This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Motörhead is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Motorhead, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.MotorheadWikipedia:WikiProject MotorheadTemplate:WikiProject MotorheadMotorhead articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal articles
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
Without Wikipedia's stupid permission or whatever Motorhead was a part of the New Wave of British Heavy Metal and their music contained all metal riffs. Undisputed fact. I can find 600 sources that acknowledge Motorhead as part of the NWOBHM so don't tell me about how "personal experience can't be a source," because it isn't personal experience
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:540:D:DBDC:8D2A:730C:D39D:F0C5 (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lemmy always denied they were metal and he was in a better position to know than most people. The phrase or saying “We are Motörhead and we play rock'n'roll!” appears on more than one live album. Mr Larrington (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If On Parole is classified as a studio album, it needs to be uniformly treated as such through-out Wikipedia, that is on the article itself, in the nav-box, in the discography page and on the discog section of the main article.
The long established position of this album is that it is a de facto contractual studio album - indeed classified as such through-out the entire unbroken history of the article.
if @Sabbatino: or others wish to reclassify the album, the onus is on them to provide reliable and verifiable evidence to support the case. Sabbatino claims there is an established consensus but will not show where this consensus is.
Right now, the main article has to be changed to include On parole for established consistency sake. If you wish to argue for re-classifying the album, give reasons with evidence. If the conclusion is that it is not a contractual studio album, then it must be reclassified as such through-out wikipedia. 165.120.130.45 (talk) 11:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some reliable and verifiable sources to support the claim that On Parole is a studio album recorded under contract for United Artists:
Motorhead - Alan Burridge (1 January 1981, Babylon Books, ISBN-10: 0860019357, ISBN-13: 978-0860019350)
White Line Fever - The Autobiography - Lemmy Kilmister and Janiss Garza (2 June 2003, Pocket, ISBN: 9780671033316, 067103331X)
Lemmy - The Definitive Biography - Mick Wall (14 April 2016, Orion Publishing Group, ISBN:9781409160281, 1409160289)
Beer Drinkers And Hell Raisers: The Rise Of Motörhead - Martin Popoff (9 May 2017, Ecw Press, ISBN:9781773050324, 177305032X)
Overkill: The Untold Story of Motörhead - Joel McIver (August 2017, Omnibus Press, ISBN:9780857127181, 0857127187)
The liner notes of CDWIKD 338 just say that "On Parole" was simply not released. It does not say anything that it is their first album. In addition, liner notes of ""Overkill" and "Bomber" re-releases just mention that the album was not released by UA, while "Ace of Spades" does not even mention "On Parole" anywhere, which means that the band clearly did not approve of its release. Regarding the books, you need to provide quotes from all the books that you mentioned since they cannot be found on the internet and not everyone has them in their bookcase at home. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I want to also add that the onus is in fact on you to provide direct quotes from reliable sources that would justify "On Parole" as a studio album. The album is listed as a studio album (navbox and discography page) to avoid edit wars and the "disputed – discuss" tags were left there for a reason. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ted Carroll: "Soon after it was decided to record Motörhead's first album at Rockfield Studios with Dave Edmunds producing. However, Dave was somewhat pre-occupied at this time with negotiations for a record deal of his own with Led Zeppelin's Swan Song label. Soon he was gone, replaced as producer by Fritz Fryer, and Phil Taylor had replaced Lucas Fox and re-recorded most of the drums for the album. The basic recording sessions were completed by the end of 1975 but overdub sessions and mixing went on into 1976. Phil had been working in a day job with Eddie Clarke, and it was decided that Eddie would join as second guitartist. At that point, Larry decided to leave, and so the classic line-up of "Fast Eddie" Clarke, "Philthy Animal" Taylor and Lemmy was born.
The completed "On Parole" album was patchy as a result of personnel changes and other problems with the recording sessions. The band was broke and eager to see the album released as soon as possible, to get some publicity and momentum going to help them secure more gigs. Now to cap all their problems, Andrew Lauder at UA decided not to release the album." - Motörhead (40th Anniversary Edition)" (3 November 2017, Chiswick Records, CDWIKD 338)
Lemmy: "We finished up the album... then the assholes at United Artists began hedging about the record's release. For months they fed us numerous lies, while still keeping us signed to the label... They wound up putting out On parole four years later, long after we'd finally been released from our contract." - White Line Fever - The Autobiography - Lemmy Kilmister and Janiss Garza (2 June 2003, ,ISBN: 9780671033316, 067103331X)
Phil Taylor: "'What the fuck's happening? When's the album coming out? When are you gonna get us some gigs? What's happening about getting us an agency?' All we'd get was bullshit about the sleeve, you know, photographs and all that. When we got back from Rockfield with the masters, of course, we got the big: 'Oh, great, fantastic', but in the ensuing weeks it was just excuses and bullshit." - Motörhead - Alan Burridge (1 Jan. 1981, Babylon Books, ISBN-10 : 0860019357, ISBN-13 : 978-0860019350)
Douglas Smith: "Richard Ogden and myself formed Western Productions, to put Motörhead's albums out through United Artists. And we had been able to get a substantial advance for him to record and work with Dave Edmunds. Lemmy wanted to work with Dave Edmunds because Dave Edmunds was Lemmy's favourite, favourite artist. So Dave Edmunds went down to Rockfield, and they started production, and eventually spent all the money. So United Artists went, "We're not giving them any more money until we get some tracks". So when when I told Lemmy that, he sacked me." - Beer Drinkers And Hell Raisers: The Rise Of Motörhead - Martin Popoff (9 May 2017, Ecw Press, ISBN: 9781773050324, 177305032X)
Lemmy: "What you are holding in your hot, sticky, avaricious little hands is the first evidence of anything called Motörhead. [...] Most of the songs were done better on the "MOTÖRHEAD" album. However, it is part of the story. So there." - sleeve notes (1981, Liberty, LN66125, Canada)
All of these sources support the claim that the band and the management wanted the album released, but it was UA who sat on it. 165.120.130.45 (talk) 08:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I already stated that I saw the "CDWIKD 338" part. It is easy to find it through Discogs or other pages that list booklets of albums. For other sources – it is clear that UA decided to cash in when Motörhead became a known band. And why would you leave the middle part of "LN66125", which says that It was recorded at Rockfield, S. Wales in 1975, and is only very tenuously anything to do with the band as is. It is badly mixed, indifferently played and does not have Dr. Clarke on it. Buy it (if you are a collecto, no doubt you will) only with awareness of these facts.? This part clearly says that Lemmy opposed the release of it. – Sabbatino (talk) 05:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The album On Parole was recorded by the London based rock group Motörhead as their debut album under contract to United Artists Records at Rockfield Studios at the end of 1975. Not seeing commercial potential in the album, UA shelved its release against the wishes of the band and their management. Four years later, after the group had gained popularity in Britain, UA gave the album a belated release.
The wikipedia article of the album, created on 19:27, 17 December 2006 through to the present day has consistently classified the album as a studio album. From time to time, some wikipedia editors have sought to reclassify references to the album as being non-studio. This is another such issue of dispute, after this one from 13 January 2018, and has currently come to an impasse between two editors. There appears to be an absence of other editors interested in the subject wanting to contribute to this discussion, so outside neutral opinions would be appreciated. 217.42.5.141 (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Count as studio album - First of all, the fact that the album was released a few years after its recording should not influence the decision. After all, The Modern Lovers (album) was released after the band split up and is still counted as a studio album. Second of all, while there was definitely some initial conflict between the band and the label (first over their decision not to release the album and then over their decision to do so), the band has since come to see On Parole as part of their canon. It should be considered a studio album and marked as such, maybe with some extra information briefly explaining the delay in release. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AFAI can see, it's a studio album - (Summoned by bot) Albums, and this specific band are outside my normal area of expertise - but nothing offered in the various discussions suggests other than a studio album by almost all criteria. It was recorded in a studio (as opposed to live), largely conceived of as a single album (as opposed to a retrospective compilation of 'greatest hits' or previously unreleased 'leftovers'). The delay in releasing is obviously relevant info, but does not alter the central character of the album itself, nor does the band not liking its late release - which might very well have been for financial reasons, or sheer 'pique'. Pincrete (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Studio album I mean, it was recorded in a studio. I don't understand how anyone could contest this. I see there's no source in the album article, but the same claim is sourced (and verifiable via google books) in the article for the studio. OMW to fix this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 15:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It has been over two weeks since the attempt to roll this consensus out to the relevant articles. Those who rejected the concensus have had plenty of time to justify their position and actions, yet nothing has been stated. This is to note that the consensus is being rolled out yet again. If you object to it, you should state you case here. OutOnParole (talk) 10:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
