article "It was ranked by American Soundscan as the fastest selling metal debut in Soundscan's history." I think it had to sell more than 1000 copies from June to December to receive that, it was also certified gold in March 2000 which means it sold 500, 000 units in America. So no... the unit is unknown but it's far more that 1000. REZTER TALK ø 16:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for explaining this to me. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 20:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

the demo[edit]

since the demo page was removed, i changed the last album link to mfkr. however, may a picture of the demo should be featured on the album as well? and also, maybe we should have a section of the article dedicated to the demo, using some of the information from the deleted article. Mastermarth (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Per fair-use we can't use the cover art. There is information about the demo in the first section and the tracklisting is also in this article. REZTER TALK ø 04:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

awh that sucks... Mastermarth (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

About the Re-release[edit]

I was wondering whether we should keep expanding the section on the re-release (when more details are available) or make a new article. Either way I feel we should at least insert a link in the the template for the DVD. It might be a little early to talk about this (considering that many more details might be revealed later) but I thought it would be good if we plan out all this before hand.

A few Important details about the re-release we could include in the section/article:

Album art Set list (Yes I got all this from ootp but found good sources. thanks to rezter for the album art) Torque3000|talk| 11:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it may become notable enough for it's own article, but let's wait. I think we should wait until after it's release and see if we can get reviews and other things or else we should just leave it as an additional section in this article. We can't use the coverart in this article per fair-use. It is too similar to the original. REZTER TALK ø 06:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What about mentioning the DVD in the template? It is a DVD in full and can be counted as one of their video releases.Torque3000|talk| 19:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, what do you say? Even more details have come up now. We could also add the image of the limited-edition box with its contents.Torque3000|talk| 16:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I still think we should wait until it is released and see how much coverage it gets. If it gets a lot of coverage we could make a new article for it, if not we can add the info to this article. This article is cluttered as it is, so let's hope we can make a new article. REZTER TALK ø 18:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


wasnt there 2 diff versions of the digipack for the rerelease, on US, and one international? shouldnt we add the international one as well?Mastermarth (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

There's been about 10 different versions of the album. With different bonus tracks in different countries and stuff. It's best to keep that section to as minimum as can be. REZTER TALK ø 06:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Track Listing section[edit]

Do the first 7 tracks on the reissue have to be listed, since "Me Inside" is where the difference starts? What about the 10th Anniversary Edition, where "Purity" shows up without "Frail Limb Nursery"? Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well unlike previously the track listings are collapsible so I don't think it's that much of an issue now. REZTER TALK ø 21:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The reissue section isn't collapsible, but I'm pretty sure it was intentional because it's the most common version of the album. I understand why all the tracks are listed on all three main versions now. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Death Metal[edit]

Couldn't this album be labeled death metal too? It does have a clear nu-metal sound but if you compare it to other nu-metal albums it is much more extreme and has death metal elements? Slipknot has said before that death metal makes up a big part of their sound. Same goes for the Iowa album. (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It could be. If you have a source to back up the claim then add it. blackngold29 01:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
How about this? [[1]] (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Slipknot Demo[edit]

Should we include an image of "The Demo" in the infobox? if not in the infobox, to the side? I am aware there are plenty of versions of this album, and we do not list them all in the "Track Listing" section, but if they are mentioned within the page (especially in the Track Listing section), then they should also have a matching album cover. Correct? CrowzRSA 21:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Josh Brainard: Credited?[edit]

Isn't that Josh Brainard third to the left in the album art? If it is, couldn't that show he was credited? And if that doesn't show that he's credited, shouldn't it be noted or be somewhere in the Personnel section? CrowzRSA 22:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well slipknot hasn't credited him, so we cannot add his name. Torque3000|talk| 17:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Box Set[edit]

Can the 10th anniversary edition be classified as a box set? I just need a consensus on this for the Discography page.Torque3000<sp>|talk| 12:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't classify it as a box set; rather, i would either classify it as a Compilation album, Studio album, or even a Double album, but not a box set, because a box set is a "compilation of various musical recordings, films, television programs, or other collection of related things that are contained in a box." It is not in a box, rather it is in a digpak/album case. So question is, Should it be considered a compilation album? CrowzRSA 01:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The special edition of the 10th anniversary release is in a box. Infact similar releases such as Metallica's Live Shit: Binge & Purge have been classified as box sets.Torque3000|talk| 16:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Well the ones I've seen have been both CD cases and digipaks. Examples: here, here, and here. However I found that there was a box set version but it isn't as popular as the digipak/CD version. The box set is a Deluxe Edition, as seen here. I think it should be included somewhere. Il put it in the article. CrowzRSA 21:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Shall I add it to the Discography page?Torque3000|talk| 13:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I would go ahead and try, and see if it gets reverted. CrowzRSA 23:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Purity Merge[edit]

I do not think that Purity should be merged with this page. This is because the page already has a small summary of the song in the "controversy" section. The page does not need anymore information than it has. The Purity page is labeled as a "STUB" article but still displays a significant amount of information about the song. Adding information will be seen in the future, and I will try to raise the class level. CrowzRSA 23:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how Purity meets the criteria to have its own article. It cites only one RS and it is related to the band in general and not the song itself. blackngold29 05:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
It's includes the controversy, it includes the concept, information on it's demo version, it's prelude, and the information required in the infobox. It is also significant enough to have it's own page. If Purity were merged to this page, it would only create more clutter threw out the page. Take Daddy for example, Purity gives more information. It has a story behind it, and it is notable because it is a banned song that was later brought back for an anniversary. CrowzRSA 22:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I say if we can find reliable sources for that article, we should keep it. But I don't think there should be an article for Gently and Scissors. Oh and since we are on the topic of Merging articles, I think we should merge Roadrage 2003, Up to Our Necks and Behind the Mask into one article. Torque3000|talk| 18:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
That would be like merging Tattered and Torn with this, and merging Outside the Nine with Slipknot. These songs are significant enough to have there own article. Gently explains it's history threw three albums, Scissors is significant because it is obviously very emotionally filled. Both meet what WP:SONG says. Roadrage 2003 is an album including artists other than Slipknot, so why should it be merged with Slipknot over the other bands? I don't think just because My Plague is the first song of the album, it is about Slipknot, but it should still be included in the Slipknot Template because it still includes a Slipknot song. Up to Our Necks and Behind the Mask are like Behind The Player: Paul Gray, interview albums that should have there own article. CrowzRSA 19:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Some of the articles you have created, for example Gently, have Crowz mentioned in them and as per Wikiproject Slipknot it should not be mentioned in any Slipknot-related article. About the unauthorized DVD's, we can merge all of them into an article as "Unauthorized DVDs" or something like that.Torque3000|talk| 16:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I like the Unauthorized DVD's idea, but you cannot deny that Crowz existed. For example, if you listen to this, you can hear that it is clearly Corey Taylor with Slipknot. It's still a history of Gently. CrowzRSA 01:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

CrowzRSA you seem to have a problem with understanding what Wikipedia is, it is an encyclopedia and there are guidelines we need to follow so that order between editors is kept and the content is as reliable as possible.

Now the articles for Purity, Gently and Scissors. See WP:NSONGS: "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article" and "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."

So 1, these songs do not have enough notablitity outside of their respective album articles to warrant their own articles because you don't provide any worthwhile additional information. And 2, what information you provide is based on unreliable sources: this, this, this, this, this and this are not reliable and those 3 articles all rely on those sources. I don't propose Merge... I propose redirects because there's no new information which is backed up with reliable sources.

I am in support of merging the unauthorized DVDs in to one list type article because I think they lack notability for seperate articles, like the tribute music article.

Please do not bring up the discussion of Crowz again, I would love to believe it was a real album and would love to have sources to make an article on here but it's a load of rumours, Wikipedia does NOT deal with rumours. We're here to provide people with facts and if things can't be proven with reliable sources then it can't be on Wikipedia. It is documented in the Slipknot band article that Slipknot continued to record demos between the release of MFKR and Slipknot the album (that is all that can be proven with sources TRUST ME)... and throughout that time it's extremely likely Slipknot handed out some of those demos to prospective record labels and other stuff (which is not provable but extremely likely), maybe there was talk of them releasing a demo called Crowz but there are no RELIABLE SOURCES to prove it and more importantly they never released an album called Crowz. Fans probably got hold of some of those demos somehow and one thing led to another and people started talking about Crowz being a real album and now we are left with a big sham of an Internet rumour and Wikipedia does not fuel rumours. So no, unless you get yourself some new reliable sources, Crowz will never be mentioned on Wikipedia. REZTER TALK ø 20:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay well I changed the Gently information from "Crowz" to "Recorded between Mate. Feed. Kill. Reapeat. and their debut album." I still think Scissors and Purity are pretty significant, but that's pretty much an opinion. So would the Unauthorized DVDs page look like the Music made in tribute of Slipknot. CrowzRSA 21:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Add the information at these links in the appropriate places and cite the links as references, I have no idea how to do it. I'll bet none of you knew that William Faulkner was responsible for all this confusion. (talk) 11:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


I think some of the current star ratings have been slightly altered (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Avant-Garde/Experimental Metal?[edit]

Am I the only one that thinks this more extreme then Nu metal? I feel more of an avant-garde metal feel out of it. It just seems to extreme to be Nu Metal —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have more than two Reliable sources that you can provide me with, I will add the genre. CrowzRSA 21:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011[edit]

Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:

--CactusBot (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done Kevon100 Talk! If you're ❺❺❺ then I'm ❻❻❻ 16:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

False edit?[edit]

The combination of death metal and hip-hop is not groove metal. Removing death metal from the tags is a bit silly, even moreso to replace it with groove metal, which is in and of itself a slowed-down version of thrash metal with (very rarely) some outside influence like hip-hop/etc.

When I hear this album, the last thing I see a comparison with is Machine Head, Pantera, or other groove metal bands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Clockwork Orange Reference[edit]

On the Wikipedia page for A Clockwork Orange (book) under #music, it says that this album was meant to be "the unwritten soundtrack for the book" and "The songs on the album are said to reflect what is going on in Alex's head." However, there is no reference, should that info still be added to this page? Rmac777 (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Not if it's unreferenced. Seems to be a pretty substantial claim with no substance to support it. – Richard BB 10:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Slipknot (album). 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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 20:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Mixing is NOT mastering[edit]

"The mixing stages turned out to be very challenging, as drummer Joey Jordison and producer Robinson mastered the entire album with analog equipment..." Replaced word "mastered" with "mixed" as terms are NOT equal at all. Also: added Chuck Johnson name as he also was in charge of mixing the album (according to the liner notes from album booklet). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)