Revision as of 11:20, 18 August 2021 editJburlinson (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,967 edits →Is George Martin a reliable source?: primary sources?← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:23, 18 August 2021 edit undoJburlinson (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,967 editsm →Is George Martin a reliable source?Next edit → | ||
Line 114: | Line 114: | ||
I recently added some information citing an interview with George Martin as the source. This interview was recorded in 1993 and is currently available on YouTube. It is from the archive of Reelin’ In The Years Productions. My edit was reverted with the explanation "not a reliable source". If George Martin is not a reliable source, who is?--] (]) 13:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC) | I recently added some information citing an interview with George Martin as the source. This interview was recorded in 1993 and is currently available on YouTube. It is from the archive of Reelin’ In The Years Productions. My edit was reverted with the explanation "not a reliable source". If George Martin is not a reliable source, who is?--] (]) 13:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC) | ||
:Well, for Misplaced Pages's purposes, George Martin is a primary source, so per ], there are no end of more reliable sources than him (ie, third-party secondary sources). And especially by 1968 – in fact in that year of all years – he was on the outer with them, eg, he describes himself as more of an executive producer on the White Album. So I wouldn't say he was that well informed, compared to previous years. ] (]) 13:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC) | :Well, for Misplaced Pages's purposes, George Martin is a primary source, so per ], there are no end of more reliable sources than him (ie, third-party secondary sources). And especially by 1968 – in fact in that year of all years – he was on the outer with them, eg, he describes himself as more of an executive producer on the White Album. So I wouldn't say he was that well informed, compared to previous years. ] (]) 13:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC) | ||
:: Interesting comment. How about then the multiple instances of quotations by the Beatles themselves in this article? Wouldn't they also be primary sources? One might say, of course, that these quotes are all extracted from print materials while Martin's comments were captured on video; but that's just a difference in the mode of transmission. The sources are all "primary".--] (]) 11:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC) | :: Interesting comment. How about then the multiple instances of quotations by the Beatles themselves in this article? Wouldn't they also be primary sources? One might say, of course, that these quotes are all extracted from print materials while Martin's comments were captured on video; but that's just a difference in the mode of transmission. The sources are all "primary". | ||
And an executive producer is not just a bystander.--] (]) 11:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:23, 18 August 2021
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Beatles (album) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Consensus per this RfC closure and this RfM closure is to use "the Beatles" mid-sentence. |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
The Beatles (album) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Beatles (album) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Why is the "Lady Madonna" single scrubbed from the article?
Any explanation at all? ilil (talk) 12:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Because it's not on the album nor recorded at the sessions for it. Ritchie333 20:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Can we remove the details about Pepper and MMT then? After all, they weren't the White Album, so we shouldn't mention them on this article. ilil (talk) 06:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I believe the single (and the two other songs recorded in February 1968) should be mentioned simply because it's the normal, encyclopedic thing to note what a band worked on in the interim between major projects like an LP record (this is why we mention Pepper and the MMT film). The songs are associated with the White Album, as in, they appear on the 50th anniversary edition, and were recorded so that the band would be free from recording obligations during their India trip (according to what I read from Lewisohn). It makes no difference whether the songs were recorded during the album's sessions — that's not the point. ilil (talk) 08:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- The current prose reached agreement after the GA review and elsewhere; you’re best off discussing with JG66 Ritchie333 08:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- What does the article's GA classification have to do with anything? ilil (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- WP:OAS (part of the "Ownership of articles" policy) : "All editors are welcome to make changes and improve the article, but some discussion of significant changes is recommended, and the editors participating in the review may be able to offer advice and work with you on improving the article further." Ritchie333 12:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that adding two sentences to an 8500-word article constitutes "significant change". ilil (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- WP:OAS (part of the "Ownership of articles" policy) : "All editors are welcome to make changes and improve the article, but some discussion of significant changes is recommended, and the editors participating in the review may be able to offer advice and work with you on improving the article further." Ritchie333 12:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- What does the article's GA classification have to do with anything? ilil (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
(addendum) If you still wish to argue that the songs shouldn't be mentioned because they weren't part of the album sessions, that's just another point favoring the information's inclusion. People who aren't familiar with the subject would (rightfully) assume that the songs are related to the White Album unless there's a statement in the article that explicitly states something like they weren't "part of the White Album project". ilil (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Mention of the single wasn't "scrubbed from the article"; you tried to add the point and it was reverted. And while I've become used to logic and common sense being in short supply whenever you attempt to edit a Beatles article, your statement here that "If you still wish to argue that the songs shouldn't be mentioned because they weren't part of the album sessions, that's just another point favoring the information's inclusion" is just baffling ...
- It's not a case of plugging a perceived hole in the band's CV, as you imply. If that were the case, the "All You Need Is Love" and "Hello Goodbye" non-album singles would appear to be missing also. Your claim that "Lady Madonna" is "the non-album single that everyone associates with the White Album" is utter rubbish. The songs were included on the 50th anniversary box set, but that is the first time that they've been associated with the White Album. From countless sources I've read, particularly when working on the relevant song articles, the March 1968 single represents a line in the sand – the situation couldn't be more different between those February sessions and starting work on the album in late May. That doesn't mean "Lady Madonna" has no place at all in this article: as a deliberate back-to-basics recording, it could easily be mentioned when discussing the album's musical styles or its relative lack of studio artifice; it could just as well be mentioned for the first time in text discussing the 50th anniversary box set. But it's not a single "associated" with the White Album (apart from the full, six?-CD edition issued in November 2018) and nor is it an important part of the album's pre-story.
- The Background section needs to establish some key points about the Beatles' position and activities before they made the album. Their standing after Sgt. Pepper, the impact of which was still very much felt in early '68, and the perceived goof of Magical Mystery Tour are two obvious points. For a while, I've thought we could probably improve this section. Unlike you, though, I have some respect for the fact that an article has achieved GA or FA and has been well maintained since then. So I'll outline my suggestions here on the talk page (sometime soon). Because, if I just charge in like the proverbial bull in a china shop, especially by seeking to add some questionable detail or apply a flawed interpretation of WP:TERSE or whatever, I'd fully expect to get other editors' backs up and be made to feel very unwelcome. JG66 (talk) 11:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- You don't realize it, but you've further bolstered my argument — if March 1968 "represents a line in the sand", shouldn't we note this so-called line? If the LM single signalled a new "back-to-basics" approach that the band developed on the White Album, why isn't it relevant to the "pre-story"? When the White Album was anticipated by the Hey Jude single in August, had everyone forgotten that the last Beatles release occurred in March, and that a major feature-length Beatles film premiered in July? Why, when it comes to the-White-Album-story-as-according-to-JG66, does Beatles history start at May 1967 and drop out between January and February 1968? Why do you think Hello Goodbye, a song universally associated with MMT, is contextually comparable to LM, a song the band worked on in much closer thematic and chronological proximity to the White Album sessions?
- What if, instead, the paragraph ended something like this:
fan reaction was nevertheless positive. In early 1968, the group commenced sessions for a new single in order to free their schedules for the coming months. From these sessions, "Lady Madonna" was issued with the B-side "The Inner Light" in March. (possible footnote: The two other songs they recorded in early 1968, "Hey Bulldog" and "Across the Universe", were submitted for consideration in the upcoming Yellow Submarine film.) The band signalled a return to simpler rock 'n' roll traditions with the former, a development that extended to much of the writing for their next LP project, along with the song's lesser reliance on studio artifice.
- Or is that enough to destroy the article's pace? ilil (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- I have no comment to make on any particular specific suggestion of text at this time , but agree with 2 general premises from above: 1) Lady Madonna should probably get at least a mention in a Background section for reasons already stated; 2) The song is on the 50th anniversary release, and readers may very well wonder why, given that the song is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. --kingboyk (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
RfC on syntax
There is a clear consensus for:
- A: In May 1967, the Beatles album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band was released to commercial and critical success. It sold 250,000 copies in its first week and topped the UK charts for 27 weeks, through to the start of February 1968.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For the article's "Background" section, which wording is preferable?
- A: In May 1967, the Beatles album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band was released to commercial and critical success. It sold 250,000 copies in its first week and topped the UK charts for 27 weeks, through to the start of February 1968.
- B: By 1968, the Beatles had achieved commercial and critical success. The group's mid-1967 release, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, was number one in the UK for 27 weeks, through to the start of February 1968, having sold 250,000 copies in the first week after release.
ilil (talk) 09:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Survey
- A Less wordy and straight to the point. ilil (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- A because mentioned above, and the Beatles had already achieved comercial and critical success before 1968. Alexcalamaro (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- A with B being too wordy. Cassianto 21:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- A because it does not jump back and forth in time and it is also more factual and less opinion-based (they certainly had plenty of success before 1968). --Nicholas0 (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Comments
- What's the source for "A"? Ritchie333 12:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Everett and OCC, as already cited in the article. Numerous can be easily provided for the first claim (see the Pepper article). ilil (talk) 13:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- You may want to lose the American comma after the year, what ever you choose. Cassianto 21:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Reissues section
Does anyone think the paragraph beginning "Tape versions of the album did not feature a white cover or the numbering system" is sufficiently notable for inclusion? None of it is sourced to a third-party RS that actually comments on the issue; instead, it's self-sourced, and "we" seem to be saying the points are significant. (Not only that, but the text is sitting in the Reissues section when in fact it concerns the original release.)
It was quite normal for cassettes and 8-track cartridges to have a different sequencing, as I understand it, and the White Album certainly wasn't the only Beatles album affected. I don't see a reason to include this information unless some decent sources tell us it is significant. JG66 (talk) 10:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Is George Martin a reliable source?
I recently added some information citing an interview with George Martin as the source. This interview was recorded in 1993 and is currently available on YouTube. It is from the archive of Reelin’ In The Years Productions. My edit was reverted with the explanation "not a reliable source". If George Martin is not a reliable source, who is?--Jburlinson (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well, for Misplaced Pages's purposes, George Martin is a primary source, so per WP:PSTS, there are no end of more reliable sources than him (ie, third-party secondary sources). And especially by 1968 – in fact in that year of all years – he was on the outer with them, eg, he describes himself as more of an executive producer on the White Album. So I wouldn't say he was that well informed, compared to previous years. JG66 (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Interesting comment. How about then the multiple instances of quotations by the Beatles themselves in this article? Wouldn't they also be primary sources? One might say, of course, that these quotes are all extracted from print materials while Martin's comments were captured on video; but that's just a difference in the mode of transmission. The sources are all "primary".
And an executive producer is not just a bystander.--Jburlinson (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
- Misplaced Pages good articles
- Music good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- Misplaced Pages Did you know articles that are good articles
- All unassessed articles
- GA-Class The Beatles articles
- Top-importance The Beatles articles
- GA-Class George Martin articles
- GA-Class Apple Corps and Apple Records articles
- WikiProject The Beatles articles
- GA-Class Album articles
- WikiProject Albums articles