Talk:Revolver (Beatles album)/Archive 1

Album title

Does anyone know why the album is called "Revolver?" It's something I've wondered about and it'd be nice to have that information in the article. I think the boys mentioned where they got the name "Rubber Soul," so I'm sure there's a similarly interesting rationale in this case. Dr. Ebola 01:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very basic pun on the revolving record - not a joke about guns. I can't remember where I read this, though, or I'd put it in the article. Probably somewhere in the Anthology book.Rayray 13:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about... a revolving door through which Paul leaves and Billy Shears enters. What's up Dr. Strangelove 14:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

This article has become rather un-NPOV. Beach Boys fans would have quite a lot to say about "this song [Here There and Everywhere] surpasses all of Brian Wilson's attempts", I expect. --Camembert

I agree. Calling "Eleanor Rigby" McCartney's "best use of lyrical imagery" or whatever is pretty damn NPOV. I think that's one of the most overrated songs he ever wrote. -- Goatasaur

I agree, too. Plus the greatest album in rock & roll history, the acme of the Beatles history, and similarly, music history ("similarly"!) - a drooling fan running amok. The qualifications (widely contended etc.) don't help. I think subjective superlatives are a no-no in musical encyclopedia articles.

Also one should be careful with claims of the form 'x invented y' or 'x did y first': many genres of music stem from these very songs (grunge, arena rock, psychedelia among others) - well if that is so, why not go over to Grunge music, Arena rock and Psychedelic music and change each first sentence to "...is a musical genre invented by The Beatles on their album Revolver"? Finally, I agree that "Tomorrow never knows" was a stunningly original track (sic) and ahead of its time, but the claim This is the first sample of any kind is ludicrous - see Musique concrète, for example. In general it is very easy to make that kind of claim, but very hard to verify them - strictly speaking, you would have to check every single recording made in the whole world up to that point... regards, High on a tree 03:30, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

As I was the one with who wrote the "NPOV" things, let me state at the time I was a 17-year-old who just found The Beatles, and Wikipedia was hardly the beast it is today. In fact, it was in its infancy, and I was hoping to give The Beatles a greater presence on the site. So don't berate, high-nosed Wiki people. We all grow up.

Don't know about NPOV. But it's yet another example of a bunch of stateside twits making clowns out of themselves before an international audience.08:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

CD era releases

I was thinking of adding something about the CD era releases... and the Japan remastered CDs that aren't available in the US or UK unless via import. I don't even know if this section would be appropriate, but I post it here anyway. I read it somewhere, but cannot for sure remember the source. This is simply from my own memory. If someone feels this is appropriate or even substantial, feel free to update it to better standards, or tell me I can, and then add it to the article! Thanks. PlasticBeat 00:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

==Compact disc era releases==

Like the remainder of the original Beatles' British catalogue, Revolver was originally released on compact disc in 1987. At the same time, the same mastering that was used to produce the new CD was used to produce one last vinyl release. In the years since, their have been numerous calls by consumers to release the original catalogue via newer re-mastering techniques, a la the recently remastered and released Rolling Stones' catalogue.

Additionally, remastering efforts have been undertaken in Japan and produced a new version of the original British catalogue. A new remastered CD version was first released in 1998 and the same remastered version was released on LP in early 2004.

Does anyone know what (if anything) has stopped EMI re-releasing the Beatles catalogue using the 90s Japanese remasters? The vinyl and CD versions sold at present in the UK (and presumably in the US) are still sourced from the much-derided 1987 masters. 217.155.20.163 14:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lennon and McCartney

The article is a bit strange, dividing works of Lennon and McCartney. McCartney was a lot more experimental than people think, heck, he was the only one who actively participated in the avant-garde scene of London. Lennon thought that "avant-garde means shit in French". Also, "Ringo has admitted to contibuting the line 'Father McKenzie, writing the words to a sermon that no-one will hear'" sounds very fishy. The article repeats the average Beatles stereotypes.--Deadworm222 22:13, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Ringo mentioned that he contributed that line in an interview on Friday Night with Jonathan Ross last October.--Nick R 14:55, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The writing of Eleanor Rigby has a long story to it (told in the Eleanor Rigby (song) article). I don't think it's relevant to pinpoint that single fact. If anything, I think the fact that George contributed "Ah, look at all the lonely people" is more important. -- LodeRunner 23:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article strikes me as a bit disorganized, though its NPOV problems could be worse. Trying to proceed along various "themes" isn't working - it just makes for a disjointed read and for sentences that seemingly have nothing to do with the paragraphs they're in. Maybe there should be a song-by-song discussion to work in all the trivia, and a separate section dealing with the album's reception and influence? - robotsarered

Inconsistency! Ack!

I was about to edit the "American Release" section, but there's weirdness - I was going to gloss over the reference to "Michelle is Beautiful" as maybe it's referring to the song Michelle, but since it says "As three of its tracks..." rather than the 4 that are mentioned, I have to ask...therefore, could someone confirm the "Michelle" vs. "Michelle is Beautiful" thing, and was it 14 or 15 tracks that were on the original? I'm very tempted to edit this section anyway, but while I am a huge Beatles fan, I don't know enough about US vs. UK releases to make this kind of edit. Thanks. StopTheFiling 19:59, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to "Michelle is Beautiful", as it does not describe any Beatles song. The Beatles' song "Michelle" does not appear on "Yesterday & Today", nor is it on "Revolver". It was included on both the UK and US versions of "Rubber Soul", and I suspect that someone added the erroneous song title for reasons that do not involve the Beatles. --DrSlaw 21:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Credit for Leslie speaker idea

The current version says Townshend solved the problem by splicing a line from the recording console into the studio's Leslie speaker, giving Lennon's vocal its ethereal filtered quality -- although he was subsequently reprimanded by the studio management for doing so. What is the source for this? Lewisohn doesn't state exactly who had this idea, but he only quotes Emerick and Martin about it; one gets the impression that it was Emerick's idea. regards, High on a tree 01:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism ???

Dan East has removed a small refinement I made to the section on Tomorrow Never Knows, citing it as vandalism.

"Vandalism" is hardly a fair assessment of what I wrote. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ADealing_with_vandalism: >>Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism."

I made a slight amendement to the text (a sentence or two) to the effect that TNK is neither based purely on a single chord, as the article currently states, nor is it the only Beatles song based *largely* around a single chord.

You can check Alan W. Pollacks' analysis of Beatles songs for confirmation. "Revolution in the Head" also would back me up on this, if I remember correctly. In fact, anyone who can play a musical instrument can work out that there is slight, but recurring deviation to the flat-VII in TNK.

I'm with you there. The deception lies in the bass since it drones away on the same note, but the chord above it does change. - Slow Graffiti 18:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you. Dr. Ebola 01:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frightnening string arrangements !?

The article cites the Eleanor Rigby string arrangement as "sometimes frightning". I presume this is in the sense of "frightfully bad English" or "frightnening poor writing"?--feline1 15:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No...it means 'frightening' as in alarming, forceful, urgent. - Slow Graffiti 18:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of those words are exact substitutes for "frightening". Something "frightening" should literally introduce "fear" in the listener, much in the same way that what I read on the Internet frequently makes me "fear" that a large proportion of the human race are utter morons.--feline1 13:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow Never Knows/ Single Chord

I've check Ian MacDonald's Revolution in the Head, the sheet music of a guitar-tab arragement, and Alan Pollack's site, and I've played the song through; TNK is not based exclusively on a single chord: that's a fact.

According to the sheet music, Love You To *is*, however, which is interesting. Blue Jay Way is based on C and Cdim, which makes it as close to being based on a single chord as TNK.

Yes, you are right about TNK (I wrote the same fact into de:Tomorrow Never Knows a while ago). One can only wonder why your edit was mistaken for vandalism; maybe it was because of a typo you inserted in another paragraph. BTW further details should got into Tomorrow Never Knows, not the main article. regards, High on a tree 14:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support! BTW, I looked at the German TNK page (I can read German reasonably well), and it's nicely done; better than the English one. There's one detail there that Ian MacDonald's book contradicts; the guitar solo in TNK, according to MacDonald, is the guitar solo from Taxman run backwards and manipulated in some other ways I don't recall now; and, again according to MacDonald, that solo is played by McCartney, not Harrison.

Thanks again! Oh! and before I forget, the seagull noise is, (again!) according to MacDonald, a heavily processed recording of McCartney laughing, rather than distorted guitars. I'd write this into the German page, but my written German is poor.

Thanks a lot for your remarks about the German article! With regard to the seagull noise there seems to be a contradiction between McDonald and Lewisohn, or rather MacDonald and Emerick:

"The tape loop idea started because they all had Brennell machines," recalls Geoff Emerick. "Paul in particular used to make his own loops at home and walk into the studio with bags full of litte reels saying 'Listen to this!' The seagull-like noise on 'Tomorrow Never Knows' is really a distorted guitar." (from Lewisohn, Recording Sessions)

BTW you can sign your posts by appending four tildes (~~~~) to them.

regards, High on a tree 16:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip! 213.131.238.25 14:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)Dermot[reply]

TNK is based on a DRONE (or 'pedal') generally C major is the chord implied by the drone, however the chord often chages to Bb major, played over the continuing drone. The harmonic system is Indian and not best described by "chord progression" in the european classical tradition.--feline1 15:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to "the complete beatles chord songbook, the chords are C & C11. Both C-ish but not the same chord.--Crestville 15:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to someone who actually knows some elementary music theory rather than just parrots uncomprehendingly what they read out of books, the chord "C11" means "playing Bb major over a C bass". (Bb is the dom 7th of the scale, D is the 9th, F is the 11th). If you listen to the actual music instead of reading some-one trying to forcefit western strummalong guitar chords to it in a songbook, you'll hear that Macca's bass guitar stays riffing on C the whole time, along with a sitar drone, whilst some Hammond organ voices either the C or Bb major chord. This tonality is further hinted by lennon's vocal line. --feline1 18:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we get it. You know about guitars. No need to be so unplesant about it. There is a word for people like you.--Crestville 14:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, there's a difference between C11 and what we have here, which could more correctly be notated as a 'slash chord': Bb/C (ie, a Bb major triad over the note C in the bass), but they're pretty similar. (C11 would consist of the notes C-E-G-Bb-D-F, though the E would often be omitted in common usage, as it forms a dissonance with the F, which is the 'defining' note of a dominant 11th chord, and thus *has* to remain present. Often the 9th (D) is also left out, giving what might also be called C7(sus4). The voicing that actually appears on the record is most likely C-Bb-D-F, or some inversion of these notes. Guy Hatton 09:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to guess what voicing is most "likely" to appear on the record as you can instead listen to a copy of it with your ears and hear it. A radical suggestion I know, given the egregious editorial climate which seems to prevail on this article, but one which neverless I must urge you all would prove very useful :)--feline1 14:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course one could do that (and had I had my copy of 'Revolver' to hand at the time, I might have done so). However, my point was primarily aimed at distiguishing betweem a C11 chord and a Bb/C, regardless of what's actually on the record (though I realise that may not have been as clear as I thought). Guy Hatton 18:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feline 1 has a good point. Commercially available songbooks are often approximations of what is actually going on within a recorded performance and often are just plain wrong. Crestville, no need to feel offense at Feline 1 citing this fact. Just don't put too much stock in these books. If you want to gain understanding of a piece of music it is definately best to study the source, since so much of a great rock performance, chords aside, is not easily described with words or written on a staff. I don't know how "Indian" this melody really is. I'm sure they were digging some of that music but the melody is pretty much a major chord arpeggio, a bugle call someone said. Anyway, words don't really get to the essence, do they? That's why we love MUSIC! HalfJapaneseGuitarist 01:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration or eternity

Just how long will the collaboration on this WikiProject Albums album last? I'd much appreciate it if a more mainstream album was selected as the next candidate. --Hollow Wilerding 22:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose no reply means that it is going to last forever. --Hollow Wilerding 00:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You should rather ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums or Template Talk:Album, since Template:Album contains the text that you see at the top of this page. Or be bold and change it yourself.

Personally, I'm a bit sceptical about linking on so many talk pages to a wikiproject which doesn't seem to be very active. regards, High on a tree 03:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Father McCartney statement

I've removed the italics from the following section from the article:

It was orginally written as 'Father McCartney', however this was removed as it was thought that listeners would assume that it referred to Paul's father.

Which in a previous edit was changed from:

However it was orginally written as 'Father McCartney', however this was removed as it was thought that listeners would think they were talking about Paul's dad!

If it was supposed to be a quotation, it was incorrectly formatted, the wording shouldn't have been changed in the previous edit (or in my own edit...) and we should have a source for it. So I've removed the italics and made it clearer that it's just a statement.

Incidentally, regarding the line above that one (Ringo has confirmed that he contributed the line "Father McKenzie, writing the words of a sermon that no one will hear."): I think I originally added that to the article, as I remember it being confirmed on Ringo Starr's appearance on Friday Night With Jonathan Ross. So, I think that should be referred to as a source for that statment. --Nick R^Talk 17:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that too.--Crestville 13:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading somewhere that "McKenzie" was picked during a search of a phone book because it fit in with the lyrics. I don't know that source, which also noted the removal of "McCartney". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Melodic diversity

The section Melodic diversity; innovation in the studio doesn't actually mention or describe melodic diversity, nor does it speak much if any of melody. Hyacinth 09:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question - my book about Revolver

I'm working on a free online book about Revolver, due for release in August. Two chapters are available online. Would it be appropriate to add a link to it in the links section of this article? Rayray 13:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and added a link to my now finished book.Rayray 17:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name of "Eleanor Rigby"

The name of this song is "Eleanor Rigby". This is the only name printed on the record sleeve. I have now doublechecked by looking it up in the official PRS/MCPS "Registered Works" database, and there is no "alternative title" listed - the only name the work is officially known by is "Eleanor Rigby". This is definitive! The end! No more discussion! --feline1 08:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invariably typing "No More Duscussion" leads to further discussion. The person who keeps putting it back is not claiming that is the real title of the song. He claims to be trying to make wikipedia more user friendly. Apparently people under the age of 25 all know this song as "All The Lonely People" (?). Presumable he will now go through every music article on wikipedia with a fine toothcomb ensuring no-one could possibly be confused about the title of a song in relation to the actual content. I've just changed the title of "The Great Gig In The Sky" to "Whoa Whoa Whooooooooaaahhh Wahh". There is a breif discussion here.--Crestville 09:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes well if I had my way, everyone under the age of 25 would be shot. "User friendly"? I don't WANT to be friendly to them. DRUG users, most of 'em. --feline1 10:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm under 25 and have never heard it called that. I agree with the shooting punishment.82.69.194.142 (talk) 12:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Billy Joel's immortal, "Just The Way You Are" is known to nimrods of all ages as, "Don't Go Changin'." HalfJapaneseGuitarist 01:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd argue with you, but I did use a lot of drugs yesterday.--Crestville 10:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personnel still incomplete

Who were the horn players on "Got to Get You into my Life"? There are still absent from the personnel a tthe bottom of this page. Dogru144 23:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answered. Lexo (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain of edits

Greetings to everybody. I thought a few (more) words were in order, having just finished a comprehensive round of edits of the main sections of the article.

First, rest assured that I haven't made wholesale changes to what was already written. I did rearrange the order of some of the paragraphs, etc. -- and as a result the article flows more cogently from beginning to end (of those sections). I made a small number of very judicious edits, where they were needed, and added a word or phrase here and there -- but I preserved virtually everything that was already there, so all of the great work that has gone into this article can now be seen to better advantage, IMO. Plus, I've added quite a few new wikilinks. Regards to all. Cgingold 14:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question re "Good Day Sunshine"

The brief mention of "Good Day Sunshine" refers to it as "a cheery mockery of The Lovin' Spoonful". That struck me as somewhat dubious, though it may well be true. Can anybody provide substantiation for this remark -- or was it just the opinion of the editor who wrote it? Cgingold 09:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And where is a comment about this song in the section headed "Side two"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article include information about the rare XEX606-1 pressing of Revolver?

There exists a rare pressing of this album which has matrix XEX606-1 while the others have 606-2 or 606-3. The -1 pressing is believed to be pressed only on the first day of release and includes a different mix of Tomorrow Never Knows. You can read more about it at http://www.norwegianwood.org/beatles/disko/uklp/revolver.htm (roll all the way to the bottom of the page). Should we include that information in this article? -- 88.112.219.78 15:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it depends how arcane we want to get. I have a pre-release 'factory sample' of Revolver and that has matrix 606-2, which would seem to suggest that very, very few copies of 606-1 were pressed. Russ London 17:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, that's far too arcane for this article. The only place I can even imagine putting something like that would be in an article on record collecting -- if there is one. Cgingold 12:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. While it's obviously too arcane for the Beatles' article, this article is specifically about Revolver, and if there was an original pressing that contained different, apparently unknown(!) mix of a song, especially one as celebrated for its production (including mixing) as TNK, then that fact is certainly germane to this article. (And obviously the rare XEX606-1 pressing should be in the TNK's article!) Fp cassini (talk) 06:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be OK to add a summary, but we need a reliable source first and the web site listed above doesn't qualify. I didn't see anything in Lewisohn about it. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Lewisohn (Sessions p. 82) does say that George Martin switched mixes on the day the LP went into the cutting room. He does not say whether or not there were any albums released with the alternate mix. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will defer to serious Beatle scholars, of which i am not. I did however put it into the TNK page, w/ the NorwegianWood.org reference. And until i hear conclusively from 'you guys', i will be carefully inspecting side two's matrix number on every thrashed dollar bin copy of Revolver i come across! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fp cassini (talk • contribs) 07:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics Links

The following discussion was posted on Wikipedia's main Beatles discussion page, and appears to also be relevant here:

Are links to lyrics sites appropriate? I have noticed them in some music articles, and I believe they do add value to the listings. I added one at the bottom of the external links section. In the interest of full disclosure, it is a website I maintain. If the interest is positive, I would likely add lyrics links to other musical articles where appropriate. Shadar 19:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that lyrics sites reprint lyrics in violation of copyright, and that's why we're not supposed to link to them. The relevant guideline to check would be Wikipedia:External links, but that page doesn't directly address this question. I'm going to post a question to the discussion page there, and perhaps someone can tell us whether my idea is correct or mistaken. In the latter case, I'd be happy to restore the link myself. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted my question Wikipedia talk:External links#Lyrics sites here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the decision is made that lyrics sites are inappropriate due to the copyright violation issue, I would like to delete the links I found. As a newbie, it would give me good practice in editting. Is that an appropriate action for a new user, and is there a FAQ on deletion etiquette? Shadar 19:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we received an answer, and it refers us to item #2 at Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking. It comes down to whether the lyrics are actually under copyright or in the public domain, and whether or not the site in question has the copyright holder's permission to publish the lyrics. If you'd like to remove links to lyrics sites that are in violation of our copyright policy, then you're welcome to do so. The best way to avoid offense is probably to mention the External links policy (or WP:EL, as we like to call it) in your edit summary. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly understand that decision. It turns out I violated the self interest clause anyways, since I posted my own site. I should have recommended the change in talk, and then if someone agreed they could make the change. Thanks for the help with this, GTBacchus. Shadar 17:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that there are also links to lyric pages on each of the Wikipedia Beatles album pages. I should have time to fix those tonight. I'll follow the above advice of GTBacchus in mentioning the WP:EL, and refer to this discussion on each album discussion page. InnerRevolution7 02:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the above-stated change. InnerRevolution7 04:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments link

I have reinstated the link for comments on the song here seems a useful resource and I don't see any objections to it. However, if anyone has concerns please share them here. TerriersFan 00:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1968 Rolling Stone Interview

A citation to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/carousel/pob06.html was added on 22 September 2007. That page has the title, "Rolling Stone Interview - John Lennon - September 1968," but the text does not match two other sites where that interview is transcribed, including The Beatles Interview Database and John-Lennon.com.

I do not think the http://homepage.ntlworld.com/carousel/pob06.html version is an accurate transcription. Some of the text in that version that is not in the The Beatles Interview Database does not sound like something Lennon would say, or is not said the way he would say it. Perhaps more importantly, I have found The Beatles Interview Database to be reliable when comparing material there to the same material published in books by reputable authors and publishers, and for that reason I believe it is a more reliable source than http://homepage.ntlworld.com/carousel/pob06.html.

Gien the above, I think that citation should be removed and we should refrain from citing material from that site until/unless someone can corroborate that version of the interview.

The specific assertion that is cited has to do with Lennon accidentally putting the "Rain" tape in backwards while high. I have read that various places and so I think we can find another source for it. I will try to do that. John Cardinal 12:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concept album?

Is this a concept album, and should this thus be mentioned in the article? The songs do seem to carry a similar concept, and I've heard Revolver be called The Pioneer of Concept Albums. Sgt. Pepper is also called a concept album by some. Zazaban 15:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You often hear Peppers described as a concept album, not so often this one. If you can find some reliable sources - books, critical appraisals - describing it so, then it could be mentioned - just cite the sources... Cheers, Ian Rose 21:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard Revolver described as a concept album anywhere in the Beatles literature, and as Ian Rose said, you have to provide evidence that somebody in print has thought so. The consensus in Beatles scholarship is that Sgt. Pepper is undeniably an attempt at a concept album, albeit possibly a failed attempt. Most scholars of this kind of thing agree that the first ever concept album (and therefore the true "Pioneer") was probably The Mothers of Invention's Freak Out!. Sgt. Pepper was described once by McCartney as "our Freak Out", although opinion is divided about whether it has enough conceptual and stylistic integrity to be regarded as a true concept album. Ian MacDonald thought it did; Tim Riley, Devin McKinney and Nik Cohn, to name but three, didn't think so. My own personal opinion is that Sgt. Pepper is the greatest concept album ever made, but that's neither here nor there. Lexo (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US Cover?

Is the US cover really needed? It seems to be just a crop of the UK cover. Putting them both up there makes the reader (me) feel like there's some important change (why else present both images other than for the sake of comparison?). Am I missing something? The alternate versions aren't discussed in the article, either, which makes it all seem a bit pointless. At the very least, it makes me seriously suspect the fair use rationale for the US cover- what exactly is it illustrating that the UK cover fails to illustrate? Staecker (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revamp anyone?

This needs work...to say the least. Information on background, recording, release, etc; reliable sources; pictures.... But it's Revolver, and more importantly, it's the Beatles, so it's impossible for this NOT to be able to achieve at least Good status. :]

Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 00:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more. Of all the Beatles albums, this is arguably the most important as a transition from pure pop towards more complex musical forms. Sgt Pepper could not have happened without this album. The sources are out there, let's use them. --Rodhull andemu 01:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2010

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved Cybercobra (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revolver (album) → Revolver (The Beatles album) — Per music naming conventions and disambiguation policy, this page should be moved so that it has an unambiguous title (the fact that it has hatnotes to other "Revolver" albums shows it is not currently unambiguous).—Cybercobra (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This album is the primary topic for "Revolver (album)". For this month, this article has more than twice as many hits as the other album pages combined. The only album with any significant hits is relatively recent, but is unreleased. Once it's released, let's see if it has any legs. — John Cardinal (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The primary topic is Revolver as in the gun. Revolver (album) need not exist and the disambiguation is supposed to be versus Revolver, hence Revolver (The Beatles album). --Cybercobra (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Disagree. Where does it say what you state as fact? In discussions on that topic, no one cited a WP policy that said the primary topic omitted the parenthesized term(s). — John Cardinal (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If I were to type "Revolver (album)" into the search box, I would expect to find this article, not a disambiguation page showing various albums named Revolver. I suspect the same applies to most people (as evidence by the data given by User:John Cardinal). This article can have a note pointing to a disambiguation page for other albums by the same name. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Someone typing in Revolver (album) is most likely to be looking for this album, considering it's the often considered one of the greatest albums of all-time, and by the most famous band the world's known. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 03:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

US vs. UK versions of the albums

"Many of the tracks on Revolver are marked by an electric guitar-rock sound, in contrast with their previous, folk rock inspired Rubber Soul." The US version of Rubber Soul, which was sequenced by Capitol Records, is much more folk-rock-y than the original UK version, which the Beatles themselves sequenced and which I think has to be regarded as the definitive version. The US version has 'I've Just Seen A Face' and 'It's Only Love' which were on the UK version of Help!, but it also omits 'Drive My Car', 'Nowhere Man', 'If I Needed Someone' and 'What Goes On' which are on the UK Rubber Soul. This has tended to make US listeners from the pre-CD era believe that Rubber Soul was the Beatles' folk-rock album, but in fact the closest the Beatles themselves ever came to making such a thing was Beatles for Sale, the closest US equivalent of which was Beatles '65 (which still contains songs from other albums). I'm arguing that it would be more sensible to rely on the UK versions when it comes to making decisions about where the Beatles were going artistically, because it was only at Sgt. Pepper that Capitol finally stopped splitting up the Beatles' UK albums into multiple releases and it is not disputed by anyone that they did this for purely commercial reasons, US albums having fewer tracks than UK albums. Lexo (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree about this, and I certainly think it differences require some sourcing. In the discography, we tend to regard the original UK issues as canonical, and the US versions as amended perhaps to suit a different market or audience. Hence, I think that we should start with descriptions of the UK issues and maybe cite differences between US issues when appropriate; I'm fully aware that the major online sources in this regard are American (Allmusic, Rolling Stone), and I bitterly regret throwing out about half a ton of Melody Makers and New Musical Expresses from the time, otherwise I'd cite them. It occurs to me that The Beatles probably had much more practical input into the running orders of their UK releases than the US versions. Rodhull andemu 00:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the Beatles had zero input into the running order of their US releases, at least up until Sgt Pepper when EMI finally got Capitol to release the same album. If you watch footage or listen to audio recordings of the Beatles performing in America, they usually can't remember what US album any given Beatle song appears on. Admittedly they all had bad short-term memories, but I really suspect they had nothing to do with the sequencing of US releases. Lexo (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted a faulty edit which is unnecessary to begin with. The only difference between the US and UK version of the album is three fewer tracks. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the 3 tracks removed for the U.S. version all had John Lennon on lead, and I have heard it somewhere that this makes it seem he was "on holiday" due to being left with 2 tracks with him on lead. The 3 which were removed had already been on Yesterday and Today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Across the Universe Soundtrack

Is there anything in this page that mentions not one song from this album was featured in the movie "Across the Universe"? I think it's relevant; that movie is fueled by the Beatle's music, and its entire creation is in honor of it. I think it's significant too, since this may be the only album without a song in the movie; not sure though, there may be others. It's weird though; this is one of their most acclaimed albums, considered their best by some, and features several of their most famous songs; the fact it was left out of a movie dedicated to their music is odd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.22.38 (talk) 09:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a song is featured in Across the Universe, that can be mentioned in the article for the song and the article for the album on which the song appears. However, it seems strange to mention in this article that the album has no songs featured in the film. We cannot and should not presume to know what songs ought to have been included in the film. Aside from that, does the film include any songs from Please Please Me or Beatles for Sale? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

This particular Beatles album should have Psychedelic Rock listed in the genres, many albums on here have more than one genre, and since a good percent of Revolver has psychedelic based songs, it needs it listed as a genre —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.162.235 (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about verification through citation, not personal opinions. If you want to include something like psychedelic rock, you'll need to find reliable sources that call it such. That means big critics and such in this case, not some random blogger or something. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genre is one of the classic sources of lame edit wars. Where a genre is cited, it should have a reliable source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, i have a legitimate source then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.162.235 (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source says "Arguably the first psychedelic rock album" and is an online mail order service, which is not a reliable source.[1] Nice try, but the source should be a mainstream journalist or academic.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

how about "allmusic"? it seems pretty reliable, and it does indeed consider revolver a psychedelic rock album. Additionally, Im sure there are other reliable sources which vindicate this fact. Too simply label it "rock" is simply inaccurate, an indolent analyzis of the album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.103.148 (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

allmusic is very reliable, wiki seems to get most of its citations on music genre from there. Consistency is good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.247.245 (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article already includes a cited quote detailing exactly why Allmusic classify it as a psychedelic rock album:

According to music critic Richie Unterberger of Allmusic:
In many respects, Revolver is one of the very first psychedelic LPs – not only in its numerous shifts in mood and production texture, but in its innovative manipulation of amplification and electronics to produce new sounds on guitars and other instruments. Specific, widely-heralded examples include the backwards riffs of 'I'm Only Sleeping', the sound effects of 'Yellow Submarine', the sitar of 'Love You To', the blurry guitars of 'She Said, She Said', and above all the seagull chanting, buzzing drones, megaphone vocals, free-association philosophizing, and varispeed tape effects of 'Tomorrow Never Knows'.[2]

I've updated the infobox. PL290 (talk) 07:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Experimental rock

In the "Tomorrow Never Knows" Wiki page, one of the genres listed is 'Experimental Rock". Due to the fact that one of the songs from "Revolver" is "Experimental Rock", i think one of the genres listed on this page should be "Experimental rock". I would like an opinion from a another wiki user before i make any changes. Heres a link: 1 --60.230.109.76 (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Lachie Bennett - Lewis[reply]

genre

the second genre should be psychedelic pop, not rock so i'm changing it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.220.148 (talk) 05:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beatles RfC

You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning the name of this band in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genre addition

"Baroque pop" should surely be lists as a genre. Songs such as "Eleanor Rigby" and "For No One" are described on Wikipedia as such. A quote (cited) from Wikipedia's page on Baroque pop: "The Beatles' 1966 album Revolver featured baroque instrumentation on songs such as "For No One" and "Eleanor Rigby"; which both featured idiosyncratic and lonely lyrics." Obviously, the record contains elements that have been described as having baroque influences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.44.63 (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Psychedelic rock

Only three of the fourteen songs on the album are classified as psychedelic rock. Is that really enough to classify the entire album as psychedelic rock? I have no problem with psychedelic rock being included, but calling the whole album psychedelic rock just because of three songs is a bit much. I think the previous genre of "rock, psychedelic rock" fits the album better. --John of Lancaster (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that this is an encyclopedia? (WP:TERTIARY, WP:FORUM) Dan56 (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do know and I was simply making a suggestion to improve this encyclopedia. No need to bite my head off. --John of Lancaster (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Bite" your "head off"? Well how is that an improvement? Psychedelic rock is more specific than rock, and having both is redundant. Regardless, genres changes should be based on what the most reliable sources on the topic say, not our respective opinions on the album. Dan56 (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Psychedelic rock is more specific than rock, but most songs on the album fall under a different genre according to other reliable sources. I know that a reliable source calls the album psychedelic rock and I wasn't suggesting that we remove it. I simply suggested that we include a broader genre along with psychedelic rock to see if we could get a consensus. If not, fine. --John of Lancaster (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which other sources are you referring to? Dan56 (talk) 06:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ones sourced in the infoboxes of Taxman, Eleanor Rigby, Love You To, Here, There and Everywhere, Yellow Submarine, And Your Bird Can Sing, and Got to Get You into My Life. --John of Lancaster (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just finished checking those sources out. Pretty poorly sourced, mostly either out-of-context OR, or just not in the source altogether. I cleaned them up with sources from GoogleBooks' preview of music/beatles-related books, but those articles are still independent of this one, which would need a reliable source to support this being a "[genre] album". Dan56 (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

dates

I am seeing "6 April – 21 June 1966" for recording of the Revolver album. I'm interested in seeing it broken down further (I'd have to look up the individual songs, right?), because I have been to the article about Bruce Johnston of the Beach Boys; that article says he flew to London in May 1966 and played Pet Sounds album for John Lennon and Paul McCartney. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2013

This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 29 June 2013. The result of the move review was closure endorsed.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. There appears to be consensus for the relevant new addition to WP:PDAB, and other similar guidelines have been in existence for awhile. So what reason should overwrite that? Well... it seems to me the primary -- dare I say only -- objection to this move is that it creates a disservice to our readers, forcing them to go via a disambiguation page when they're likely looking for this album. But that's predicated on the idea that Revolver (album) would redirect to a disambiguation page. But if it continues to redirect to this article, that problem doesn't exist. So, I'm moving the article and maintaining the redirect. -- tariqabjotu 23:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revolver (album) → Revolver (The Beatles album) – per WP:PDAB, WP:MOSALBUM and WP:NCM all of which guide against ambiguous disambiguation and in line with Don't Let Me Down (The Beatles song) Julia (The Beatles song) The End (The Beatles song). No one will claim that Revolver (Lewis Black album), Revolver (The Haunted album), Revolver (T-Pain album) put together are within a mile of The Beatles album, but the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for revolver is the gun, therefore we're in bracket territory, and almost no one types "Revolver bracket album bracket" when searching. Neutral as to whether Revolver (album) can be left redirecting to The Beatles or should really go to Revolver (disambiguation). In ictu oculi (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the newly written WP:PDAB and its Village pump "consensus" is being challenged at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Objection. GoingBatty (talk) 04:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support. It's possible that the location of the Beatles' Revolver article at Revolver (album) could create a precedent for other violations of WP:PDAB, WP:MOSALBUM and WP:NCM, all of which serve the goal to prevent naming confusion at Wikipedia - something which I believe should be an objective we actively strive for. As there is no perceivable benefit in keeping the article in question at Revolver (album), I strongly support the Beatles' Revolver article being moved to Revolver (The Beatles album) with Revolver (album) being redirected to Revolver (disambiguation)#Music. Regards, Jamekae (talk) 04:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The "perceivable benefit" in keeping the article at Revolver (album) is that most people who search for "Revolver (album)" will find the album they're looking for immediately. By redirecting, everyone has to hit the disambig page first. I perceive this change as making Wikipedia a less user-friendly experience. GoingBatty (talk) 04:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per GoingBatty. We're here to serve readers, and not blindly follow rules. Hot Stop 04:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As In ictu oculi stated, the chance that one is going to type "Revolver (album)" into the search is minimal. Furthermore, should someone happen to search for "Revolver (...", it's more than likely that "Revolver (The Beatles album)" would be in the auto-suggested links, endowing readers everywhere with greater assurance of where they're navigating to. RE: WP:PDAB, I've always found this second tier primary topic preference is convoluted and selected rather arbitrarily. A primary topic page which links to the disambiguation page is enough. Especially with categories like "album" where pop culture preference is susceptible to change. While this Revolver album may not always be the Revolver album, it'll always be the Beatles' Revolver and that's why it's better disambiguated as such. Jamekae (talk) 08:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's highly speculative. What if someone Google/Bing searches for "Revolver album" with the intent of finding this page? And all the interwiki links that would be broken by a move? Hot Stop 17:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per WP:PDAB. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Disambiguating the current title to the redirect seems quite silly. What other notable album, by any other band, could be confusing here? It's fine as it is .Doc talk 08:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GoingBatty HotStop Doc9871 - I think we all recognise the good work of WikiProject Beatles members but what if this argument was extended to WP:PRIMARYFOOTBALLER and so on? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@In ictu oculi: - With all due respect, I do not agree with your argument for albums, songs, novels, films, and presumably footballers as well. GoingBatty (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd feel basically the same way for everything. A few months back I argued against moving Psycho for the same reasons. Hot Stop 17:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support WP:NCM ambiguous disambiguation should not be used -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 09:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per GoingBatty. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 12:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per any of my objections in any of the RMs of Talk:Thriller (album)--and I like what Batty said. The best is to exterminate the 7-5 "consensus" of PDAB and start to check if WP:NCM, WP:NCF or any of "needs to be fully dabbed" guidelines (mistakenly taken as policies) were created with consensus of their respective WPs or they were copied from another WP as tends to happen. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Every other album named Revolver is relatively obscure. This use is the primary topic for albums named Revolver. The very new WP:PDAB section does not have broad community consensus support, and this is a great example of that. --B2C 00:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCM is not new. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the section you are referring to is based upon then-naming conventions page, nowadays WP:AT,[3] not community consensus by the WikiProject Musician, Albums and Songs, or any other Music-releated WP in 2009. Do you remember the "they were copied from another WP as tends to happen", is because it really happens. I have structured multiple WPs based upon other WPs. It is normal to do it. Also a few months ago that page contradicted itself with Wikipedia:MOSALBUM until somebody removed it once again without consensus. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 09:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noted that WP:PDAB is new and not supported by community consensus because others were using it as a basis to support this proposal.

WP:NCM is not new, but that instruction is and always was out of step with community consensus as reflected in convention. Case in point. --B2C 17:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to see that WP:NCM states Anthrax (band) is acceptable, since Anthrax (UK band) has existed since 2003. GoingBatty (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent edits by Liftmoduleinterface

User:Liftmoduleinterface reverted each of my changes (for which I provided an edit summary) and dismissed them as vandalism ([4]). They did the same at the Sgt. Pepper's article here. It's fine if you disagree with the point I raised in these edit summaries, but I don't see how it's fair to call my edits vandalism when I cited a guideline each time and actually explained myself, as opposed to claiming I added something, when in fact something was removed without an explanation. I restored the revscore originally there before Liftmoduleinterface replaced it without an explanation, improved the grammar in the lead, removed unnecessary line breaks between templates, paraphrased a long quote with little encyclopedic value, and reduced the record label to only the original album's label as the infobox template page says. The last thing I'd expect is getting accused of starting "revisions wars" or vandalizing an article. Dan56 (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were dismissed as vandalism owing to their nature, i.e. made without proper use of talk pages either for the article or on my talk page, and amidst other vandalism occuring. Further, you attempted to replace academic non-commercial sources with non-academic, commercial, sources. Again, this was done without explanation or reasoning. As such, your actions can only be seen as vandalism in that light. Regardless of time spent on wikipedia, one is not entitled to making bad changes for articles because of it. Liftmoduleinterface (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm you did that here first without explaining anything. That's why I restored the Larkin book's score. I don't see how reverting an unexplained, challengeable edit made by you without any discussion is vandalism. Dan56 (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits don't appear to be vandalism at all. Vandalism is deliberately making destructive edits with the intention of destroying Wikipedia. You've been here since 2008 and made nearly 80,000 edits. Editors with those statistics are clearly here to help out, not to destroy.

I wouldn't go and revert his/her edits right now, because that would fall under the category of edit warring. He has been accused of edit warring himself, as seen here.

My recommendation would be to talk to him on his talk page and ask him the reason why he is reverting your edits and flagging them as vandalism, because they're clearly not. K6ka (talk | contrib) 22:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with K6ka and also recommend to talk to Liftmoduleinterface on his talk page. --Cdl obelix (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it wasn't vandalism, but why did you remove the US label from the Infobox "Capitol (US)"? --Bejnar (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I linked in my opening. Only the original release's label should be there (Template:Infobox album#Label). Dan56 (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understood that it was released in both countries at the same time. That would make both labels the original release. --Bejnar (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed it was the UK because of how the lead was originally written, i.e. "released on 5 August 1966 on the Parlophone label" ([5]). Neither labels nor release date were cited in the article. I looked it up now and the dates for UK and US release were different ("It was released in Britain on 5 August and in the U.S.A. on 8 August") Dan56 (talk) 09:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at this edit and I'll give you my thoughts.

Firstly, Liftmoduleinterface removed a reliable source stating the release date. Here's one for 8 August, and here's one for 5 August. My vote would be to use whatever Revolution in the Head: The Beatles' Records and the Sixties says, as it's my go to source for any Beatles' facts and figures.

'Firstly, Liftmoduleinterface removed a reliable source stating the release date.' That's a lie. Liftmoduleinterface (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks dear but my pants are not actually on fire and I have added the reference above. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Piero Scaruffi review was taken out. Seriously, I thought we discussed this to death at WT:ALBUMS and consensus was that his reviews could stay? I don't see anything wrong with putting his review here, he's a notable journalist who doesn't like The Beatles and it's obvious we're linking to his opinion.
The Colin Larkin source was taken out for no obvious reason. Again, if you want another quotation in this area, I'd go with McDonald's book.

I haven't looked at this article, but I came here expecting to see at least a GA or possibly FA and was surprised to see it's only at B class. Perhaps we should look at sorting that out instead? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Liftmoduleinterface appears to think Scaruffi is an academic source and Larkin's book isn't, when in fact Scaruffi's reviews on his website are republishing those from his self-published book (published by iUniverse). He also thinks some convoluted message to my talk page absolves him from this discussion and explaining why he reverted my other changes. Also, the source I used verified both countries, release dates, and record labels. Revolution in the Head doesn't mention the labels. I've made it clear that Template:Infobox album says to only include the release date and label of the first known release, in this case 5 August 1966 in the UK by Parlophone. Per MOS:ALBUM#Critical reception, both neutrality and notability of the review source should be considered when choosing the review scores. Scaruffi is self-published (book and website), and his "mixed" score of "5/10" is not representative or proportionate to the overall reception, so it would be undue weight to replace Larkin's book's score with his. And what possible objection could there be my addition of Larkin's critique and my paraphrasing of a four-sentence quote (WP:QUOTEFARM)? I've made every effort to create a discussion and defend myself when more of the burden should be on Liftmoduleinterface, who simply accuses me of vandalism, bias, reverts my edits, and does not address the content, i.e. the aforementioned points I raised. Dan56 (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dan56 is correct in using the first published release date in the infobox, and he is correct to use Colin Larkin's Encyclopedia of Popular Music as a source. However, I would disagree with him that Scaruffi is not to be included in the article at all. I would say at the present time it is done the best by removing Scaruffi from the ratings box because out of ten plus rating and reviews he is the only one to offer a mixed perception of the album. So, it is due justice to include his opinion and rating in prose at the end of the section, but not in the ratings box. I would suggest while I am at it that you all greatly expand the section beyond just a mere paragraph. For a release like this one two paragraphs minimum to possibly three.HotHat (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear , I never removed Scaruffi's prose from the section, I just paraphrased what was an unencyclopedic quote, four-sentences which were not in the spirit of WP:QUOTEFARM. I don't want there to be a misconception that I was against including a minority opinion, I just don't think it's encyclopedic to highlight it. Dan56 (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need to put back in the full quote just the sentiments that he believed about the album, which is known a paraphrasing, and you know that of course. If you did take out his rating, please put it back in prose.HotHat (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was actually Liftmoduleinterface here. I've added it back in prose. Dan56 (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to thank you for doing so Dan56.HotHat (talk) 07:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...and it was evening and it was morning, and lo, somebody re-added Scaruffi again. *sigh* Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The self-published article in question, which is more like a diatribe, begins with the completely bogus claim that it "has won several international awards as the most professional analysis of the career of pop group the Beatles ever written." That utter nonsense ought to be enough to dismiss the entire article as dubious. Piriczki (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By contrast, his over-the-top praise of the Rolling Stones suggests there might be some sort of juvenile battle of the bands going on in his head, to the point that he falsely claims the Stones were the "first band to gain admission in the Rock'n'Roll Hall of Fame" (the Beach Boys and the Beatles were inducted the year before). His writings seem more like overzealous personal opinions than worthwhile critical assessments. Piriczki (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Piero Scaruffi

As per Wikipedia's album article style guide...

"A section should be dedicated to an overview of the critical reception of the album."

"Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs)."

"Include no more than ten reviews in table form."

Piero Scaruffi's review of Revolver follows none of these criteria, and as such it should not be included.

The addition of his ratings appears to be an ongoing prank by 4chan: http://rbt.asia/mu/?task=search&ghost=&search_text=wikipedia+scaruffi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darthvader24 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the "review" again, it's clear that not only is it not an album review, or even a critique of the Beatles music, it is one long refutation of a straw man argument that the Beatles are credited with being first at everything. The author then attempts to support his position by obfuscating the timeline of events, distorting historical context, and deliberate misrepresentations.

First, he tries to suggest the Beatles followed in the footsteps of Gerry an the Pacemakers, writing:

"The captivating style of the Beatles had already been pioneered by Gerry & The Pacemakers" and that "Epstein and Martin simply continued that format with the Beatles."

This is a distortion of history. By 1961 the Beatles were the most popular group in Liverpool as evidenced by the first Mersey Beat readers' poll. After signing the Beatles and securing them a record contract with EMI, Epstein then signed Gerry and the Pacemakers. Their first single, "How Do You Do It", a song previously recorded and rejected by the Beatles, was released after the Beatles already had two singles out.

Next, he misrepresents the historical context in which the Beatles arrived in America, saying:

"The first student protests took place in Berkeley, California in 1964. Young people were protesting against the establishment in general, and against the war in Vietnam in particular" and that "America was saturated with images of four smiling boys, the creation of a brand new myth that served to exorcise the demons of Vietnam."

The 1964 protests he refers to had to do with the Free Speech Movement and absolutely nothing to do with the Vietnam war. The first U.S. combat troops didn't arrive in Vietnam until the following year, and large scale anti-war protests didn't occur until 1967.

Later, he implies that the Beatles created Sgt. Pepper on the heels of other events of 1967:

"The psychedelic singles of Pink Floyd were generating an uproar. Inevitably, the Beatles recorded Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band."

This misrepresents the actual sequence of events. The Sgt. Pepper sessions started in December 1966 and the first product of those sessions, "Penny Lane"/"Strawberry Fields Forever", was released in February, a month before Pink Floyd's first single and their second single came out after Sgt. Pepper was released.

Further distorting the timeline, he falsely claims that the Who's Tommy was from 1968 and the Beatles didn't attempt a concept album until a year later.

"In 1968 Great Britain became infected by the concept album/rock opera bug, mostly realized by Beatles contemporaries: Tommy by the Who... So, with the usual delay, a year later the Beatles gave it a try. Abbey Road (1969)"

This ignores the fact that many consider Sgt. Pepper (1967) to be a concept album while Abbey Road, released only a few months after Tommy, is generally not regarded as such anyway.

Elsewhere, he actually reverses the timeline to claim Beatles songs were released a year after they actually were.

"The formal perfection of their melodies reached the sublime in 1967 with two 45s: the baroque/electronic Penny Lane/Strawberry Fields Forever, released in February, an absolute masterpiece that never reached the top of the charts, the hard rocking Paperback Writer, and the childish Yellow Submarine"

Also, in attempting to poke holes in the Beatles myth, he propagates two of the oldest, long discredited myths; that Brian Epstein was some sort of svengali responsible for everything from the Beatles' hair style to manufacturing Beatlemania and that George Martin was the creative genius solely responsible for their recordings. The writer is either ignorant of history or is knowingly misrepresenting the facts to support an unrealistic view. The whole thing is intellectually dishonest. At best, it's possible the writer is using deliberate exaggerations to provoke unconventional thought on the subject, or possibly the less admirable goal of creating internet notoriety for himself, at which he has apparently succeeded. Regardless, the factual errors and deliberate misrepresentations should preclude its use in an encyclopedia. Piriczki (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I met Piero Scaruffi a couple times. He's opinionated and stubborn, even to the point of being irrational. He's anything but stupid, and has an established web presence, but he can't be relied on to be authoritative. He's more about ego than neutrality or objective truths. Leptus Froggi (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight to the opinions of Robert Rodrigues

Most of the article reports the opinions of somebody identified merely as "author Robert Rodrigues". It doesn't even tell us who this guy is or why his opinions should be weighed so heavily.

The article seems informative enough and I have no reason to think Rodrigues' opinions are misleading or inaccurate, but it seems odd that so much of the article simply relays this one person's opinions without even telling us why his opinion is particularly relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CannotFindAName (talk • contribs) 19:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know what you mean. The mentions of his surname come thick and fast, and there's nothing stating that he's written a book dedicated to the album. I'm looking at Nicholas Schaffner's book now, and I can see opportunities to use him (Schaffner) more, along with Ian MacDonald, to lessen the Rodriguez Effect. JG66 (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Revolver (Beatles album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 20:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's get this one reviewed....

Lead

"....the folk rock-inspired Rubber Soul (1965)" - I don't think we need the (1965) in brackets.
"...and features many tracks with an electric guitar-rock sound.." - it does, but some of the more diverse influences such as the string quartet on "Eleanor Rigby", Indian influences on "Love To You" and general sonic mayhem on "Tomorrow Never Knows" should probably have a mention too
Worth briefly mentioning the cover in the lead as well?
"In 2013, after the British Phonographic Industry changed their sales award rules, the album was declared as having gone platinum" - this specific claim is not in the body

All sorted so far.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the body to follow. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background

"Aside from this activity, the four band members had no professional commitments for three months" - according to the source given, they also had a short UK tour
"Already one month into recording sessions for Revolver, the Beatles played a lacklustre set" - I'm not sure how the two events are connected. Possibly better to say something along the lines of "The group took a break from recording sessions to play the NME Poll Winners Concert, but their set was perceived as lacklusture...."
"By 1966 McCartney had attained an approximately equal position with Lennon" - according to MacDonald p.170 and 187, this was in part due to Lennon's increased consumption of LSD, which would be worth adding.

Not sure it is, addressed the first two.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recording and production

The first paragraph needs fleshing out a lot more. There are plenty of other sources that can document Revolver's pioneering use of the "studio as instrument"
MacDonald p.179 also mentions Revolver was the first session where the Beatles attended the mixing
I think we could do with specific dates. I have all of these here in both Lewisohn & MacDonald's books if you need them, but very briefly, "Tomorrow Never Knows" started work on 6 April 1966 through to "She Said She Said" on 21st June.
As well as ADT, the album popularised tape loops and backwards recording - that would be worth dropping in
I would mention that "Paperback Writer" and "Rain" were recorded during the album sessions, but were dropped as in the 1960s singles were generally not put on albums
I think it would be worth mentioning, as several sources do, that the Rickenbacker bass was a particularly important instrument on the album. MacDonald p.154 has a lengthy footnote documenting this and mentions it again on p.173

Most of these points require an expert with books on this. I don't think it's a good idea that I continue.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Music and lyrics

I don't think the opening paragraph is particularly useful - it's just a bunch of random opinions. It might be better just to explain what the lead hints at - lots of electric guitar pieces, with some more diverse elements appearing elsewhere
As mentioned elsewhere, I think the format of the songs should be rewritten in the format : background to the song, instruments used, any specific pioneering effects used. I'd cut the opinions right down here, just focus on the specific facts. Otherwise the article just reads as a whole bunch of opinion pieces, which isn't particularly useful, and it does seem to waffle quite a lot in this area
"Martin arranged the track's string octet, drawing inspiration from Bernard Herrmann's 1960 film score for Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho" - according to MacDonald, it was influenced by Herrmann, but based on Fahrenheit 451 instead
""Love You To" marks Harrison's first foray into Hindustani classical music." - so what was the sitar on "Norwegian Wood" then? ;-)
"Everett identifies the track's change of metre as its most salient feature" - not sure if "salient" is the right word to use here
"a characteristic that was without precedent in the Beatles' catalogue thus far" - this doesn't scan very well, maybe something like "a new characteristic for the group's recorded output" perhaps?
"Womack notes the introductory vocals, which shift from 9/8 to 7/8 to 4/4 within the span of twelve words" - to me, this shows one of the problems with systemic bias on Wikipedia. This is a nice romantic ballad whose standing has only been diminished because of the "coolness" of the tracks around it, and going straight in with technical talk of time signature changes probably isn't what most readers would be looking for.
""She Said She Said" marks the second time that a Beatles arrangement used a shifting metre, as the foundation of 4/4 briefly switches to 3/4 with the lyrics: "when I was a boy, everything was right", before settling back into 4/4" - as above, this is too much technical information and should be cut down. I don't mind saying that the song features a time signature change in the chorus, and I'd add that that caused problems with rehearsing the song to get a good take

Yes, I noticed that earlier, so I've trimmed it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would be worth explaining that "Good Day Sunshine" was written because it was a hot day (early June 1966)
Worth mentioning that ""And Your Bird Can Sing" was completely scrapped and remade (see Anthology 2)
""For No One" is a melancholy song" - POV, melancholy in whose opinion?

Removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"According to musicologist Dominic Pedler, the E7♭9 chord used in the song is "one of the most legendary in the entire Beatles catalogue"" - is this one opinion important? If I had to pick two "legendary" chords, they would be the opening one on "A Hard Day's Night" and the closing piano on "A Day In The Life"
Might be worth expanding on what the "Motown Sound" is. MacDonald explicitly mentions The Supremes as an influence on the track
"and used brass instrumentation extensively" - rather than "extensively", I'd just say "had a brass arrangement" (possibly including the instruments (trumpets and tenor saxes)
"This [recording "Tomorrow Never Knows"] was reportedly done live in a single take" - do we need the "reportedly"?

Removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"(Emerick was later reprimanded by the studio's management for doing this)." (in reference to hotwiring a Leslie Speaker for vocals) - this claim is unsourced, and it's not one I've ever heard of before.

Removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More in a mo. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cover art and title

Though there is a source about 3/4 of the way through the paragraph, I'm not sure it's actually citing everything before it. Can you grab another source and use that instead?
"German-born bassist and artist Klaus Voormann" - as far as I know he still is German, though he did live in England for some of the 60s, and then went to LA. In any case I'd lose the "-born"
"According to Barry Miles in his book Paul McCartney: Many Years from Now," - would be simpler to say "According to McCartney biographer Barry Miles", or possibly just leave this out together (as I don't think there's a source that disputes this as being factually incorrect)
The only source in this paragraph is "Irwin". As with the first paragraph, I suspect most of the content is in fact unsourced.

Release

"Revolver was released in the United Kingdom on 5 August 1966 and on 8 August in the United States" - for consistency, I'd change that to "Revolver was released on 5 August 1966 in the UK and on 8 August in the US".
"It maintained the number one position in the UK" - suggest "It reached No.1 in the album charts..." and then say for how long
"According to Rodriguez, Revolver 's release was not the significant media event that Sgt. Pepper 's was the following year" - I don't see why this opinion is important here
Would also be worth mentioning that although the US tour came after Revolver, none of it was played live - and indeed that was the last tour they ever did, becoming a studio only band thereafter
"The album's 30 April 1987 release on CD" - I don't think you need to be as specific as "30 April" here (or other dates elsewhere in this section). Stick to just the years for reissues

Reception

It would be useful to sum up critical response to the album at the top (presumably it was overwhelmingly positive; if there are any negative reviews, this would be a good time to cite them
As we have a "legacy" section, I'd keep reception limited to contemporary responses to the album, or directly in response to important reissues (the 1987 CDs and any remasters)
Related to the above, I'm not sure why the last paragraph here is not in the "legacy" section

Legacy

Obviously, opinions of the album are available by the bucketload, so I'd limit them to the most important "greatest album of all time" accolades

Isn't that what we have?♦ Dr. Blofeld

Track listing

For consistencies sake, I would spell out the group members full names, instead of just surnames, for the first mention in the writing / vocal credits

Personnel

I'm not sure about the "uncredited" musicians, particularly the backing vocals on "Yellow Submarine"

Summary

I've gone through the article now. I think the biggest problem is it makes too much of an assumption that you have a good working knowledge of the album already. The "Music and lyrics" section in particular has far too many opinions, and lots of people saying "ZOMG this is the best album evah!!!111one1" isn't really helpful for somebody just trying to find out more about it. There is a note on the talk page that Rodriguez's opinion is being used too much, and I agree, but hopefully the above action points will sort that out. The album has certainly sustained its popularity, with a particularly big boost in the mid-1990s, but now in 2015 I can't help thinking it's less well-known than it once was, and so we need to do more to cater for the younger or casual reader.

Agreed, there's too much waffle, needs trimming.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As there seems to be quite a lot of work just to get a GA, I'm not sure whether to put things on hold or fail outright. However, since we have some experienced editors working on this, I'll give everyone the benefit of the doubt and put the review on hold pending improvements. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm not sure it's worth the effort. All for what? ♦ Dr. Blofeld

A better article, that's what! JG66 will lend a hand, I'm sure. Or are you thinking "balls to it"? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did type and almost post when you said on my talk page about nomming "I think it needs a lot of work and probably better that somebody further researches it and sorts it out all in one and then takes to PR and takes to FAC. But then I thought you don't do FA, and Gabe has gone AWOL so after some thought I thought I'd give it a try. It's an excellent review, as expected, but I need one or two others (or five) to assist in going through it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could post a sob story on Eric's page, but if I know Eric he's more of an "enabler" and will entice you into doing work yourself rather than being a doormat for fixing articles. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind minor fixing and tweaks, it's just the amount you've asked to be expanded on this, most GA reviewers don't expect it to be comprehensive or all there, but focus on the minor glitches. Long term it's probably best this is done now though. I'll try to tackle what I can but it would be good if Gabe could return or '66 can respond to those. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to pass on this if it's OK, It needed to be reviewed, but I don't think opening a GAR was the right thing to do on this as it needs a lot of work. I don't have the books or personal knowledge needed to expand it. Hopefully Gabe will return at some point and see the comments and respond accordingly and eventually get it to FA.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, not a problem. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Backmasking

@Piriczki: could you tell me why you removed my recent change regarding backmasking? Not only that, but you changed the previous wording re "with particular attention to how the notes would sound when the tape direction was corrected". (That is per the source.) It seems backmasking is something that should definitely be mentioned in this album article, judging by what Wikipedia's article says about the Beatles' involvement with the technique. Maybe I'm missing something here. JG66 (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Backward masking commonly refers to subliminal or hidden messages placed in recordings backwards so that the message is revealed when the recording is played backwards. In this case what the Beatles did was simply play the tape backwards, there was no "masking" of anything. The guitar solo was not recorded with the tape machine running backwards. For this solo, Harrison worked out how he wanted the solo to go, then played those notes in reverse order so that when the tape was played backwards it would be the original melody, only with the "backward" sound. Piriczki (talk) 14:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by your last sentence. But I understand the penultimate one, and I think you're wrong. That Rodriguez ref in the article reads: "Already having experienced the wonders of backward tape's exoticism with 'Rain' and 'Tomorrow Never Knows,' George was ready to expand on the formula with 'I'm Only Sleeping,' but with a twist: rather than simply play a solo and reverse it, he wanted to compose his backward part first, and then learn to play it forward to get the exact notes in the exact order he wanted on playback." In other words, the significant thing is the planning and how Harrison mapped out the solo, unlike the happenstance approach on the two earlier songs. (I've recorded "backwards" guitar solos myself onto tape – that's exactly what you do when you've got the end result in mind.) Ian MacDonald says in Revolution in the Head: "Having worked out his Indian-style line in normal sequence, he had Martin transcribe it in reverse and then recorded it thus, subsequently dubbing the result on backwards to obtain the characteristic smeared crescendo and womblike sucking noises."

Regarding your definition – we say in the Backmasking article (an FA): "Backmasking is a recording technique in which a sound or message is recorded backward onto a track that is meant to be played forward. Backmasking is a deliberate process, whereas a message found through phonetic reversal may be unintentional. // Backmasking was popularised by the Beatles, who used backward instrumentation on their 1966 album Revolver." So where's the problem in including the term here? (And what are your sources?) JG66 (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're saying the same thing but the sources don't really adequately describe the process in enough detail, for instance, does the tape machine actually run backwards or does it run one direction but the tape is turned around? I think readers might associate backward masking with hidden messages as opposed to just backward tapes without hiding or masking anything. Piriczki (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand your objections. You keep referring to "backward masking", when at the top of the Backmasking article, we say "Not to be confused with backward masking." And I'm sorry but, again, your wording above has got me confused: "does the tape machine actually run backwards or does it run one direction but the tape is turned around?"

He wrote and performed the solo with a view to how the notes would sound when played back in the opposite direction. From MacDonald's description, I take it that the guitar solo was recorded on a separate tape, which was then played in reverse when overdubbed onto the master ("subsequently dubbing the result on backwards"). So that act of reversing the tape during transfer would seem to fit the definition of backmasking: "a recording technique in which a sound or message is recorded backward onto a track that is meant to be played forward". JG66 (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Revolver (Beatles album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.popmatters.com/pm/review/beatles-revolvermft/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Revolver (Beatles album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear which was the 2nd track removed for US Revolver release

The first and third tracks removed for the US release are clearly identified with phrases like "...the first of the three tracks cut from the US version of Revolver..." Please do so for the second track removed as well. 66.241.130.86 (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now I see that the 2nd track removed for the US version was "And Your Bird Can Sing". 66.241.130.86 (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Pioneered the use of headphones when recording overdubs"

Is this for real? How does it explain photos like these: the Beach Boys circa January 1966; the Righteous Brothers circa 1965; Jeff Berry and Ellie Greenwich in 1964? --Ilovetopaint (talk) 05:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all I see in those photos are musicians holding or wearing sets of headphones in a recording studio. With PS and the Righteous Brothers, for instance, it would seem they're listening to a playback, not actually recording overdubs.

I'm just going from the sources. I don't own either the Babiuk Beatles Gear book or Ryan & Kehew's Recording the Beatles. From an Amazon preview of Babiuk, I've got the following: "During the Revolver sessions, the group also pioneered the use of headphones while 'tracking' or overdubbing, in other words adding vocal or instrumental parts to recordings previously taped. At Abbey Road, as in other studios, the common practice when overdubbing a vocal, for example, was simply to play back the existing track through loudspeakers in the studio while the performer sang along to it into a microphone."

The text relating to Ryan & Kehew's point comes from Steve Turner's latest book, Beatles '66: "In their book Recording the Beatles, Kevin Ryan and Brian Kehew list nine changes in studio practice that they say the Beatles introduced on Revolver, from wearing headphones while recording and the invention of automatic double-tracking to the close miking of drums and the use of backward recording. They quote engineer as Geoff Emerick as saying: 'I know for a fact that, from the day it came out, Revolver changed the way that everyone else made records.'"

I wasn't aware of Ryan & Kehew's book until quite recently, but I've found nothing but great things written about it. Say, from reviews at Sound on Sound (the one I'd put most faith in), American Songwriter and Popdose. But more importantly for credibility, Ryan and Kehew (I've just learned here) are both American and work in the music industry – meaning, they're unlikely to come up with any UK-biased claims that just don't stand up to scrutiny among engineers and producers. They'd be a joke otherwise. Same with Andy Babiuk – he's a consultant to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. To hear that Ken Scott and Alan Parsons were consulted for Recording the Beatles (they being two engineer/producers that have never, as far as I know, been considered to hype up their achievements) adds to the book's credibility.

I certainly don't want to include anything that seems impossible. And statements such as "the group also pioneered the use of headphones while 'tracking' or overdubbing" and "nine changes in studio practice that they say the Beatles introduced on Revolver, from wearing headphones while recording" would be impossible if other reliable sources said that someone else had used them extensively, for overdubbing and/or basic recording, before 1966. So if there are sources that say that, then okay, it should go. (And I'll even start looking for some potential sources myself.) But Ryan and Kehew are viewed as experts, as is Babiuk, and the article clearly presents the second mention of headphones as a claim: "According to authors Kevin Ryan and Brian Kehew …"

What do others think about this issue? JG66 (talk) 09:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This January 30, 1966 "Caroline No" promo shot is less ambiguous. (Likely a real session - if he were simply posing, why would he have kept the headphones on?) There's also this footage that was shot in late August 1966. (It's unclear whether they're recording or miming at those specific parts, but it was part of a real session.) It is admittedly hard to find photographs, pre-1966, of a singer standing in front of a microphone with headphones on. But the only Pet Sounds-era vocal session photo where they don't have their headphones on were clearly taken while they were in mid-conversation, not singing.

I can see how somebody can arrive at the conclusion. You wouldn't have to wear headphones if the only major overdub you had to record was a vocal, but by '66, I think the Beatles were recording most of their tracks one at a time - a luxury they weren't afforded in the four-track days. So I'd assume there would have been spill issues if they didn't wear headphones. (The Beach Boys were also recording their parts one a time after March '65, when they started exploiting CBS Columbia Square's eight-track machine.)

Babiuk also credits the Beatles with being the first to put vocals through a Leslie speaker. Wilson did that in January '64. I think there's a good chance that Ryan & Kehew are just parroting Babluk - I don't consider him reliable for these kinds of claims.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Babiuk's claim about first-vocal-through-a-Leslie, on "Tomorrow Never Knows", isn't in the article. (Yet!) From the scan I've got, the "first" that he credits the Beatles with is actually recording a vocal through the Leslie, as opposed to sending a pre-recorded vocal through the speaker. I agree that the 1964 Wilson production you linked to sounds well Leslie-d, but is there a source that says those vocals were routed through a Leslie speaker as they were being recorded? (Alternatively, is there another, pre-Revolver production of Wilson's on which vocals were recorded through a Leslie?)

I can't say there's anything definitive in those latest links you supplied – "Caroline No" and the "Good Vibrations" footage (the last of which, as you note, is post-Revolver anyway). I'd consider knocking the Babiuk claim re headphones for overdubbing, but he's not just talking about vocal overdubs, don't forget. I'm not so ready to dismiss Ryan and Kehew, and it's frustrating that their nine "firsts" attributed to Revolver come via another author, Turner, who doesn't bother to list them all (unless I've missed something in the text preceding pp. 612–13). In Turner's retelling, this particular first was "wearing headphones while recording" – nothing to do with overdubs or vocals. And in reply to your point about the Beatles recording most of their parts/tracks one at a time: no, definitely not. They only had four-track at EMI until August or September 1968, so the band recorded a basic/rhythm track for each song, as a group. I assume in '66, certainly by '67, they'd then bounce down the four parts (or perhaps just keep two or three parts) to two tracks on another four-track machine; failing that, maybe they were still recording live: four parts straight onto two tracks of tape. So it leaves it open that Ryan and Kehew could be referring to general recording. As a comparison, I notice in that Good Vibes clip that the great Hal Blaine and co. are not wearing headphones, only the singers. JG66 (talk) 13:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson rarely added anything in post save for the occasional plate echo - his habit in the '60s was to commit effects on tape as he recorded them. (Does it matter anyway? Either way, the signal from the vocal track had to be sent through a Leslie, therefore a "vocal" was recorded through a Leslie.) And I'm aware that the Beatles would record a skeletal track before embellishing it with overdubs - I was referring to that fact in contrast to something like Please Please Me, where there would only be one pass at overdubs, not three or four, as was typical on Pepper.

I could find this analysis from Gregory Weinstein, who is apparently a music professor that teaches production. Obviously he doesn't approach the same credentials as other sources (at the same time, none of them were in the industry before the late '60s, not even Parsons nor Scott), but he does write: "To begin their vocal recordings, the band members each wore a pair of over-the-ear headphones, which played back the original instrumental recordings for them to hear while singing."

I think if Ryan & Kehew really knew what they were talking about with regards to this specific detail, they would have elaborated further on the subject, because it's a weird claim that begs for more historical context. "Pioneered the use of headphones while overdubbing" — headphones and overdubbing, two things that were part of normal recording practices for at least 20~40 years prior, and the Beatles were (among?) the first to put them together? Reminds me of this old video.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Either way, the signal from the vocal track had to be sent through a Leslie, therefore a 'vocal' was recorded through a Leslie." You're not following what I'm saying. As Babiuk puts it, TNK was the first time that someone recorded a vocal live through a Leslie speaker – plugged the singer's mic into it (not directly perhaps) and pressed "Record". If that is how the Leslie'd vocal part was recorded (and I'll check), then it's different from a vocal being recorded with just some echo, say, and later sent through a Leslie. In each of the two approaches, the end result might be the same, but that doesn't make TNK any less of a first on this point unless there are sources to the contrary. The responsible thing to do would be to add the statement via Babiuk but make it clear in an end note that vocals had been treated with the Leslie effect previously, and give the earliest known example.

"… if Ryan & Kehew really knew what they were talking ... they would have elaborated further on the subject". Again, I've explained this. Everything Ryan & Kehew-related comes via Turner, and if there's a consistent message that comes across from professional and readers' reviews, it's that their book is exhaustive, super-thorough. I'm sure they provide plenty in the way of context – they're gear freaks – it's just that Turner gives them no more than a couple of sentences. And to repeat, it's not Ryan & Kehew that say the Beatles "pioneered the use of headphones while overdubbing"; they say (via Turner) "wearing headphones while recording". Which is why I made the point that the authors could be referring to general recording, when the band were taping a basic track. JG66 (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right... "while recording overdubs" is what the Wikipedia text says. "Wearing headphones while recording" is an even more dubious assertion, and one that's easier to disprove. And I reread what Babluk says - didn't realize how specific he was being. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For another example of ostensibly credible sources making extraordinary claims regarding the Beatles' recording practices, in Lewisohn's Complete Beatles Recording Sessions, Ken Scott claims that "Sgt. Pepper" (song) was the first time anyone in the world had recorded a guitar pickup that was directly connected to a recording console. Actually, Wilson did that two years earlier with "California Girls" (and who knows how many others before him).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you mean Ken Townsend, who's the engineer quoted by Lewisohn in his discussion of the 1 Feb session for "Sgt. Pepper". Lewisohn says that McCartney's bass was recorded by DI on the song; he then quotes Townshend, who says he thinks the Beatles were probably the first to use this technique, but he makes no mention of this song. In other words, the text at The Beatles' recording technology#Direct input is incorrect on two fronts: Lewisohn p. 95 does not support the statement "Direct input was first used by the Beatles on 1 February 1967 to record McCartney's bass on "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" (just that it was used); Townshend's claim is misrepresented, in terms of the level of certainty and the application of his comment to this or any one song, when he appears to be talking generally about DI and how EMI engineers built their own transformer boxes used for the technique. JG66 (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about quotebox

Which makes more sense, or is more aesthetically pleasing?

A

Q. What's going to come out of the next recording sessions?
Literally anything. Electronic music, jokes ... one thing's for sure – the next LP is going to be very different.

– John Lennon NME interview, March 1966

B

Interviewer: What's going to come out of the next recording sessions?
Lennon: Literally anything. Electronic music, jokes ... one thing's for sure – the next LP is going to be very different.

– John Lennon, March 1966

C

Literally anything [could come out of the next recording sessions]. Electronic music, jokes ... one thing's for sure – the next LP is going to be very different.

– John Lennon, March 1966

The first version is closest to the actual typographic style of the 1966 article. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

If we're so concerned with the "actual typographic style" of the 1966 article, then Lennon's reply should appear in bold also. In fact, if adhering to each and every design quirk, the "Q" should appear as a drop capital descending into the second line, and, with the full complement of shouty teen-mag design elements, the box would be set something like:

Q. What's going to come out of the next recording sessions?
<large>John Lennon</large>
[2-line bullet point] Literally anything. Electronic music, jokes ... one thing's for sure – the next LP is going to be very different.

– John Lennon, March 1966

Perhaps that should be option D?

The fact is, we don't have to adhere to the page design of the NME on 11 March 1966 because secondary sources such as Robert Rodriguez's Revolver (the source I originally had for this quote box) and Steve Turner's Beatles '66 reproduce the exchange. Besides, to blindly follow an original source's design style would mean we'd routinely be placing a raised or drop capital at the start of direct quotes whenever the word appeared at the start of a chapter or section in the source being cited (e.g. Initial#Types of initial). It would also mean – going from a page in Ian MacDonald's Revolution in the Head that I happen to have open – we should write the likes of: MacDonald commented: "A scepticism about appearances had figured in some of the songs for Rubber Soul, later coming to the fore in [81] RAIN, [83] AND YOUR BIRD CAN SING, and [77] TOMORROW NEVER KNOWS. In fact – and I remember this point being okayed at a Beatles FA – we'd just write that as MacDonald commented: "... later coming to the fore in 'Rain', 'And Your Bird Can Sing', and 'Tomorrow Never Knows'.

Survey

A — Nothing wrong with A, imo. B looks wrong, almost like Lennon is literally quoted saying "Interview", "Lennon", and the question he's being asked. C makes it look like there's too many words being put in his mouth.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to C.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 09:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B or C. The basic attribution – "John Lennon, March 1966" – is also in keeping with the style used in all box quotes in the article. The name or medium of publication doesn't matter in this context, and it's not as if the NME interview is referred to elsewhere or is in any way significant. Same applies to comments from McCartney, Harrison and Starr: they might have been talking to, variously, Disc, BBC Radio, International Times or a Beatles Anthology interviewer, but we don't need to clutter up the box-quote source field with such details. JG66 (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
B or C, preferably C. I don't see why this needs a quote box, though. Just summarize the quotation. C does a good job of that, and it doesn't need a box drawn around it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
? Why is there a Q without an A? Forget typographic style of the original; just make it clear. Dicklyon (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dicklyon, yes, I agree – clarity over everything else. (And, as mentioned above, the exchange appears in secondary sources so there's no need to adhere to typographic style of the original anyway.) But doesn't B achieve that? Is C not similarly clear? The latter certainly makes for a tidy delivery of Lennon's comment, imo, consistent with the box quotes later in the article. JG66 (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. Or how about this: Take the bracketed expression out of C, and introduce the quote box in context by mentioning the question outside, above the box? Dicklyon (talk) 04:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dick, do you have an example of what you mean, how that would be formatted? Have to say, I'm really warming to C as is, since it presents the comment and nothing but. Pretty much all of the box quotes – certainly those from Lennon, McCartney, Harrison and Emerick – contain a response to an interviewer's question, which is why I'm keen to see this Lennon one presented un-fussily. (Mind you, I'm equally warming to the idea of ditching the thing altogether ...!) JG66 (talk) 05:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ditching it is OK by me, too. Floating quotes are not ideal; it's hard to set the content, which is why the bracketed thing is there in C. I don't have any great solution. Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Took a break and have come back to this … Despite making noises about "ditching", I would like to keep the quote: it's a nice, simple summation of the spontaneity that the band appeared to have taken into the studio the following month. I'm still seeing C as the most workable. JG66 (talk) 09:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with DickLyon - if the quote is to be placed in a box like this, then just make it consistent and clear, and never mind the style of the original. But I also agree with NinjaRobotPirate that it could be summarized instead. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
C is really good. It well fits the style of the other quotes in the article, and it avoids the awkward structure of apparently attributing question to Lennon. Alsee (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
B. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]