Talk:Tooth and Nail (Dokken album)

The description of this album seems to be a review. Should it be changed? — Phantasy Phanatik | talk | contribs 02:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tooth and Nail.jpg

Image:Tooth and Nail.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 14:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone think this is a glam metal album?

75.155.46.228 (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• No. Peter Fleet (talk) 23:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

How the hell not? You don't need to look like Poison to be glam, and some bands are more or less "glam" than others. Read any source. Angry Shoplifter (talk) 00:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Then why isn't Guns N' Roses considered "glam"? I know they have their bluesy sound, but then again so do many glam bands before them. Axl Rose and the rest had teased up hair and sang about the stereotypical sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll lifestyle. That is pretty glam, in my view, especially since they associated with many glam metal bands of the '80s (they were their peers).

Or, alternatively, we could say that Dokken WAS *glam* image-wise, yet their '80s albums sounded more hard rock and oftentimes heavy metal than glam. Listen to the title track of Tooth and Nail and tell me how that's glam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.97.95.17 (talk) 09:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The glam image really came on the following album Under Lock And Key, and the sound really isn't glam, more classic metal except for Just Got Lucky. If you look at the photo of the band on the inside of the cd booklet, they didn't look any more glam by that point than most 80's metal bands of the era who weren't considered glam.--RandyRhoadsRonnieDio (talk) 05:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

When Tooth and Nail came out there was no such thing as Hair metal, Dokken was all heavy metal, same with motley crue, ratt. all these bands were just heavy metal and latter on when hair metal was born with poison, warrant bands like that. everything got labled Glam metal. I grew up that era it was all heavy metal that's the fact. Glam metal never excisted yet. Dokken were pretty much heavy metal all the way but then got credited as glam. evben don dokken had said once that he remembered being called glam and didn't like it That's the Truth75.155.46.228 (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Speed metal?

Can't see how this is a speed metal album. I've heard some call the title track speed metal or say that it borders on it, but this is not a speed metal album. The majority of the songs are more mid-tempo. Unless someone can find a professional music critic or journalist who refers to this as speed metal I think just heavy metal and hard rock are fine for genres. --RandyRhoadsRonnieDio (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Release date

IP 89.148.244.241 insists that the release date is September 13, with some sources, but RIAA says 14. Surely the organisation who hands out certifications is the best source to use? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely. The reference provided by the IP is not a reliable source. Lewismaster (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I've used the finnishcharts.com version of dutchcharts.nl before and whilst they're good for some release dates, in this case there is no way they should be used over RIAA. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Another IP insists on changing the release date, using a low-circulation magazine as source. I think that RIAA, Popoff and AllMusic are the most reliable sources and all of them indicate the 14 of September 1984 as release date.Lewismaster (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

It's FMQB magazine, actually a PDF, just open it, go to page 28, September 17th is there. RIAA, despite being a reliable source, in this case uses a wrong date, and AllMusic isn't a good source for release dates since it just repeats things. 2804:14D:5CC4:484C:79F2:C8DB:C3BE:FACE (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I read the PDF, but I can't understand how you can consider a small magazine about radio airplay a more reliable source than the Recording Industry Association of America or a book dedicated to this album by a respected and competent music journalist. I guess that you are judging sources not for their reliability, but for accordance with your opinion that albums are only released on Mondays. In this article [1] it is clearly stated that "in the United States, Tuesday was the official day for releasing music, and it was happening for decades." Monday was the day of release in other countries. Right now there is a Global Release Day, which is Friday (not Monday) in more than 45 countries. Lewismaster (talk) 14:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

If you consider a magazine launched in September 1984, more specifically on September 14th (Friday) to be less reliable than the RIAA website, then fine, carry that burden alone.

Just to clarify a few points:

I. RIAA says 14, which was a Friday, even though the user insisted on the date 13 (Thursday) for a long time.

II. RIAA fails. It is reliable, but it is often wrong, numerous Alice in Chains albums have incorrect dates provided by the RIAA.

III. The FMQB issue was launched on September 14, 1984, that is, on the day of the supposed release according to the RIAA, and yes, the date of September 17 is confirmed by the magazine. 2804:14D:5CC4:484C:79F2:C8DB:C3BE:FACE (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)