Talk:Extraordinary Machine

Bootleg?
I'm wondering if "Bootleg" is really the right term to describe the early leak/Jon Brion edit? It was never sold, and came via a leak broadcast by a radio station. Paraphrased (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

<^>v!!This album is connected!!v<^>

 * All song titles serve as redirects to this album or have been placed at the appropriate disambiguation pages.--Hraefen Talk 23:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

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
Here and in other articles (specifically, in the bootleg review by pitchforkmedia) I read that tracks 1 & 12 weren't reworked. While it's true for "Waltz," "Extraordinary Machine" has a re-recorded vocal track, which would be important to note. Red Plum 02:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

Also, in an Entertainment Weekly article, Fiona said that the Internet leaking of the songs actually screwed her over contractually and made the release of Extraordinary Machine more difficult than it would have been. 70.137.141.126 01:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion
As part of fixing up GA tags for WP:UCGA, I saw that this article has some issues that could possibly delist it from a GA, but they're easy to fix. Most of the references (not the ones cited inline) should be converted to inline references unless they apply to the overall topic of the article (most of the titles do not suggest that). Also, some references are not correctly formated using WP:CITET. I don't think these are hard to correct and recommend doing so.--Masem 13:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Bonus Tracks
In previous versions of this article two bonus tracks from the Japanese CD were listed, they were deleted a while ago. Is there some reason for this cause they were correct.--lironhallak 17:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Extraordinary Machine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070607232735/http://www.blender.com:80/guide/articles.aspx?id=1793 to http://www.blender.com/guide/articles.aspx?id=1793

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Former references section
This were listed on the page, largely outdated and unusable.

Vinyl, release section?
I think I saw on Facebook that this album was re-issued in vinyl. Perhaps this article needs a release history section? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Extraordinary Machine. 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 tag to http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/page/track_reviews/30432/Fiona_Apple_Not_About_Love
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050829213452/http://slate.msn.com/id/2116932/ to http://slate.msn.com/id/2116932/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081012224843/http://www.angelfire.com/wa2/nadjadee/index201.html to http://www.angelfire.com/wa2/nadjadee/index201.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070226092447/http://pitchforkmedia.com/article/feature/38517/Staff_List_Top_50_Albums_of_2005 to http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/feature/38517/Staff_List_Top_50_Albums_of_2005
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051127150421/http://www.slantmagazine.com/music/music_review.asp?ID=561 to http://www.slantmagazine.com/music/music_review.asp?ID=561
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060703223011/http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/15004/Fiona_Apple_Extraordinary_Machine_Jon_Brion_version_Extrao to http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/15004/Fiona_Apple_Extraordinary_Machine_Jon_Brion_version_Extrao

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)