Talk:Pretty Hate Machine

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

2005 Ryokodisc Remaster[edit]

I don't actually see any evidence that the 2005 release of Pretty Hate Machine by RykoDisc was actually a remaster of the previous releases (and not just a reissue). The only place it seems to be stated as such is Wikipedia (and other pages that quote Wikipedia) and according to discogs/NWNWiki it was just a reissue

In fact it appears that the only version of Pretty Hate Machine that was not mastered is the original version (if the credits/discogs is anything to go by). Is there any clarification/evidence on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Outside Drummer[edit]

I added some "citation needed" tags to areas that lack them. Most of these are things repeated pretty frequently in fan circles, but that need reliable sources to verify. The one area that seemed a bit dubious was where it said he hired an outside musician to play drums. While that's true of most NIN releases, there's no drummer credited in the liner notes to PHM and the whole album (with the possible exception of Head Like a Hole) sounds like he only used a drum machine anyways. -Thonan (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

recording time[edit]

Working nights at a recording studio cleaning toilets, Trent Reznor saved enough money to purchase time in a recording session. . The Trent Reznor article states he got free recording time because he was good at his job. Which is true? Which is substantiated? -- Jon Dowland 21:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Connections with Tori Amos?[edit]

What about the line in Tori Amos's Caught A Lite Sneeze:

Caught a lite sneeze
Dreamed a little dream
Made my own pretty hate machine

I think Tori also quoted another Reznor song or album.Sits69 14:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On Little Earthquakes, song "Precious Things." Lyric begins "With them nine inch nails..." Trent also provides back up vocals on Under the Pink, song "Past the Mission". AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I moved Pretty Hate Machine to pretty hate machine per the primary source (the album itself). Another editor has expressed concern that this is simply due to typeface, and so I have asked for opinions here. It was always my understanding that the proper title was pretty hate machine. Anyone have an idea on where to find a primary citation (the band referring to PHM directly, say on another album cover)? /Blaxthos 03:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I think you should've asked around... has it in all uppercase (showing it is a typeface thing). Allmusic is proper case and same for Pitchfork (both linked in the article's infobox). It's just a typeface - you'll also see on the same album cover the band name is also all lowercase (with the leading n backwards which is not their "normal" logo). — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 11:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please do not alter the namespace. As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Album titles and band names:

In band names and titles of songs or albums, unless it is unique (don't worry, nobody pays any heed to this disclaimer anyway), the standard rule in the English language is to capitalize words that are the first or the last word in the title and those that are not conjunctions (and, but, or, nor, for), prepositions (in, to, over), articles (an, a, the), or the word to when used to form an infinitive. Note that short verbs (Is, Are, Do) and pronouns (Me, It, His) are capitalized. Do not replicate stylized typography in logos and album art, though a redirect may be appropriate (for example, KoЯn redirects to Korn (band)).

pretty hate machine should be a redirect, not the namespace. -- rynne 16:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cover design[edit]

What is that on the album cover? Any articles out there about what Gary Talpas photographed? Steveprutz 19:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I linked to the ninhotline's page on Trent Reznor's Prodigy posts in the early 90s, but that got deleted for some reason. Directly from Trent:

"The cover of PHM is a photo of the blades of some sort of turbine stretched vertically so they would look somewhat like bones or a rib cage." ([1]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Album title meaning?[edit]

Also, is there any official explanation of the title? The article would benefit. Steveprutz 19:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have never heard of the album being referred to as Halo 02, I think a source should be cited for that particular name, otherwise it's just some nickname that fans have given it, which shouldn't be in the first sentence of the article.JoeyFNK 14:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Each NiN release has a corresponding Halo number... has nothing to do with a nickname from fans. See this list ( /Blaxthos 15:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wrong position of cover art[edit]

The position of the cover art is incorrect. The title of the album should not be on top but should be turned to the right. Trilby*foxglove 19:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, in a strictly technical sense, you may be right, considering the normal orientation of a CD case. But if you take into account the CD package as a whole for this album, it seems to me that the case is meant to be turned on its side. If you open the CD case, turn it sideways and allow the CD tray to hang down, then the booklet and the tray card make one continuous piece. Also, the official Nine Inch Nails website has it oriented the same way as it is in this article, so that should serve as a pretty definitive source for the cover art orientation. meateebon 23:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestions for Improvement[edit]

1. Most importantly, this needs sourcing. The article is severely lacking in sources and is probably the main reason this article is still rated start-class. One source links to the NIN hotline, which I'm not so sure is considered a reliable source. In addition, it only links to the article which should be used as the source for the statement it supports.
2. If the Packaging section and the Popular Culture sections are to be kept, they need to be written in paragraph form, added to, and moved up in the article to follow the History section.
3. Make a Critical Reception section that includes reviews/quotes/criticism much like in the other NIN album articles.
4. I haven't noticed any mention that this album is pretty much what launched Nine Inch Nails into the mainstream and jumpstarted Trent Reznor's popularity. There's also no mention of music videos played on MTV.
5. Work on organizing the information that's currently in the article. Due to the lack of sources, you may need to start from scratch. I'd recommend searching far and wide on the Internet to research Pretty Hate Machine as if you didn't know anything about it. That way you can have a base with reliable sources to go on, and can work from there.
6. Find and add more fair use images. Perhaps something from music videos, tours, etc.

The prose in the History section isn't bad, but this article could be greatly improved. --Ubiq (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Problem is, there's nothing to research about PHM, it's not documented. Most of what I wrote is just common knowledge about the album. I'll try re-writing it, just not now. Tribestros (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Late to the party, but this page has the potential to be a featured article, possibly moreso than The Downward Spiral, although I'm not positive. Unfortunately, I've seen attempts to improve it in the last few years persistently reverted by one person in particular who, if I recall correctly, was insistent on keeping verbatim wording from one or two different sources (which, while useful references, should be used as such and not as the foundation for how the article is written) that adds some redundancy here. Citation six (in which the description generalises a genre the record has little to nothing to do with - a point that's otherwise clearly stated, the whole "PHM is not industrial" thing) is the one in which s/he was so persistent about anyone omitting/rephrasing the sentence to include only valuable information that I'm almost inclined to believe he wrote what was being referenced. That's one of many that strike me as being written from some sort of biased perspective, and I'd have no problem were those kinds of references in quote boxes as they should be. After an appropriate solution could not be reached, it became apparent very little else could then be reworded.
It's been eight years and I don't believe more appropriate documentation is too hard to come by now. The notability of some I would contest is already in dispute, and what was said about Someone let me know when a general/correctional rewrite is okay. Swim Jonse (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flyleaf Cover?[edit]

"Flyleaf covered "Something I Can Never Have" for the Underworld: Evolution soundtrack."

I can't confirm this. It's not on the US version at least. Is there a source for the reference? aeontriad (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Synthpop and electronic dance are prominant on the album. The reviews for the album also acknowledge this. The music on the album seems to fit with the description of electronic dance music (see wikipedia article's lead), and its singles charted on Dance music charts, so it would make sense to have ele dance music as a genre. The structure of most of the songs are also more dance/pop-oriented than rock. Dan56 (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Full disclosure: I was asked to participate in this discussion in a completely proper canvass, additionally I claim no authority or expertise in genre classification within Wikipedia. All that being said, I think think the question comes down to understanding how Wikipedia uses genres over time -- in the Good Old Days (mid 90's) a "electronic dance" label might have been more fitting; however the "electronic dance" categorization of contemporary usage is far from the mark. A literal reading of synthpop (music in which synths are the primary instrument) may technically qualify PHM as a "synthpop" album, but our own article on the subject specifically states "while most current popular music in the industrialized world is realized via electronic instruments, synthpop has its own stylistic tendencies which differentiate it from other music produced by the same means." -- synthpop to me summons images of Depeche Mode; PHM was less mainstream 1990. So, I guess I need more clarification as to the proper Wikiway of genre application (which can be inherently subjective). I'm not putting the onus on you Dan (or anyone else), I just don't know the right answer at the moment.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would agree that the album is mainly industrial, but the ele-dance and synth(pop?) are also strong elements of the album. I also dont know enough to make a sufficient judgement, so I have asked more editors to contribute. Dan56 (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would have to say that the synthpop and dance elements are prominent enough to be included in the genre, but only as a secondary genre to industrial rock. Mattpaige (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe, but some songs songs like Down in It, The Only Time and Terrible Lie to name a few, use a lot of synths and drum machines, which gives the album a very synthpop feel. Irishboi89 (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to echo much of what Blaxthos said above, from the full disclosure to having the question of how to best identify an album's genre(s) (WP:ALBUMS notes only that infoboxes should include "the one or more music genres that the album reflects"). I agree that this album contains elements of synthpop and electronic dance music, and it's not surprising to see that some articles suggest as much. At the least, it would be appropriate to note this in the body of the article (e.g., "John Doe of XYZ Magazine described the album as "a masterful fusion of industrial metal and dance pop'"). There does not appear to be any disagreement that industrial rock is the best genre choice for the infobox; if "secondary" genres are to be included, I recommend adding references that describe PHM as a "synthpop album", "electronic dance album", or words to that effect.  Gongshow Talk 23:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reviews aren't acceptable sources to determining genres, as reviews are by their nature editorials. Reviews should only be sourced for their critical commentary, not for statements of fact. Back it any genre information with in-depth research articles about the album, or with the 33 1/3 series book on this album that may or may not be already released (I don't quite recall). WesleyDodds (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on; it is common that plot analysis and criticism, for instance, may only be found in what would otherwise be considered unreliable sources. Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources. When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included"
To me what is implied is that while books and academic papers are preferred if they are not available and if there is a consensus of reviewers in reliable sources like the New York Times, Allmusic etc is that an album is synthpop, that while not perfect is acceptable. Edkollin (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This may be useful: "I'd basically define it as dance music, that's a bit harder, a bit tougher, definitely with a drum machine...."Trent Reznor interview Dan56 (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This writer describes the album as a "dance-synth opus", while this writer compares its rock instrumentation/popular music structure of verse-chorus to its house/dance influence. Also, another page about the album's music. Dan56 (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All these books are saying is that synths were used. Not all music with synths in them are synthpop. Reliable sources should say the album or at least a "significant part" of it is synthpop. Edkollin (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have Tommy Udo's Nine Inch Nails biography, and I have selected three Reznor quotes to further the genre discusion surrounding this record:
  • When discussing the industrial genre at the time, Reznor said: "It was a way of shaking the foundaions of the music business but in a more intelligent way than punk. When that fizzled out, it started melding with disco and you got bands like Front 242 and Ministry. NIN focuses on noisy electronic music. It's menacing but a far cry from Throbbing Gristle" (p. 59).
  • "I like Ministry, who were - more so than they are now - industrial. They pretty much established industrial music in America. They defnately put the anger and agression element into electronic music. I mean, the first electronic music that I got into wasn't stuff like Throbbing Gritle - it was more like Human League and Devo and other less experimental things that made their into Pennsylvania, which is where I was living at the time. Then you had the people who developed electronic personalitie becaue their music was electronic - Gary Numan, Kraftwerk very emotionless. There wasn't any humanity in it." (p. 61-62).
  • "I assure you there will be absolutely no fucking House, ever. I hate House." (p. 69).
So, Reznor admits liking synthpop but hates house music, which was the dance music of the late 1980s... Musicaindustrial (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


It looks like several articles linked on this page (The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times....) do not talk at all about Pretty Hate Machine ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scroll down. Dan56 (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One of Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums[edit]

I'm pretty sure that Pretty Hate Machine was included in the list of 500 Greatest Albums by Rolling Stone. (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)NINfanReply[reply]

"Industrial Nation" as the predecessor to Pretty Hate Machine[edit]

I removed the reference to Industrial Nation from the article because, as I recall, this was a mistake in a mid-nineties profile of the band, which made its way into the AllMusicGuide in the late 90s/early 00s. I remember hunting down this bit of info on and from what I understand, there was a magazine called Industrial Nation that had an early interview with Trent Reznor, but it was most definitely not the name of his demo album. Reznor has throughout the years avoided labeling NIN as industrial -- that categorization sticks mainly as a result of the 1991 Spin "Industrial Revolution" issue where Trent famously derided Front Line Assembly.

Aha. Found the offending profile... a little later than mid-nineties - it's from the July 1998 issue of that paragon of music journalism, Circus Magazine -

Leviathant (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Purest Feeling[edit]

First off, I was always under the impression that "Purest Feeling" was a 'fan' given name to the "Pretty Hate Machine" Demos. Second, the first paragraph of this article stats that some of the songs on "Pretty Hate Machine" come from this demo. If you listen to those demos, you will know this isn't true at all. Third, I believe it's mentioned above that the 2005 reissue of "Pretty Hate Machine" is not remastered, yet it still says that it is. (IGR) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cover Image[edit]

That...doesn't seem right.Jasper420 02:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm changing it to how it is presented on a CD copy. Any objections, talk to me, and we'll sort it out.Jasper420 01:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The 1989 LP release had the previous cover; the one you replaced it with is basically a snapshot of that larger version, rotated. Dan56 (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I went with image of the CD release to justify my change. I dunno. In 1989, CDs were the more common form of release, no? Shall we put the LP cover down in the alternates?Jasper420 03:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure. Dan56 (talk) 03:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jeff "Critter" Newell (track 11) What?[edit]

What? What about him? What did this Jeff guy do, exactly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dates incorrect[edit]

Someone has significantly altered the dates on this article 2601:485:4100:6B40:B9C1:A6C8:709C:456F (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]