Talk:Metal Machine Music
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hey wow, someone posted a link to the review on my website! Thanx, whoever you were.
Does anyone know why the 4 tracks on the CD release have different running times than on the original double-LP?
Gyrofrog 22:55, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
i could be wrong but i dont think it is guitar feedback. he lists what he used to create the album. it says 'no instruments'
Contents |
[edit] References
Someone had removed the reference to a list of the worst albums of all time, with the following edit summary: "The only page on the internet that refers to that list is this page. So much for 'popular'." I'm sure there is such a list out there somewhere, but I assume the reference in question was to a 1991 book which did, indeed, list the 100 worst rock'n'roll albums (at least, in the authors' opinion). I have restored the text to the article and added information in a new "References" section (also added a reference for Lester Bang's book). Both books appear to be out-of-print as of this writing, but in any case, references are references, and Wikipedia could use more of 'em. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Track Length
Used to own the RCA album & each side was labeled as having times of 15min 01 sec, each. the 4th side, "D" having a lock groove. I have no idea why the new issues have longer track lengths, although, i never actually timed the playing of the sides.
24.19.9.251 19:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)dominique
- Track lengths vary slightly between vinyl and CD quite often. I think it depends if they're including the bit of silence at the end of the track. Vinyl timings would have been done with a stopwatch, so human error could have crept in. Totnesmartin 10:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Would it be POV...
Would it be POV to just put "This is the worst album of all time."? I'm not being an asshole, if you've heard the album, you KNOW it's crap.
I have heard the album, and it's not crap. What you call "crap" is probably just your disappointment that it's nothing like Berlin or Transformer. Perhaps you should have found out what it was like before buying it. Totnesmartin 22:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Really? I thought "crap" was a good word for it. Is there any artistic value in it? Lou Reed rocks, he just happened to be really, really stoned. 68.168.80.4 09:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Reed does rock and can make great regular music; it's just that MMM goes way outside the mainstream into very obscure territory. But maybe it's just me liking obscurity and experimentation. There need to be ventures like this otherwise Lou Reed would be (to paraphrase "Hanging Round") still doing the things evryone else gave up years ago... Totnesmartin 11:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. I was just feeling trolly that day. 68.168.80.4 16:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- don't worry,I enjoyed the debate. Totnesmartin 17:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lou Reed denies classical allusions
In a 1996 interview on french TV, Lou says that he was lying about classic allusions. Could be that he's lying again. The truth could be somewhere in between.
[edit] "Specifications" section & copyvio
The "Specifications" section is copied verbatim from the album's liner notes. It's one thing to list, for example, the musicians involved with an album based on the text in the liner notes. But this is not a simple, straightforward "Specifications" listing, it evinces the writing style (specifically, the sense of humor) of its author (presumably Lou Reed). This, to me, is copyright infringement, perhaps moreso because the information may indeed be fictional on Reed's part. Where this particular album is concerned, including the "Specifications" list is like including song lyrics. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Influences
Has anyone thought of mentioning Fantômas (band) album Delìrium Còrdia as an influence, since both of the records last 15 minutes is just a loop? Maybe a source is needed? //81.224.163.252 02:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)