Talk:Unfinished Music No.1: Two Virgins/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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))

"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)


"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 (talkcontribs) 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)

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)
I think if someone has a photo of the "censored" slipcover (with the cutout to show the faces), that it would be appropriate to add it to the article in the section discussing the cover art. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

My recollection, for what it's worth after all these years, is that Track distributed the album in the UK. If that were so, then presumably it would have been pressed by Polydor, not EMI. I don't remember Transatlantic coming into the deal at all. Further, I suspect very few copies were actually pressed. I've seen a couple of the US Tetragrammaton pressings over the years but never a UK one. BTLizard (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

The picture of what you're talking about is on this page, 3rd picture from the top: http://www.elforo.de/liverpool/viewtopic.php?p=38939&sid=a0775e057ecc9acb2367923369d7e8c0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markalankennedy (talkcontribs) 23:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Studio album or soundtrack

I have noticed that Wikipedia claims that this is a studio album however it's really a soundtrack.John and Yoko made a home movie in their garden which consisted of them kissing and embracing and them smiling and looking around in slow motion so I feel it should be listed as a soundtrack,rather than a studio album.How do you feel?

I don't agree. The music was recorded as an album, and the film was probably made later, as a promotion. There is no mention of the film in the article, aside from the change to the infobox category, which I've reverted. If this album is to be classified as a film soundtrack, the article should explain more about the film. In particular, is it a half hour film (the same length as the album), or just a short film using an excerpt of the music? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 07:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Well,The film is about 19-20 minutes long and was released on 8mm cartridges in 1968.--Isshii (talk) 05:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I have not seen any evidence that the music was recorded primarily as a film soundtrack, and as I suggested, the film was probably a promo for the album, and was made later. The album does not claim to be a soundtrack. Music that is used in films is not always regarded as soundtrack music, if not specifically composed for it (although the circumstances behind this recording are admittedly atypical). --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 07:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I now have PROOF that this is a soundtrack. [1] I quote from the section on the two virgins film: "John&Yoko's album of the same name provided the soundtrack".That shows with complete certainty that this is a soundtrack and not a studio album,and will change it to be accurate as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isshii (talkcontribs) 03:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There was never any question that Lennon and Ono made a film to go with the music. The question is, was the music made for the film (rather than the film being made to support and promote the album), and was it marketed as a soundtrack album, or otherwise regarded as a soundtrack album by the public? The answer to the latter two is a definite "no". The quote you provided says the music "provided the soundtrack", i.e. was used as the sound portion of the film. But that doesn't mean the music was made for that purpose, or that the album ties in with the film's promotion, which are the usual characteristics of a soundtrack album. As for saying that it's a soundtrack "and not a studio album", soundtracks are also studio albums (except for those that weren't recorded in a studio, obviously).
So I'm afraid it doesn't meet the criteria of a "soundtrack album". Your "proof" is based on an incorrect assumption of what a soundtrack album is, and this in turn is what the infobox parameter is meant to represent.
Since there are just the two of us discussing this, I'm making a request for comment (RfC). --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments in response to RFC

  • Soundtrack with problems - The film described may have been an ahead-its-time attempt at music video but was not a polished cinematic production. However, in the famous 1968 Rolling Stone interview, Jonathan Cott says to Lennon: "You just showed me what might be the front and back album photos for the record you're putting out of the music you and Yoko composed for your film 'Two Virgins.' The photos have the simplicity of a daguerreotype... ." This question was likely phrased based on Lennon's description of the project to Cott prior to the interview. Yet, based on the presentation of the album for sale and on current reviews, I would say it is not generally known as a soundtrack. This might change if Wikipedia makes an informative explanation of the situation based on the question by Cott and Lennon's response. It appears there, from the artist's own conversation with a journalist, that Lennon regarded it as a soundtrack. Sswonk (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Generaly though of an album (100 Best Album Covers - Dorling Kindersley views it as one for example). But some sources describe as soundtrack eg. This being the case suggest studio album/soundtrack in the box then explain situation in the article.Geni 23:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The infobox template for albums only allows one or the other (see Template:Infobox_Album#Type). Meanwhile, perhaps it could be changed to soundtrack with this passage added to the lead paragraph.
John Lennon spoke about the album in 1968 before it was released with Rolling Stone writer Jonathan Cott, suggesting the movie Two Virgins was the focus of the music, thus making this a soundtrack album:
Cott: You just showed me what might be the front and back album photos for the record you’re putting out of the music you and Yoko composed for your film Two Virgins. The photos have the simplicity of a daguerreotype. . . .
Lennon: Well, that’s because I took it. I’m a ham photographer, you know. It’s me Nikon what I was given by a commercially minded Japanese when we were in Japan, along with me Pentax, me Canon, me boom-boom and all the others. So I just set it up and did it.[1]
  1. ^ Cott, Jonathan (2003). Back to a Shadow in the Night: Music Writings and Interviews, 1968-2001. Hal Leonard Corporation. ISBN 0634035967. 
Sswonk (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Unfinished Music.jpg

  1. No copyleft equivalent is available.
  2. The cover is intended for wide distribution and its use here does not detract from the album.
  3. The cover is low resolution and only the front portion is used.
  4. The cover has been previously published by retail outlets.
  5. The cover meets general Wikipedia content requirements.
  6. The cover meets Wikipedia's image use policy.
  7. The cover is used only in the said article.
  8. For an article about an album, the cover is one of the most relevant images that can be included.
  9. The cover is used in the article namespace.
  10. The source and copyright tag is identified for the cover.

Valueyou (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

This belongs on the image page, not here. I see it's already on the image page, so that's not a problem. One thing that is a problem is point #3 which is not correct. The use of the back cover is a violation of policy. I wonder why the old image was deleted? A notice about a fair use concern should have been placed on this page, where anyone watching it could have gone in and fixed the problem. I think something got screwed up in the process. Is there any way to bring the old front page image back? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Tell me the old image name, I'll review it and restore it if it is more suitable than the current one. J Milburn (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, done. J Milburn (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Reception?

How was this album reviewed at the time? Surely this article could use with a reception section? Retro Agnostic (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Response from music critics

As suggested in the talk page archives, I added some quotes from music critics. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it, but to criticize the critics, I don't think either quote is a good description. In fact, they contradict each other. The first quote may be more applicable to "Radio Play" on the next album in the series, but much of Two Virgins is sound collage, not random sounds in a room. Note in particular the loop at the beginning. As for comparison with "Revolution 9", that track is very carefully crafted sound collage utilizing a recording studio and competent producer (George Martin) and engineers, while Two Virgins was done with minimal expertise on a portable recorder (which is not to insult Lennon; I'm not saying I could do better). I would be interested in reading more about how it was received in 1968. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)