Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

Freak Out!

Pet Sounds is excellently represented in this article, but Zappa's Freak Out! is minuscule in comparison. There's a lot about it. Zappa quote about "Lovely Rita": "The way they're doing "huffa-puffa, huffa-puffa" in the background? Yes, I do, as a matter of fact. There's also a coincidence in the use of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band as a reprise and the way we do "America Drinks" and "Goes Home" on Absolutely Free." The We're Only in It for the Money cover isn't even mentioned.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Note #3 mentions Freak Out! and We're Only in It for the Money, the other stuff is not notable, and its sourced to Zappa, which is the worst possible source for this kind of claim. The preponderance of reliable sources do not draw a strong connection between Zappa's Freakout! and Pepper beyond the fact that both albums were mastered without rills. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)}

And that McCartney considers Sgt. Peps to be the Beatles' version of Freak Out!.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 05:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC).

Not really; the two albums could hardly be more distinct. Norman does report that McCartney supposedly said something to that effect, but its not repeated anywhere else and especially not by McCartney in direct quotes. As far as I can tell, Macca has never publicly acknowledged more that a passing intrigue in Freakout!, and more to the point, according to Julien: "Freakout! therefore appears to be no more than a possible influence on Sgt. Pepper." If you can supply a RS that critically analyses the two albums, drawing an explicit connection between them then please do share that source; I'd be happy to reevaluate the point should more information become available, but as it stands now, my reading of the preponderance of sources indicates that the point does not merit more than a footnote. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I found that in the biography Blackbird, McCartney states that Freak Out! was "the first pop album that wasn't just a collection of singles", but I can't see the entire page. Nothing else though.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The only thing McCartney says in Many Years From Now about Zappa, is that he asked permission to do the Sgt. Pepper parody cover, which Paul told him he did not have the power to grant, and that Zappa thought that "Zapple" was named after him. McCartney says that Lennon invented the name "Zapple" and that it had nothing to do with Frank. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

FTR, Geoffrey Giuliano is about the worst possible source for Beatles articles. You would be better off citing Wikipedia, but obviously, you are well aware of that. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually I wasn't aware of that. Now I'm wondering about this edit. A lot's been said about Pets influencing Peps, but McCartney's quote is the only(?) direct source that's ever elaborated on the specifics of its influence. I'm not sure for what reason why it was removed. I think it's notable enough that he singles out the instrumentation, vox arranging, electric bass, and percussive patterns. Otherwise it is kinda hard to understand what the two albums have in common inasmuch as they are said to be. Even Wilson was stumped. So was I for a while.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The liner notes from the 1993 version of Pet Sounds are not the best choice for this material, which is not repeated in any source that I know of, so its origin is dubious and not notable, IMO. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The complete liner notes with McCartney are available online. I don't think there's much dubious stuff there. McCartney repeated some of what he said to Leaf on his Oobu Joobu radio show as a segue before playing "You Still Believe In Me" (sadly can't be heard on YouTube anymore). And here. The writing itself reappears in tons of sources.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

1) None of these are reliable sources for Wikipedia, and 2) The text that comes up with that google search is not the same text that you added to the article. If you can find the details in this note in a RS, I'll gladly restore the point. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Release Date

Perhaps it's utterly insignificant, but are there any thoughts on why RIAA would post the release date as June 2 ? http://riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?content_selector=gold-platinum-searchable-database/the-beatles Learner001 (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

"Sgt. Pepper was released on 1 June 1967 in the United Kingdom and on 2 June in the United States."[147] GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Good work on release date. Learner001 (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but at least one of the following statements is incorrect, and possibly both, as we don't yet have enough information to verify the complete truth of the release:

    1 - SPLHCB was released internationally and simultaneously on 6/1/1967.
    2 - SPLHCB was released in the US on 6/2 and in the UK on 6/1/1967.

The problem is that you can NEVER NEVER NEVER have 6/2 in the US at the same time that you have 6/1 in the UK. The reason is that UTC (or GMT) in the UK will ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS be at least 4 hours or more AHEAD of ET in the US. It also depends on DST and which US time zone you're comparing to if not ET. In other words, you don't cross the International Date line between the two. You could have 5/31 in the US and 6/1 in the UK but never 6/2 in the US and 6/1 in the UK. So, you can have two different dates, but that's simply because time marches on.

So, take your pick:

- US release on 5/31 and UK release on 6/1 (possible for about 4-5 hours)

- US release on 6/1 and UK release on 6/1 (possible for the rest of the 24 hour period)

- US release on 6/1 and UK release on 6/2 (possible for the following 4-5 hours, but counter to the universally held notion that it was released on 6/1, especially in the Beatles' own country)

- US release on 6/2 BUT NOT AT THE SAME TIME as UK release on 6/1 (counter to the traditional and official worldwide simultaneous release on 6/1)

The one scenario you can't have is:

- US release on 6/2 and UK release on 6/1 at the same time. Not possible, not even in the Twilight Zone (wellll, maybe yeah in that particular TZ <g>)

I realize that the respected RIAA website states release on 6/2, but for that information to have any value, either in proving or disproving it, first it needs to be determined if it's referring to US release or UK release. My guess is wrong info, and that somebody at RIAA counted time zones in the wrong direction. That or just a typo, it happens.

The only other possibility that I can imagine (sorry, pun was not initially intended), is that 6/1/67 was intended by the Beatles as a symbolic global date for the release, and not intended to be considered literal by time. "Release in the UK on 6/1? Yeah, sounds good. Symbolically it's now considered to be released everywhere on 6/1, regardless of what the clock says."

...sorry, I know...more questions than answers. I just needed to point out the tiny but significant flaw with the Note #30 reference to Int'l date line (in the Pacific, by the way) and the US release on 6/2.

Thoughts anyone?

PS: almost forgot, even Wikipedia lists today 6/1 as the the album's release date under it's home page's "On This Day...". Well, it did a few minutes ago anyway. Jeez, what a coincidence - I just reloaded the page and now, at a bit past 8pm ET, Wiki states that in UTC (London) it's now 6/2, and all you folks in the US, take a look at your clocks...still 6/1? I thought so...I couldn't have planned that if my life depended on it <g>.

Fgoron2000 (talk) 00:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The endnote has been fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks much. Now we just need to figure out how to fix the RIAA site (just kidding)...I do wonder, though, where they got their 6/2 date. Fgoron2000 (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Acalycine (talk · contribs) 23:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Problems:

• In regards to 1b, the article contains weasel words and peacock terms such as "widely regarded as one of the most influential albums ever recorded". Who made this claim? There are some other words to watch in the article as well.
• In regards to 1b, the lead may be too long, since the article has fewer than 15,000 words (prose size), it's lead should be 1 to 2 paragraphs long, according to WP:LEADLENGTH.
• In regards to 2c, this connects to the words to watch, since they are unreferenced, the claims come under original research.
• In regards to 4, this again connects to the words to watch, since the article contains peacock terms and weasel words, it's bias.

Final commentary: It's a lengthy article with a ton of references which is good to see, good job with the speedy fix and the amount of interesting content in this article. Accepted! Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 00:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Acalycine! I've removed the unattributed weasel words from the lead, but I'm not sure that having four paragraphs in the lead contradicts any guidelines; per MOS:LEAD: "it should ideally contain no more than four paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate." GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I've trimmed the lead to three paragraphs. Does this address your concern? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

BTW, WP:LEADLENGTH says "Fewer than 15,000 characters", not words. This article has 8,200 words but more than 30,000 characters. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The article is fine now, what I was talking about with the lead length was the table with the suggestions on that linked page. I've accepted the article as a GA. Well done! In regards to your comment about characters not words, thanks, I always get characters and words confused... Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 01:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I just checked back at this article to see what else needed sourcing after being away, and noticed it's at GA. Nice one Gabe! Next stop FAC? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Next stop peer review, then its on to FAC. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Horns

I linked the first hornist. Any reason why the instrument is called French horn, while the article is simply horn (instrument)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda! I'll bet its the wrong link; nice catch. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) In the UK, it's most commonly called the French horn, and this also helps avoid confusion with a band's "horn section" or the tenor horn. Bencherlite^Talk 21:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Regent Sound Studios

Regent Sound was listed in the infobox for several years as one of the studios used in the recording of Sgt. Pepper. Recently, this has been removed, restored and removed again; the reason for the removal is that so little was recorded there that it doesn't deserve mention.

Fixing a Hole was started at Regent Sound on 9 February 1967. Harpsichord, drums, bass and Harrison's solo were recorded, along with McCartney's guide vocal and Lennon's rhythm guitar. When The Beatles came back to the song at Abbey Road on 21 February, the only overdubs were McCartney's double-tracked vocal; the guide vocal and rhythm guitar from Regent Sound were erased.

The 9 February session is notable for being the first time The Beatles used a British studio other than Abbey Road. Quite a lot was accomplished that night and it would be negligent to not acknowledge the work done at Regent Sound.

Is there any one else opposed to including Regent Sound Studios in the infobox? Radiopathy •talk• 22:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Fixed? You don't need to be so confrontational all the time. Maybe consider starting a talk page thread before you edit war, so its not always a caustic battleground mentality. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)