Talk:Human After All

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Human After All article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Human After All 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.

Human After All is part of the Daft Punk studio albums series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 5, 2019	Good article nominee	Listed
June 18, 2020	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Electronic music Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guitars

It needs to be said that Daft Punk did not play any guitar on this album. For some reason, on the web, there is a constant emphasis on Daft Punk playing guitar. The only instance of guitar is on the track 'Robot Rock' - which was sampled from an older song called 'Release the Beast' ie. they took the guitar from another track. This is the only occurance of guitar on the album - and Daft Punk did not play it. It is quite obvious that Daft Punk are key instigators in spreading this false information, perhaps to sharpen their image in some sort of way. But information on Wikipedia should be the true information, not the hype.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.96.72 (talk • contribs)

Please cite a source for this information. The article currently cites a source stating that Daft Punk did play guitars throughout the album. Just64helpin 17:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The liner notes states "All guitars by Daft Punk" It has been sourced before that Bangalter and Guy Manuel know how to play guitar and have played some songs on guitar. It has also been sourced that they do not cut and copy samples, they play it over with their musical talent. Douglasr007 08:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, where has it been sourced? The liner notes may state that all guitars are by Daft Punk but this source shows otherwise: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJPdVVOmbz4. You said that they do not cut and copy samples, this source shows otherwise: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJPdVVOmbz4. Please, take your own advice and source your information.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.63.79 (talk • contribs)

This has mentioned many times. Even though Daft Punk get their samples from other songs, it has been sourced and documented in other Daft Punk related articles that Daft Punk don't do a copy and paste job on their samples. They actually play the sample with their own musical talent and then work with what they did to the sample. Check out the sources for the Discovery article if you don't believe me. Showing me a YouTube video of samples that they have already ackownledged in their own liner notes of their albums does not prove anything except your ignorance of thinking Daft Punk just sample and rip off the artists who originally made the song. Douglasr007 00:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just say 'it has been mentioned many times'! Where is the source for this? Songs like Harder Better Faster Stronger and Robot Rock are DIRECT copy and paste jobs - this can be proven simply by listening to the songs. No one can replicate a song that well, capturing all the nuances of the instrument etc. Simply impossible. If you disagree then you are naive to the music making process. You are confused about the definition of sampling - sampling means they use the exact same sound file. If you can atleast agree that this is the definition of sampling then I can provide you a million sources showing how you are wrong, for example - http://palmsout.blogspot.com/2007/02/sample-wednesday-27-daft-punk.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.183.50.38 (talk • contribs).

I've seen the Palms Out source so many times it makes me sad. Yes, they sample. However, they sample by adding their own talent into the sampling. Ok, I'll bring up the source from the Discovery article. link The magazine asks some questions to Daft Punk about the Discovery album and the magazine asks "This album sounds like it features a lot of live performance, too. The “guitar solo” on “Digital Love,” for example, sounds like something you played instead of sequenced." which Bangalter replies:

“

That was a mix of elements. It was done with the help of technology, with the help of sequencers. We're interested in making things sound like something other than what they are. There are guitars that sound like synthesizers, and there are synthesizers that sound like guitars. The other goal is to create spontaneity. Even though we're not that good, we played a lot of things ourselves. With the help of technology, you can manufacture skills you don't have. That's one advantage of having a home studio. It takes a lot of time to put together music that way, and that's not always a luxury you may have in a regular studio. You might have one or two months to record an entire album in a regular studio, but in a home studio you have more time to experiment. We also like the idea of the solo. No one plays solos in their songs anymore, but we wanted to include some on the album.

”

The quote after that mentions how they find samples. It's a mix of either being real or just being sampled. Is this any proof? Douglasr007 01:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some parts are real guitar, probably played by Daft Punk but this is just very basic, layered elements to the music. I think the problem is that Daft Punk themselves are intentionally vague as to their production methods. Nevertheless, for the sake of this discussion, the original statement was that Daft Punk did not play all the guitars on this album and that has been proved by many websites including the Palms Out link. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.183.50.38 (talk • contribs).

You're just basing that on "Robot Rock." Does "Television Rules the Nation" ring a bell? The guitar riff in Human After All? Yeah. Not everything involving guitar on the album was sampled. Douglasr007 08:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original post in this discussion is that they didn't play "any" guitar. This statement is clearly innaccurate. Just64helpin 10:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "All guitars by Daft Punk." is also inaccurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.183.187.129 (talk • contribs).

The statement can be interpreted as "All live guitars by Daft Punk", which is accurate. The Breakwater sample would not qualify as an in-studio guitar in this context. Just64helpin 14:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's weak and you know it. It *could* be interpreted like that, but it is not interpreted like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.146.173 (talk) 04:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what the argument is. The Breakwater sample is clearly credited in the very same liner notes that state "all guitars by Daft Punk". The duo are not hiding anything, so they are certainly not trying to lie. Just64helpin 11:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Substituting

Why did you substitute the cquote template? Just64helpin 02:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You usually subst templates in talk pages. WP:SUBST Douglasr007 02:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remix album

Shouldn't the remix album have it's own article? Leopold Stotch (talk) 04:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't notable enough for its own article. Just64helpin (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kath and Kim

I just wanted to point out that the song "Technologic" was also featured in the television show Kath and Kim, alongside the iPod commercial and the O.C. I didn't put it in there cause I don't have the verification, and I don't even remember what episode it was. I think someone should go check it out, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robo56 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remix After All

Anyone with more knowledge of the notability criteria able to let me know if the remix album Remix After All http://www.noiseporn.com/2009/05/27/remix-after-all-2/ http://prettymuchamazing.com/mp3/daft-punk-remix-after-all qualifies as notable? -Joey- (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human After All. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/album/7072263/human_after_all

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Human After All. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 12:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Human After All/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BeatlesLedTV (talk · contribs) 00:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Philroc! I'd be happy to review this. I myself created List of songs recorded by Daft Punk and brought it to featured status, so I'm a bit of a Daft Punk fan you can say. I'll have my review done by tonight. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox

Ref 1 isn't needed in the infobox
Change the studio to Daft House, add a break, then put Paris, France in small font (See Homework and Discovery and you'll know what I mean
I think mentioning the album's six-week creation would be appropriate.
As opposed to "with this album," I would compare it to Homework and Discovery a little bit, kind of like how the Discovery lead compares it to Homework
Second paragraph looks good

Background and structure

Some sentences where quotation marks are inside punctuation while others are outside. Choose one or the other for consistency
Not sure if the first sentence is appropriate to start a "background" section. Think it'd be better to start the third paragraph
Was it recorded in two weeks or six weeks? I've read multiple sources that say six weeks, which is also consistent with the recording dates "September – November" in the infobox
Add the year after Daft Punk's Electroma – (2006)
Concert tours do not go in italics (Alive 2006/2007)

Release and promotion

Ref 13 and 24 are the exact same.
Again, un-italicize the Alive 2006/2007 tour
Separate chart performances into their own 'commercial performance' section. Also add the other chart positions of the album, especially the number one Top Dance/Electronic chart
I would add the info in the second paragraph to 'critical reception' after all the reviews; it basically discusses the response to reception before actual reception. (This whole section can be condensed to two paragraphs)
Add AllMusic refs for the last sentence (for Musique Vol. 1 and Alive 2007)

Critical reception

Again, some sentences have quotation marks inside punctuation while others are outside. Make sure it's consistent
Add who won the Grammy award that year

Track listing

Looks good

Personnel

Make sure to cite the liner notes; section is currently unsourced
Link the artists if they have pages. Can also link things such as drum machines, synthesizers, and vocoders.
Make the items mentioned above plural, as I'm sure the duo used multiple instruments to record the album (unless the liner notes themselves state otherwise)

Remix album

Add publish date to ref 40 (18 June 2014)
Rest looks good

Charts

This section should only be reserved for the actual chart listings. Moved the sales figures to 'release and promotion'.
With the sales figures – "as of May 2013," seems kinda outdated. Think we could update these figures, especially since it's now February 2019?

Certifications

Make sure refs have access dates

References

See the toolbox. There are a ton of references that are green, blue, and there are currently three dead links. These all gotta be fixed.
I would archive many of these refs, especially ones that are websites
Change Pitchfork Media to Pitchfork (multiple refs)
Ref 57 – why does it say "HUman after all"
Make sure all refs have last name, first name; some have first last

Final comments

Overall looks good. It definitely has potential to become a GA once these issues are resolved. I'm here to help as well, so don't be afraid to ask! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BeatlesLedTV: Thanks for stepping in and reviewing this article so shortly after its nomination. I have managed to fix most of the issues you found; however, there don't seem to be any publicly-available sales figures for Human After All beyond 2013. (I encountered an edit conflict when saving, and I may have reverted other user's edits; I apologize and have attempted to remerge.) Phil roc (c) 16:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Damn that's a shame. I think it's starting to look good to become a GA, just gonna give it a final read-through and make any small edits then I'll give it a pass! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I will ✓ Pass this. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.