Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

Requested move

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: Moving, uncontroversial. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

---

{{Requested move/dated|Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band}}

Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (album) → Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band — Page was mistakenly moved, the article was already properly titled and the move needs to be undone. Piriczki (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support, per the explanation by the nominator. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support, per nominator and GoodDay. Nothing more needs to be said as the move is justified.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• support Clearly primary. Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. This probably could have been done as an uncontroversial request, but in any case it is definitely a correct move. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

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.

Title

I'm a bit concerned over the title of this article and the insertion of the full stop (.) after "Sgt". Standard British spelling does not use full stops after abbreviated titles as American spelling does. See Mr Crowley. As the Beatles were an English group, I think this should be taken into account. Evanh2008 (talk) 07:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The article title should match the album title, which includes the full stop (.). Piriczki (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I just checked the packaging and you are indeed correct. Full stop it is.Evanh2008 (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sgt Pepper's 40th anniversary tribute missing?

I recall a tribute including cover versions by Oasis, Travis, Jamie Cullum, Razorlight and others. See here for the BBC announcement http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6530959.stm and here for the complete tracklist http://music.freetodownload.info/sgt-pepper-lonely-hearts-club-band-40th-anniversary-tribute/ -- I am not sure wether this tribute was "only" aired on radio or also released in some form, but with regards to the pedigree of the covering artists and the engineering by Geoff Emerick it is surely noteworthy in this article's tribute section? --Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Salt and Pepper

Paul has recently told the story that "sergeant pepper" originated from his mishearing "salt and pepper". Any suggestions on how to incorporate this into the article? Is it okay to cite an online video of an interview? — HipLibrarianship ^talk 20:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

This information isn't really recent. He already mentioned it in Barry Miles's 1997 book Paul McCartney: Many Years from Now. --79.193.57.163 (talk) 06:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I always thought it was Mal Evans mishearing Paul. At least that's the way I remember it in Miles's book. Haven't read it in ages. Source it, and add it. Because I can't be arsed to do it right now. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 09:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

TV special

Wasn't the promo film for the title song of Sgt. Pepper also finished? There's a stop-motion promo clip of it with puppets, where also the many cardboard cut-outs from the album cover are animated into swaying in time from side to side. --79.193.57.163 (talk) 06:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Conducted by John Lennon

Which songs? To my knowledge only McCartney and Martin conducted the orchestral sessions for A Day in the Life. All the other songs, as far as I know, with the exception of She's Leaving Home, would have been conducted by Martin alone. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 20:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Equally for "Arranged by John Lennon" and other new categories. These are not represented in the body of this article (and others) and so should not be applied. Uniplex (talk) 08:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The arrangement categories seem to be supported under the "session musicians" section of "Personnel". Some of the conducting credits (McCartney, Harrison [?], and Martin) are supported there as well. I'm unaware of official sourcing for those credits, though. I'm going to remove the "Conducted by John Lennon" category for lack of evidence in the article, unless anyone wants to object or provide justification for it before tomorrow evening. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 08:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

My feeling is that we shouldn't categorize an album as being arranged/conducted by a person unless it's reliably sourced (and that is w.r.t. the album, not an individual track). And whilst the term ‘conductor’ is well understood, the term ‘(musical) arranger’ is less so, so I would suggest that denoting a person as arranger should also be consistent with WP's definition. From what I can see, Lennon, asking for some effects to be put on the brass section in "Good Morning, Good Morning" does not constitute arranging as described there. Uniplex (talk) 09:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the "conducted by John Lennon" category from the article, because I know it to be inaccurate. I strongly suspect that most of the "arrangement" categories are innacurate as well, but they DO appear within the main text of the article. We need to find out if there is reliable sourcing for them to be within the article. If not, their mention in the article, as well as the categories, should be removed. I don't have much free time right now, but I'll try to double-check the arrangement credits sometime in the next few days. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 22:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Creator's two cents For what it's worth, I have no idea if the contributions of John Lennon actually constituted conducting on this album--I only added it because the personnel section claimed as much. Regardint Evanh2008's claim that albums should only be categorized by (e.g.) conductor if that person is responsible for the entire album, that would run contrary to the scheme at Category:Albums by producer where someone can produce a single track and have produced enough content on the album to warrant categorization (assuming that the producer himself is notable.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I made no such claim. I'm fine with conductors being listed under categories and such. I'd just like to see it reliably backed up within the article, and those backed up with reliable sources. I propose we remove all the "Conducted by" and "Arranged by" categories (except for Martin, and perhaps McCartney's conducting credits) until we can definitively source these claims. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 08:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggested that a single track is not sufficient, and it seems from the talk page at Category:Albums by producer—"only those albums for which the producer has sole credit be included"—that others agree. And unlike classical music albums, arrangers and conductors are rarely defining attributes of pop/rock albums. In other words, I'd say the only producer/arranger/conductor category warranted by this album is 'produced by George Martin'. Uniplex (talk) 09:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the arranger and conductor categories as not 'defining characteristics' of the album (as is required). Were they defining, they would likely be in the info box—they're not. Uniplex (talk) 10:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced Material

Article has been tagged for original research issues for over a year. Please feel free to re-add this material with appropriate references. Doniago (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Richard Goldstein's review

Earlier I removed a questionable statement in the reception section which claims Goldstein changed his negative opinion of Sgt. Pepper but was reverted. The passage in question is:

However, a few days after this review he changed his opinion, saying that the album was "better than 80 per cent of the music around today". He also called it an "in-between experience" and a baroque work.

The source for this is a 2010 blog titled "Richard Goldstein Rethinks His 'Sgt. Pepper's' Slam, Sort Of" which contains an excerpt from a July 20, 1967 article in the Village Voice. In the article defending his New York Times review—published one month, not a few days later—Goldstein wrote "I find the album better than 80 per cent of the music around today" but qualified that with "it is the other 20 per cent (including the best of the Beatles' past performances) which worries me as a critic." He goes on to say "I still feel that if I had to write that review tonight, instead of this defense, it would sound a lot like its predecessor." The reference to Sgt. Pepper as "baroque" comes from this passage: "When the slicks and tricks of production on this album no longer seem unusual, and the compositions are stripped to their musical and lyrical essentials, "Sergeant Pepper" will be Beatles baroque—an elaboration without improvement..." In this article Goldstein clearly reiterated his misgivings about the album and was not indicating any change of opinion. He further repeated his opinion of Sgt. Pepper as "fraudulent" in his review of Magical Mystery Tour (Goldstein, Richard. "Are They Waning?" New York Times December 31, 1967: 62). Piriczki (talk) 03:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with you. And the "anti-pepper, pro-revolver" people will give you a prize for it. 177.19.103.160 (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)