Talk:Black Monk Time

Fair use rationale for Image:Blackmonktime.jpg

Image:Blackmonktime.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 14:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

There's really no need for a separate article for Black monk time (official re-issue). All the content (that isn't repeated between the two articles) belongs in a single article about the album -- Foetusized (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I've Added Black Monk Time (2009 official US re-issue) to the merger proposal as well - no need for seperate article, as the extar info is already here Etron81 (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and merge them myself Etron81 (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been meaning to get back to this, but with a newborn in the house.... -- Foetusized (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal - Complication

Also the article on the reissue of the Complication Single can easily be covered in the section here Etron81 (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Merged this into a separate article on the single Etron81 (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Piracy issues related to some (all?) reissues

Apparently there is some piracy issue related to some editions of this album. A customer review on Amazon.com here mentions it. And the official website says

BLACK MONK TIME This album is available ONLY as an import and can be purchased through Amazon.com. This link takes you directly to the page regarding BMT This is a quasi-pirate, therefore The Monks make no royalties from it's purchase

However, I couldn't really get to the bottom of it just from reading these. Does anyone else have more information? If substantiated, this definitely should be included in the article. --WayneMokane (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The official website hasn't been updated in ages - The Repetoire one is definately a pirate, the Infinite Zero, Retribution, and Light in the Attic Releases are all legit and the Monks recived royalties from them, AIUI. The Polydor/Universal ones are legit, I woudl think as they are reissued by the orginal label (or successor), but I'm not sure the Monks get royalties from them. - I don't really have any sources for this, though - I think I just read it on the Monks' forum, which just recently moved servers and lost a lot of old postings Etron81 (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah just remembered where I read about the Repetoire one: link - Not it says that they Inifnite Zero release is the most comprehensive , which is no longer the case (the Light in the Attic one is now - has the recently discovered "Pretty Suzanne" recording and all that was on the Infinite Zero one, except for the demos, which they released seperately) Etron81 (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Robert Christgau

Who is Robert Christgau? His website is incredibly amateurish, and his rating of this record, besides being out of step with all other critics, has no actual review attached to it explaining why he has given it such a low rating. I would suggest removing him from the reviews box as although it's good to have a variety of opinions, if there is no rationale for the opinion and the reviewer is not notable there seems no reason for it to be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.232.206 (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

He's a notable rock critic of long standing - see his wikipedia article: Robert Christgau It's a shame he doesn't expand on his opinion more, yes. Etron81 (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Rolling Stone Web Page as Accolade, Legacy and/or reference?

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-lists/40-greatest-one-album-wonders-14916/22-the-monks-black-monk-time-1966-210575/

The sole album is listed at Number 22 on Rolling Stone list of 40 Greatest One Album Wonders....might make a good addition to 'Accolades' section. From Rolling Stone (multiple writing credits): "By the mid-Sixties, Germany had pretty much had enough of the American occupying force – and so had the five discharged G.I.s who hung around the country banging out raw Neanderthal rock as the Monks. Formerly known as the 5 Torquays, the band was reconceptualized by its management, a sketchy pair of German advertising executives who talked the working-class quintet into robes, tonsure haircuts and tight neckwear. Nihilism rocks: Farfisa organ and skronky electric banjo accompanied songs like "Shut Up" and "I Hate You." Germany Polydor released Black Monk Time on the strength of the group's live popularity. But when the company's American branch passed on the album, the vexed and disheartened combo went their separate ways, eventually enjoying postponed acclaim upon their rediscovery in the early Nineties. " Dstieger (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)