Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:08, 7 January 2006

Extraordinary Machine has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}.

Extraordinary Machine received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Albums Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Is it truly relevant that Jon Brion broke up with his girlfriend? It appears to be entirely out of place in this article. --mkb218

Since it was Brion's breakup that led to him persuading Apple to make the album, I think it's part of the album's lore. I've clarified a little. --Dhartung | Talk 05:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Jazz?

I think that putting Extraordinary Machine in the Jazz genre is a stretch. If you want to get into the murky waters of genre designation, the bootlegs are more pop orchestral a la Sgt Pepper with some classical flourishes, and there is even less of a case for a Jazz designation from the sounds of the re-recordings. I think Pop is all that is needed.--Weebot 21:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I read several reviews describing Extraordinary Machine as jazzy, although looking closer, they seemed to be referring to the title track rather than the whole album. Extraordinary Machine 22:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Tracks

Extraordinary Machine: If you are going to make a track category, maybe you want to move the quotes about the different tracks from the Leak category and into the Tracks category. Otherwise it is rather redundant. Another idea: may I suggest a "Reception" sub-category for Leak? It would be a way of organizing the review quotes you've been pulling and maybe putting a bit more structure to this fast expanding article.--Weebot 03:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I think inserting a "Reception" section into the "Delays and leaked tracks" section would interrupt the flow of the article. As for the quotes that are already in the first two sections of the article, they seem to be describing more what the songs sound like than what the lyrics are about, which is what I intended the "tracks" section to detail. Extraordinary Machine 13:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of quotes, thinning the article of them would be a good idea as some of the people on the peer review already pointed out. Reading through it, the quotes make the article sound rather clunky. That's not to say get rid of all of them, but some areas such as the last paragraph of Delays and Leaked Tracks and the Tracks section would benefit greatly from a rewrite. As for the Reception, there was also another reason that struck me after I had written it: all the reviews you cite within the article are uniformily positive, and while this may slide by unnoticed for a canonical album (Sgt. Pepper or Pet Sounds, say), Extraordinary Machine isn't there yet. The article reads lop-sided at best and fannish (and possibly crossing the NPOV policy) at worst. Admittedly, while most of the reviews for the bootleg Extraordinary Machine were positive, this wasn't universally so. You may want to look for some mixed or contrarian reviews about the bootleg (one from the Village Voice, for a starters). That the only negative quote I could find is in regards to the re-recorded album is a bit telling (even though I don't expect the official EM to be as well recieved, at least from the sounds of what I've heard). A reception subsection for the bootleg would be one possible avenue to allow you to skirt that issue by giving those review quotes a context.--Weebot 07:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Non-standard CD format

The EM discs being sold in my area (Pacific Northwest) have a label to the effect that they aren't standard CD format, and may not work in some players. Does anyone know whether this prevents listening to the album on an MP3 player? -- 70.203.98.7 18:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Umm...seriously?

Nice job with this article, EM. You've written a very (overly?) detailed thesis on your namesake. However, The editors' choices for album reviews are a bit....suspect. Mainly the way pitchfork's critique is presented. The scores given were 7.8/10 and 6.2/10. Something's amiss. See, I don't know how to make a 7.8/10 - a 78%, into a 3.5/4 - about 88%. Why out of four in the article? Why not give the score out of ten, as was intended? Why not include the PFM score of 6.2/10 for the real release? Could the general love of the editors for this album lead to their falsification of the scores? (Also, the PFM score is 3.1 out of 4 for the bootleg, 2.5 out of four for the official.)

It's an honest mistake. The review score added is actually for the single "Not About Love", not the whole album. I'll update the article accordingly. It's good to assume good faith in these kinds of situations. :) --Jtalledo (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

On a side note, I don't think reviews of the Jon Brion sessions bootleg should be included, as they don't seem to be accepted as a reflection of the final product by either Brion or Apple. But if those reviews are included, then they should at least note that the bootleg was being reviewed. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright. It looks like that the bootleg release reviews are properly marked, but there are more reviews for the bootleg release than the original one and it seems kind of confusing (I got confused too) that they're first in the review order. There should really be more reviews of the final release on there than there are for the bootleg release. I'm taking the review of the single off and making the proper changes. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Canadian peak position

I don't know its position, but it peaked somewhere in the top-thirty. 64.231.72.45 23:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, "Not About Love" never charted on Canadian radio, though it did peak at number seventy-five on an Albertan station upon its weak rotation. I have no source for this as I doubt it would help the article in any way. 64.231.72.45 00:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Undated GA templates
• Good articles without topic parameter
• Old requests for peer review
• Unassessed Album articles
• WikiProject Albums articles