Talk:Unfinished Music No. 1: Two Virgins

The Beatles Start‑class

This John Lennon-related article is within the scope of WikiProject The Beatles, which focuses on improving coverage of English rock band The Beatles and related topics on Wikipedia. Users who are willing to participate in the project should visit the project page, where they can join and see a list of open tasks.The BeatlesWikipedia:WikiProject The BeatlesTemplate:WikiProject The BeatlesThe Beatles articles

Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to albums on Wikipedia.

To-do list:

For WikiProject The Beatles

A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Articles on each Beatle tour (Category:The Beatles concert tours). See: Missing articles.
Expand : The Lost Lennon Tapes, notable radio series which has spawned many bootlegs. Apple Records See also: Adopt an article
Stubs : See: Category:The Beatles song stubs
Update : Pics/Graphics wanted: Kenwood.
Verify : Beatle wives
Other : Project: Add {{WikiProject The Beatles}} to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members and coordinate tasks. Enter articles assessed as stubs onto this list, also list articles needing cleanup and other work here.

This article does not yet have a related to do list. If you can think of any ways to improve the article, why not create one?

Censorship

When did we agree to censor the album cover? I am certainly not pleased. - Vague | Rant 02:12, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

I did it, though mainly as a way to remove the over-the-top warnings about the cover art ("WARNING: This web page contains explicit material not recommended for children"—geez, they're just naked). I have no problem with anyone reinstating the original cover. —tregoweth 08:23, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'm hoping that the developers will implement something which allows users to disable images so that they're no longer displayed inline. Because of course, either the warning message or the removal of the original indicate a certain POV, the POV that these images are not appropriate to children. I won't change the cover back at the moment, but I may if nothing has been done concerning the issue sometime soon. - Vague | Rant 10:03, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Four months seems long enough. I'm going to change it back, and I'm not going to put up a warning, either. There are plenty of articles with more graphic nudity than this album cover, it seems a little absurd to me, really. Junjk 07:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Someone deleted the image, claiming that the uploader hadn't included any source information. I uploaded it back, with a source link in the description. (Ibaranoff24 18:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

"Obvious Exception"

To me, it seems unncessary to call Reed and Bate's nudity "obviously" the first instance as such. To me, that was not obvious - in fact, I had no idea. Unless someone can give me a good reason for the adjective, I will be removing it. Folkor 23:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Women in Love" was released in 1969, so Lennon's exposure was first.

How's the music?

I guess this album should be quite hard to find... Can someone tell me what does it sound like?

Why not check it out for yourself? That's probably the best way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ran4 (talk • contribs) 04:32, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

"Not a Plain Brown Cover"

The US distribution was in a brown/tan slip cover over the "offending" album cover with an approximately 2" egg shaped duplicate picture of the couple from the chest up adhered to the slip cover in the same location where it appears on the cover below. Over the years I have read it many times that the brown cover is cut to let the real cover show through, but that is NOT the case (I have the LP). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.166.84 (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the original pressing, though? Originals are very rare, and probably have the cut-out. Re-pressings have a lot of surface noise and distortion, and are in fact copied disc to disc from an older vinyl copy, so it should be obvious it's not an original. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UK cut, press, distribution

The article currently says:

"It was distributed by Track Records in the UK ... (Nonetheless, EMI mastered and pressed the record in Britain, charging their standard fee.)"

But the Track Records page says:

"Track have also been involved at one point with John Lennon and Yoko Ono's "Two Virgins" album (on the Apple label but stamped with a Track matrix (613012)) when EMI (Apple's distributor) refused to press the record. The Two Virgins album was later released by Apple and distributed in the U.K. by Transatlantic Records."

Two very detailed explanations that contradict each other! Can we get an opinion on which is correct? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three 'Virgins'

I have seen a photo of John and Yoko in a room somewhere, in which there is visible in the background an enlargement of the Two Virgins photo. It's too small to see clearly, but it's a regular horizontal, rectangular photo (not square like the LP cover), and there are J & Y naked, but off to one side is another fully nude male, who would have been chopped out when the shot was cropped for the sleeve.

So on this evidence, they posed nude with a third person - but who??

I think I remember it from Ray Connolly's "John Lennon: 1940-1980" but I could be mistaken.

Anyhow, if anyone can confirm/expand on this, I think it's worth mentioning in the article, since the shot is so famous. 217.44.210.7 (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]