Talk:Abbey Road

Reception?

Why isn't there anything here about the critical reception of this album? "Reception" seems to be discussed in most other wiki entries for Beatles albums.

Sorry

I Accidentally removed ref #12 and now I can't get i backThe Illusional Ministry (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Commentary

"penultimately" is way too pretentious of a word. Changed it to "next-to-last" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.168.253.157 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 12 February 2005.

According to Ian MacDonald it was John Curlander who was told to cut out "Her Majesty" from the medley, changed the text to that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 03:50, 23 May 2005 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 23 May 2005.

Personnel?

Why don't any of the The Beatles album pages have personnel sections? Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 00:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Nobody's added them? I'm not sure that every album needs the info but if someone knows it, and properly sources it, I'm not opposed to it being added. This might be a good topic to bring up on the Beatles project discussion page, let's discuss it there! ++Lar: t/c 13:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Guitars?

There's some contradictory information here - can we get to the bottom of it?

From the The End article:

Additionally, there are three extended guitar solos performed in turn by Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and John Lennon, although it is not positively known when each one begins and finishes. Each had a distinctive style which McCartney felt reflected their personalities.

From the Abbey Road article:

as well as a blistering lead guitar solo from Harrison using several distinct guitar tones to create the effect of multiple guitarists playing.

What gives? MBlume 07:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you found some inconsistency. I certainly have no idea... If sources cannot conclusively resolve it, "teach the controversy" by citing the sources for both viewpoints, and let the reader draw their own conclusions. ++Lar: t/c 11:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's the Abbey Road article that's wrong. I've seen Paul McCartney play this in concert (as he does in nearly every concert) and he and the other two up front (forgive me for forgetting their names) were all playing guitar, switching the lead parts between each other. I think Paul would want to make the song as consistent to the recording session as he could. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

You are responding to a comment that is about 3 years old. The article is now correct, as is the article for "The End". The recorded version of the song has a rotating sequence of solos in this sequence: McCartney, Harrison, Lennon. There are good sources that support that information. — John Cardinal (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Guitars revisited

Um, so it looks like the only person who thinks George did them all himself is 24.218.222.161, and I certainly invite him to bring sources. In the mean-time, here's a quote from John Lennon's Rolling Stone interview, which I'm taking from www.beatles-discography.com

"There's a nice little bit I played on Abbey Road... Paul gave us each a piece, a little break where Paul plays, George plays, and I play. It stops, on 'Carry That Weight', then suddenly it goes boom-boom-boom on the drums and we all take it in turns to play. I'm the third one on it."

As an aside, this line was in the original version of this article, written by Dunks58 on 09:34, 24 August 2004.

"The song 'The End' features the only Ringo Starr drum solo to make it to tape, as well as alternating blistering lead guitar solos from Lennon, McCartney and Harrison."

As far as I can tell, the line's pretty much been left alone since, and I honestly don't think it violates POV. The article should make some attempt to describe the work, yes? And 'blistering' seems a perfectly apt word to me. Any thoughts? MBlume 07:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Any flowery-poetic adjectives can be taken as POV unless it's cited.(additional reading, WP:CITE, WP:NPOV, WP:AWW, WP:APT and WP:OR) "Blistering lead guitar solos" is a pretty good example of a couple of those. However, something like: In the 19XX edition of ABC MUSIC magazine, veteran music critic Johnny Critic described the ending guitar solos as blistering ...and then included a link to the article or a harvard reference to the book/page to back it up...then it passes the Wiki test. Uncited POV remarks tend to get turfed after a while as they make the article look less like an encyclopedia...and more like a junior high school book report. Anger22 16:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Covers

Am I the only person who's thinking the covers section is getting a bit out of hand?. There's no way we can list every cover of every song from this album ever covered. But we don't want to dissuade fans. So I dunno. ++Lar: t/c 01:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is necassary. We may not find all covers and who did them and all that jazz. But it doesn't hurt anything. People could see it as: "Whoa, all of those people appreciate it so much, that all of those covers were made because of it." Dissuade fans? Sounds like POV to me. TommyBoy76 12:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

"Dissuade fans" means not dissuading beatles fans from wanting to contribute because some of us are anti list... adding bits and pieces here and there is often how future strong contributors get drawn in to being wikiaddicts. Hope that helps clear it up, sorry if I wasn't clear before. ++Lar: t/c 14:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not just merge the information into the relevant song articles? That would seem more appropriate. Flowerparty☀ 19:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, Lar, I see now. And ya know I kind of agree. I still think we should keep it, but I also think that it could be cleaned up a little bit. In regards to merging the information, if we only have bits and pieces of covers and songs, there would be no reason, in my opinion. Cheers, TommyBoy76 00:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

Speaking of which....

Speaking of "Covers", how were they ordered? TommyBoy76 13:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

Recording Dates

The album info box has recently been edited to show that the Beatles started recording Abbey Road on February 22 (on which they recorded I Want You (She's So Heavy)) - trouble is, that session occured at Trident Studios, in London. The info box currently reads Abbey Road (studio) Feb 22 - whenever, but they didn't start recording *at* Abbey Road until later. What shall we do?

The Cover Photo

The way I heard it, Lennon in the white suit is supposed to represent an angel; Starr in the black suit is supposed to represent the devil. (McCartney as the dead man and Harrison as the gravedigger are the same.) --Mr. A. 06:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Ringo represents the minister, actually.

I thought that George was the gravedigger, Paul was the deceased, Ringo was the mourner and John was the priest... GuitarWeeps 18:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That's all made up fan crap. None of that was planned or meant be the Beatles--NewChampion (talk) 07:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This could be profetic, but, i think i am the only who noted that, John Lennon is the most closer of the four that is walking, and he was the first to die, then it follows by Harrison that is almost at the same close that lennon, and he died after John Lennon many years ago, then it follows to Ringo that is a little bit far then Harrison but not from McCartney, and the last is McCartney who is more far than the others, so probably he will be the last to die. It's only a theory, that could be profetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOneBeatle (talk • contribs) 00:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The evidence supporting the Cole story (the American supposedly talking to the policeman) seems pretty weak and is uncorroborated. Plus, as one commenter pointed out on a story that Cole recently died – there's no museum on Abbey Road. Anyone who knows London well like to comment if there was a museum or anything like it in the vicinity?188.193.185.83 (talk) 12:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Classification

I hated to do it, but I had to rate this other-wise great article B-Class solely because it lacked references. I I gave it a Top importance because it is considered by many one of the greatest albums of all time.Vint 04:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the?! ;) -MBlume 06:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

A few procedural notes: The parameter 1 doesn't use the word "class". So, the correct usage is {{WPBeatles|B|Top}}. You can tell if you have the correct parameters simply by looking at the categories at the bottom, or indeed at the new colour boxes which should appear in the template.

Comments on why you rated a particular way go into a sub page. Click on the "leave comments here" link to open the page. --kingboyk 09:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The Last Memento Of The Beatles

This is a piece of merchandise which someone has been trying to flog on the internet and via wikipedia links. The wikipedia article for the Last memento has been deleted and protected against re-creation, but there is still an article on Sam Leach, who supposedly managed the Beatles in the early days, and Rowan Ayers, who supposedly launched Abbey Road on Late Night Line-Up... I know enough about the Beatles' early career to know that Sam Leach wasn't their manager, but not enough about the launch of Abbery Road. Can any Beatles fans shed light on whether the claims in the Rowan Ayers article are true? DavidFarmbrough 09:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Rowan Ayers is an interesting figure, but there is a paucity of (reliable) information on him. Rowan Ayres [1] may be the same person. Looking at what I've found he worked on Line-Up and may have worked on Late Night Line-Up, Points Of View and others. He proabably started out as a journalist, "in Fleet Street" is a bit vague. Rich Farmbrough, 10:37 21 September 2006 (GMT).

Drum Solo

The article says, "This features the first and only Starr drum solo to make it to tape (in its original album form)" Just wondering why the drum solo from "Birthday" isn't also counted as Starr solo? On "Birthday" the solo begins at about 0:43 and ends at 0:55. Although there's some random yelling in the background, so i suppose it might not be considered a "true" drum solo. But then that yelling might also just be studio noise too. I'm sure i read something a while back that listed "Birthday" as one of Ringo's very few solos. Input anyone? Ignus 04:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd call that a "drum break" instead of a solo. Simply playing drums without much accompaniment doesn't constitute a drum solo just like the first few moments of "Come Together" don't constitue a bass solo. One would only really call it a solo if the musician is doing something beyond the normal melody/rhythm of the song, at least in my experience. zellin t / c 12:51, 16 May 2007 (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 04:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Unwarranted Speculations

Is there much of a point in throwing in this kind of speculation?

"The two album sides are quite different in character, designed to accommodate the differing wishes of McCartney and John Lennon. Side one (to please Lennon) is a collection of single tracks, while side two (to please McCartney) consists of a long suite of compositions, many of them being relatively short and segued together. Some might argue that this is essentially McCartney's album."

...What this paragraph says nicely supports the idea that Abbey Road is a compromise between L and M. At the very least, then, this "some might argue" business doesn't sit very easily with the foregoing statements. And what does it really mean to say it's "essentially" one member's album? We all say that kind of thing in everyday talk, but you'd think an encyclopedia would stick to facts, which can include reports of well-documented, relevant opinions. Figureground 02:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Accolades

Don't know where to point this out, but I've corrected the VH1 list on three or four pages. Someone keeps referencing the list as having aired in 2003, but it aired in 2001. Also, the Rolling Stone list came out in November 2003, but it is dated December 11, so I put December 2003 for that. I don't like to edit, so I just wanted to correct it and point it out for future reference if anyone sees these errors somewhere else. Onresume December 13, 2006

Jimi Hendrix on Guitars

I thought Jimi Hendrix contributed to She's So Heavy. No mention? He played rhythm, I think, which was recorded and dubbed on later. Unless I dreamt it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.62.212.69 (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

You dreamt it...65.120.75.6 18:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Tim

the only guitar players who ever played on beatles records were george harrison on most songs (lead), john on most (rythm) paul on some (mostly lead WHEN he did play it, well and bass guitar on almost every track) and well Eric Clapton on While my Guitar gently Weeps (lead), that#s it, sorry dude but the guitar mastery on the song comes from harrison and lennon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.254.227 (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

VW

Was the VW really sold for $23,000 U.S.? I can't find any evidence of it. On the contrary, I find what purports to be a primary source saying he sold the number plates for £2300 [2], which is a far cry from the figure that wikipedia cites and that countless places mirror. Koyaanis Qatsi 02:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Airbrushed Cigarette

Apparently some US poster groups airbrushed the cigarette out of Paul's hand, might be worth including somewhere. reference http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2681219.stm http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003030798,00.html dreamcatcher23 13:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Cover

I was just thinking that the cover represents the band's history. The first Beatle represents the scruffiness of the Quarrymen and the Beat Men. The second represents the early Beatles. The third represents their early return to scruffiness and the last represents the late Beatles.

And you made that up all by yourself--NewChampion (talk) 07:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Splitting off Imitations of the cover and Cover versions

Both of these subsections are far, far too big, so I think that new pages should be created. Additionally, these lists could do with some serious trimming as there's some very un-notable information contained within.Dancarney 15:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with splitting to new article. Many of the song cover entries should be moved to the song in question and don't need to be mentioned here. For imitations of the cover, I'd summarize it and mention a couple notable examples. John Cardinal 00:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That seems a better idea; I'll make a start. Dancarney 09:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Good job. I made some changes that I think improve the flow, but the content is basically what you wrote. I think the end result is an improvement and better than dropping the section entirely. — John Cardinal 20:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

There was a television parody of the cover in an episode of the Young Ones, as I recall. The ep where they walk to a pub, and meet Vyvyan's mum. But I won't add it, just mentioning it here in case anyone else thinks it's worthwhile. Huw Powell (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Abbeyroadback.jpg

Image:Abbeyroadback.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 13:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What's Funny? I've wonderd for years, - what made Paul laugh in the middle of "Maxwell's Siver Hammer"? It's just as he sings "Writing fifty times ... " Ian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.241.228 (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably the silliness of the song. That and weed, anyway.

Abbey Road as best-selling Beatles album

The article presently states that Abbey Road is the Beatles' best-selling album of all time. This statement is unsourced. I wonder if it may have been true in the year following its release. However, I don't think it is presently the case. Most lists of the best-selling albums of all time (see, for example, [3], [4]) place the White Album much higher than Abbey Road, with the former usually placing in the top ten amongst all artists' albums, and the latter only placing in the top 50. (The Red Album and Blue Album compilations come in between.) Robert K S (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I note that the lists I provided were based on RIAA figures and may only indicate U.S. sales. Robert K S (talk) 06:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I can provide a source for AR as best selling album in the US. White album sales need to be divided in half. The only reputable source is the RIAA, which reflects American sales only. The rest of the world is conjecture.

Vytal (talk) 13:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Booster6.jpg

Image:Booster6.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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi Protection

For about a week now, an anon IP user has been gong through Beatles' albums removing the Scaruffi reviews from the infoboxes without leaving an edit summary explaining why. I have asked for an explanation but since it's a floating IP, don't really expect to get one. This is unacceptable and I have now had to semi-protect this article for a week in the hope that whoever it is gets the message that these edits are unacceptable. If you want to alter the article in this time and can't, please leave suggestions below. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 14:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The "Professional" Reviews

I'm not sure why Scaruffi's or any other reviews should be linked to the article at all. I'm not the one removing the link to Scaruffi's review of The Beatles and don't agree with their removal without whoever's doing it providing an explanation, but I don't see the point of these reviews, either. Maybe there is a debate already somewhere on Wikipedia about the merits of including links to reviews, which I am not aware of, so sorry if I am coming in with a tired discussion point. I'll just say that the reviews on the Abbey Road page are not referenced in the article and thus don't add to the encyclopedic content. They are interesting to read, I guess, but Scaruffi's, for example, is almost deliberately trying to be controversial with what I would say is a pointless act of arguing against the popularity of the Beatles. Linking to it does no service to the historical record, in my opinion. Any review is an opinion and immediately activates the subjective processes of the reader's brain and an unwinnable war of words becomes the result, exactly what Wikipedia is not supposed to be about. Calling the reviews "Professional" doesn't change this element of subjective interference. In fact, the Rolling Stone link contains no "professional" review at all that I could find, only reader contributions, which are the opposite of "professional"! Unless there is a review available that provides a strong enough counter-argument to Scaruffi, which would maintain a balance of (very strong) opinion, I would not link to reviews of the Abbey Road album but would try to incorporate the controversy of its cultural/musical relevance into the article, properly citing Scaruffi and/or whoever else would be used as a reference. I may do this myself but I won't mind if someone beats me to it! --Jelsova (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe if you would have the decency to actually read Scaruffi's review of Abbey Road in the first place, not just the first twenty-odd lines of the whole passage, you'd see he finds in favour of it. I think "masterpiece of production" is quite positive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.123.235 (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you were offended but I did read Scarrufi's whole review, so I guess I have achieved your standard of "decency". Now try re-reading what I wrote and discover that I wasn't arguing that Scaruffi didn't like Abbey Road -- I don't care if he liked it or not -- but that his review represents a boldly insistent singular view. Since anyone can argue that an era's popular representation is flawed and should have included values more in line with one's own, by claiming that other cultural elements (particular bands, albums, etc.) were actually more relevant to their era -- or should have been -- than those that are popularly cited, I suggested that links to other strong opinions about the era and its music be included in the Review box. Including a link to Scarrufi's reviews without a counterbalance from an equally strong opinion about the place of the Beatles' Abbey Road in musical and cultural history makes the article's handling of the Review box lopsided. What I wrote has nothing to do with whether Scarrufi is right or "positive" about Abbey Road. I am interested in there being a balance of opinion when opinion is unavoidable in the encyclopedia.--Jelsova (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

he's no longer on the professional list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums, so we can kick his review out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.255.43 (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Although your removal of Scaruffi reviews may be done in good faith, please note two important points about your rationale for deleting them. First, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums is a project page, not a policy page. Secondly, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Review sites is not an exhaustive list of acceptable review sites. In fact, the introductory sentence to the section states: "The following is a list of some websites with reviews or links to reviews that you can use in album infoboxes" (emphasis added). It does not prohibit any review site (except those listed as Non-professional or Non-English). I'm not arguing for or against the quality of Scaruffi's reviews, just that your rationale is not policy, only your opinion. So you need to discuss on the articles' talk pages and wait for consensus before removing Scaruffi reviews, or come up with a much better rationale. Scaruffi reviews are linked on a lot of pages, so I think you will encounter some problems by unilaterally deciding to remove them without consensus. Thank you.

Legnth

Is it really 47:23 long? --Fpmfpm (talk) 02:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Intro

In the first paragraph, the link for the Let It Be album actually links to the Let It Be song page. This needs to be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.212.112.116 (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

ENGVAR

Aren't Beatles articles supposed to use British English? This one includes 'color' and similar - which should it be?...... Densock .. Talk^{(Dendodge on a public network)} 08:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I vote for "colour"; otherwise other changes will be necessary, such as changing the archaic 'compleat' to the more modern 'complete', as in "The Complete Beatles" :) --Jelsova (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with ENGVAR but "compleat" is not a synonym for "complete"; it means "proficient or highly skilled". Having said that, the template reference to The Compleat Beatles is literally correct even if the video borrows its title from The Compleat Angler and maybe doesn't say what was intended. --Rodhullandemu 15:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The 17th-century reference was lost on me, obviously, not least because it's such a far-fetched literary allusion for a documentary about a rock band. Anyway, both my Oxford Concise and Merriam-Webster Collegiate say that 'compleat' is a synomym, or variant, for 'complete'. Even Wikipedia re-directs from 'compleat' to 'complete'. Not that it's really relevant to the Abbey Road article, since 'The Compleat Beatles' is what it is... --Jelsova (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Abbey Road is a contrived album of a virtually non-existing band. That it still works, is because even at this stage, the Beatles didn't lose their sense of experiment ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zapspace (talk • contribs) 14:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Link Edit War

What's up with the Piero Scaruffi link being deleted and re-added over and over? Personally, I am wondering why a link is being included to a self-published author's web page. Is this link notable enough? Is the author notable enough to be included? I'm sure a handful of more notable sites could be linked to. KieferFL (talk) 03:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The Albums Wikiproject thinks he's an acceptable source. It is no good deleting his reviews just because you disapprove of him, you'd have to change consensus at the project level. Best of luck. --Rodhullandemu 11:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not that I disapprove of him or his opinions (hey, everyone's got them!), but I do disapprove of the use of what is basically a self-published author as a review source. (According to his WP page, he's a "cultural historian", not a music specialist of any kind.) A search through Wikipedia shows that there are dozens of discussions on talk pages from people that also feel this way. There's even currently talk on the WikiProject Albums talk page in two places, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Review sites and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#scaruffi as good critic, about Scaruffi being a poor choice for reviewer. I guess I will put a motion up on the talk page for consensus about deletion. KieferFL (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, one way or another, these discussion have a habit of either petering out through lack of interest, or no consensus being reached. At least, that's the history of the last two years or so. I have no interest in debating this in numerous places, so a discussion on WP:ALBUM would seem to be the place, since it is his album reviews that people seem to have an issue with. --Rodhullandemu 16:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

well he's out of the list of professional reviewers, so the talk about including his reviews can begin from anew. —Preceding

Talk, yes. Unilaterally deciding on your own, no. You need consensus to do that. Basic Wikipedia policy. Ward3001 (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Things have moved on; there is current consensus at WP:ALBUM not to include him as a "preferred" reviewer; that means separate consensus has to be negotiated on each article where it's in issue, and I have no intention, or will, of living that long. --Rodhullandemu 21:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

8-Track?

The notes indicate this is the first album the Beatles recorded mainly with 8-track, whereas the entry on the White Album says basically the same thing. Which is it? Roygbiv666 (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Bob & Tom Tributes

This is the second of two B&T compilations to be named after or parody Beatles albums (the other being their first release, The White Album.) Both albums are out-of-print.

Not true. I lived in Indianapolis in the late '80s and early '90s and had all of the albums Bob & Tom released for a while there. I specifically recall a Sgt. Pepper's parody called, I believe, With a Little Help from Our Friends. Can anybody confirm and update accordingly? -- JCaesar (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Album by Immediate Music

I hope my addition of Immediate Music's album Abbey Road is appreciated and written in correct English since I'm Dutch. Great music by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.145.139.167 (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Something in the Way she Moves

The sentence

Originally written during the White Album sessions, the first line is based on the James Taylor song "Something in the Way She Moves" (Taylor was signed to Apple at the time).

has been removed from the "Something" section pending citation. Radiopathy •talk• 02:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Genre(s)

Do we really need 5 genres of music under which to categorize this album? It's pretentious. It's a rock album. "Art rock", "blues rock".... Proedit21 (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ProEdit21Proedit21 (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, sub-genres need not be specified otherwise we'd be overloading the infobox. Imagine if we did that for The White Album! Rodhullandemu 17:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles: Rock Band commercial

Right now the article states "(whose faces are digitally superimposed from archival footage from 1969 and melded onto computer generated bodies)." Is there any source for this? The source for the paragraph is just a YouTube video so that's probably going to be changed/removed anyway, but I've yet to find a basis for that sidenote specifically.76.182.10.100 (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

... and that sort of stuff--when sourced properly--belongs in an article about the game. — John Cardinal (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Who is the woman or girl on the back cover in the blue short skirt?

People speak of the identity of the man on the front cover, and the VW Beatle etc, but who is the blurry image of a female in a short blue dress on the back cover?? Maybe she did not even know then or later that it was her, so maybe know one knows?