Talk:Motörhead discography

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

Stand by Your Man (EP)[edit]

(moved to Talk:Stand by Your Man (EP))

Fair use rationale for Image:Deaf Forever- The Best of Motörhead.jpg[edit]

Image:Deaf Forever- The Best of Motörhead.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 00:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FU rationale added.--Alf melmac 07:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:No remorse.jpg[edit]

Image:No remorse.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 15:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:No Sleep 'til Hammersmith.jpg[edit]

Image:No Sleep 'til Hammersmith.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 15:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use removal[edit]

The use of images not in compliance with our fair-use criteria or our policy on nonfree content is not appropriate, and the images have been removed. Please do not restore them. -Mask? 07:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Fair-use on discographies test case[edit]

Please see Talk:The_Beatles_discography#Poll_on_the_use_of_fair-use_images_on_this_page_and_the_interpretation_of_policy which is acting as a test case in this matter. Jooler 09:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic 1978 live album not listed[edit]

Big Beat released a record named "What's Words Worth?"-Motörhead recorded live 1978-on coverback it reads "Recorded LIVE at The Roundhouse,18th february,1978 as IRON FIST&THE HORDES FROM HELL with no overdubs whatsoever! Released in 1983 as BIG BEAT NED2. Tracklist:sideA 1-The Watcher(Kilmister)3.54;2-Iron Horse/Born to Lose(Taylor,Brown,Tramp)4.39;3-On Parole(L.Wallis)5.14;4-White Line Fever(Motorhead)2.26 >recorded live at the Roundhouse on 18/02/1978 sideB 1-Keep us on the Road(Motorhead,Farren)5.10;2-Leaving Here(Holland,Dozier,Holland)3.00;3-I'm Your Witchdoctor(J.Mayall)3.05;4-The Train Kept A Rolin'(Tiny Bradshaw,L.Mann,H.Kay)2.36;5-City Kids(Sanderson,Wallis)3.20 >recorded live at the Roundhouse on 18/02/1978Motorwind (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Motorwind[reply]

Metal or rock?[edit]

I'm sure it's been asked dozens of times, but is Motörhead metal or rock? For my tastes it sounds like rock: even Lemmy stated that Motörhead wasn't a metal band. What's up with all this? Indulge me. AthCom (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional archive releases[edit]

Here's a list of some other Motorhead releases from the archives, taken from here. I believe that those on Receiver Records were compiled and licensed by Eddie Clarke from his own personal archives. Perhaps the Motorhead editors can be a bit more judgemental about what should be included from this list on the discog page. — Drwhawkfan (talk) 11:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Year Title Label UK Line-up Notes
1989 Blitzkrieg On Birmingham '77 Receiver Records 4 Recorded live 3 June 1977 at Birmingham
1989 Dirty Love Receiver Records 4 Studio rehearsals for Ace Of Spades 1980
1990 Lock Up Your Daughters — Live Receiver Records 4 Recorded live 23 September 1978 at St. Albans
1991 Live 1983 Streetlink / Castle 5 Recorded live 9 June 1983 at Sheffield University
1992 Live Jailbait Receiver Records 4 Recorded live 12 May 1982 at Toronto, and 20 October 1980 at Nottingham
1994 Live At Brixton Roadrunner Records 8 Recorded live 23 December 1987 at Brixton Academy
1997 King Biscuit Flower Hour King Biscuit Flower Hour Records 5 Recorded live 10 October 1983 at New York
1997 Stone Dead Forever Receiver Records 4 Studio rehearsals from the Bronze era 1978-82
Personally, I'd quite like to see a page devoted to bootlegs, unofficial releases and other recordings, where the above can be added.--Alf melmac 18:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason why this can't be done? On another note, I have memories of listening to Blitzkrieg and/or Daughters while I was still at school (early 1980s), yet all the discogs point to these albums being released at the end of the 1980s. Is this a false memory? – Drwhawkfan (talk) 07:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason why it can't be done, I'm stuck at work for 12 hours for another four days, when I've cleared the backlog at home after this, if someone hasn't started it, I will. Any ideas for the best name for the page?--Alf melmac 10:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look through the Category:Discographies reveals some non-standard discogs, such as The Beatles bootleg recordings, List of compilation albums by The Fall, Jimi Hendrix posthumous discography and Pearl Jam Official Bootlegs. If you want to do it, I would suggest an article name such as Motörhead extended discography, but you may well get editors suggesting that it be merged with this one - I guess it would depend upon the level of detail you include. — Drwhawkfan (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Videos[edit]

  • 1984 – Another Perfect Day EP (VHS)
  • 1988 – EP (VHS)
  • 2003 – The Special Edition EP (DVD)

I've removed the above entries from the video list, as I cannot find any references to their release on MH fansites or retail sites. I suspect that they may be re-issues of videos that are already mentioned, but if anyone knows better and can fill in the blanks, then re-add them. – Drwhawkfan (talk) 07:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discog and Extended discog articles[edit]

The question raised on Talk:Motörhead extended discography is whether we want two pages, a main discog and an extended discog, or a merged page covering both subjects. The reason for having separated the two in the first place is that the main discog page is dedicated to, for want of a better word, 'proper' releases, ie those intended for release by the group - the releases detailed on the extended discog page, although perfectly legitimate, have purposefully been over-looked by the contributing editors of the main discog page because they were not instigated or approved of by the group. The format of the extended discog page intentionally differs from the main discog page because each listed item on the latter has its own page, whereas on the former the details are all self-contained. Remember, the ext discog page is only a first cut and we can debate the relative merits of its format, and it may well be better to merge it into a list on the main discog page and create separate pages for each of the listed entries here. – Drwhawkfan (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And as the result of the AfD was to keep, the consensus was the article has a rightful place in its own right. We shall have a look at the formatting and such in the weeks to come, eh? Personally, I don't find alot at fault with it. – B.hotep •talk• 23:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC) I have also cross-posted this comment here too![reply]

"unofficial" recordings[edit]

@Lukejordan02: Your recent edits have expunged various recordings from both this article and the associated template. I've seen this content removed and re-added previously. Is there some guidance or policy on this point of standards for inclusion or exclusion from a wiki-wide music project? UW Dawgs (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What should not be included

Tracklistings, B-sides, or any other description of the tracks on a release which is the subject of a separate article. In such cases the relevant article should be linked. Bootlegs, unless officially released, or can otherwise pass the general notability guidelines to deserve a separate article. Unofficial releases of any kind. For example, The Grey Album would not be included in the The Beatles discography or Jay-Z discography. Leaked material. Non-original or previously-released material used on soundtracks, trailers, commercials, or any other compilation releases. Unreleased material unless notable enough to include. Non-musical releases or works. Releases by other artists as a tribute or cover. Bands with loads and loads of compilations like Motörhead and Deep Purple, tend to leave off compilations that did'nt chart or are non notable (see Deep Purple page to see what I mean) Lukejordan02 (talk) 10:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lukejordan02: Can you provide a policy link, such as to a project page? UW Dawgs (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
it appears you are quoting from this dormant proposal Wikipedia:WikiProject_Discographies/style#What_should_not_be_included. If so, that's an insufficient basis to suppress this content. UW Dawgs (talk) 13:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not compulsory but it is still a good guide to follow. Like I said check the Deep Purple page that is a great example. I am trying to get the page up to gold standard and keep the page tidy. Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As you've offered no policy reasons or shown any existing convention for exclusion, I've reverted your WP:BOLD edits, including the blanked articles(!), changed template, discography, and associated article x-navigation links. Per WP:BRD, you're welcome and encouraged to further discuss and reach consensus on whether this content created and maintained by multiple editors should now be suppressed. Glancing at your Talk history, I encourage you to reach consensus (or locate and reference existing project standards) before making similar changes on this or other articles. UW Dawgs (talk) 04:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation of On Parole[edit]

On Parole is a studio album recorded by Motorhead at a session in Rockfield at the end of 1975 for United Artists. The band pushed the record company to release the album, which would have been their debut studio album, but UA sat on it. They subsequently issued the album 3 years later without the approval of the band. The delay in releasing the album does not change its nature from being a studio album to that of a compilation album. It is the responsibility of users User:Lukejordan02 and User:Woodensuperman to give reliable and verifiable evidence to support their case that it should be re-categorised. 86.190.87.178 (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you for starting this discussion. Note, there is an existing citation which may or may not cover.
@Nuro Dragonfly: It appears the text in question was added to the lede 07:50, 24 April 2016 and then given the cite 08:09, 24 April 2016. Text has been stable since that time. I've reverted to the stable version pending any changes arising from this discussion per WP:BRD cycle. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't see the changes, as the timestamps I see in the links provided are all done by me when I was mass editing mainly code in pages themselves? or applying correct liner notes and compiling them into a concise format? Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 03:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. Links above are now more clear, I hope. At On Parole the lede says "Fans, critics and the band themselves remain divided as a result, hence its position in the 'Compilations' section of their discography.[1]" There is dispute if this is a compilation or studio album. That's how your contributed text and citation in the lede are related. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The established position, right from the article's creation 19:27, 17 December 2006 up to the present day 12:20, 13 January 2018 is that it is a studio album, as defined in the infobox - it has never been categorised as a compilation album. The revert by User:UW_Dawgs re-instates the inconsistency between the categorisation of the article itself and articles that reference it. 86.190.87.178 (talk) 11:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is to determine what is correct so that all locations (article text, infobox, categorization, navbox) can be consistent and reflect what is decided here. UW Dawgs (talk) 13:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nuro Dragonfly: Are you certain per 08:09, 24 April 2016 that the citation of "Motörhead, On Parole, EMI Records, CDGO 2072, 1997 Liner Notes, page 4 & Cleopatra Records, CDLL-57666, 1991 Liner Notes, page 5" supports the "Fans, critics and the band themselves remain divided as a result, hence it's position in the 'Compilations' section of their discography." statement? It's not web accessible, so it's unclear what "page 5" says. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all - OK first things first; Web Accessible is not a requirement for anything to do with Album Liner Notes, hence the Academic entry of the information in the format is has been. Most albums of this era are not going to be Web Accessible in the first place, from my experience as a Music collector and a Computer enthusiast, so it relies on people such a myself who physically own the release's of 'said' album to correctly enter the data, BUT the liner info existing can be verified at the publishing source for those wishing to do so, in various formats in which some are online. On the matter of the album itself being in the Compilations section, this I do not support: Irrelevant of what the Band, fans or critics have voiced opinions on the matter, put quite simply the album was recorded with a major label that decided to shelve it for some years until the band had notoriety and monitory sales potential. It was then released without the bands consent, because this was not a legal requirement of the label under the contract signed by Lemmy at the time (as the rest of the original line up had since moved on) of making the album in '75-7'6. I have always voiced the opinion that it should be in the bands studio released albums section, and somewhere back in time I wrote as much in some format within the Motörhead discussions I've had over the years. My lede contribution, or appropriately a compiled re-write from memory, was more of a status-quo of the previous contributors, and with the lack of any discussion progressing at the time. Since that has clearly changed, I'm more than happy to have a formal debate on the merits of having it put into the normal studio album release section of the bands 40 year career, because on a personal note I love the album to bits because it illustrates to us what the band did during the era it was made IE punk and nwobhm, which is a discussion already had. All the best and thank you for including me in this discussion. Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 01:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Per above, the citation has been removed from that paragraph of the lede. Defer to other parties to discuss merits of studio vs compilation. Upon resolution, content of template and article should be identical reflecting resolution of above. UW Dawgs (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All I was trying NOT to do was make an arbitrary decision on the status of the album, irrelevant of my view on the matter, so this contributed to my confusion in the beginning of this discussion. I do not recall why I even added the second link in the 3rd paragraph to be honest, upon reflection. I do however further add my view that it should be included in the studio release section asap. Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 01:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to Motörhead's website's latest discography list in August 2013, the first album they list is Motörhead (1977), not On Parole: https://web.archive.org/web/20130831203344/http://www.imotorhead.com/discography.cfm, so take of that what you will (it doesn't even mention it). JCW555 (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"It was intended as their first album " from the wikipedia article, thus it's a studio album released later than recorded and intended for release. 95.40.25.33 (talk) 08:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[responding to RfC notice] I'm assuming that a reliable source has not been found that actually indicates studio or compilation. Since there is no one accepted definition of what constitutes a "studio album" or a "compilation album", it comes down to what interested editors agree on. To me, a studio album contains previously unreleased songs recorded in a studio, usually with the same musicians and producer(s); a compilation album usually contains songs recorded at different points in an artist's career and not originally intended to be issued together on an album. So, from my limited view, On Parole qualifies as a studio album. But others will undoubtedly see it differently: two RfCs reached opposite conclusions regarding Led Zeppelin's Coda. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Me personally, I've never thought of On Parole as a compilation album, but it being with the official albums in the infobox feels weird to me. I don't what solution there is that could still list On Parole as a studio album, but not be with the official ones.JCW555 (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
re the above discussion, I believe I added Template:Disputed inline to both the discography and template on 13 January 2018. See Motörhead discography[1] and Template:Motörhead [2]. There appears to be consensus for "studio" in 2018, but the tags were never removed. Recently, there has been edit warring on replacing those tags with hidden links to this discussion under the banner of consensus for "studio," and then blocks ensued.
Votes:
  • User:86.190.87.178 "On Parole is a studio album"[3] (2018)
  • User:Nuro Dragonfly "On the matter of the album itself being in the Compilations section, this I do not support"[4], [5] (2018)
  • User:95.40.25.33 "thus it's a studio album"[6] (2019)
  • User:Ojorojo "So, from my limited view, On Parole qualifies as a studio album"[7] (2021)
  • User:JCW555 "Me personally, I've never thought of On Parole as a compilation album, but it being with the official albums in the infobox feels weird to me. I don't what solution there is that could still list On Parole as a studio album, but not be with the official ones."[8] (2021)
  • User:UW Dawgs - Studio album (2021)
By my count, there are four editors who view it as "studio" and two editors who view it as "not-compilation." Barring new participation, it appears those two Disputed inline tags should be removed and replaced with hidden inline text directing editors to "see discussion at Talk" (ala this). UW Dawgs (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
UW Dawgs, Wikipedia consensus is not a simple majority vote.
Note: A similar discussion was held at Talk:Motörhead#Request_for_comment. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all, ive been away from this for some time, but I will reiterate that 'On Parole' was always a Studio Album. It was not released by the record company at the time of its recording in 1975, but instead was released after the band had found some fame and had released 3 other albums, as 'Overkill' (March 1979, but recorded Dec '78 til Jan '79) had gained them numerous BBC appearances by this stage, and United Artists in December 1979, after 'Bomber' (October 1979) had been released, decided to 'get in on the act' as Lemmy stated later. Lemmy never personally liked the album and did not want it part of his previous releases catalogue throughout his many labels he signed on with. (not that that is relevant to what WP is all about it must be said...)
Id forgotten there was a contested discussion on whether or not it was a compilation album - every song on the album was an original but unreleased song, or in the case of 'Iron Horse' and 'Motorhead' the original takes of these tracks as recorded with the first line up in 1975, making the versions that are on 'Motorhead' the album actually re-releases of these tracks.
The live album 'Whats Words Worth' was recorded in between these two albums, but not released until 1983 by the same guy who gave Lemmy and the second line up a weekends worth of studio time in which 'Motorhead' was recorded, and also illustrates the changes the band had made to their sound and style by this stage. This arguably further supports the fact it was not a Compilation album.
So, there was never a case for it being in the Compilation section to begin with, I would argue...Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 00:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I would strongly argue for it to be the first album on the list considering its recording date alone, as i would further move 'Whats Words Worth' to the first live album considering its recording date.Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 00:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Music video infos[edit]

hej, would be nice if the video section had a few more infos, especially if the videos are just live videos or "real" music videos would be nice to know. In example, most of the 1979 videos seem to be from the same live show, that should be added, including date and location. Someone with a good overview? Best regards, IP 78.55.170.246 (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Still needs more details for some, and intrawiki links. 77.180.130.59 (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Motörhead_discography&oldid=1216582432"