Misplaced Pages

User talk:JG66: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:51, 20 March 2020 editKingboyk (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users57,425 edits →Hello there: I added the 2 missing people you mentioned← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:04, 8 July 2024 edit undoJohnCWiesenthal (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,144 edits →File:Cover of Maclen sheet music for "Back in the USSR".jpg listed for discussion: new sectionTag: New topic 
(363 intermediate revisions by 80 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Not around|3=January 2023}}
'''Hey kids. If you want to discuss a change I've made to an article, ''please use the article's talk page'', not this one, so that other editors get a chance to weigh in.'''


'''If it's more big-picture stuff (rather than specific edits), or if you want to be funny, or rude, then come on in ... <small>(Did you bring your guitar with you?)</small>'''
For all previous messages, please see talk archives for ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ].

For all previous messages, please see talk archives for ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ].


== Welcome == == Welcome ==
Line 17: Line 21:
* ] * ]


==Be well at Christmas== == Seeking input ==
Hi! Would love your thoughts on a ] over at ]. Please chime in, if you can. Thanks! — ] (]) 10:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 4px solid #FFD700;"
:{{u|The Keymaster}}, blimey, that's bizarre – I was literally ''just posting there'' when you posted here! ] (]) 10:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 2px;" | ]
::@{{u|JG66}} Ha, nice! Thanks for adding your two cents over there. I think we're pretty much on the same page with these issues. Although, given some of the responses there, I think I'm more confused about what to do than I was before! — ] (]) 23:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2px 2px 0 2px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear'''

|-
== ''The Beatles and the Historians'' ==
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" |

----
Beyond any of her individual conclusions, the book mostly works around the larger picture of how the literature has evolved over time. With that in mind, I think you should give it a read from front-to-back – it was actually pretty enjoyable too. Now is a great chance, since its price has come down to to ]37.85 on Amazon, CA$17.99 for the Kindle version (unfortunately for me, I got it from my local bookstore when it was still CA$66.99{{nbsp}}...).
'''Be well. Keep well. Have a lovely Christmas. ] (]) 18:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

|}
One point she makes is that Lewisohn's influence has pushed recent authors to include footnotes or endnotes to source their statements, whereas previous authors would include only a bibliography or nothing at all. The thing I'm hopeful for is that her book will prove influential on the Beatle books that haven't been written yet. She began it as a way to introduce her history students to historiography and historical method with a fresher topic than WWI or the French Revolution; I read both ''The Landscape of History'' by ] and '']'' by ] when I was studying some history, both of which Weber refers to, but I think her book serves as a much clearer introduction to the methods of source analysis. From the statements I've heard Robert Rodriguez make on his podcast, he seems to be fully onboard after reading it, but I have no idea if he has any plans to write any more books.
:Hi {{u|SilkTork}}, thank you for the kind message – very thoughtful of you. I hope you and yours go well also. ] (]) 14:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

As for her not having read and discussed every possible book, I think that was inevitable given how many have been written about the band, which I know you've alluded to before. Instead, she focused on some of the most influential, comparing the differences between three editions of ''Shout!'', three of ''Lennon: The Definitive Biography'' and four of ''The Beatles: The Authorised Biography''. She's covered others on her blog and in her more recent podcast.

One point Weber makes about Doggett is that, through no fault of his own, he is the only one to have written such an in-depth look into the breakup period, which means he looms large in all discussions of it. I sent her a request that she review Ken McNabb's book, ''And in the End: The Last Days of the Beatles'', and she told me she had it on request at her library, but it sounds like she's put things on hold for the moment because of her young kids. I know that she and Diana Erickson discussed Doggett in a yet unreleased podcast interview. The of their discussion, mostly covering the band's early years, was posted a year ago. I asked Diana in September when the second half would drop and she said in the next month, but it unfortunately still hasn't materialized. I'm excited for that one because, as you mentioned at the "Eleanor Rigby" talk page, Weber has mostly been positive in her mentions of Doggett, whereas Erickson, as one of Paul's biggest advocates (in case you aren't familiar, she loves ''Wild Life'', something even I can't do), has regularly critiqued Doggett's conclusions. Anyway, before this post spirals too far, I'll end things here. <span style="font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 1px 40px black">]]</span> 13:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

:{{u|Tkbrett}}: Hey, I'd very much like to read ETW's ''The Beatles and the Historians'' in full. I'm lucky enough to have been given so many Beatles books for free over the last few years. I think the last Beatles book I actually bought was ''The Cambridge Companion to ...'', late last year, having previously milked all I could from Amazon or Google previews. But if there's one more I'd get, it would be ''The Beatles and the Historians''.
:I hear you on ETW's historiographical approach and remember reading her references to those others books (mentions them both in the YouTube clip at "Eleanor Rigby", as I recall). I just also remember reading statements she makes in her book and thinking at the time, "Hang on, Erin, aren't you presenting that – that assumption as fact, saying what's 'correct' – in the very same way as those bad historians you've highlighted at the start ?"
:It's not about whether she's read and discussed every possible book on the Beatles, not at all. More about the ones that don't seem to receive a mention, and particularly ones that, from what I see, are generally viewed as almost go-to texts on the area being discussed, or at least are far better known than some of the ones she selects. I can't give examples, I'm afraid – I'm just recalling the overall impression I had, years ago, from when I read <small>(and screenshot )</small> a decent portion of the book. But like you, I do hope her work informs the approach other writers take in the future; in fact, I think it already has.
:With Doggett's ''Money'', have to say that reading it was akin to a ] for me. So gratifying at the time to read a text that explores McCartney's psyche, and not idly (through, say, weighing up his various statements on one particular issue from many interviews, over decades), because of McCartney's continuing popularity and extremely high profile, and the resulting influence his version of events has on our understanding of the Beatles story, certainly in the 21st century. The epiphany I'm alluding to is after I'd read years and years of interviews with McCartney, in ''Mojo'', ''Uncut'', perhaps ''Rolling Stone'', often tying in with Apple campaigns; and from that point of view, I think Doggett shows what is so often lacking in Beatles literature: respect for the reader's intelligence. At least: for anyone who read these interviews at the time and wondered why many music journalists, Beatles historians and biographers appeared to take a latter-day McCartney statement at face value, even if some of them do recognise a self-serving aspect in his general demeanour. This is what I meant by ETW taking what she wants from Doggett – holding him up as an authority (which he undoubtedly is), on one hand, yet then appearing to ignore things he writes that don't sit quite as snuggly with the narrative she presents. That's the way it felt to me, and there I was, looking for something eureka-ish from ''The Beatles and the Historians''; I thought I'd be right on the same page as her.
:I don't mean to zoom in on McCartney when discussing the Doggett book, btw, but he was always the PR Beatle, right? (Equally, I could be wrong about Doggett being in some way pioneering on this issue – influential, definitely. I hear ] wrote a very insightful biography on McCartney in 1986, so perhaps there's much of the same there.) Erin's comment about the legacy of ''Lennon Remembers'' really chimed with my reading of too many Beatles books – about how "fact" became determined by "which side spoke loudest and gave the most interviews". But does she then apply what you'd image would be due scrutiny to the influence of the ex-Beatle giving the most interviews through the 1990s and into the 21st century, and how his readiness to engage with a nostalgia-primed media might inform writers and shape the story? Obviously, I need to read the book in full. ] (]) 13:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

== Michelle (song) ==

Your action is wrong. If you want to complain about non-existent chart at that time, then the Kent Report didn't exist then, as were many if not most of the charts given there, and you could reasonably delete them, particularly if they are not sourced. You should take this up at the template talk page, and get it fixed. Why did you undo, for example, the Norwegian one if you want to keep the one in Beatles? Why don't you fix the Dutch one, which wasn't named such? So on and so on. Your action is just inconsistent and unreasonable. ] (]) 07:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

{{User QAIbox/auto|years=Two}}
== Precious anniversary ==
--] (]) 08:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

:Hey {{u|Gerda Arendt|Gerda}}. Thanks so much, and I hope you're well. Best, ] (]) 01:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

== Maxwell’s Silver Hammer and Rubber Soul ==


] didn’t even work at the July 9-11 sessions for “Maxwell’s Silver Hammer”, so he wouldn’t have known what went on that day. The balance engineer was Phil McDonald and the tape operator was John Kurlander, so Geoff didn’t work on those three days and that was why I deleted his recollections.
==Aftermath for GA==
In case , would you like to co-nominate the article for GA with me? ] (]) 21:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


Norman Smith didn’t know what he was talking about when he said that there was an artistic clash between John and Paul and Paul criticised George’s guitar playing - as I said before, none of the band have ever confirmed his claims or mentioned any discord.
:Hi {{u|Isento}}. Ah, I did wonder whether that was addressed to me ...! It's a very kind offer, and I enjoyed working on the article with you on and off last year. Not sure I'm up for full nom commitment (same reason I've not nominated anything for a couple of years now), but I know you'll do a great job on the article anyway. Perhaps your activity there will pique my interest.
] (]) 14:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
:One thing I remember leaving unfinished – in that it's an issue that appears to have informed the writing and recording of the album – is the arrival of ] in Brian Jones' life and the slow exit of ] from Jagger's. I'd always intended to cover that under Background; think I might have made mention of it in a comment accompanying one of my edits. The point that a couple of biographers make is that Pallenberg gave Jones the confidence to experiment musically and a sense of sophisticated cool, while her presence made Jagger view his relationship with Shrimpton as staid and spent – all of which comes out in the album's music and lyrics, of course. Perhaps that's oversimplifying the situation and/or a case of biographers looking for something significant in retrospect and milking it for all its worth, but I'm sure you get the drift. ] (]) 01:03, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


== Magical Mystery Tour Infobox ==
:: Happy new year, and thank you for the feedback :) I've expanded a bit about this from the Davis book and nominated the article. I look forward to the review, and potentially featured article nomination in the future. ] (]) 06:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


If you wanna say it looks bad, fine, completely up to you. But we need factual evidence that it's bad. If you know anything about the Beatles discography order, you would know that the US version always gets chosen because of it feeling more like a studio album with singles like Strawberry Fields, Penny Lane, etc. So I made that template with that info in mind and I suggest we keep it. I'm not changing history here. ] (]) 16:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
:::Hi {{u|Isento}}, no probs, and happy new year from me.
:::Blimey, that was quick work with the GA nom ... I was thinking of stopping by and perhaps adding something on the Anita–Chrissie situation, perhaps from the Bockris, Norman or Charone bios. I mean, maybe you've nailed it (I haven't looked yet) – in which case, fine. But would it be a problem to you if I did? If so, I completely understand; I know how the nom thing can get a touch stressful ... ] (]) 06:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
:::: Of course it wouldn't be a problem. Please do. Anything to improve the article. ] (]) 08:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
:::: Don't feel a rush or pressure to contribute or make improvements either. There is time. ], and ]. ] (]) 08:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::Nice one. Just skimmed through the article – it looks really good. Sections are long and the quotes and commentary come thick and fast, but that's fine; far as I can see, all the commentators' opinions and interpretation add something – it's all good info and combines to give a great picture of the album. Oh yes, I'd almost forgotten about the long, long wait that often ensues between nomination and review. ] (]) 13:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::: Great additions! ] (]) 22:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


== Album article style advice ==
{{u|Isento}}, I like what you've done at Musical style, pulling those various comments together. From working on Beatles articles for so long (where there is no end of commentary on each song), I guess I'm used to seeing each track given a dedicated paragraph separate from an overview of the LP's styles and lyrical themes. I'm finding, as I'm sure you are too, plenty of commentary on all the ''Aftermath'' tracks – in Davis, Guesdon & Margotin, Malvinni, Perone, Norman – but at the same time, there are some obvious filler tracks so we can probably live without the song-by-song rundown for GA. Just thought I'd mention it; not sure if that applies for FA also – you'd know far better than me. (Starting with '']'', though, I'd say each and every Stones track is significant and treated as such by commentators, which would make the detailed coverage at, say, ''Sgt. Pepper'' appropriate. Anyway, with the Stones' releases up to late '67, there's the issue that there is no "correct" version of an album; the US configurations were not swept away by international standardisation for CD, and American writers still appear to view ''Aftermath'' in the configuration first released by London Records.)


There are already several primary sources and third-party sources that list entire personnel sections. Per ], a personnel section should only be included if an external link doesn't already provide one. Similar to ].
My recent change to tense for introducing Jagger's lyric to Out of Time got me thinking: I've probably been introducing inconsistency regarding commentators' views, in that I see them as living on in the present (just as Jagger "sings", because the work lives on; whereas if we're talking about the vocal session for Out of Time, Jagger ''sang'' it). To me, the past tense in instances such as "Jagger ... was said by Margotin and Guesdon" and "Ian MacDonald said that like ''Between the Buttons''" jars somewhat because these actions are presented in the same contemporal context as that of the album's creation in the mid 1960s. In some cases – not necessarily at ''Aftermath'' right now, but generally speaking – it is possible to read mention of a journalist having said or written something as an event that took place side by side with the description of the album's creation. If a year is inserted ("Writing in 2002, Ian MacDonald said ..."), then no problem, obviously. But I'd be tempted to go with present tense as much as possible ("According to music critic Ian MacDonald ...", "Tom Moon likens it ... but adds ...").


Do you disagree? ] (]) 20:49, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Put another way, when discussing particulars of a song or album, we'd still say the vocalist sings (even though they sang it decades ago, and may be dead now), so in the same way, I think each critic, musicologist and other commentator says/states/writes/considers. I'll leave the decision with you, of course, but FWIW, this is an approach I've followed for years and seen others adhere to also. ] (]) 06:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


:That honestly goes for track listings too. ] (]) 20:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
: I agree with you, to have the commentary or description of songs in the analytical sections as present tense; those writers are being cited as existing literature, whereas a section on reviews is documenting reviews as events of the past. ] (]) 09:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
: I like your recent revisions, too. I would suggest, however, that the note about "Under My Thumb" (nb3) be incorporated into the text, somewhere in the third paragraph about Jones' role in shaping the album's tone. It seems like a significant item to the writing and recording. ] (]) 09:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
: Great work overall! The sections have more shape and sense to them in light of your additions and rearrangements of certain text. ] (]) 09:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


:I'm not sure I do agree. But you should raise the issue at ] and gain consensus for the addition. Also post notification at ] to make sure as many editors as possible get to weigh in if they wish to. Thanks, ] (]) 22:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
::Glad you're okay with the present-tense thing. As far as the note about "Thumb" goes, as with anything else I'm adding, feel free to rework, move or ditch entirely – that's understood, you've probably got a better feel for the article as a whole.
::One thing I still hope to address is the dynamics between Jones, Jagger, Richards and Oldham, outside of the issue regarding female companions. Part of this appears under Writing & recording already, but I'm thinking it's a point for the Background section. It relates to the idea that Jones was the most adventurous Stone, the one first embraced by the London arts scene and the one who epitomised Swinging London fashion and image, just as he was the one with the New York arty connections and the closest to Dylan and the Beatles. Pallenberg furthers this, because they become Europe's Golden Couple (Salewicz's phrase, I think). Added to this point, the Stones have ended 1965 with enormous commercial success for their singles, attracting ]'s representation, and they've suddenly got money to burn in early '66. So that attitude informs ''Aftermath''. And, to link with the Stones-women point, it also brings out in Jagger a sense of entitlement: he wants a companion commensurate with his elevated social standing, the sister of a ] was no longer sufficient (he wanted ], apparently). Meantime, it bugs him and Oldham no end that Jones so effortlessly commands attention from the press and the Chelsea arts scene.
::So, something like that ... Not that I'm volunteering for the task elsewhere, but I can see (because biographers go on about it so much) that this sort of power play is behind every Stones album at least until the late '90s. ] (]) 14:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


== Cleanup banner ==
My life is taking a turn for uncertainty now. I may be homeless for some time, on the road, and unlikely to access a computer to continue working on this in the foreseeable future. I am leaving it up to you to continue the nomination or remove the nomination template and leave it for someone else or for the future, if I come back. Hopefully I do, but either way, take care. ] (]) 22:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


Hi JG66
:Oh boy, I'm very sorry to hear that. I'll do my best with the nomination, but if the review comes too soon or is too taxing, I may just have to throw it back. I'm much more concerned on the human front: I sincerely hope things work out for you, and soon. If that means you're back here on Misplaced Pages, then even better. Best of luck, stay strong. ] (]) 00:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
:: Hey, I'm back for now. Brilliant work in the mean time. ] (]) 04:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
:::{{u|Isento}}, I'm so pleaded to hear it – sounded a bit scary, your previous message.
:::Also relieved from the point of view of progress on the article. Still trying to get that Background section to serve its purpose, eg it's tempting to introduce ] there, since several commentators highlight ''Aftermath'' as a document of that scene ... ] (]) 04:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


Instead of removing the {{tl|Cleanup Bare URLs}} banner, why not take a moment to fix the problem by filling the ref?
== ] ==


] is a core policy, and ]s are unhelpful to readers and are vulnerable to ]. I ahve been working full-time for over a year on filling bare URLs using a variety of tools, and the total number of articles with bare URls has fallen by over 80%. That is why I am now tagging some of the remainder, after first running @{{u|Citation bot}} over them at least 7 times, to draw the attention of other editors to some of the remainder.
Sorry, my memory isn't what it used to be :P Again thanx for the heads up. - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">] <small>(])</small></span> 03:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
:{{u|FlightTime}}: Very good of you, big thanks. Have a nice day. ] (]) 03:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


Unfortunately, some of the ref-filing tools do not support the {{tl|Bare URL inline}} tag, so I apply it only to URLs which I know from testing cannot be filled by ]. The others get the {{tl|Cleanup Bare URLs}} banner. ] <small>] • (])</small> 08:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
==RE: CS1 discussion==
Since you mentioned you found "cite organization" a possibly good template, ] and I have started a ] on creating it, if this is something with which you might be able to help, or know a coding editor who can. With thanks, --] (]) 10:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


== Kruppa & Womack's ''All Things Must Pass'' book ==
==Disambiguation link notification for February 1==


Hey JG66, hope all is well. I'm sorry I didn't respond to that post above some six months ago – I still have thoughts to share but things seemed to get away from me. Anyway, I was wondering if you were aware of Jason Kruppa and Kenneth Womack's new book '''' (2021)? While I've mostly found Womack's earlier books rehash previously discovered material, it seems he's been moving towards doing research of his own. I thought some of this new stuff sounded like it would be helpful to you.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (&nbsp;|&nbsp;).


Womack is currently writing a biography on Mal Evans and has been reading personal journals for the book. Apparently Mal was the one in charge of paying all the session players on ''All Things Must Pass'' and so his journals have detailed personnel listings. I learned about it in a of Jason Kruppa's podcast ''Producing the Beatles''.
(].) --] (]) 15:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
==Orphaned non-free image File:&#34;I Don&#39;t Want to Spoil the Party&#34; UK sheet music cover.jpg==
] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]).


I noticed that some of the listings Womack provided from the journals diverged from the sources used in some of your GAs. For example, he mentions that on "Wah-Wah", ] plays congas and Mal plays maracas (heard at 17:50 in the episode). On "My Sweet Lord", he says Bobby Whitlock was the one playing harmonium and that it wasn't Mike Gibbins playing tambourine but instead Alan White. Those are the ones they mention in the episode. I presume there's more info in the book.
Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --] (]) 18:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


Cheers. <span style="font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 1px 40px black">]]</span> 12:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
== Final Reply - Agreed Lennon & McCartney - No further talk / Redact ==


:Hi {{u|Tkbrett}}, nice to hear from you. Yes, I'm sure that book will be useful, and in fact there's no end of info to continue adding to the album and song articles from the ATMP 50 scrapbook and liner notes. Bit stuck for time right now – will try to write more in the next day or so. ] (]) 16:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Apologies for posting on your page, I don’t see any other way to respond to messages. I responded on that “Ob-La-Di ...” Talk page but have no clue if that was read. Your message about no further talk is fine.
Now that I know the appropriate forum I‘ll post it there.
This weekend I’ll read that “Redacting” info and redact all angry, sardonic, “shouty” or negative posts. I already changed some.
I simply request that you do the same and redact that comment about “blathering” or any similarly negative posts.
Please simply reply that you’ll also redact any negative posts.
I won’t contact you after that.
Thanks. ] (]) 19:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
:I've replied on the article talk page. ] (]) 02:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


== Check out Pablo Honey, The Bends, and Kid A ==
Apologies again for replying on your personal Talk page as opposed to the original Talk page, but once again, that doesn’t seem to work for me. This is my final post to you, so just delete it.


If you think that the simple track listing format should be used, check out Pablo Honey, The Bends, and the Kid A articles. They all use the same track listing template I was trying to revert to on OK Computer. ] (]) 20:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
All I wanted to say is that I will “Close” that Lennon & McCartney credit discussion on the “Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da” Talk page, and introduce the topic on the appropriate page which you kindly pointed me to.


JG66, when you deleted the changes I made, you indicated I had not explained why I was removing "sourced material". I already explained why I removed it in previous posts. I removed it because the "sourced material" was inaccurate. The information you referenced is based on incorrect information that has been superseded by liner notes from the Beatles album in question. The liner notes indicate that McCartney played bass on "She Said She Said". If that isn't sufficient for you, I suggest purchasing the record and seeing for yourself. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
I read your comments as well as one by SundayClose, but I never get a “Reply” text-box whereby I can respond.


== ''Revolver'' Deluxe ==
I responded via editing the raw HTML and made each of your usernames hyperlinks, but even that didn’t seem to work.


Hi JG66 - just curious to know as a Beatles fan, what do you think of the new version of the album? ] (]) 15:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I read that “Redacting” info and my understanding is that once a discussion has been replied to, it can’t be “Redacted”, so the next best thing is simply to “Close” it. It doesn’t belong on that page anyway, as you’ve pointed out.
:Hi {{u|Richard3120|Richard}}, always nice to hear from you. I confess I've not yet heard anything from the new release – not the remix nor the outtakes. Which is odd, I guess, because ''Revolver'' is probably my favourite album of all time. Didn't bother with any of the other 50th anniversary Beatles reissues either. (I only made an exception for Harrison's ''All Things Must Pass'', but that was as much about timing as anything else – severe lockdown/lifestyle blues in Sydney.) Have you heard it? Any good? ] (]) 03:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
::Tag in! You're kidding! I enjoyed the remix, I think some tracks have some a lot better but others not so much. Like the White Album deluxe I think this reissue really benefits from the bonus tracks. Hearing the initial versions of "LYT" and "GTGYIML" were definitely eye opening. Check it out when you can, I think it's worth it. Sidebar: What it has brought for us here on WP however is the slew of people coming here saying Paul played bass on "]". Ugh. – ''']''' <sub>(]) (])</sub> 18:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
:::If you want a sample, try "". I think it shows what most of the remix was all about: boosting the low end and giving a nice stereo picture. Sometimes they go a bit far with boosting the bass and drums (""), but I think it mostly sounds alright. On "", you can hear a bit more guitar noodling – by making it so you can hear each constituent part, I think that one unfortunately feels a little less cohesive than the original. "" sounds nice though by not having everything panned to one side. <span style="font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 1px 40px black">]]</span> 18:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
::::One thing I think we can all agree on is Paul really was a masterful bass player, the new mixes of "Taxman" and "I'm Only Sleeping" showcasing that. – ''']''' <sub>(]) (])</sub> 19:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::Just wanna insert myself to see I completely agree about the She Said remix. I think it's dreadful and defanged, remixed as though the intention was to turn it into Good Day Sunshine, but we already have Good Day Sunshine! I'm not really keen on those sort of liberties being taken (cf. numerous things throughout the White Album remix, like the removal of 'pleh' or the smothering of the Long, Long, Long acoustic guitar). Anyway, that's enough moaning from me. The complete set is very nice. As you were. --] (]) 20:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
{{od}}
My favourite Beatles album as well. I thought this might get opinions from other editors, and it's from the ones I expected! In general I really like the new mix – I don't think Giles Martin has taken too many liberties, it's more about getting a better balance of the EQs and getting rid of those early stereo effects that liked to put the instrumentation on one speaker and the vocals on the other, which many fans hated and preferred the mono mixes as a result. For instance, the original version of "Taxman" had the drums, bass and guitar all on the left channel, and the right just for Starr's percussion, which sounded totally unbalanced. Now the main instruments are more centred, but the guitar is separated from the rhythm section, which to my ears makes the whole thing crisper and with a bit more punch to it. On "Eleanor Rigby" you had the strings in the centre and McCartney's vocal off the the right, only moving to the left for the double-tracked chorus, which made the vocals in the chorus seem much louder than in the verse. Now the vocals are in the centre, and the two string quartets have been split, one each on the left and right speaker, which makes much more sense, and makes it easier to hear each individual string instrument in the quartet. My favourite is the new mix of "For No One" – I always thought the keyboards were far too low in the original mix and almost drowned out by Starr's tambourine, while McCartney's vocal almost sounded a cappella and disassociated from the rest of the song. The new mix splits the piano and clavichord into different channels and balances everything out better, in my opinion... you can hear this in the instrumental version of the song in the extras, where everything just seems to swing. I do understand the complaints about "She Said She Said"... in general, the McCartney songs seem to have benefitted far more than the Lennon songs, where Lennon's vocals appear to have been mixed higher up and had a bit more processing. The stereo mixes of "Paperback Writer" and "Rain" were a waste of time, though – they add nothing to the originals and given the obvious garage rock influences of both songs, they were fine in scuzzy mono. ] (]) 20:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


:I acquired the mono CD boxset probably 5 years ago at this point so I haven't heard the stereo mixed of PPM to Pepper probably since that time, although I still recall how shitty the ''Revolver'' stereo mix was, like you said. One thing I can't grasp is why Giles made a quicker fadeout on "Got to Get You into My Life". Both the stereo and mono mixes had different fadeouts but the 2022 mix seems to remove those entirely for some reason. I wonder if the new book mentions why he did that... and I do miss the extra guitar thrash heard on the "I'm Only Sleeping" mono mix... – ''']''' <sub>(]) (])</sub> 00:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
And FYI, my “shouty” and angry comments every time my edit was reverted were the result of me not seeing the reason it was repeatedly reverted - I didn’t see those posts until later, and the first thing I saw was “blathering”.


Hi all (if anyone's still watching). Sorry, didn't mean to ignore comments here, just had some time away from Misplaced Pages ... But no, I still haven't anything from the new ''Revolver''(!). ] (]) 02:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
I’m aware of Wiki’s “3rd party source” policy but I became very frustrated because if the copyright isn’t a legitimate 3rd party source, then I don’t know what is. But I won’t get into that here. I’m just letting you know that no offense was intended.


==Need advice on reissues with bonus tracks==
I did respond on that Talk page, saying essentially what I said here, with a bit more detail, which you can read or not, up to you.
Hey there. I know we have talked before about the issue of bonus tracks and alternate track listings. I read the long discussion about it from a while back and the consensus achieved here seems to suggest that bonus track listings are generally unnecessary, and that mentioning them in the prose should suffice. A user has continually removed sourced information on reissues from the Oingo Boingo album pages, stating it's best to just list the bonus tracks in the track listing, when that seems to be the exact opposite of what is stated in the MOS. (Personally, I think he wants this info removed because of a personal beef he had with the head of the label on a prominent music forum.) So I guess my question is should I reinstate the reissue info and remove bonus tracks from the track listing? Or is any of this information even necessary to add to those pages? Look forward to hearing your thoughts.
—] (]) 07:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


== ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message ==
Peace ] (]) 04:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
==Orphaned non-free image File:George Harrison US single face label, Circles, 1983.jpg==
] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]).


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --] (]) 03:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px;">]</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2022|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
== Help Request ==


If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)</small>
Dear JG66
I have just reached out to User:Martinevans123 because I received help from both of you in the past. This time I came to the support of two other Editors and have now become embroiled!!
If you have time and can be bothered I really would like your help on an ongoing Dispute resolution Noticeboard. I realise this album may not be on your playlist but I am hoping for common sense. I noticed that user: 197.87.101.28 had added nonsense and had also had it removed by an Editor, User: isaacsorry a '30 million copies' claim. It was removed once again, this time by User: 88marcus. It was put back in again!! And then I stepped in and supported User:88Marcus by removing it myself and giving reason on the talk page for this nonsense. We really need some senior level intrusion here, and if you can read the dialogue you will see what I mean. The citations are simply statements of "30 million sales" there is nothing to back it up and certainly nothing on any 'best selling album of all-time lists'. Your experience and help would be much appreciated as the previous Arbitrator has now stepped out. Here is the link https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&action=edit&section=69https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&action=edit&section=69
kind regards to you] (]) 10:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
:Hi there. I've just posted something at DRN. ] (]) 12:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
::Not sure if Martin got your message. Pinging {{u|Martinevans123|here}}. ] (]) 13:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
:::I got a ping thanks, but had not read the detail. Will try and take a look. ] (]) 13:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
::::p.s. have had a quick look. I am far from a expert on record sales. I'd be interested to see what a real popular music expert like ] would have to say. ] (]) 14:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
:Procedural note. The DRN thread discussed here was archived to ]. --] (]) 06:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


</div>
== A barnstar for you! ==
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2022/Coordination/MM/04&oldid=1124425184 -->


== Trying to reach consensus ==
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
Would love your thoughts on ] concerning track numbering for LPs!
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
—] (]) 07:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Teamwork Barnstar'''
==Orphaned non-free image File:Material World Charitable Foundation logo.jpg==
|-
] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]).
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thanks to your brilliant work, ] is now a featured article. It's been great working with you recently. Hope all's well. ] (]) 15:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
|}
:{{u|isento}}, big thanks, and ditto from me. Great job in pulling the article together (perhaps your example will inspire me to pull my finger out and get back on the nomination trail sometime soon ...).
:I did get the feeling, from occasionally seeing your edits to the lead, particularly, that we might be "bigging up" the album unduly. ''Aftermath'' was a major leap for the Stones, and it was one of the incremental steps towards rock/pop's cultural validation, but it wasn't up at the level of, say, ''Pet Sounds'', ''Revolver'' and ''Blonde on Blonde'' in most critics' and music historians' view, partly because the Stones went on to make ''Beggars Banquet'', ''Let It Bleed'', etc. Again, it's only a feeling on my part, and I've yet to re-read the article in any depth anyway. I guess it's about the contradictory picture one gets from music journalists writing a review or a feature on an album decades later vs how music historians, who (one hopes) aren't out to laud any work in particular, locate that album in a more sobre analysis. Just thought I'd flag it with you now – could be I'm worrying about nothing. Certainly don't want to take anything away from the result nor your gesture here! ] (]) 04:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
::Impartial observer here who dropped by on Beatles business. I personally think the first great Stones album was ''Satanic Majesties'', but that's an insane-minority view :) It's probably not a minority view that ''Beggars Banquet'' was when they fully came of age and started making truly great albums (and then there's Sticky Fingers, Exile, Some Girls, etc) Anyway, my rating is besides the point, but let's talk about the article - and congrats on the FA:
::I haven't read the article in full, but the lead statement "among the most acclaimed records in history, consistently ranking on critics' lists of the greatest albums" makes me slightly uneasy. It all depends how you define "most acclaimed". The article says the album placed 109 in the Rolling Stone list and 98 at Pitchfork, and is ranked 150 according to the review aggregater ]. To me, "among the most acclaimed records in history" would mean it was consistently ranked in the top 10 or at my most generous, the top 50. 150 really doesn't cut it. I'd expect an album which is "among the most acclaimed" to be discussed in the same breath as ''Revolver'' or ''Blood on the Tracks'', and frankly it isn't; the article itself claims the album is merely "the most important of the Stones' early, formative music". Personally, I would tone down the claims in the lead a little. --] (]) 03:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
::{{ping|isento}} Ping, in case you're not watching this page. --] (]) 05:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
:::{{u|kingboyk}}: There's nothing I like more than original thinking in life, as opposed to simply following the crowd, and especially here on my talk page. But wow, ''Satanic Majesties'' ...?! <small>(Mind you – whisper it – I'd put ''Beatles for Sale'' way above ''Sgt Pepper'' and ''Abbey Road'', so what do I know?)</small>
:::I agree one would expect to see a consistent ranking within critics' top 10s (I'd stretch to top 20 or 30) to justify ''Aftermath'' being "among the most acclaimed records in history". And that number 98 at ''Pitchfork'' is only a ranking of the best albums from the 1960s, btw. When helping to expand the section that became ], I noticed that ''Aftermath'' did not appear at all in the original (1978) edition of '']''. I appreciate that every "best" list carries a major surprise or two, often on the whim of the publication's editor and to make a statement. But to me, that was a notable (and puzzling) omission, because the book's contributors were top-flight critics from the UK, US and Germany. ] (]) 06:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> ] (]) 23:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
:::: Hi. I appreciate your opinions, but the sources cited and summarized in the article do support those summaries. The claim that it is the Stones' most important/formative album is also directly supported in ]. It actually is discussed in the same breath as such albums in that section -- even one of the few dissenting views cited (Rob Young from ''Uncut'') acknowledges the existence of such a reputation. As far as ]'s tabulation, , it had been listed as the 125th most acclaimed album. And now, it has moved down 25 spots to 150th, after seven years and, very likely, , not to mention the trillions that had existed before -- which may explain why those greatest albums lists usually have hundreds listed, sometimes a thousand. Give this context -- the infinite amount of albums in record music's history, and the select hundreds that have consistently appeared on professionally curated lists, and the supporting text from expert sources -- I believe the claim stands. ] (]) 06:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
::::: As explained in their essay, ''Pitchfork'' demerits the album for content it disregards as "misogynistic". Which is not surprising, given their target audience and today's political climate. It is actually impressive the album even made their list's top 100. ] (]) 06:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
::::::: However, if the article is missing music-historian commentary on ''Aftermath''{{'}}s standing with those contemporaneous works, that as you say deems it not on-par, I would be glad to see it incorporated in the article. Then of course, it would diminish the summarizing claim. ] (]) 06:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
:::::As I said, it does very much depend on how one defines "most acclaimed" and essentially that means at what 'number' being most acclaimed stops at. For me, it's in the range 10-50. I take your point that there have hundreds of thousands of albums, and can see how you would conclude that an album which (for the sake of argument) is the 150th best according to reviewers is amongst the most acclaimed. Also, I do now see that you have some quotations and citations in "Legacy and reappraisal" which attribute importance, so that's cool.
:::::I'll leave it there for now as I'm getting a bit too tired to form a coherent argument :) and I was merely agreeing with JG66's concern that the importance might be ''slightly'' overstated; you've been through FA review and that's good enough for me.
:::::BTW, Q Magazine writers ranked the 100 Best British albums in 2000 (reposted by ), and Aftermath wasn't listed. It wasn't in NME's 1993 . Of course, taken individually these lists mean very little. --] (]) 06:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
::::::I still think its standing is being inflated. {{u|Isento}}, I take your point that further music historian commentary would be welcome, which would then affect the picture given in summary in the lead, but the point I'm making refers to the album's ''omission'' from such analysis (which, by definition, is impossible to bring to the article). When working on the section(s) we're talking about, I felt sure a book like Carys Wyn Jones' would be useful; it summarises critical opinion for many of the genre's major works rather than simply reflecting the author's opinion (as books by, say, James Perone do). In fact, I found nothing there, and from searching the preview, it seems ''Aftermath'' doesn't even merit a single mention. To my way of thinking, when it comes to the lead we should be considering these omissions, from books about "classic" rock albums and important critics' lists, as much as the statements that do locate ''Aftermath'' among rarefied company.
::::::The lead's final sentence currently states that it's "among the most acclaimed records in history, consistently ranking on critics' lists of the greatest albums". I suggest that rather than allowing a subjective viewpoint (any of ours) to dictate what counts as being "among the most acclaimed", we substitute with the number 150 all-time ranking at Acclaimed Music, and also change "consistently" to "frequently", because no source supports the claim that it consistently appears on these lists. In fact – and this was what got me looking in books like Wyn Jones' ''Rock Canon'' – the only source we have to support that ''Aftermath'' appears on so many lists is the album's page at Acclaimed. I think there'd be no shortage of sources (outside album reviews and features on the artists) that say ''Blonde on Blonde'', ''Pet Sounds'', ''Revolver'', ''Rubber Soul'', ''Sgt. Pepper'', the White Album, ''Beggars Banquet'', ''Exile'', ''Astral Weeks'', etc. regularly appear towards the top of critics' lists of the best albums of all time – indeed, I know this for a fact, from reading books such as ''The Rock Canon'' that are built around this point. But I've not read any such statement about ''Aftermath'' from the same type of source, which is why it strikes me as out of place in the lead. ] (]) 13:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
:::::::{{u|isento}}: Big thanks for your . I think the wording's far more accurate, without taking anything away from the album's impact and significance. ] (]) 01:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
::::::::Much better; as per JG66 the lead still make it clear that the album is important and acclaimed, whilst no longer containing any ammunition for pedants like me :). Good edit; thanks from me too. --] (]) 01:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
::While I'm here, is ] (which is cited in the ''Aftermath'' article) considered a reliable source for ratings? (it appears to be an opinion poll, but one put together by a well-known and respected music journalist). If it is considered reliable and if either of you have a copy of it, would you mind having a look and telling me if The KLF's ''White Room'' and/or ''Chill Out'' are placed and if so at what positions and in which edition? --] (]) 07:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
:::{{u|kingboyk}}, I don't have a copy of it, I'm afraid. I think I'm right in saying that Acclaimed Music ignores the rankings completely, for what it's worth (by that I mean, we've never been able to establish Acclaimed as a reliable source here, despite its continued appearance in GAs and FAs). I have read that the respondents included critics – it's in one of the sources cited at the ] article, from memory.
:::Last year someone went all out in adding mention of the various Larkin ''All Time'' rankings in album articles across the encyclopedia, caused a bit of a stir. I supported the inclusion, partly to ensure a UK voice in the face of the almost ubiquitous presence of an album's ranking on ''Rolling Stone''{{'}}s best albums list (and no one else's), also because the book features quite heavily in the Carys Wyn Jones book mentioned above. Wyn Jones cites and lists each of the three ''All Time'' editions' top rankings in the same company as the top albums in lists by ''Rolling Stone'', the ''NME'', ''The Observer'', ''Q'', ''Mojo'', Gambaccini's ''Critics' Choice'', ''Time Out'' and VH1. (That is, refers to the lists throughout her book when discussing the most "canonical" rock albums, and then lists the top albums in each poll in one of the book's appendixes – if you're able to get much of a preview in the google books link.) So I support it, although that's on the understanding that music critics have taken part. But yes, it does appear to have been compiled from listeners' opinions for the main part. ] (]) 13:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
::::That's all very interesting, thanks. Whilst I'm sure I'd find much to enjoy in ''The Rock Canon'' it won't help me with KLF articles as they weren't a rock band :) <nowiki>]]. --] (]) 02:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


== The Beatles' Story == == "The English rock band" or "English rock band"? ==


Hey JG. I noticed in all the articles you have written, you introduce the Beatles with a definite article, like this: "'''The''' English rock band the Beatles". I have seen articles where editors simply drop it though and write: "English rock band the Beatles". I have looked around in style guides but I am not sure exactly where to find this sort of distinction. I'm guessing it may be an American versus British thing. Little help? Cheers. <span style="font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 1px 40px black">]]</span> 12:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
At ], just because you don't care about TYPE in the infobox, that doesn't mean nobody else does. See ]. ---<span style="font-family: Calibri">] (]&#124;])</span> 00:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


== Hello there == == Helter re-Skeltered ==


] is back into shape, I think. You might want to take a look, see what you think.] (]) 03:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Gosh, you've been busy. Congrats on all the GAs!


== Precious anniversary ==
Do you have any idea or opinion about why the Beatles template includes articles like ] (nice article) and ] (?!), and yet does not have room for ], ], ], ] or ]? I mean, without Mr Epstein we'd probably not be having this discussion.
{{User QAIbox/auto|years=Three}}
--] (]) 05:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


== New name! ==
I attempted to re-add the inner circle but was by user {{noping|ILIL}}. I have left my thoughts on the reversion ].


Hello, Hope you are doing great! You've known me as Garagepunk66, but I just got a name change. I'll now be going by the name GloryRoad66 (GR66 for short). I tried to get GP66, but they wouldn't let me--they said it sounds too much like another editor's name. Good luck! ] (]) 07:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
I do not consider this canvassing, as for all I know you may agree with the reversion; it's just that you're one of the few folks still around that I know from the early days of ].
::By the way, check out the ] article! ] (]) 07:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


== Robert Dylan or Bob Dylan? ==
If you choose to reply and do so here, please ping me. I have the template and template talk watchlisted. --] (]) 03:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
:Seems my memory is playing tricks on me as you've only been around since 2012? That's odd. I must have seen your name in Beatle related places so frequently in recent times that I misremembered it as you being around when Lar and I set up the project in 2006 :/ --] (]) 03:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


Hi JG66, A discussion is taking place here:
::Hi {{u|kingboyk}} and thanks for your words of encouragement. I must get back on the GA trail – there should be at least 20 articles I've got up to standard over the last couple of years but just haven't summoned the final 2 per cent of effort to polish up for nomination. I've never gone down the FAC route, actually. I don't really see the point: the Beatles are so well known, and I imagine their articles get plenty of traffic without the need for signposting on Misplaced Pages's main page. (Also, over my first couple of years here, 2012–14, I saw Beatles articles making FA and I wasn't too impressed with the nominating editor – the process became all about them, with subject and content taking second place. So I wasn't too impressed with FAC either, as a result.)
::Talking about editors I don't like – and there really are only a very few over my entire time editing here(!) – I wouldn't pay any attention to what ILIL thinks. I've never found he possesses the competency to support his position on anything, nor the ability to work with other editors. There was a separate navbox for people associated with the Beatles until a few years ago. That was deleted. But I agree with you – of course the likes of Epstein (especially Epstein), Aspinall, Evans, Martin, etc. should be included in the band's main navbox. Derek Taylor and Peter Brown also, I should think. I'll add my support at the template talk page.
::Cheers, ... oh, and thanks for your role in starting the project. ] (]) 04:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
:::: I've added the 2 people you mentioned to {{tl|The Beatles}} as I agree with the suggestion; I had merely overlooked them. I'm not going to fight any reversion, however. Perhaps it might be worth splitting 'people' into "Management" and "Production" subsections somewhat like the 2007 version of the template, which ''might'' discourage editors from adding peripheral characters. The other option of course is simply to monitor the template and undo any dubious additions. I'm afraid I can devote no more time to it, as I have KLF-articles and real-life business to attend to. This ought to be the last communication from me, at least on the topics currently under discussion. I apologise for taking up so much of your time. If you ever need anything feel free to ping me or drop me a line on my talk page. --] (]) 03:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
:::Ah. I wasn't aware of any personal dispute; now this really looks live canvassing! I must therefore tread carefully. The best bet I think will be if I post at ] which might get more eyes on the issue than a post on the template talk page. The template only has 50 watchers (seems extraordinarily low to me!), whereas the WikiProject has 128.
:::I could ramble on about the GA and FA processes for hours - and will, so you might want to skip the history lesson and go direct to my question in the last paragraph! :) Besides the Beatles WikiProject, I set up a micro-project ] to cover the works of the British band/artists ]. It was really just a 2-man project, plus a 3rd editor who'd laid the foundations on many articles and set up a transcription library website which proved invaluable for research. We achieved approximately 19 GAs and 4 FAs (5 if one includes the closely related band ]).
:::My main writing partner left disillusioned. I forget why. but it might have been because album cover scans were being removed zealously, or because of some of the other irritating things which happen here. I semi-retired in early 2008 for similar reasons and because I got a new time-consuming job, but came back last year (whether I am back permanently or not remains to be seen).
:::So, our flagship article, ]. "The KLF was named best article in the Humanities & Culture class at Wikimania 2006" - but '''nobody told us''' (I found out accidentally). The nominator, who had nothing to do with the article, even won a prize! I didn't want any prize and turned down the later offer of a T-shirt or something; I just found the process incredible. The article became an FA in 2006, was on the front page in 2007... and in 2009, it was decided it's not good enough to be an FA any more. Hero to zero in 3 years. Quite infuriating, and it does make one wonder whether it's worth the time and effort to go through FAC. Meanwhile, the artists concerned have written ''about the article'' (positively), and it's been ripped off by hundreds or thousands of journalists, authors and websites. I often think we should have written a book instead.
:::I don't remember FAC being unfriendly or excessively fussy in those days. Perhaps it was too lax then and that's why we got delisted (our other FAs do still hold the status, however).
:::Being an FA doesn't guarantee a front page appearance (one of our FAs was proposed for a front page appearance after my semi-retirement, and was turned down because it contains a very rude word in the title); FA denotes the article as peer-reviewed, professional quality and one of Misplaced Pages's best articles. As an editor all you get, really, is bragging rights/a userbox and the ''possibility'' of a front page appearance. I found some personal satisfaction from achieving FAs, and it is a great boon to a WikiProject to get an article promoted, but if you think it's not worth the bother and/or disagree with elements of the process I respect that and have sympathy for the view. Looking at some of the FACs and FARs, I too am somewhat reluctant/hesitant to get involved as it seems rather combative and I fear having my work ripped to shreds. My heart keeps telling me "take The KLF back to FA status!" and then the head says "no!!!!!" :)
:::The big change I have observed since my return is with regards to GAs. I remember the GA process as being a step up from B class, and it was fun to participate in and very casual. Now it seems to be FA-minus, and there's a massive queue for reviews. If I had a very high quality article ready for review, I'd seriously consider skipping GA now and go straight to FA (or not bother with either:)).
:::One Beatles-related article I'd always hoped would get some love and maybe rise to GA or FA is ]. Is that article on your radar for future work? --] (]) 05:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
::::{{u|kingboyk}}: Quick reply, just on your opening point here (I'm still responding on the ''Aftermath'' issue above). No, it's not canvassing – there's no RfC underway after all. It was probably not helpful of me to add my opinion of the editor; it wasn't a case of getting personal for the sake of getting personal, it was to say that almost all editors add something constructive to the project, but one or two do not and have a reputation for being disruptive and/or inconsiderate. However you choose to go about it, I'm confident you'll find the majority of editors agreeing that Brian Epstein and George Martin, and possibly those others, should be included in the template. ] (]) 06:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
::Missed something: I think the inclusion of Apple scruffs is fine, and more is needed in that article to support the scruffs' notability. Can't for the life of me work out what The Scotch of St. James is doing in the template. More deserving (although I'm not suggesting we add it) would be ], because that was a '60s club that at least had some direct involvement from a Beatle. ] (]) 04:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
:::Actually I didn't mean to imply that Apple scruffs should not be on the template (despite calling it "fluff" :)). I find that story rather cute, and George was sufficiently moved by their dedication to write a song about them. They're part of the Beatles and Apple story. I was merely juxtaposing their importance relative to the inner circle who are absent. As for "The Scotch of St. James" - I had to look it up. Beats me. (I then had to double check it wasn't me who put it there in the first place ;) but ). Thanks for the responses and for reading this far, if you got this far. --] (]) 05:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
::::The talk about the Apple scruffs led me to reading ]. I love that song but had no idea it is critically acclaimed and received lots of airplay. You should imho have this article on your GA candidates list.
::::From there I've found myself reading a number of articles, many of which I'm sure are your work. I learnt a lot in ] (and I thought I knew most things there are know about the Beatles). Some of the material I read made me quite emotional (I miss George; I share many of his passions besides loving his music - Bob Dylan, Asia, Formula 1... In fact, I was in the Far East when he died; I was in Kuala Lumpur, and the little "Reggae Bar" I hung out in played his live album as a tribute. It was nice to be amongst music lovers on that sad day). If these articles are fair indicators, and I believe they are, your work is '''exceptional''' (a further message will follow with regards to this observation). --] (]) 01:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Bob_Dylan#Listing_legal_name_first
== cquote ==


] (]) 11:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits to ], which I am still reviewing.


== ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message ==
I now understand why {{tl|cquote}} disappeared from that and other articles during my semi-retirement!


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
Personally, I ''like'' the quote markers, but there's no point trying to argue against the guardians of the MOS, particularly with an argument as weak as "but I like it!" :) It also looks like the merits of the template and the style guidelines have been discussed to death at ] already.
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">]</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Again, thanks for the enlightenment. --] (]) 22:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
:To answer your other question "why so many , why not use commas occasionally, esp in shorter sentences?": Maybe I don't like commas?
:Don't worry; the article is nowhere near going to any quality review process, and if it does I'll call in some copy-editing help beforehand. I am aware, for instance, that the "Themes" section needs a thorough makeover, but there's a book to be read in the meantime which was published since we lost FA status which I gather is dedicated almost entirely to the themes behind the KLF and their connections to '']''. I have a copy of the book in my possession; now all I need is a virus-free beach to read it on :) --] (]) 02:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small>
== The Beatles Barnstar ==


</div>
Looking through your talk page archives, you do not appear to have received this award - probably because most editors including myself were not aware of its existence :). If in fact you have been awarded it before, consider it a double honour well-earned.
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Coordination/MM/04&oldid=1187132222 -->


== File:The Beatles &#34;Helter Skelter&#34; US picture sleeve.jpg listed for discussion ==
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
] A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw --> ] (]) 06:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The ] barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | The quantity and - more importantly - quality of the articles you have written about the Beatles and related topics and taken to GA status is outstanding. Reading some of them almost moved me to tears. Thank you for your hard work and long may it continue. --] (]) 01:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC) (co-founder of ])
|}


== File:Cover of Maclen sheet music for &#34;Back in the USSR&#34;.jpg listed for discussion ==
{{u|kingboyk}}: Thank you, that's really too kind. And it means a lot coming from one of the founders of the project, of course. Best, ] (]) 03:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
] A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw --> ] (]) 21:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:04, 8 July 2024

This user may have left Misplaced Pages. JG66 has not edited Misplaced Pages since January 2023. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Hey kids. If you want to discuss a change I've made to an article, please use the article's talk page, not this one, so that other editors get a chance to weigh in.

If it's more big-picture stuff (rather than specific edits), or if you want to be funny, or rude, then come on in ... (Did you bring your guitar with you?)

For all previous messages, please see talk archives for 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021.

Welcome

Welcome! Hello, JG66, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 07:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Other useful pages:

Seeking input

Hi! Would love your thoughts on a thread I've started over at WP:SONGS. Please chime in, if you can. Thanks! — The Keymaster (talk) 10:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The Keymaster, blimey, that's bizarre – I was literally just posting there when you posted here! JG66 (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
@JG66 Ha, nice! Thanks for adding your two cents over there. I think we're pretty much on the same page with these issues. Although, given some of the responses there, I think I'm more confused about what to do than I was before! — The Keymaster (talk) 23:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The Beatles and the Historians

Beyond any of her individual conclusions, the book mostly works around the larger picture of how the literature has evolved over time. With that in mind, I think you should give it a read from front-to-back – it was actually pretty enjoyable too. Now is a great chance, since its price has come down to to CA$37.85 on Amazon, CA$17.99 for the Kindle version (unfortunately for me, I got it from my local bookstore when it was still CA$66.99 ...).

One point she makes is that Lewisohn's influence has pushed recent authors to include footnotes or endnotes to source their statements, whereas previous authors would include only a bibliography or nothing at all. The thing I'm hopeful for is that her book will prove influential on the Beatle books that haven't been written yet. She began it as a way to introduce her history students to historiography and historical method with a fresher topic than WWI or the French Revolution; I read both The Landscape of History by John Lewis Gaddis and What Is History? by E. H. Carr when I was studying some history, both of which Weber refers to, but I think her book serves as a much clearer introduction to the methods of source analysis. From the statements I've heard Robert Rodriguez make on his podcast, he seems to be fully onboard after reading it, but I have no idea if he has any plans to write any more books.

As for her not having read and discussed every possible book, I think that was inevitable given how many have been written about the band, which I know you've alluded to before. Instead, she focused on some of the most influential, comparing the differences between three editions of Shout!, three of Lennon: The Definitive Biography and four of The Beatles: The Authorised Biography. She's covered others on her blog and in her more recent podcast.

One point Weber makes about Doggett is that, through no fault of his own, he is the only one to have written such an in-depth look into the breakup period, which means he looms large in all discussions of it. I sent her a request that she review Ken McNabb's book, And in the End: The Last Days of the Beatles, and she told me she had it on request at her library, but it sounds like she's put things on hold for the moment because of her young kids. I know that she and Diana Erickson discussed Doggett in a yet unreleased podcast interview. The first part of their discussion, mostly covering the band's early years, was posted a year ago. I asked Diana in September when the second half would drop and she said in the next month, but it unfortunately still hasn't materialized. I'm excited for that one because, as you mentioned at the "Eleanor Rigby" talk page, Weber has mostly been positive in her mentions of Doggett, whereas Erickson, as one of Paul's biggest advocates (in case you aren't familiar, she loves Wild Life, something even I can't do), has regularly critiqued Doggett's conclusions. Anyway, before this post spirals too far, I'll end things here. Tkbrett (✉) 13:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Tkbrett: Hey, I'd very much like to read ETW's The Beatles and the Historians in full. I'm lucky enough to have been given so many Beatles books for free over the last few years. I think the last Beatles book I actually bought was The Cambridge Companion to ..., late last year, having previously milked all I could from Amazon or Google previews. But if there's one more I'd get, it would be The Beatles and the Historians.
I hear you on ETW's historiographical approach and remember reading her references to those others books (mentions them both in the YouTube clip at "Eleanor Rigby", as I recall). I just also remember reading statements she makes in her book and thinking at the time, "Hang on, Erin, aren't you presenting that – that assumption as fact, saying what's 'correct' – in the very same way as those bad historians you've highlighted at the start ?"
It's not about whether she's read and discussed every possible book on the Beatles, not at all. More about the ones that don't seem to receive a mention, and particularly ones that, from what I see, are generally viewed as almost go-to texts on the area being discussed, or at least are far better known than some of the ones she selects. I can't give examples, I'm afraid – I'm just recalling the overall impression I had, years ago, from when I read (and screenshot ) a decent portion of the book. But like you, I do hope her work informs the approach other writers take in the future; in fact, I think it already has.
With Doggett's Money, have to say that reading it was akin to a eureka moment for me. So gratifying at the time to read a text that explores McCartney's psyche, and not idly (through, say, weighing up his various statements on one particular issue from many interviews, over decades), because of McCartney's continuing popularity and extremely high profile, and the resulting influence his version of events has on our understanding of the Beatles story, certainly in the 21st century. The epiphany I'm alluding to is after I'd read years and years of interviews with McCartney, in Mojo, Uncut, perhaps Rolling Stone, often tying in with Apple campaigns; and from that point of view, I think Doggett shows what is so often lacking in Beatles literature: respect for the reader's intelligence. At least: for anyone who read these interviews at the time and wondered why many music journalists, Beatles historians and biographers appeared to take a latter-day McCartney statement at face value, even if some of them do recognise a self-serving aspect in his general demeanour. This is what I meant by ETW taking what she wants from Doggett – holding him up as an authority (which he undoubtedly is), on one hand, yet then appearing to ignore things he writes that don't sit quite as snuggly with the narrative she presents. That's the way it felt to me, and there I was, looking for something eureka-ish from The Beatles and the Historians; I thought I'd be right on the same page as her.
I don't mean to zoom in on McCartney when discussing the Doggett book, btw, but he was always the PR Beatle, right? (Equally, I could be wrong about Doggett being in some way pioneering on this issue – influential, definitely. I hear Chris Salewicz wrote a very insightful biography on McCartney in 1986, so perhaps there's much of the same there.) Erin's comment about the legacy of Lennon Remembers really chimed with my reading of too many Beatles books – about how "fact" became determined by "which side spoke loudest and gave the most interviews". But does she then apply what you'd image would be due scrutiny to the influence of the ex-Beatle giving the most interviews through the 1990s and into the 21st century, and how his readiness to engage with a nostalgia-primed media might inform writers and shape the story? Obviously, I need to read the book in full. JG66 (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Michelle (song)

Your action is wrong. If you want to complain about non-existent chart at that time, then the Kent Report didn't exist then, as were many if not most of the charts given there, and you could reasonably delete them, particularly if they are not sourced. You should take this up at the template talk page, and get it fixed. Why did you undo, for example, the Norwegian one if you want to keep the one in Beatles? Why don't you fix the Dutch one, which wasn't named such? So on and so on. Your action is just inconsistent and unreasonable. Hzh (talk) 07:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Precious
Two years!

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey Gerda. Thanks so much, and I hope you're well. Best, JG66 (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Maxwell’s Silver Hammer and Rubber Soul

Geoff Emerick didn’t even work at the July 9-11 sessions for “Maxwell’s Silver Hammer”, so he wouldn’t have known what went on that day. The balance engineer was Phil McDonald and the tape operator was John Kurlander, so Geoff didn’t work on those three days and that was why I deleted his recollections.

Norman Smith didn’t know what he was talking about when he said that there was an artistic clash between John and Paul and Paul criticised George’s guitar playing - as I said before, none of the band have ever confirmed his claims or mentioned any discord. 60.241.226.102 (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Magical Mystery Tour Infobox

If you wanna say it looks bad, fine, completely up to you. But we need factual evidence that it's bad. If you know anything about the Beatles discography order, you would know that the US version always gets chosen because of it feeling more like a studio album with singles like Strawberry Fields, Penny Lane, etc. So I made that template with that info in mind and I suggest we keep it. I'm not changing history here. ChallengeCick (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Album article style advice

There are already several primary sources and third-party sources that list entire personnel sections. Per Misplaced Pages:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources, a personnel section should only be included if an external link doesn't already provide one. Similar to WP:NOTLYRICS.

Do you disagree? Tree Critter (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

That honestly goes for track listings too. Tree Critter (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure I do agree. But you should raise the issue at WT:MOSALBUM and gain consensus for the addition. Also post notification at WT:ALBUM to make sure as many editors as possible get to weigh in if they wish to. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup banner

Hi JG66

Instead of removing the {{Cleanup Bare URLs}} banner, why not take a moment to fix the problem by filling the ref?

WP:V is a core policy, and Bare URLs are unhelpful to readers and are vulnerable to WP:LINKROT. I ahve been working full-time for over a year on filling bare URLs using a variety of tools, and the total number of articles with bare URls has fallen by over 80%. That is why I am now tagging some of the remainder, after first running @Citation bot over them at least 7 times, to draw the attention of other editors to some of the remainder.

Unfortunately, some of the ref-filing tools do not support the {{Bare URL inline}} tag, so I apply it only to URLs which I know from testing cannot be filled by WP:Reflinks. The others get the {{Cleanup Bare URLs}} banner. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Kruppa & Womack's All Things Must Pass book

Hey JG66, hope all is well. I'm sorry I didn't respond to that post above some six months ago – I still have thoughts to share but things seemed to get away from me. Anyway, I was wondering if you were aware of Jason Kruppa and Kenneth Womack's new book All Things Must Pass Away: Harrison, Clapton, and Other Assorted Love Songs (2021)? While I've mostly found Womack's earlier books rehash previously discovered material, it seems he's been moving towards doing research of his own. I thought some of this new stuff sounded like it would be helpful to you.

Womack is currently writing a biography on Mal Evans and has been reading personal journals for the book. Apparently Mal was the one in charge of paying all the session players on All Things Must Pass and so his journals have detailed personnel listings. I learned about it in a new episode of Jason Kruppa's podcast Producing the Beatles.

I noticed that some of the listings Womack provided from the journals diverged from the sources used in some of your GAs. For example, he mentions that on "Wah-Wah", Alan White plays congas and Mal plays maracas (heard at 17:50 in the episode). On "My Sweet Lord", he says Bobby Whitlock was the one playing harmonium and that it wasn't Mike Gibbins playing tambourine but instead Alan White. Those are the ones they mention in the episode. I presume there's more info in the book.

Cheers. Tkbrett (✉) 12:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Tkbrett, nice to hear from you. Yes, I'm sure that book will be useful, and in fact there's no end of info to continue adding to the album and song articles from the ATMP 50 scrapbook and liner notes. Bit stuck for time right now – will try to write more in the next day or so. JG66 (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Check out Pablo Honey, The Bends, and Kid A

If you think that the simple track listing format should be used, check out Pablo Honey, The Bends, and the Kid A articles. They all use the same track listing template I was trying to revert to on OK Computer. DENBRO1995 (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

JG66, when you deleted the changes I made, you indicated I had not explained why I was removing "sourced material". I already explained why I removed it in previous posts. I removed it because the "sourced material" was inaccurate. The information you referenced is based on incorrect information that has been superseded by liner notes from the Beatles album in question. The liner notes indicate that McCartney played bass on "She Said She Said". If that isn't sufficient for you, I suggest purchasing the record and seeing for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C2:B00:730:A145:D07F:68DF:FB68 (talk) 04:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Revolver Deluxe

Hi JG66 - just curious to know as a Beatles fan, what do you think of the new version of the album? Richard3120 (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Richard, always nice to hear from you. I confess I've not yet heard anything from the new release – not the remix nor the outtakes. Which is odd, I guess, because Revolver is probably my favourite album of all time. Didn't bother with any of the other 50th anniversary Beatles reissues either. (I only made an exception for Harrison's All Things Must Pass, but that was as much about timing as anything else – severe lockdown/lifestyle blues in Sydney.) Have you heard it? Any good? JG66 (talk) 03:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Tag in! You're kidding! I enjoyed the remix, I think some tracks have some a lot better but others not so much. Like the White Album deluxe I think this reissue really benefits from the bonus tracks. Hearing the initial versions of "LYT" and "GTGYIML" were definitely eye opening. Check it out when you can, I think it's worth it. Sidebar: What it has brought for us here on WP however is the slew of people coming here saying Paul played bass on "She Said She Said". Ugh. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
If you want a sample, try "I'm Only Sleeping". I think it shows what most of the remix was all about: boosting the low end and giving a nice stereo picture. Sometimes they go a bit far with boosting the bass and drums ("Paperback Writer"), but I think it mostly sounds alright. On "She Said She Said", you can hear a bit more guitar noodling – by making it so you can hear each constituent part, I think that one unfortunately feels a little less cohesive than the original. "Taxman" sounds nice though by not having everything panned to one side. Tkbrett (✉) 18:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
One thing I think we can all agree on is Paul really was a masterful bass player, the new mixes of "Taxman" and "I'm Only Sleeping" showcasing that. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 19:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Just wanna insert myself to see I completely agree about the She Said remix. I think it's dreadful and defanged, remixed as though the intention was to turn it into Good Day Sunshine, but we already have Good Day Sunshine! I'm not really keen on those sort of liberties being taken (cf. numerous things throughout the White Album remix, like the removal of 'pleh' or the smothering of the Long, Long, Long acoustic guitar). Anyway, that's enough moaning from me. The complete set is very nice. As you were. --TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

My favourite Beatles album as well. I thought this might get opinions from other editors, and it's from the ones I expected! In general I really like the new mix – I don't think Giles Martin has taken too many liberties, it's more about getting a better balance of the EQs and getting rid of those early stereo effects that liked to put the instrumentation on one speaker and the vocals on the other, which many fans hated and preferred the mono mixes as a result. For instance, the original version of "Taxman" had the drums, bass and guitar all on the left channel, and the right just for Starr's percussion, which sounded totally unbalanced. Now the main instruments are more centred, but the guitar is separated from the rhythm section, which to my ears makes the whole thing crisper and with a bit more punch to it. On "Eleanor Rigby" you had the strings in the centre and McCartney's vocal off the the right, only moving to the left for the double-tracked chorus, which made the vocals in the chorus seem much louder than in the verse. Now the vocals are in the centre, and the two string quartets have been split, one each on the left and right speaker, which makes much more sense, and makes it easier to hear each individual string instrument in the quartet. My favourite is the new mix of "For No One" – I always thought the keyboards were far too low in the original mix and almost drowned out by Starr's tambourine, while McCartney's vocal almost sounded a cappella and disassociated from the rest of the song. The new mix splits the piano and clavichord into different channels and balances everything out better, in my opinion... you can hear this in the instrumental version of the song in the extras, where everything just seems to swing. I do understand the complaints about "She Said She Said"... in general, the McCartney songs seem to have benefitted far more than the Lennon songs, where Lennon's vocals appear to have been mixed higher up and had a bit more processing. The stereo mixes of "Paperback Writer" and "Rain" were a waste of time, though – they add nothing to the originals and given the obvious garage rock influences of both songs, they were fine in scuzzy mono. Richard3120 (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I acquired the mono CD boxset probably 5 years ago at this point so I haven't heard the stereo mixed of PPM to Pepper probably since that time, although I still recall how shitty the Revolver stereo mix was, like you said. One thing I can't grasp is why Giles made a quicker fadeout on "Got to Get You into My Life". Both the stereo and mono mixes had different fadeouts but the 2022 mix seems to remove those entirely for some reason. I wonder if the new book mentions why he did that... and I do miss the extra guitar thrash heard on the "I'm Only Sleeping" mono mix... – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi all (if anyone's still watching). Sorry, didn't mean to ignore comments here, just had some time away from Misplaced Pages ... But no, I still haven't anything from the new Revolver(!). JG66 (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Need advice on reissues with bonus tracks

Hey there. I know we have talked before about the issue of bonus tracks and alternate track listings. I read the long discussion about it from a while back and the consensus achieved here seems to suggest that bonus track listings are generally unnecessary, and that mentioning them in the prose should suffice. A user has continually removed sourced information on reissues from the Oingo Boingo album pages, stating it's best to just list the bonus tracks in the track listing, when that seems to be the exact opposite of what is stated in the MOS. (Personally, I think he wants this info removed because of a personal beef he had with the head of the label on a prominent music forum.) So I guess my question is should I reinstate the reissue info and remove bonus tracks from the track listing? Or is any of this information even necessary to add to those pages? Look forward to hearing your thoughts. —The Keymaster (talk) 07:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Trying to reach consensus

Would love your thoughts on this thread concerning track numbering for LPs! —The Keymaster (talk) 07:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Material World Charitable Foundation logo.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Material World Charitable Foundation logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Yeeno (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

"The English rock band" or "English rock band"?

Hey JG. I noticed in all the articles you have written, you introduce the Beatles with a definite article, like this: "The English rock band the Beatles". I have seen articles where editors simply drop it though and write: "English rock band the Beatles". I have looked around in style guides but I am not sure exactly where to find this sort of distinction. I'm guessing it may be an American versus British thing. Little help? Cheers. Tkbrett (✉) 12:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Helter re-Skeltered

Helter Skelter (scenario) is back into shape, I think. You might want to take a look, see what you think.98.114.190.60 (talk) 03:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

New name!

Hello, Hope you are doing great! You've known me as Garagepunk66, but I just got a name change. I'll now be going by the name GloryRoad66 (GR66 for short). I tried to get GP66, but they wouldn't let me--they said it sounds too much like another editor's name. Good luck! GloryRoad66 (talk) 07:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

By the way, check out the Glyn Johns article! GloryRoad66 (talk) 07:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Robert Dylan or Bob Dylan?

Hi JG66, A discussion is taking place here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Bob_Dylan#Listing_legal_name_first

Mick gold (talk) 11:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

File:The Beatles "Helter Skelter" US picture sleeve.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:The Beatles "Helter Skelter" US picture sleeve.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 06:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Cover of Maclen sheet music for "Back in the USSR".jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cover of Maclen sheet music for "Back in the USSR".jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Categories: