Talk:Love (Beatles album)

The Beatles B‑class Mid‑importance

This Beatles-related article is within the scope of WikiProject The Beatles, which focuses on improving coverage of English rock band The Beatles and related topics on Wikipedia. Users who are willing to participate in the project should visit the project page, where they can join and see a list of open tasks.The BeatlesWikipedia:WikiProject The BeatlesTemplate:WikiProject The BeatlesThe Beatles articles

B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to albums on Wikipedia.

To-do list:

For WikiProject The Beatles

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

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Articles on each Beatle tour (Category:The Beatles concert tours). See: Missing articles.
Expand : The Lost Lennon Tapes, notable radio series which has spawned many bootlegs. Apple Records See also: Adopt an article
Stubs : See: Category:The Beatles song stubs
Update : Pics/Graphics wanted: Kenwood.
Verify : Beatle wives
Other : Project: Add {{WikiProject The Beatles}} to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members and coordinate tasks. Enter articles assessed as stubs onto this list, also list articles needing cleanup and other work here.

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

Love (Beatles album) was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 29, 2007). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Different track listing

Here's a track listing from this article [1]:

'Because' 'Get Back' 'Glass Onion' 'Eleanor Rigby'/'Julia' (Transistion) 'I Am The Walrus' 'I Want To Hold Your Hand' 'Drive My Car'/' The Word'/'What You're Doing' 'Gnik Nus' 'Something'/'Blue Jay Way' (Transition) 'Being For The Benefit Of Mr Kite!'/'I Want You (She's So Heavy)'/ 'Helter Skelter' 'Help!' 'Blackbird'/'Yesterday' 'Strawberry Fields Forever' 'Within You Without You'/'Tomorrow Never Knows' 'Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds' 'Octopus's Garden' 'Lady Madonna' 'Here Comes The Sun'/'The Inner Light' (Transition) 'Come Together'/'Dear Prudence'/'Cry Baby Cry' (Transition) 'Revolution' 'Back In The USSR' 'While My Guitar Gently Weeps' 'A Day In The Life' 'Hey Jude' 'Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (Reprise)' 'All You Need Is Love'

Can anyone determine if either one is correct or incorrect? Thanks. --luckymustard 15:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And this article, [2], actually calls the songs mash-ups. It also has a track listing. --luckymustard 15:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move

The article "LOVE (album)" is vacant so there is no need to use the extra "The Beatles" in the title. —☆ CieloEstrellado 02:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for it - the reasons make sense to me. Jason 03:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I went ahead and did the move, but there was some non-trivial GFDL history at LOVE (album), and there was no good way to merge the histories, so I just swapped the pages' locations. Now most of the history can be found here, and some old edits can be found in the history at LOVE (The Beatles album). -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged any substantial edits into this article's history, and left the old redirects deleted. --kingboyk 13:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be Love instead of LOVE? --Lukobe 06:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's specifically refered to as LOVE in cited sources. Just64helpin 18:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linked songs lead to original recordings

I thought the link to the songs would have entries on the LOVE versions of each song, but to my surprise the link lead me to the song page of the original recording. I was hoping to see a analyst of the song including which bits come from what song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.177.155 (talk • contribs)

Info will be added to each song's respective article when it is cited. Entirely new articles for the LOVE versions are not needed. Just64helpin 19:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miami Herald

While the Miami Herald is right with the information used and cited in this article (i.e. the song titles), it should be noted that there are errors in the sentence that contains that information. The newspaper article says:

“

Ringo's drum solo from Abbey Road and the feedback intro from A Hard Day's Night meld to launch the driving Get Back.

”

There are two things wrong with that sentence. For one, the drum solo is from "The End"; The Beatles never recorded a song called "Abbey Road". And secondly, there is no feedback involved in the first chord of "A Hard Day's Night". Nevertheless, as an outside source, it's useful as a confirmation of what we already know, but can't write because of WP:NOR. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it refers to Abbey Road as an album (hence the italics). Since the only drum solo in the album is in "The End", one can assume that it's the song referenced. Just64helpin 18:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that article, both song and album titles are in italics, so it really doesn't help any. You're right about the solo, though. (I'm not sure Ringo got very many drum solos on any album.) Even so, as it stands, there are still two errors in that sentence. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 21:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The End contains Ringo's only drum solo, unless of course you include the ”Wild

Drum Track” at the end of Take 7 of Strawberry Fields Forever, included on Anthology II. (this is Bernsteinp, but i can't log in right now -- i forgot my password.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.151.54 (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gnik Nus

Originally, "Gnik Nus" was linked to Sun King (song). Then, someone (anonymous, I think) came by and added the note about it being played in reverse. I fixed it up so that it matched the formatting of the list, and unlinked the list entry because it was the only one not the same as the original song. It was then relinked and the note was expanded to say that it "included elements of" Sun King played in reverse. Then all of this was removed, reverting it back to where it started. I'm just wondering, what is the reasoning behind this? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 16:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three Minutes Longer?

I think how exactly needs to be explained.213.254.90.177 01:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC) I agree. What is the additional three minutes?[reply]

I've explained this now. The difference is actually less than two minutes. --KJBracey 09:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Night

Who erased my addition about "Good Night" being incorporated into "Octopus's Garden"? It's described in the Pitchfork review and obvious to anyone who listens to it. Additionally, while the review doesn't explicitly say it's also incorporated in "All You Need Is Love," it's clearly the same sample. Personally I think Wikipedia: No original research should be allowed to be bended a bit in a case like this, as something like what song is incorporated into what song is 100% verifiable if you just listen to them. Anyone have any thoughts? --DanyaRomulus 00:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The addition about "Good Night" being incorporated into "Octopus's Garden" is currently in the article and is cited. Wikipedia's policy on original research is not negotiable, as the WP:NOR lead clearly states. Just64helpin 17:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain as to whether using a song as a source of information is original research. (I'm defaulting to that it is, for now.) To clear this issue up once and for all, I began a discussion at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Audio recording. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 01:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The audio recording does not specifically state where the sample came from, so it cant be used as a source of cited analysis. Just64helpin 14:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Includes elements of...

Is it just me, or is this track listing going to get out of hand if people keep extending these lists? Given that the Martins have said they've sampled bits of hundreds of songs, I'm sure eventually almost everything in the Beatles' catalogue could be added. And I don't think a track listing is the place for a detailed analysis of the samples and mash-ups. --KJBracey 21:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm planning on converting the "includes elements of" notes to a separate section once sufficient information is cited.Just64helpin 21:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Rating

I recently changed the rating of the article to "A", but it was then changed to "B". I'm curious as to the reasoning behind this. It seemed to fit into the "A" class, especially because we've been good and have included references since the beginning. One or all of us should also probably duplicate this information into Talk:Love (The Beatles album)/Comments. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 01:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'll change it back, then. Just64helpin 18:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't A - A means it could be FA, which it couldn't. It wouldn't pass GA right now either - it misses important info, namely the critical reception the album has received. LuciferMorgan 23:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The article provides a well-written and complete description of the topic" - this is for A on the assessment scale, and as I just proved this doesn't qualify. It's certainly B, and definitely not A. LuciferMorgan 00:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian album review for use. LuciferMorgan 01:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Observer album review for use. LuciferMorgan 01:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NME album review for use. LuciferMorgan 01:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BBC album review for use. LuciferMorgan 01:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncut album review for use. LuciferMorgan 01:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Independent album review for use. LuciferMorgan 02:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sgt Pepper in Strawberry Fields

I'm a little bemused to why my addition of "Sgt Pepper" to the track elements of "Strawberry Fields FOrever" was deleted. It is very obvious to anyone who has actually listened to this album. Solipsist3 00:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Likely because of the Wikipedia Policy of No Original Research. It must be verified by a reliable, outside source in order to be included. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citing The Beatles' Love Flash Site

Many new bits of information are presented in interviews on The Beatles' Love Listen page. One such new bit was the recently reverted "Yesterday"/"Blackbird" information. How do we go about citing an audio recording contained fully within a Flash animation? And why don't we go about extracting the new information for the article? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 19:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing multiple citations

Under "Track Elements" I have added some material on "Get Back." This info was found in Reference #13. This means that "Get Back" should have references to #9 and #13. I can't figure how to make that work. Can someone else?KXL 14:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Just64helpin 18:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come Together End Part

"Can you take me back where I came from", where is this from? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.87.184.150 (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

"Cry Baby Cry" as shown in the tracklisting. Just64helpin 21:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand whoever-wrote-the-first-bit's confusion; That part isn't in the white album's lyrics, and some consider it to be the beginning of Revolution 9. (this is again bernsteinp. i still can't remember my password).

GA Nomination

Can the person who nominated it for GA add a "Reception" section? I named five different sources for a "Reception" section on this talk page awhile back. LuciferMorgan 22:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

The article is well sourced, but it isn't well organized. There should be some sort of Reception section and the Track elements section should be prosified. Keep trying and I'm sure this article will soon reach GA status. -- Scorpion 17:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Madonna

The beginning part: could this possibly be "Why Don't We Do It In The Road?". 67.87.184.150 00:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It definately is, we could add that in the article - Kyodes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.21.154 (talk) 17:28, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Not really. See WP:NOR. Just64helpin 21:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Drive My Car / The Word / What You're Doing"

Any official word on why the track is credited as "Drive My Car / The Word / What You're Doing", rather than "Drive My Car / What You're Doing / The Word"? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 05:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe instrumental bits from "The Word" show up in the medley before "What You're Doing" does. I'll look for a source. Just64helpin 16:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iamaphoney

Information on a claim that Iamaphoney found the Love "code" has been removed from the article. The rationale for the removal is that the claim is not substantiated by a verifiable source. If you wish to discuss the change, please do so in this topic. Just64helpin 13:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can claim to have the code. What makes the claim substantial is if a reliable source publishes it. Just64helpin 21:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: If you have found a reliable source, cite it (click here). Do not add links to videos containing copyrighted material. Just64helpin 17:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.75.248 (talk) 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Please also keep in mind that editing an older version of the page removes all contributions that came after that version. Such edits will be undone immediately. Just64helpin 20:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The iamaphoney issue rears its ugly head again. The article should not contain anything about his claim whether there is evidence or not. It's not notable. John Cardinal 20:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that the diff that removed the Iamaphoney bit is linked from an outside webpage. Users that edit this version to end up removing all edits that have been made after it. This is a serious problem. Just64helpin 21:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music videos?

What about the highly sophisticated, original music videos for the Love tracks provided by user CapitolRecords that keep popping up on YouTube lately (a few have been deleted already)? Have they ever been officially released for sale? --Tlatosmd 17:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hate

There's a wee parody of the album going about called Hate... doesn't seem you can download from the website anymore, but it's pretty popular on torrent sites. I don't suppose it might be worth a little mention here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.11.130 (talk) 16:07, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

By the Beatles?

The piece starts with the assertion that Love is an album by the Beatles. I think this needs to be considered. It is an album consisting of a collage of their music, but is it really "by" them? If I took a load of shakespeare lines and assembled a stream of quotations for artistic effect, would the resulting work be "by Shakespeare"? MegdalePlace 20:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is a collection of music originally performed by The Beatles, approved for release by surviving members of the band. You could also use the fifth Beatle argument for George Martin, but I wouldn't. Just64helpin 20:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]