Talk:Metal Machine Music

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'

He has also gone on record more recently to point out that the entire original liner notes were a put-on. - It doesn't stick. (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

At the end of the second paragraph the article says that included in the linear of the album was the phrase "My week beats your year." The article goes on: "With subtle humour the sentence also contains the words: "My eek eats your ear."" Is this just nonsense/vandalism, or some insider Lou Reed reference that's above my head? I'm totally at a loss, but not quite ready to delete the offending phrase. Clemenjo 06:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

My vinyl copy ("Property of RCA Records. For Promotional Use only. Not for sale") lists the times as 15:01, not 16:01. It is the only original vinyl copy I've actually seen in person and I've not actually timed them, but they seem more accurate to me. Every CD version I've seen has had all different times for the tracks, but the original was very precise (on the label anyway). I'm going to make adjustments to match this if no one objects. --- It doesn't stick. (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

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.

It's not crap. It's interesting, changes constantly, and very warm and tone-rich. 76.105.183.62 (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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.

I actually thought that Lester Bangs made up a couple of those Lou Reed interviews just to get a laugh. It might be possible that he's never actually claimed himself that he had allusions to classical works in MMM SchnappM 23:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The truth to the classical reference and precident to MMM is obviously the work of La Monte Young's Theater of Eternal Music or what John Cale and Tony Conrad refer to as the Dream Syndicate. The use of loud sustained dissonance as can be confirmed by recordings that have recently come to light and released on The Table of Elements label is where one has to go to understand MMM's artistic merit. In 1975, it was perhaps not as easy as it is today to make that connection, given the fact that those early recordings dating from the early to mid-sixties were then unavailable at the time. However, it is astounding that, more recently, such a detailed article as William Ham's Eine Kleine Nichtmusik: Metal Machine Music Turns 25" linked in the article, merely mentions this influence in passing and then only to dismiss it, suggesting that Reed's avowal of the influence of La Monte Young and Xenakis was merely a joke. If anyone is seriously interested in the history of this recording the La Monte Young influence has to be weighed into the argument. For heavens sake he did give the clue away at the time, even if Young's first name was incorrectly spelt: "Drone cognizance and harmonic possibilities vis a vis Lamont Young's Dream Music."Deaninkster 10:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"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)

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)

That 'influences'-list is bollocks. I added two "citation needed" to it; one for the NIN-remix, which I'd definitely like to see a source for, and the other for the Smashing Pumpkins-reference. Just because the title includes the words 'metal' and 'machine' doesn't mean it's related to this album. Also, anyone familiar with the Pumpkins song "Heavy Metal Machine" knows that it doesn't reference Lou Reed in the slightest: it's about being in a cookie-cutter rock band. TorbenFrost 09:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved comments from article

The following comments were posted to the article but are better suited for the talk page. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If you look back to the Velvets first album "The Velvet Underground and Nico", I would like to note that even back then on the primarily instrumental "European Son", Reed was experimenting with feedback. Also "I heard her call my name" on their second album "White Light, White Heat", again we find a good deal of feedback screeching from both Guitar played by either Sterling Morrison or Lou Reed (maybe both) and Electric Viola played by John Cale. The feedback is also evident on the background Guitar on "The Gift" and "Lady Godiva's Operation". As a VU fan from their debut up until Reeds solo career it seems he was building up so to speak to MMM. The only other artist who made fine use of feedback was Ian Bruce Douglas, founder of the 60's psychedelic band "Ultimate Spinach" on a track from their first album "Hip Death Godess". This song is lengthy and eerily reminiscent of "European Son".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.2.152.202 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Old picture

Didn't there used to be a picture of Thurston Moore supposedly listening to this at a turntable?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.225.6.211 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The image was a copyright infringement and was subsequently deleted. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Do you know where I can find a copy of it? I just thought the picture was interesting and googlin' didn't help. -Myriad Choices —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.170.46.25 (talk) 22:42:51, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

My week beats your year

Re: "My week beats your year." The article currently states: "The sentence would suggest that the time Reed took to produce his recording defeated the commercial demands of his yearly contract." Can anyone provide a source for this, or is it someone's personal analysis? I always thought it simply meant that Reed did more in a week than the person reading the liner notes did in a year. (On the other hand I wouldn't have put that in the article.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

that's my feeling too (ie that he does in a week what someone else does in a year). Either way, our own opinion is original research; let's remove the interpretation until we can find a sourced one, hopefully from a well-known music critic or biographer. Totnesmartin 17:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Noise Music

I'm not denying that this album had a profound influence on later Noise artists, but it isn't the earliest roots. Elektronisch Musik (ie. Karlheinz Stockhausen) and Musique Concrète (ie. Pierre Schaeffer) of the mid-20th century have a lot to do with the influence on Noise music. JanderVK (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Invented Heavy Metal!?

In one of the opening graphs, it states that he claimed to invent heavy metal music, and that the album was the "ultimate conclusion of that genre" (quoting the article, not the liner notes). I am curious - not just about the date of the Buddha records re-release (2000 as stated in graph, or 2002 from infobox?) - but about which re-issue he stated this about heavy metal. The way it's written makes it sound like he said this in 1975, when heavy metal wasn't exactly as discernible from other forms of music as it is now (to say that it was mostly blues-based, etc. etc. etc.). I doubt that's when he said it, but I do not own this album in anything other but mp3s, so I can't verify. 24.3.14.157 (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall it being from the original liner notes (then again, I don't have them in front of me at the moment), and am pretty sure that quote is from a later interview. someone want to try a rewording? - It doesn't stick. (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

He has claimed to have invented HM with his distorted guitarwork in the Velvets, esp. "White Light/White Heat". But the way he puts it, it's more like he's disparaging the genre, like "been there, done that." 76.105.183.62 (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Lou - you have indeed had your share of genius visions, but inventing heavy metal was not one of them. Ask Dave Davies. He'll put you straight on this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.236.178 (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

External link suggestion

As an editor at Crawdaddy!, and to comply with COI guidelines, I am not posting the link to this feature retrospective article about Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music. However, I would like to recommend it on its merits, and hope that an editor will find the time to examine the article and—if he or she sees fit—post it to the external links section. I appreciate your time. Crawdaddy! [1]
Mike harkin (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

plus belle ou poubelle?

I've read the comments on this Talk page and recognize two main opinions held by two different groups of people.

• One possesses superior intellect when it comes to appreciation of music, and claims that this album is a pile of crap etc etc.

• The other believes itself to be so forward looking that it cannot be overcome by reactionaries, and claims that this album is a groundbreaking advance etc. etc.

Neither of these opinions is adequate. There is a third viewpoint that has an accuracy the others cannot reach.

This recording enjoys a particular status by an accident of birth. During the period of its conception or inception, young musicians indulged in a huge amount of experimentation. The use of feedback, distortion, and such are tiny manifestations of something much bigger, the tips of a huge iceberg of musical experimentation.

The methods that Lou Reed claim he used to produce the sounds on the album were not as unusual or unique to him as some of you might think, or as he might suggest. We can forgive him his apparent inconstancy and strutting because his occupation seems to encourage those kinds of activity. You see, around that same time, and for some time already, other people were, entirely independently, doing the same kind of experimentation with feedback and other unorthodox approaches to sound, such as incorporating unusual devices such as TVs and radios into the audio signal chain, just to hear what happened. Most of those people and their efforts remain unknown; the single most significant difference between them and Lou Reed was the access he had to equipment to record the results and have them released on a commercial music album.

Contrary to what some suggest, it has never been necessary to indulge in mind altering chemicals or drugs to create or appreciate the results of such experimentation. The most important thing a musician or listener can possess is a complete lack of cloth-eared sensibilities. For what it is worth, I know all of this because I was one of those experimenters who were at the time (and continue to be) comparatively unknown. There are plenty of us about, and not all of us were out of our minds. 184.41.2.65 (talk) 09:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

played backwards

I remember in the 70's it was rumoured that sides 3 and 4 were just sides 1 and 2 played backward. The rumour may have started because the timings for each side are the same. Has anybody listened to it backwards?82.42.126.68 (talk) 08:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Na, that's a myth. I believe those rumours were caused by people misusing their medication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Vengeance (talk • contribs) 19:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Absent reliable sources discussing the "played backwards" question (from 2012) or the "taking drugs" theory, there's nothing more to discuss here. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metal Machine Music. 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/20090113203757/http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/feature/45431-interview-lou-reed to http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/feature/45431-interview-lou-reed

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) 11:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources removed, but keep in mind for future use

These two refs were removed just now. Think it's worth keeping them visible here, because the Morley/Guardian piece is certainly high quality, and both of them will likely be of interest to editors expanding the article:

• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.spinner.com/2010/04/21/lou-reed-defends-metal-machine-music/ |title=Lou Reed Defends 'Metal Machine Music' Ahead of Album's Re-Release |publisher=Spinner |date=April 21, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120320020545/http://www.spinner.com/2010/04/21/lou-reed-defends-metal-machine-music/ |archive-date=2012-03-20 |access-date=2018-10-26 }}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite news|author=Paul Morley |url=https://www.theguardian.com/music/2010/apr/11/morley-lou-reed-metal-machine |title=Paul Morley on music: Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music | Music | The Observer |newspaper=Guardian |date= April 11, 2010|access-date=August 2, 2010 | location=London}}</ref>

JG66 (talk) 01:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)