Talk:Revolver (Beatles album)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Answered. Lexo (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Revolverback.jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 21:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. --Rodhullandemu 01:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

---

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
    • 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)
• 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)

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)

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. Rodhullandemu 00:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

"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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Requested move 2013

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)

---

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• Oppose per GoingBatty. We're here to serve readers, and not blindly follow rules. Hot Stop 04:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

• Support Per WP:PDAB. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

@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)

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)

• Support WP:NCM ambiguous disambiguation should not be used -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 09:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per GoingBatty. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 12:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

...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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)