Talk:The Velvet Underground & Nico/Archive 1

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

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
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)