Talk:The Man-Machine
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
[edit]The following has been pulled from the original article. Please see Wikipedia:No original research.
Philosophical Interpretation
[edit]The Man Machine can be seen as a pillar in Kraftwerk's philosophy; the dehumanising process of humanity does not come just from plugging our brains into a machine. Postmodern society is already as dehumanised as the model, who acts mechanically in order to satisfy. Although the album can be seen as a leap away from that society into a bright future (note the major key of "Neon Lights"), the spookiness of "The Robots" reminds us that humans will not be needed in the same way in the future. Electronic Vocoder-disguised voices speak "Я твой слуга, я твой роботник" ("Ya tvoj sluga, ya tvoj rabotnik" - Russian for "I am your servant, I am your worker").
The robot's words and the cover (where the band members not only share a common appearance, but are made to look as one with the background) inspire thoughts of a collective future, where the "I" dissolves into the "us", and "us" is the cold and inhuman Metropolis. Thus, the inhabitants of that massive Metropolis (both humans and robots) have lost any trace of what humanity used to mean. There is also a pun here on the now common meaning of the word robot – a mechanical person – and its Slavonic origin (it is derived from the word 'robota' - a work/labour).
The presence of song called "Metropolis" is significant, also, because it references Fritz Lang's 1927 film of the same name, which depicted a technologically advanced city run on virtual slave-labour. Kraftwerk expressed interest at one point in producing a score for a restored version of the film, although this job was eventually undertaken by another electronic pioneer, Giorgio Moroder.
If the LP came out in 1978,why was the model only released in 1982?
- It was, I believe, released as a single in 1978, but flopped? The record company (EMI Capitol) decided to include it as as the B-side of one of the singles from "Computerwelt", and it became more popular than the A-side. You should be aware that, apart from a one-off hit with "Autobahn" in 1975, Kraftwerk had virtually no commercial success whatsoever in the UK until 1982! We may think of them now as hugely influential and respected, but as far as the public were concerned, they were obscure wierdos who they'd barely heard of. It was only musicians who were listening to them!--feline1 09:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- It was released as a single in Germany in late 1978 — on red vinyl, too.
- reaching the top 10 in the uk by being bought only from musicians is extraordinay in particular regarding statistics. why do people write such nonsense? is it so that everything that is not british must be derised or diminished? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.96.44.117 (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- It was released as a single in Germany in late 1978 — on red vinyl, too.
Controversy Section
[edit]Does the author of this section or anyone have any evidence that there was an actual controversy? Maybe there was just some twerp who wrote some article claiming said things about fascist imagery and the like. Controversy, though? I look at that art and I don't see anything particularily contentious whatsoever and I can't imagine anyone else did in 1978. Elaborate please and provide source references. Thanks. DocEss 17:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- In his book Pascal Bussy dicusses the possible controversy of the red shirt / black tie as having miltaristic connotations, but it is POV stuff and not contemporary with the album when it was first released. There is a quote from Bartos there though, on page 100, where he says "Man Machine had a strong paramilitary image, but it is a contradiction because we wore red shirts and not brown" – a reference to the Sturmabteilung, but again, this is from an early 1990s interview and so retrospective in viewpoint.--Ricadus 19:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Accordingly, why is this section required? Explain its purpose. Other than being mildly interesting trivia, it does not add to my knowledge of this fine album and, at worst, slightly defames the artists; it does little to further man's knolwedge so is 'un-ecycloedpedic, ja? DocEss 19:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not at all convinced there was any actual "controversy" in 1978 at all. Certainly very doubtful in the UK, as the album did not trouble the UK charts or media very much when it was released ;-) I believe Kraftwerk did hold a "press release" for it featuring the mannequins of themselves, which pissed off the journalists who attended, as they felt they'd been snubbed. Quasi-fascist imagery was the least of their grumbles, though. I'd recommend that if contemporary "controversy" cannot be cited, the whole thing be ditched.--feline1 22:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ya I see what ya mean. It is an inetersting little tid-bit though. The problem is that anyone not familiar with the cold-war has no idea why any of that imagery might cause problems and it certainly won't spark a flame. I think people would actually have to be tutored and directed to similar Nazi and Soviet imagery for the bell to ring. Facsist/communist imagery of the day used limited production techniques (hampered by limited supply of inks and primitive printing processes) and so they used that orange/red, black and white colour scheme with sharp lines and blocky shapes -- it gave a cold, brash, brassy look to everything - combined with the nasty messages, it was powerful stuff. It certainly could be viewd as incendiary to anyone on the winning side of WWII, but to a German writing music it probably evoked excatly the cold/hard/machine-like monotone monotony that the very music conjurs. Nuttin fascist there to Kraftwerk - just post-modern industrial, Baushaus stuff. It's cool imagery, actually, but any controversy is hardly germane (excuse the pun!) today. Come to think of it, maybe we actually should describe it all in detail and that would eliminate any unfair question of Kraftwerk's suggested quasi-fascist connection. Thoughts?DocEss 17:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- "Nonetheless, Kraftwerk's choice certainly struck some sour chords in cold-war Europe." — this needs a reference otherwise it's way too POV, I think.Ricadus 03:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ya I see what ya mean. It is an inetersting little tid-bit though. The problem is that anyone not familiar with the cold-war has no idea why any of that imagery might cause problems and it certainly won't spark a flame. I think people would actually have to be tutored and directed to similar Nazi and Soviet imagery for the bell to ring. Facsist/communist imagery of the day used limited production techniques (hampered by limited supply of inks and primitive printing processes) and so they used that orange/red, black and white colour scheme with sharp lines and blocky shapes -- it gave a cold, brash, brassy look to everything - combined with the nasty messages, it was powerful stuff. It certainly could be viewd as incendiary to anyone on the winning side of WWII, but to a German writing music it probably evoked excatly the cold/hard/machine-like monotone monotony that the very music conjurs. Nuttin fascist there to Kraftwerk - just post-modern industrial, Baushaus stuff. It's cool imagery, actually, but any controversy is hardly germane (excuse the pun!) today. Come to think of it, maybe we actually should describe it all in detail and that would eliminate any unfair question of Kraftwerk's suggested quasi-fascist connection. Thoughts?DocEss 17:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- I actually realised this complaint after I wrote it. I'm wondering whether or not this obviously colourful statement is not supported by the mere existence of the controversy itself. I mean to say that the 'sour chord' it struck is actually the controversy itself. Is that not adequate? Too much of a stretch? We can work on it.DocEss 16:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- IMHO that section reads like a review of the album...Nbettencourt 00:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Let's ditch the personal speculation. Where are the references supporting the claim the artwork was controversal, 'incendiary' etc? I remember not one jot of controversy at the time. In the late 70s/80s it was common for European acts, especally electronic ones, to use 'Soviet chic' in their imagery. Just check out the sleeves of Depeche Mode, DAF, Frankie Goes To Hollywood, Eurythmics, Pet Shop Boys, The Communards... the list is endless. Far from being controversial it was considered very fashionable and 'safe'. Vauxhall1964 20:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
"expanded"?
[edit]The article refers (as similar articles to the 2009 reissues do also) to the new editions as "remastered and expanded." While the releases are "expanded" in the sense that there are more photographs and (in some cases) new packaging, most readers will take "expanded" to mean "containing previously unreleased songs." This is not the case. I would alter the references in all the articles about Kraftwerk albums, except I have so far purchased only Man-Machine and Trans Europe Express, so I cannot verify the absence of extra tracks on the other reissued titles.
Anyone who can so verify that absence should probably remove the reference to "expanded," or clarify that it refers only to packaging, not musical content. 2fs (talk) 05:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Luminous vinyl
[edit]UK only? I have 2 copies, one of which is labelled a US pressing. Label 'Capitol 12CL15998'. I'll check both to be sure and take pictures. AMCKen (talk) 07:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Assessment comment
[edit]The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:The Man-Machine/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.
| Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
|---|---|
Start class:
C class:
B class:
| |
Last edited at 15:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 08:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
[edit]The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)