Talk:Life After Death

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Posthumous[edit]

If an album completed before a singer's death is not released until shortly after his death, is it a posthumous album or not? I'm wondering so as whether or not to categorize this article under "posthumous albums" along with his next two (mediocre) releases? 2Pac 21:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's only considered posthumous if the singer records his vocals while in the grave.

Best album?[edit]

The article includes the phrase "Life After Death is widely regarded as one of B.I.G.'s best albums." He only has two proper albums (this one and Ready to Die), so it's either his best or it's not. Anyone have a compelling cite that this is his best album? Otherwise the phrase needs to come out as unverifiable and weasel-worded. | Klaw ¡digame! 23:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Eyez on Me?[edit]

I don't believe 2Pac's album made diamond. It states on the other page that it only achieved 9x platinum. Cheezyphil 11:20, April 24, 2006

Any credible references supporting your claim? --Siva1979Talk to me 03:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
actually it was just certified Diamond last month check all eyez on me wiki page  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flakitox3 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it's still 9x. http://riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?resultpage=2&table=tblTop100&action= —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.244.1 (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2Pac is the best! he sold 75 million records and their beef 2Pac Won! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.138.197 (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move?[edit]

I can imagine that most users searching for Life After Death are wanting information about the Afterlife. The link at the top is tedious to click. Perhaps move this to Life After Death (album) and use this as either a redirect to Afterlife or move Afterlife here. The little italic link would, of, course, link to the album's page. What do you think? Daniel (☎) 19:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverison[edit]

I reverted the page back to a previous month, removing a horrid picture that some clown tried to post on the page

Clean up Track Listings.[edit]

Within the Track Listings, I would like to change the Perfomers to just Guest Performers since BIG is featured on all of the tracks. Also should we just reduce the producers to the main producer. It looks a bit much to read. Also some things could be cleaned up like in "Mo Money Mo Problems" the mention of Diana Ross is not necessary as she did not sing the hook on this particular song. What do you guys think?
Waiting for a response. Will change in a weeks time if no response.

Reception[edit]

Someone add more to the reception page.

--Paul.Peat 12:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a little bit but unfortunately it is unreferenced because for the life of me i can't remember where i read that 14 years ago. Not a fan of the line 'Since the album's release, it has been considered one of the greatest rap albums in hip hop history' - especially as I remember when that album came out and many considered it mediocre in parts, with lame tracks like Mo'MoneyMo'Problems not really satisfying the underground hiphop audience. When it was released, it was not criticised cos he was still warm in the ground but no-one (critics and fans from the underground) to my recollection held it in the same esteem as illmatic or 36 chambers or other albums of the time that would have fitted that description. If it wasn't for the fact that he was gunned down shortly before, that album would have been torn apart by the critics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HallucigeniaUK (talk • contribs) 21:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Producer List At Bottom[edit]

It states that Kanye West was a producer for this album, is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.64.145 (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not true. MethodMaster101 (talk) 07:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

USA Today review[edit]

Transcription using Google News Advanced News Archive Search. USA Today (Jones, Steve. 01.D. March 26, 1997) review of Life After Death (1997):

Life After Death (# # # 1/2 out of four) -- a 24-track, double CD -- is a tour de force for the rapper, whose richly textured voice delivers colorful tales of a street player's life over irresistible beats. His first single, Hypnotize, is already living up to its name on radio airwaves.

The Notorious B.I.G.'s new Life After Death picks up where first album Ready to Die left off in chronicling his rise from crack dealer to world-renowned rapper. But with the slaying of BIG (real name Christopher Wallace) in a drive-by shooting in Los Angeles on March 9, the album takes on a darker meaning.

Some might find songs like Somebody's Gotta Die, My Downfall and even the good-timing Going Back to Cali prophetic, but they really point out just how of a waste his death was. BIG's lyrical flow and storytelling make his albums play almost like film, though his themes never stray far from his days as a hustler. Ten Crack Commandments, for example, is a primer for surviving as a drug dealer.

He also takes to task those who criticize his lifestyle on Playa Hater. Commendably, he refused to get caught up in a supposed rivalry with Tupac Shakur, who was slain in September and who had made a record claiming to have slept with BIG's wife, Faith Evans.

Over the years, he made a name for himself with cameos on hit songs by Evans, Michael Jackson, Total and 112. Here, he has invited several guest artists, including R. Kelly on the salacious and humorous #!*@ You Tonight and Lil' Kim on Another, two of the set's best songs. Sadly, the final track is You're Nobody (Til Somebody Kills You). With his talent, nothing could have been further from the truth.

— Steve Jones

Dan56 (talk) 03:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long Kiss Goodnight[edit]

Biggie on Long Kiss Goodnight spits

"laugh now cry later"

..as a response to tupac's lyrics on 'God Bless the Dead' ..

"Cry later but for now let's enjoy the laughter" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.113.143 (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, good catch. Not sure when that song got out the first time though but Biggie had a lot of lines like that you could find if you listened the songs carefully. Koord (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mafioso? Gangsta?[edit]

Maybe we should just pick one and stick with it. 207.159.183.152 (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This album is definitely a mafioso rap album. I don't consider it a gangsta rap album. Nothing said about a gangsta lifestyle in this album. Although, I consider it a G-Funk/mafioso rap album since it samples funk music while talking about a mafia lifestyle. An example of a song that uses G-Funk on this album is Going Back to Cali. MethodMaster101 (talk) 07:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Life After Death. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for release date[edit]

I appreciate that you don't think the reference is necessary, but what is the harm of leaving the reference where it is? Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's just unnecessary. Looking at the article's revision history, it never had the release date cited until it was added by a user 5 days ago, and for a good reason. It's been stated by the rapper himself on numerous occasions.

The policy you linked says "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged", and this is clearly not. His previous album is a good article and doesn't have the date cited, neither do almost all other albums of similar artists. 190.2.150.230 (talk) 01:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand your reasoning (sort of) I still believe there is absolutely no harm in leaving the reference as is. Two users and a bit have reverted you, please open a discussion on the talk page and brinf your argument there if you disagree. Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am moving this discussion over to the talk page of the article in case other editors want to weigh in. Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't see why this even turned into a full-on discussion, let alone in two talk pages. You reverted my edit saying: "Doesn't hurt to keep the source, even if it's not challenged" and cited WP:VERIFIABILITY. After reading the first couple of paragraphs of the policy, it turns out it does not say that, but kinda the exact opposite really. Also, I just found out about WP:INFOBOXREF: "References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere or if the information is obvious." As for the user and the bot, I'm assuming the user was not aware of the discussion, and a bot is not a person obviously.

Point is, those sources add zero info/verifiability, thus that edit is unconstructive. While yes, you could say there's "no harm" in adding the refs, removing them would be preferable according to the policies and guidelines above. 190.2.149.227 (talk) 04:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The release date is not obvious.
Pinging @Rsrikanth05 and MethodMaster101:, who have edited the page to include the reference, in case they want to chime in. Aoi (青い) (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, the man himself literally says it in one of his last and most famous interviews (@ 0:39).[1] You say that it's not obvious, but care to explain how? 190.2.149.227 (talk) 06:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe I have to argue this, but the average lay person who is reading this article to find out more about this album is not going to know that that interview exists. Aoi (青い) (talk) 07:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aoi is right. Not everyone who knows of The Notorious B.I.G. or has at least heard this album before has seen those interviews which is why citing a source (from a news magazine that is the first ever hip-hop magazine aka The Source) is the right thing to do. Why does this even bug you in the first place? MethodMaster101 (talk) 07:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

His previous album, Ready to Die, is a good article, good articles are "well written, contain factually accurate and verifiable information, are broad in coverage, neutral in point of view, stable, and illustrated, where possible, by relevant images with suitable copyright licenses." The article doesn't cite the release date because it adheres to the policies and guidelines mentioned above, even though the release date of that album is less obvious than this one. Since Ready to Die is the only B.I.G. album that's a good/featured article, it should be seen as an example when editing other articles of his albums. 190.2.149.227 (talk) 07:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:Other stuff exists. Just because something is done one way elsewhere doesn't mean it should be done the same way in another place. The release date wouldn't be obvious to an average layperson, so I maintain (and at least two other users agree) that the reference should be maintained. Aoi (青い) (talk) 10:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the thing, it's not just "elsewhere", it's almost everywhere. The vast majority of good/featured articles on Wikipedia do not cite the release date, and I say good/featured articles because they're used as an "example for writing other articles" per WP:FA. Therefore, this is a valid use of that argument. I have provided for my rationale policies, guidelines, and justifiable examples. So far, your arguments have been "it doesn't hurt", an essay (which states there is correct use), and the argumentum ad populum fallacy. 190.2.150.230 (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coming after a posting at WikiProject Albums. Of course a source is required (all over WP:CITE and WP:V, including WP:BURDEN now). But the citation should be in the main text, not in the infobox (WP:INFOBOXREF). EddieHugh (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How is the release date of a book, movie, or album "obvious"? Are they well known facts that are known to everyone or can be easily observe in everyday life? Besides I've seen way too much date vandalism to trust any date given on Wikipedia unless those dates are cited and I can check the source to verify. P.S. I've reverted the article to the state it was in before the edit war began in compliance with WP:BRD. No further changes to the sourcing of the release date should be made until a consensus on its inclusion is reached. —Farix (t | c) 02:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with EddieHugh. The first three policies and guidelines they cited make it clear that a source is needed, and preferably a single reliable source. However, per WP:INFOBOXREF, it shouldn't be in the infobox. 190.2.149.227 (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2021[edit]

This sentence is found in the Background tab: "Biggie aimed to reach a wider audience with Life After Death, collaborating with a wide variety of artists than his debut."

The word "wide" should be changed to "wider"

Confirmation of what it should be: "Biggie aimed to reach a wider audience with Life After Death, collaborating with a wider variety of artists than his debut." 2607:FEA8:6026:6200:81C4:CCD5:DCCB:1B3C (talk) 08:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Life_After_Death&oldid=1195490269"