Talk:Machina II/The Friends & Enemies of Modern Music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contents

[edit] About Download Sites

Somebody tried to get rid of them, so I'm going to put in a little note here on that subject. As the article clearly states, the Pumpkins put these songs on the internet for free so that fans could download them. They encourage downloading. Their record company has not sued them for this, and it happened over six years ago. So the facts show that the Pumpkins were within their rights to put the songs out there. So, bottom line, it's legal to download these particular songs. The songs are still out there, still legal. So the download sites are a useful tool and an invaluable addition to the page. In fact, the ability to link to that type of resource is the whole benefit of wikipedia in a nutshell. SO DON'T REMOVE THE DOWNLOAD SITES. That's pointless. Songs are free, anybody who wants feel free to download and listen.--Smashingworth 21:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Smashing Pumpkins Don't Encourage Free Downloading. Just one Album demos and ep's which arent really for sale. That is why they are called Demos.
No, that's not why they're called demos. Mujarimojo 03:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have any problems with the Billy Corgan website's download links? I think the link to the site should be taken off, when I tried that link, the website wasn't able to show the links for some reason, and instead linked to Metro Chicago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.56.253 (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Artwork

some cunt tagged a few of the covers for deletion, provide in the info if you know it. --AlexOvShaolin 20:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Where did the artwork come from? How can an album that only exists in digital form have a cover? That never made sense to me. I'm sure there's an explaination, though Mujarimojo
It says in the article that 25 actual vinyl copies we're made for heavily-active fans. This is where the artwork came from. I presume one of those recipients is connected to spfc.org, because that is the source of the images. -- Reaper X 04:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LPs vs EPs

I think we should make more of a distinction that the 2-LP set is the "album" while the EPs are not really that. I think the 2-LP tracklist should be first- I think the only reason it's not is because of the catalog numbering (CR01-04) but I think a lot of people are under the misconception that tracklist is, as its presented here, the three EP's followed by the actual 2LP set, which makes no sense. THis is not that verifiable, though, so I'm probably reaching. -Werideatdusk33 20:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The track order that appears in this article is the same order that is listed on the Smashing Pumpkins official site. My suggestion is to leave it as is. Twineball 18:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
If no-one disagrees to this notice within a week of this being posted, I'm going to change the listing back to the 3 EPs, then the 2LP set. The reason being is the same as Twineball's comment above. It appears twice on the official website, in the albums section, and the audio download section. It is the same as dozens of other downloads sources.
In the meantime, I'm going to change the actual names of the songs to correspond with those that appear on the audio download section on SP.com, but with the version notes like (spacey) or (version electronique) disregarded as A.K.A. titles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pasta of Muppets (talk • contribs) 01:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Done. Pasta of Muppets (talk) 06:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I like that you added the title tags. However, I still contend that the current numbering system, with the EPs first, is based solely on their catalog numbers. The album itself did not come with a tracklist, but since Corgan has asserted that the double LP is the album, I think that should be listed first. By listing the EPs first, we are contributing to the common misconception that they are truly a part of the album. That said, I have nothing concrete to fall back on here, so I'm not going to change it back unless there is a broader consensus. -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Poor Sales of Which Album?

This article states "Near the conclusion of the Machina sessions, it was Billy Corgan's wish to release a double album of material, but Virgin Records was unwilling to do that following the disappointing sales of Adore." I just heard an interview from November 29, 2000 in which Billy says it was due to poor sales of Machina/The Machines of God, rather than Adore. I think I'm going to change this and cite it. Twineball 18:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "'Fuck you' to a record label" quote

This quotation comes not from a press release from the band, but rather was written by the webmaster of the fansite spfc.org -- that writing was originally posted here, but has been edited, specifically to remove the "fuck you" portion, as the webmaster has been dismayed by exactly the sort of misattribution as was the case in this entry. Thus I have removed the quotation from the entry, as it reflected not an official statement from the band but rather was the view of a fan. Jjb 08:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Track Names

Shouldn't the track names here match those on the official Web site instead of a fan site? Machina II is available in its entirety on smashingpumpkins.com at http://www.smashingpumpkins.com/audio (which links to http://www.smashingpumpkins.com/audio_upload/audio/machinaii/) as of August 16, 2007. It is a bit confusing, though, because the track names contained in the MP3s here differ from the track names at http://www.smashingpumpkins.com/music_machinaII (e.g.: Slow Dawn vs. Slow Down) -- Christopher C. Parker t c 20:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Is billy-corgan.com a fansite? -- Reaper X 22:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The official site also lists track 8 of Gish as "Fristessa." So I wouldn't give it any more credence. Maybe if there are conflicts, side with the audio file list. -Werideatdusk33 01:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B class

Anyone object to bumping this article up to B-class? I think it is definitely there - obviously, the tracklist and personnel sections could use better sourcing if thats possible, but i think the article is pretty complete (and the slow editing going on implicitly confirms this). Objections? -Werideatdusk33 07:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Machina Diagram

Billy Corgan hand-drew a diagram with a bunch of the Machina and Machina II songs that explains how they are thematically connected. It was somehow released on the Internet and I have it on my computer. I think it would be very helpful in both articles to demonstrate their "concept album" aspect and to better explain the flow of the songs and the creative genesis of the project. I'd like to upload it but am unsure as to what licensing it is. Does anyone know what I'm talking about, and, if so, what license? -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Track listing style

This isn't an issue with what the tracks are CALLED (I think they should be the same as what smashingpumpkins.com show them on the downloads page) but whow the "tags" are written. Is there any way of writing them clearer? It just seems a but cumbersome to have them written as [sometimes listed as...] or [sometimes tagged with...] or whatever it was that I put. I think maybe there should be a note somewhere explaining that the track listing names vary depending on it's download source. I would do that myself, but I'm not really that good with wording things sometimes. Pasta of Muppets (talk) 01:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)