Misplaced Pages

Talk:The Beatles (album)

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BrandonYusufToropov (talk | contribs) at 20:17, 8 August 2009 (→Individual compositions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:17, 8 August 2009 by BrandonYusufToropov (talk | contribs) (→Individual compositions)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
The Beatles (album) received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
WikiProject iconThe Beatles C‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis Beatles-related article is within the scope of WikiProject The Beatles, which focuses on improving coverage of English rock band The Beatles and related topics on Misplaced Pages. Users who are willing to participate in the project should visit the project page, where they can join and see a list of open tasks.The BeatlesWikipedia:WikiProject The BeatlesTemplate:WikiProject The BeatlesThe Beatles
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to albums on Misplaced Pages.
To-do list:
For WikiProject The Beatles

A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

This article does not yet have a related to do list. If you can think of any ways to improve the article, why not create one?

Blue White Album stuff

I just removed a couple of paras in the album history section, which were about a one off pressing of the album done in blue vinyl, and recently released to the Beatles museum. The text was mostly copied from a news story, and if it belongs anywhere (which I don't personally think it does) it belongs in the 'The Sleeve' section - where it talks about pressings of the album. Neil 00:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Double LP????

I didnt think RIAA counted it as 2 seperate sales unless the total time was over 100 minutes??(RIAA Certification) I think this album doesn't count as a double cd.--Fayettehelle,NC 04:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen the album sold as anything BUT 2 cds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.40.63.122 (talk) 12:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Cassette Track Listing Slightly Different

I have a cassette version of the White Album, and the track listing is slightly different. Does this interest anyone?

yes Wonderwallmusic (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It did have a different track listing on the original cassette version. The re-released version in the late 80's reinstated the original LP track listing. St1cks AU (talk) 09:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Preceeding album

I believe, if I am not mistaken, that "Magical Mystery Tour" was release between "Sgt. Pepper" and the White Album. While it is true that one side of "Magical Mystery Tour" was just a collection of singles, the other side was new material. If some further clarification of what constitutes a "followup album" is needed, perhaps it would make sense to change the text back to refering "Sgt. Pepper".

Also, I don't have time to research this at this moment, but I think there should be some discussion about how this album showed the growing individualism of the members of the group, and the dissension of the group members that presaged the breakup of the album (I think that some tracks were recorded with only a couple of the members present, for example, but the details are fuzzy on this and I would need to research it). Also, why did Eric Clapton play the guitar on "While My Guitar Gently Weeps"? My memory tells me (and maybe this is wrong) that George, having played the sitar more than the guitar, was rusty on his guitar playing. But perhaps I am wrong on this.

I think this article gives a lot of praise to the album, but I always felt this album was a little more mixed in its quality than the earlier ones were.

You are wrong about the Eric Clapton bit. George had Clapton play guitar because the tension was high in the group and the other three were not taking his song seriously; he invited Clapton to solo because they'd have to be professional with an outsider around (Clapton did the same thing for "Badge" when Cream was falling apart). --KQ
Yeah, I'm probably not the one to add better balance here--if you ask me what the greatest artistic achievements of humankind are, I'd probably say Michaelangelo's Sistene Chapel ceiling, the white album, and GCC. --LDC

The question of whether "Magical Mystery Tour" was an album released between "The Beatles" and "Sgt. Pepper" depends on which country's discography we are talking about. In the United Kingdom, "Magical Mystery Tour" was a rather elaborate double EP package: two 7" extended-play singles containing six songs, released in a gatefold sleeve with booklet. The Beatles' American label, Capitol, felt that EPs did not sell in the US, so they cobbled together a full size 12" LP, with the six songs from the British double EP on the front and the remainder of the Beatles' 1967 non-Pepper output on the back, and called the whole thing "Magical Mystery Tour". Thus in the UK there was no true LP release between "Sgt. Pepper" and the White Album, while US fans got another LP for Christmas. Just to confuse things further, the 11 song Capitol package was released elsewhere in the world, and eventually in Britan in the early 70's (as an actual EMI release, not an import), and ultimately formed the basis for the current CD package. --WaveformDelta

I agree that "Magical Mystery Tour" should be listed as the album between "Sgt." and "White." Regardless of it not being released in certain countries (even if one is their home country), it was still an album conceived, recorded and released by The Beatles. Following that, the statement "The album was the first album The Beatles undertook following the death of their manager Brian Epstein" is not true. Even if you don't want to count it as "a release," MMT is still the project the group first "undertook" -- in late fall 1967 -- following Epstein's death five months earlier. It's a fact well documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.212.112.116 (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Photos and copyright

Do we have the legal right to include the set of four photos? An entire artwork probably doesn't fall under "fair use"? Vicki Rosenzweig

This one's a tricky case, but I think these small images can be seen as references to the originals, not as reproductions (like a small photo of a painting in a museum), and "educational use" gets you a lot of leeway. Also, one could argue that the album is the entire work, and we're just noting that these photographs came with it. I was emboldened by the uploads of our resident lawyer, Isis, and I think she's pretty up to date on this stuff.

It was pointed out to me by a lawyer here that in 1968, the law required specific notice of copyright, unlike today, where things are automatically copyrighted unless specifically disclaimed. My copy of the white album shows a copyright notice on the recordings, and another on the lyrics, but no such notice for the pictures. This makes any claim of copyright on them unlikely to hold water. Indeed, the album itself doesn't even mention wo took them--I had to look that up elsewhere. --LDC

From the main article:

Along with such standard rockers as the opening "Back in the USSR", it

contains classic ballads like "I Will" and "Julia" (the latter written by John--one of his few),

"one of John's few" what? ballads? songs on the album? --KQ 10:45 Aug 24, 2002 (PDT)

Sorry--I meant one of the few ballads written by John; normally Paul writes the ballads. --LDC

As well as the photos, are we absolutely certain about the legal status of those sound clips? I know they ought to fall under fair use, but sadly, ought to doesn't always mean does. There have been a number of cases brought recently where people have been sued for using uncleared samples shorter than these - I know that the fact these samples were on profit making record labels, and that the plaintiffs could therefore expect a hefty dollop of cash if they won may have made them more willing to bring an action, but the RIAA and similar organisations have been bringing (or threatening) the strangest cases lately, and I wouldn't put anything past them. Certainly there have been cases brought against people who were never going to make any money at all from their allegedly illegal activities.

I'm sorry to even bring this up, but it seems to me that the wikipedia is eager to appear whiter than white on copyright issues (I'm thinking of the message on recent changes), and these samples seem to represent a risk that isn't worth taking. --Camembert

I should probably add: I wrote this before I'd noticed the response to Vicki's concerns about the pictures. I'm not a legal expert, and am more than happy to defer to somebody who is and is sure we're in the clear. It's just that I worry... Camembert
I worry too, but Lee usually has his ducks in a row. Still, I don't know if I'd be so bold.  :-) --KQ

Yeah, the pictures are a bit bold; if Mr. Kelley complains, I'll certainly remove them. Or even if someone gives me a good legal argument. But the sound clips are really no problem. Yes, the RIAA is a bit insane these days, but I doubt even they would go after samples that small and low-quality and in this context. Given the mood of the courts recently, such a suit would not only lose, it would likely get them sanctioned. I will also admit that pushing the envelope here a bit with the pictures should encourage Jimbo to work on the non-profit foundation, because if we get that settled, we'll really be in the clear on fair use. I also reduced the images a bit; the don't interfere with the article as much that way, and it's even clearer that we aren't trying to reproduce them. --LDC

For the record, *this* is a helter-skelter

Well, cool. At least I had a better idea than Manson. It sounds like you go on it over and over.
When I get to the bottom I go back to the top of the slide
Where I stop and I turn and I go for a ride
Get to the bottom and I see you again
The OED says the original name was "helter skelter lighthouse" and you slid down on a mat.
You still do (or at least you did 15-20 years ago, when I last went on one -- User:GWO
The first use of the phrase was Thomas Nashe, followed closely by Shakespeare in Henry IV. This is almost an article now. Ortolan88

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is almost always referred to as The White Album. Shouldn't it be moved? Tokerboy

Just my 2 cents.. everyone knows it as "the white album", but the correct title is "The Beatles". I don't personally really care one way or the other, but it seems more appropriate to me for the article to be named after the actual title, with a redirect from the White album. -Jazz77
Throughout the article, the album with a white cover is referred to as The White Album as if it’s the official title. In light of the above, shouldn’t the article refer to it by its actual title (The Beatles) or its description (“the white album”, as opposed to The White Album)? —Frungi 02:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The original vinyl albums had "The Beatles" on the front cover in raised lettering (no ink), something which wasn't preserved on the CD releases. Also, they had a serial number stamped on the front, which eventually went over a million, I believe, before later pressings dropped it. I've heard that the first presses of the CD also had the serial number, although I've never seen one. Mordomo 00:32, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

My (well, my parents' :)) copy of the White Album LP doesn't have a serial number, although my CD copy does (it is the 30th anniversary version though, a scale replica of the original LP case with smaller pictures inside and all that, which is irritating because it doesn't fit in a CD slot...but I digress). Also, my parents' copy of the Sgt. Pepper LP doesn't have that bizarre repeating stuff at the very end of the groove, although a bit of it is on my CD version. Adam Bishop 00:37, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I have an original CD with the serial number... but for some reason the number is 72961.... Is that just of numbered CD's or numbered CD's and Vinyls?? Maybe someone knows?--Fayettehelle,NC 04:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Only the first 5000 pressing of the Sgt Pepper vinyl had the repeating stuff at the end.BauerPower 18:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Not really sure where this goes, but "Honey Pie" is not Sinatraesque. It's in the same, early-twentieth century jazzy, vaudevillian style like "When I'm Sixty-four" from Sgt. Pepper's is. Sinatraesque is way off the mark.

Actually, the track "Honey Pie" is in the tradition of the British music halls which remained popular into the Beatles early lives. British Vaudeville, if you will... Mark Sublette 13:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 13:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

George

Can anyone explain why the photo of George Harrisson from the White Album sleeve has been omitted? It even says under the photos that Harrison's photo is there but is clearly not. Pepperstool 07:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

reply to problem with LPs and CDs/length of White Album

To the person that said that Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club didn't have the bizarre noise on the LP, you're getting taught.

On the US copies of Sgt. Pepper's, the bizarre noise (Paul is a comic book character?) isn't on there. It just ends with the crashing chord of "A Day In The Life". On the CDs, released in 1987 by Parlophone/Apple in the US and UK, have the bizarre noise. Your parents, talking about the White Album, don't have the serial number copy. You do, because it's a remastered version.

Talking about the length:

The length of the White Album is about 94 minutes long. Up! by Shania Twain is almost 100 minutes long. Why in the world do they have Up! on 1 CD, but not the White Album? I know why:

In 1987, the average length of a CD was 45 minutes. Nowadays, it's 101 minutes. So, if Capitol rereleases the "White Album", it would be on 1 CD, not 2, but they would put it on 2 CDs because it would be really hard to find "Birthday", "Helter Skelter" or "Revolution 9", so there.

74 minutes is the maximum recommended playing time for a CD - anything longer is non-standard. While it's physically possible to master CDs of up to 99 minutes in length, an awful lot of CD players (especially older models) would have severe problems playing them; I doubt whether any CD player manufactured in 1987 would be able to play a 94 minute CD. AdorableRuffian 15:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Helter Skelter and Charles Manson

The mention of Charles Manson's connection to the song Helter Skelter was not accurate based on the info contained in the Misplaced Pages articles about the song itself and on Charles Manson, as well as other stuff I've read about Manson.. While it may be true the Susan Atkins saw prophecy in the song, that idea originated from Charles Manson. The whole bit about her spreading false publicity about Manson seemed to somehow suggest the whole Helter Skelter equals race war prophecy was a solely product of her mind. I change the reference to reflect the similar mentions of the connection in other Misplaced Pages articles. --Cab88 14:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The beginning of the end for The Beatles?

I think not... andreasegde 10:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Rejected tracks

Please don't include rehashed hearsay in this encyclopedia. A bootleg of a song with varient lyrics doesn't constitute a rejected recording!

F**k a duck" for example was a one off rant by Lennon at the Maharishi during the recording of 'Sexy Sadie'.

Including a list of every twang The Beatles committed to tape with made up song titles doesn't make for a good article and won't remain on the page for long. Most of Abbey Road and Get Back/Let It Be was floating around in early forms not yet ready for recording during these sessions. This kind of obsessive inclusionism is pointless and is misleading for those who are interested in facts.

If you want to add further alledged "rejected tracks" then please include a verifyable reference.

simonthebold 01:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Lady Madonna was not a rejected track! It was not even done during the same sessions as the rest of the album. It was done before the beatles went to Rishikesh for the Maharishi camp; the single was released during thier absence. Same applies for The Inner Light and Hey Bulldog (passed up for the single by Lady Madonna). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatlesfan1234567890 (talk • contribs)
It's no good including tracks without specific references. For example just because Across the Universe was recorded and unreleased doesn't mean it was considered for the white album. If you are going to make this kind of statement then state your source and include page numbers etc. so the information can be verified! If not be prepared to see your entries swiftly removed!!!!
simonthebold 07:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Auto peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, previous might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.
  • Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • allege
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Misplaced Pages's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mal 10:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

When did Abbey Road get eight-track?

The article for the "White Album" makes the following statement (emphasis mine):

"While the Abbey Road studios had yet to install an 8-track machine that had supposedly been sitting in a storage room unpacked for months (evidently because EMI could not afford its power cord), the Beatles decided to out-source to the more updated Trident Studios."

What basis is there for the assertion that Abbey Road had no power cord for their 8-track machine? The footnote references Mark Lewisohn's "The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions", but Lewisohn never makes any such claim. On the contrary, his entry for Wednesday 31 July (pg. 146) discusses the state of Abbey Road's first 8-track machine in some detail; by his account the delay in installation had to do with dissatisfaction with its operation by the staff (he mentions problems with its overdub facility and vari-speed control), which implies that they were quite capable of powering the machine up. He also mentions they were waiting for construction of an 8-track mixing console to accompany the recorder. --WaveformDelta

Move

Why was the page moved? The correct title is "The Beatles (album)" even if the name of the band is capitalized. Please someone revert it. --69.79.196.112 00:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

VH1 List

I've corrected the VH1 list on six pages. Someone keeps referencing the list as having aired in 2003, but it aired in 2001. Here's a BBC article on this list dated 2001 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1101986.stm) and this website also says compiled in 2001 (http://www.rockonthenet.com/archive/2001/vh1albums.htm). Were people thinking of the book that came out, or the album cover list that came out in 2003? I just wanted to correct it and point it out for future reference if anyone sees these errors somewhere else. Onresume December 13, 2006

Misplaced info

The information on the different pressings is possibly misplaced. While it does make sense as a continuation to the sleeve's different edition, a reader searching for such information will most probably not find it since it is under "The Sleeve" subtitle. My suggestion is putting together information on the mono releases, the pressings, the sleeves, and possibly any needle-drops (such as the two Dr. Ebbetts releases, which are not the best btw) into one big section with subheadings. In addition, (I think) the article wrongly states that the mono version was only released in the UK since there is also a release on double vynl taken from TOSHIBA EMI safety tapes in Japan, catalogue numbers: PMC 7067 and PMC 7068. I won't touch anything though since I am no The Beatles expert! └  / talk  03:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Charles Manson

I'm just curious as to why there is no mention of Charles Manson being influenced by this album at all in this article? Luciferian56 23:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

White Album Cover

When I bought The White Album at age 11 in 1968, the widespread rumor was that the original British cover had a nude photo of John and Yoko holding hands, and that the white jacket was added later after U.S. distributors decided it was too scandalous for the American audience. It was considered very racy, and my friends and I spent hours trying to peel the white cover off. Yet I Googled this story recently and found absolutely no reference to the old rumor. I assume it was false, but it's surprising that I can find no mention of it in searching the Internet. Any information about this topic would be appreciated.--Don 23:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, stating the obvious perhaps but aren't we getting confused with Two Virgins...? Cheers, Ian Rose 03:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


I did the same thing and was telling my DD about it and looked here to see what I could find out. How sad it doesn't appear to be true, it was SO scandalous for the times! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.38.139 (talk) 05:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Track Listing Changes

I reverted some track listing changes made today (4 Sep 2007) because the edits didn't foloow the established guidelines where the song's author is included in parens after the song title unless covered by an "all songs by..." disclaimer at the top of the list. John Cardinal 01:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Critical response section is missing!

Seems to me we're missing a summary of critical assessments of the album, yes? By this I mean not just its placement listings in the various "top 100" articles, but reasoned critical responses at the time of the album's release and in the years since... BYT 00:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The article has undergone some fairly extensive copyediting from two different users recently but I don't think either removed such a section - methinks it was never there. It certainly should be included as this is an album that's inspired pretty significant critical reassessment from the time of its release, if memory servers (not a big Beatles fan, I'm afraid). A 'Critical reception' section focusing on reaction at the time of its release, coupled with later assessments to the present day in the 'Legacy' section, would be the way. Cheers, Ian Rose 01:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I assume this refers to the citation needed at the end of the first paragraph? There is this from the latest issue of MOJO Magazine, especially devoted to The White Album (Issue 178, September 2008, p.80 paragraph 3), by John Harris :

"First then, let us pause for thought, and simply salute their achievement. In a semi-legendary review in The Observer .... the film-maker and critic Tony Palmer said that The White Album placed its authors on 'shores of the imagination others have not yet sighted'. .... The record, he said, confirmed Lennon and McCartney as the 'greatest songwriters since Schubert'; by the end, all he could do was 'stand and applaud'. "

I would love to add this to the article, but I'm afraid the syntax of citations scares the pants off me. 88.105.186.79 (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The White Album.jpg

Image:The White Album.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

BYT here. The fair use rationale has since been added, and it looks like there are no problems with this image. Reviewing the image has, however, led me to ponder ...

...a question about the album cover

Would it be possible to use an image at the top of the article that features a real deal, 1968-era LP cover, with the title in embossed letters and with a unique serial number? The embossed title and the individualized serial number were integral design components of the original cover art. I always feel like several generations of fans have been missing the "point" of this cover, because they never got to see the real thing, which was quite striking. (Nowadays, they also see only miniaturized versions of a fake "White Album" cover, but that's another discussion.)

Here's the real thing -- notice that I consider "real" that with which I am most familiar. Anyway, compare this to the tiny, and wimpy, contemporary CD cover, which not only omits the serial number, but also ignores the choice to have the band's embossed, not printed, name tilted at a weird, seemingly random angle. The contemporary (corporate) version is grey and completely horizontal. I picture Lennon spinning in his grave.

Does anyone here have a vintage 1968 or 1969 White Album that he or she would be willing to photograph and then release into the public domain, so we could use it at the top of the article? (Sure wish I did...) BYT (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Okee dokee, then. Two months later, I reply to myself -- just added this image. BYT (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

did any of the pressings have the text slanted at a negative angle? and by the way it is very easy to make a "fake" cover for Misplaced Pages, i mean just make a white square in photoshop and emboss the slightly slanted text... in case you guys did not know... Wonderwallmusic (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What about this picture on their official homepage? As opposed to this picture? Which one is "more real"? I have never seen the LP, just the CD. ☺ Spiby ☻ 17:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a vinyl White Album which I purchased in the USA in 1968 or 1969. The cover has the embossed text at a slight negative angle, but I can find no trace of a serial number, nor can I remember ever seeing one. The jacket opens at the sides. Did all such albums have a serial number? Was it printed on the cellophane wrapper around the album? – Wdfarmer (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Album sequencing

Re: The first paragraph of the "Album sequencing" section (which begins "The arrangement of the songs on The Beatles follows patterns and establishes symmetries that have been much analyzed over the years.") Is this, like, a real thing, or just something a few people obsess over? Personally, I haven't heard of it (which doesn't mean it doesn't exist). But I do know some folks who find (and never stop talking about) numerological significance in every Beatles, Pink Floyd and Rush album. I was wondering if that paragraph was original research and added by such a person, or if it's a significant idea among Beatleologists. If it isn't, it should be removed. Carlo (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Name

Who is John McCartney? (Personnel)--andreasegde (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose John Lennon and Paul McCartney wished to expand their relationship a bit more? :) Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 15:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sales

Total US sales are estimated at over 19 million copies. It's incorrect, this is a duoble album, 19xPlatinum/2=9,5 million copies sold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.141.181.18 (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Individual Compositions

I'd like to give kudos to the author of the Individual Compositions section -- it is a superb piece of writing. --Beijing goalie (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Personnel

The personnel section is a little bit confusing (with all the numbers) and is not totally accurate. The credits for the members group should be separated from the credits for the producing team and those from the session musicians and those from the friends and wifes contributions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.25.16 (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Since nobody said anything, I just changed this section, according to Lewisohn. Still needs some work in order to complete the session musicians information, but I´m gonna do that later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.40.0.34 (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Beatles-singles-heyjude-uk.jpg

The image Image:Beatles-singles-heyjude-uk.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. --09:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Experimental nature of the album.

I keep adding experimental rock to the genres list, but for some reason it is removed every time. Any rationale? the album is clearly experimental. --~Magnolia Fen (talk) 12:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

== The section on "== Album sequencing, editing concerns, and release 

== =="

Whoever wrote this makes the claim that 14 is a prime number. It is not. That's basic math. I corrected it this morning, but someone reversed my change an hour later. Come on. This isn't controversial or questionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.165.201.47 (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Revolution 9

The Beatles was the last Beatles album to be released with a unique, alternate mono mix, albeit one issued only in the UK. Twenty-nine of the album's thirty tracks ("Revolution 9" being the only exception) exist in official alternate mono mixes.

I don't quite understand this; does it mean that mono pressings of the album simply omitted Revolution 9? BTLizard (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No. All the tracks were mixed from multi-track to mono in an event separate from the stereo mixes. Number Nine, because of it's unique character, could not possibly have been mixed a second time and still the same as the first, so the stereo version was just panned into mono. Radiopathy •talk• 19:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Puddings

""Honey Pie" and "Savoy Truffle" (both referring to types of desserts)"

Are you sure about this? Can you produce recipes that pre-date the album? BTLizard (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

December 2008 Move

This article was recently moved from "The Beatles (album)" to "The Beatles (White Album)" by User:Redd_Baron1 who claimed (per iTunes) that The White Album was the official name. I have moved it back. The official album name is The Beatles despite fans calling it The White Album since shortly after its release. iTunes evidently caters to those fans at the expense of accuracy which is fine for a music store but not so good for an encyclopedia. Absent a consensus, the page should not be moved back to the name favored by Redd Baron1. — John Cardinal (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

For one, you can't dictate what it can and can't be moved to. It's simply true that the name of the albums is always rendered "The Beatles (White Album)" on computers, because everyone, including The Beatles, Apple, and EMI refer to the album as such. The title is a bit more than semi-official and it's obvious it was never meant to be referred to as simply "The Beatles". If consensus is to move this back to the digital title (selected by Apple/EMI) than so be it. --MichiganCharms (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I didn't dictate anything. He boldly moved it, I boldly moved it back. He said that "The White Album" was the official name, but that's not supported by any reliable evidence. There is evidence that the article is correct as is: Lewisohn's official discography says the title is "The Beatles".
You've joined in, but given no specific evidence, and your point that the album title is "always rendered 'The Beatles (White Album)' on computers" is not true and isn't relevant even if it was. If the name on my birth certificate is "Robert Smith" but I am always called "Bob Smith" by everyone, including myself, that doesn't change my legal name. According to Misplaced Pages conventions, the article title should be the official title of the album, the equivalent of the birth certificate name.
Regarding your "always rendered" comment, there are many variations. Amazon has it as "The Beatles (The White Album)", which does not match what you wrote. Beatles.com has it (in one place, at least) as "The Beatles" with "" on a separate line beneath the official title, and that's not what you wrote. There are many other variations, but they don't matter: while "The White Album" or one of those other variations is how someone might refer to it now, that doesn't change it's birth name. Meanwhile, the lead paragraph has "The White Album" in bold text, and there are various redirect pages that help people find it if they search for one of the "White Album" variations. — John Cardinal (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Are you sure you want to throw your support behind Redd_Baron1? See this edit of his. — John Cardinal (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
In my Collier's Yearbook 1969, Covering the Year 1968, it says: "...the Beatles released a two-record album whose only imprint was the words 'The Beatles' engraved on the cover and stamped on the spine of an all-white record jacket... The Beatles ran the gamut of popular music styles from the 1920's-style 'Honey Pie' to the electronic collage 'Revolution No. 9." I'm not saying this is the be all end all of answers, but I'm just throwing it out there. I think that as an encyclopedia, we should keep the name The Beatles, but make sure it's clear where it's mentioned and through redirects that it is commonly known as the White Album. Which basically means, leave everything the way it is now. Belasted (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You are right John. the album is officially called "The Beatles" and unofficially referred to as The White Album.--124.40.63.122 (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Charles Manson Link

While it is certainly valid to have a heavy sense of distaste for someone reviled by the general bulk of society, it seems to make little sense to include such randomly opinionated terms describing his link to this album. As such I have removed them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.160.157 (talk) 05:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Changed rating to C class

I've changed the rating of this article to C class as it clearly doesn't meet the first criterion of B class i.e. that the article is suitably referenced. Large swathes of the article are completely unreferenced and the "Songs" section in particular is full of unsupported POV statements. Richerman (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ringo on Bungalow Bill

Is Ringo a prominent vocalist on Bungalow Bill as a recent edit has it? Yoko gets a solo line, and I've seen mention that Maureen Starkey was a backing vocalist, but I'm not sure that Ringo is any more prominent than Paul or George. Carlo (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Starr's a backing vocalist only, listed as such on the song article, with a citation. I undid the recent edit. — John Cardinal (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
If that's what Lewisohn says then So Be It (I couldn't find better info in my sources) but FWIW Starr sounds to me to be the main vocalist at the start of the song (chorus) and in every subsequent chorus ("Hey, Bungalow Bill..."). Lennon is only evident on the verses. The chorus has a melange of voices, Starr's clearly leading. But perhaps it's just my ears. Anyway, unless someone has a source to support this, it should stay as is. PL290 (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"Self-reflection and change" and "Influences, parodies, and tributes"

Might we not upgrade the quality of the article by simply deleting these sections? BYT (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have a point. I haven't looked at this article much and at first I thought the suggestion was somewhat over the top as a reaction to the unsourced material with consequent {{Original research}} and {{Unreferenced section}} tags. But having just read through those two sections, I have to say I agree. PL290 (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take them out. BYT (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

new genres

we should add Heavy Metal, or Proto Metal.

allmusicguide:

and the proto-metal roar of "Helter Skelter." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.44.231.39 (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"Proto" means preceding the proper beginning of something so AllMusic is saying that this song precedes the genre. I vote we leave out heavy metal and proto-metal and other metallurgy. — John Cardinal (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Where does metal begin, anyroad? Some say The Kinks' "You Really Got Me" is the beginning, which was three years before "Helter Skelter". I also !vote to leave "heavy metal" out of the article; "hard rock" covers it well. Radiopathy •talk• 00:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Where does any genre begin? Presumably, artists make music that is significantly different from other existing music and then someone decides that its different enough to deserve a name. If so, then all first examples of a new genre precede the new genre itself. That doesn't change my opinion of the genre for this 'Helter Skelter", however. I think the first songs to be truly in a genre come from bands whose music was predominantly in the new style; they were deliberate about what they were doing, and eventually that style was recognized and inspired the genre appellation. That didn't happen with "Helter Skelter". The big problem here is that there's too much OR-based opinion about genres--including my statements above--and thus we end up with genre wars and no really good way to resolve them. — John Cardinal (talk) 03:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree with all that except "no really good way to resolve": this is my cue to jump on my hobby-horse! I say we should source them like any other statement. If a WP:RS says it's "rock", then we say it's rock, and give an inline citation to the source. Otherwise, we say nothing because it is simply WP:OR. PL290 (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

RS review from its Top 500 site

A couple of interesting quotes in here... BYT (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Individual compositions

This section is tagged {{Original research}}. I've just tried to provide citations for a number of its statements but they simply don't seem to be quite the factual statements I would make or can find support for. Although its prose is far better than in the two recently removed, it reads more like a review than an encyclopedia. Reactions to removing this section? PL290 (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree. BYT (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  1. See footnote
  2. See footnote
  3. See footnote
  4. See footnote
  5. See footnote
  6. See footnote
Categories: