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

Archive 1

Censorship

When did we agree to censor the album cover? I am certainly not pleased. - Vague | Rant 02:12, 5 January 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, 5 January 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, 5 January 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 April 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. 24.28.186.200 (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

How's the music?

I guess this album should be quite hard to find... Can someone tell me what does it sound like? 83.130.245.204 (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not check it out for yourself? That's probably the best way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ran4 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 29 August 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 (talk • contribs) 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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isshii (talk • contribs) 18:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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 (talk • contribs) 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.

Sswonk (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

References

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)

Orphaned references in Unfinished Music No.1: Two Virgins

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Unfinished Music No.1: Two Virgins's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "JPGR":

• From Aisumasen (I'm Sorry): Calkin, Graham. "Mind Games". Jpgr.co.uk. Retrieved 27 January 2013.
• From Rock 'n' Roll (John Lennon album): Calkin, Graham. "Rock 'n' Roll". Jpgr.co.uk. Retrieved 3 February 2013.
• From The Beatles' North American releases: JPGR Retrieved: 29 January 2007
• From All Things Must Pass: "All Things Must Pass", Graham Calkin's Beatles Pages, 2002 (retrieved 20 January 2013).
• From Live Peace in Toronto 1969: Calkin, Graham. "Live Peace In Toronto". Jpgr.co.uk. Retrieved 30 March 2013.
• From Walls and Bridges: Calkin, Graham. "Walls And Bridges". Jpgr.co.uk. Retrieved 30 January 2013.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I've looked over these, and now of them have any info relating to Two Virgins. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 23:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (non-admin closure) Apteva (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Unfinished Music, No. 1: Two Virgins → Unfinished Music No. 1: Two Virgins – There's no comma in the title on the original sleeve, there is, however, a space between "No." and the "1". Best, Relisted. BDD (talk) 05:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC) yeepsi (Talk tonight) 00:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Paul's experiments"

The article claims that "While Lennon's songwriting partner Paul McCartney had experiments that did feature on Beatles albums, Lennon's experiments did not." I guess it would be hard to remove this, since it's sourced, albeit sloppily: the article itself doesn't state what the full and proper title of "Blaney 2005" is, at least not in this edit, although I think this refers to "John Lennon: Listen to This Book" by John Blaney, published by Paper Jukebox in 2005, although this book has no preview available on google books, is not available on my nook, and is probably pretty obscure....

Anyway, just because somebody said it, (if that's what he said), doesn't actually make it true. On either count. The Beatles did let John put at least one of his experiments on a group album, "Revolution 9", (from "The White Album") which is the longest Beatles song officially released, as well as probably the most disliked. So the band let John have an experiment, of eight whole minutes, they just wouldn't let it go on for an entire half-hour, that's all. But, anyway, aside from "Revolution 9", there are no other Beatles songs even vaguely like anything from "Two Virgins", and certainly nothing that Paul wrote. Paul was not "experimental" in the way that John was. If you're going to say that Paul wasn't as good because he wasn't capable of being a hardcore experimenter able to strip music of everything even vaguely conventional or popular, because he was just a soft sentimental romantic crowd-pleaser, then at least that's not objectively wrong, although I would find it to be a bad interpretation. But to say, The band let Paul do all sorts of weird experimental stuff, and then wouldn't let John do the exact same thing! Well, that's just not true. It's probably just the result of an extremely pro-John source ready to make up anything to make him sound oppressed and ill-used by the world, no matter how implausible he has to be to get that message across.

Anyway, if I actually get a hold of that book at some point, and it's full of all sorts of unreliable, partisan statements not backed up by recorded facts or anybody else's version of reality, then maybe I'll suggest that we qualify that statement at least, somehow. Until then.... well, it's still just not true just because somebody put it in a book, so keep that in mind. Knightofcups89 (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Unfinished Music No. 1: Two Virgins. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/john-lennon/albumguide

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

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Unfinished Music No. 1: Two Virgins. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130528170131/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/carousel/pob/pob04.html to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/carousel/pob/pob04.html

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) 18:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

"Cover" section

Is it really necessary to have the prurient and detailed description of the couple's genitalia in this section? I would have thought it enough to say that they are full-frontally nude. Lonegroover (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)