Jump to content

Talk:The Velvet Underground & Nico/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2


Emerson Lawsuit

This could really use a section on the lawsuit involving the image on the back cover -googuse 02:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC) Humor me, how could Emerson have threatened to sue if he died in 1975 and the album was released 2 years later? The article even says that MGM halted production, obviously indicating they had already released it or were going to very soon. hg3300 15:18, 15 January 2011 (EST)

original (?) limited edition (?) double album with black cover?

Someone i knew had a vinyl double album of vu & nico with a black cover. It seemed fairly old. The second album had a live recording on it, 'ocean' was one of the tracks on it. Can anyone give any info about this? 146.176.163.104 13:27, 10 January 2007

"Ocean" wasn't first written or recorded until around 1969, after The Velvet Underground and Nico was released. I'll take a guess and say what you're talking about is actually a bootleg.Pele Merengue 03:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Rip of acetate demo

I don't know when exactly it leaked, but a rip of the acetate demo has indeed been floating around on the internet. I've listened to it and compared it to the released album/notes on the acetate demo and I'm fairly confident that it's a genuine rip (the songs that previous owner Warren Hill claim are different takes are different takes on the rip, etc.) Is this worth a mention in the article? Pele Merengue 03:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Major additions begin made

Just as a heads up to anyone wondering, I've been updating/changing the page regularly with new information as I've been reading books on the band. I apologize in advance if the article's edit history looks like shit for a while. Pele Merengue 10:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Great work. A couple of things as I was going to GA review it but am time-limited and need to be AFK soon; as well it seems to be being edited recently alot (which is fine but have you finished the bulk of it now?). I think it'd pass but needs a lead which is 2-3 paragraphs long and a bit bigger than it is now - it should summarise salient points in article. Other than that, looks pretty good. If it is still around when I get time free in a couple of days I'll review it if someone doesn't beat me to it.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 05:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it's mostly finished for the time being. Lately, I've just been tweaking things, other users have been correcting typos I've made and whatnot. I'll try and work on a more fleshed-out lead soon.Pele Merengue 07:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Rationale of fair use...

Rationales of fair use need to be added to all the album covers before this article can be approved for GA status. -- Underneath-it-All 16:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, done. Pele Merengue 18:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of May 23, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: yes
2. Factually accurate?: yes
3. Broad in coverage?: yes
4. Neutral point of view?: yes
5. Article stability? yes
6. Images?: yes

Reads well, and it is only on hold due to one sentence about record producer Tom Wilson's contribution to the mixing and editing of a song, and the band's response to it. It is not referenced, so a citation for that fact would allow this article to pass. Or delete the sentence, then it will pass.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Abebenjoe 01:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the sentence. I don't remember ever reading that Wilson remixed the album, let alone the band's reaction to it.Pele Merengue 01:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Now rated as a Good Article

With your edit, I have rated the article as GA and will complete the steps that give it that designation.--Abebenjoe 05:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Much thanks. I'm glad the article is up to snuff now. Maybe I'll have the time to improve other Velvet Underground articles in the future.Pele Merengue 18:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

the banana album

As far as I can make out the front cover for the UK issue (MGM records Ltd. London England) of the LP is the back cover with Emerson airbrushed out. The back cover is track listing and a selection (10 in total) of press cuttings. Am I correct in this and if so it should go under the alternative covers section. Does an image of this cover already exist out there somewhere --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 15:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"ostrich guitar"

This is a relevant point with regard to the article on "ostrich guitar" as well, but regardless of what the liner notes to "Peel Slowly and See" indicate, my ears tell me that the only song on "Velvet Underground & Nico" which prominently features "ostrich guitar" is "Run Run Run". Perhaps the other two have Reed's unique tuning further down in the mix, but I find it strange that the song on which "ostrich guitar" is most clearly audible isn't even mentioned as such. I'm wondering if anyone else has come to the same conclusion, since I'm only one listener (albeit with pretty sharp ears); if so, is there a documented article to back up the presence of "ostrich guitar" on "Run Run Run"?

People sometimes forget that liner notes occasionally contain errors. That being said, I'm not exactly going to change the article on personal intuition alone, so if anybody knows of a reputable printed source that corroborates my observation, it would be most welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.155.209.26 (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Title of album / Title of article

Is the correct title of the album The Velvet Underground and Nico or The Velvet Underground & Nico? The back of the LP and the front/back/spine of the first CD re-issue all use the ampersand. (See the photos in the article.) The infobox in the article uses the ampersand in the chronology and "and" in the title.

So what's the right spelling? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a poster of the album and it also uses the ampersand. hg3300

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:The Velvet Underground & Nico/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Starting GA reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


Checking against GA criteria

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of July 17, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.


  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    • 5 dead links found using this tool. Note AOL, ebay and possibly pitchfork are not RS. Many paragraphs are completely unreferenced.
    Pitchfork is most defintiely a reliable source (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Review_sites), eBay in this case also seems ok as the paragraph is directly referencing an eBay auction. Cavie78 (talk) 12:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
    Pitchfork here is reporting news. The Albums project pages says The following is a list of some websites with reviews or links to reviews that you can use in album infoboxes:.
    Sorry but I don't see why you think Pitchfork isn't a reliable source - it's a professional music website cited by lots of FA articles let alone GA. Cavie78 (talk) 08:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    • REf #24, #25 are blogs, #15 is a SPS site, as noted above the aol, ebay and pitchfork sites are not RS
    Again Pitchfork is RS. The blogs offering downloads (refs 24 and 25) are directly referenced in the paragraph so I can't see a problem with using as a ref in this instance. Rate Your Music may be user generated but the only thing this ref is saying is that the album has been rated #1 for 1967 on the site by users - can't see a problem with this either. Cavie78 (talk) 12:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
    Thin ice, is information on Rte Yuor music notable? Jezhotwells (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
    That's a good point actually! Probably should be removed. Cavie78 (talk) 08:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    See above for Pitchfork, reviews OK in infobox only. I take your point about the blogs, but there may be concerns a essentially these are links to illegal downloads.

Jezhotwells (talk)

  1. Again I don't see why a review would be ok in the infobox if the site itself isn't good enough to satisfy RS. I can see thwe legality issue but the article is reporting that downloads were made available and the link is backing that up. Cavie78 (talk) 08:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    c (OR):
  2. It is broad in its scope.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    • tagged with rationales
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    • captioned
  6. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    WE still have one dead link {AOL] which is not an RS, also links to a French bootleg site [1], a blog [2], French bootleg site again [3], an ebay auction stored on a non RS [4]. No work has been done on this for a week, so I will delist. When improved this can be brought back to WP:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead vocals on Sunday Morning

On both the personell section of this page & the page for the song Sunday Morning, it is stated that Nico sings backing vocals & Lou Reed sings lead vocals. However, it definitely sounds like Nico singing lead vocals to me (I've heard live versions of the band after Nico left, & Lou Reed's vocals sound very different). There's no citation on either page - does anyone know what the source was? Daywøød (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Lou Reed sings lead vocals and I don't think Nico appears at all, despite being credited. It doesn't sound like Lou Reed because he deliberately sang that song very differently from his usual way of singing (more delicately, in particular) upon insistence from producer Tom Wilson. All of this is clearly stated in the liner notes on the 2002 Deluxe Edition of the album, and even if right now I don't recall who wrote them, I think they may safely qualify as a source. Live versions don't sound like the album version because, when he started doing the song live after Nico's departure, Lou had reverted to his normal half-sung, half-spoken delivery.109.116.185.85 (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok thanks. My edition has no notes or anything. I can sort of hear some faint warbling in the background in some parts of the song, which sound like they might be Nico; I think really it's just a small part of the whole 'Wall of Sound' production involved in that song.Daywøød (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Why credited to Nico?

In the first sentence and under the album art there's an information that The Velvet Underground & Nico is a "studio album by The Velvet Underground and Nico".

Despite being listed in the album's title, Nico only appears here as a guest, with no writing credits, not even for vocal melodies. She had nothing to say when it came to determining the album's artistic direction, she was told what and how to sing. Furthermore, she only sang on three (out of eleven!) tracks and finally, she is not listed as album artist by allmusic, BBC and the other sites whose reviews are being cited in the article. I'm not saying that Nico was bad and didn't know how to write good music, but it seems that here Nico was a mere guest and not a "proper" collaborator. The album may be titled The Velvet Underground & Nico but it's still a work of The Velvet Underground only. So why credited to Nico? 83.31.166.22 (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


These are good points--I've also usually only seen the album credited to The Velvet Underground. I've removed her name from the artist portion of the infobox. T. H. McAllister (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The album should be considered an album by Nico as well. Much like Prince and the Revolution or Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band, albums are wholly credited to them as well, regardless of the production notes. And, quite to the contrary, I have usually seen the album dedicated to both the Velvet Underground and Nico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Branjsmith94 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Branjsmith94, could you cite some sources that credit it to both the Velvet Underground and Nico? AndrewOne (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

User:AndrewOne, I would love to, but I'm not sure how to add citations within the template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Branjsmith94 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

You can simply list them here for now. AndrewOne (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Experimental rock?

My main point is that 6 out of eleven songs, which make up for most of the album's length (33 minutes out of 49), are called experimental rock in their own articles HERE, on Wikipedia (and there are citations for these songs being experimental provided). If the album's songs are experimental, doesn't it mean that the album is experimental too?

That's my main concern, but in addition to that: 1. Articles from BBC Music and Chicago Tribune, both linked in the reception section, call the album "a bridge between pop and avant-garde". Pitchfork article calls it "the most dangerous record of 1967" in the context of it being an underground, outsider album. So while it's not said anywhere (except on allmusic) that it is "experimental rock", it's a matter of adding 2+2 to come to that conclusion. 2. It is said here, in the Wikipedia article, that "The Velvet Underground & Nico would gain attention for its experimentalist performance sensibilities", and nobody seems to want to delete that.

But even if you ignore these 2 points, there still remains the problem that the songs are called experimental and the album isn't, which makes Wikipedia self-inconsistent and contradicting itself.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:The Velvet Underground & Nico/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article is now a GA article because it has sufficient information, proper references, neutral point of view and is logically designed.--Abebenjoe 05:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Substituted at 18:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Original Back Cover

The picture marked "Original Back Cover" cannot be the original, because it has a barcode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.136.44 (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

You mean Andy Warhol didn't invent those? Good catch. It's clearly a recent reissue of the album with the original image on the back. I'll fix the caption. Thank you for pointing out the error. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Personnel credits

Here's an image of the original inner sleeve. The musician credits are quite general. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Velvet Underground & Nico description of sales figures

I would like to change the description of the sales figures for this album from "poorly" to "decently" or "respectably" in the second paragraph: "The Velvet Underground & Nico initially sold poorly, but later became regarded as one of the most influential albums in rock and pop music."

I changed it previously to decently, taking that word from elsewhere in the article, but an editor changed it back to poorly.

Elsewhere in the article, it states that the sales were "decent": "While it indeed sold less than Warhol and the band had hoped, according to a MGM royalty statement gifted to Jeff Gold, a former Warner Bros. Records executive, 58,476 copies of the album sold through February 1969—a decent figure for a late-1960s LP."

Essentially the notion of what constituted poor, decent, good or great sales through the lates 60s is very different than today's perspective. At the time of this album's release, nearly 60k sales in two years would be considered a good number for a band with no hit singles on AM radio.


Thank you. Henryknox (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Words like "decently" or "respectably" are flimsy and sort of colloquial. It's best to phrase this in concrete terms. If it was reported by sources as a commercial failure or that it didn't meet financial expectations then say that instead. Popcornfud (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much. So something like this "While The Velvet Underground & Nico has been reported to have been commercially unsuccessful upon its initial release,  the album sold nearly 60 thousand records through February 1969. It later became regarded as one of the most influential albums in rock and pop music." Henryknox (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Velvet_Underground_%26_Nico/Archive_1&oldid=1199219017"