Talk:The Beatles Anthology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Anthology Plus[edit]

My friend owns a copy of a fourth double disc of the Anthology series called Anthology Plus. I was so confused as to why I had never heard of it, and to be unable to find it here makes me wonder what the hell it is!?!? Anyone know any information on this? It starts with I'll Always Be in Love with You, then I'll Follow the Sun, then One after 909 (1960 rehearsal) etc, can anybody give any info on this?

Anthology Plus is a two-disc bootleg. It is seperate from The Beatles Anthology, and should be listed on the bootleg page, rather than on the Anthology page. More information can be found at this page about the Anthology Plus. -Gr0ff (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Cover Art Comments - Re: Pete Best[edit]

I changed the bit about Pete Best's image "rather tactlessly" being removed from the cover of Anthology 1 because (a) I don't think it was tactless at all, and (b) it was blatantly POV. I'm not 100% content with my replacement text, but it's an improvement, IMHO. 209.213.214.242 19:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's any better now. Because, for one, I'm pretty sure that Pete Best is on the cover of Anthology 1. Gordon P. Hemsley 04:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible split[edit]

Should the musical releases be split from this? (maybe yes) Should the DVDs be split from the broadcasts? (maybe no) ++Lar: t/c 04:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The albums already have seperate articles. --kingboyk 05:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Then maybe there is too much here about them? ++Lar: t/c 05:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. As long as this page links to the album pages, we don't need too much info on the albums here. What's here is fine IMO, but we could use more on the video/DVD/TV versions. edgarde 13:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

More Volumes?[edit]

I'm reluctant to even ask this, but I was just browsing RingoStarr.com and viewed Ringo's update from "17 March 2003" (what a quirky character, that Ringo). In it he mentioned that he "saw the fifth disc of The Beatles Anthology"; however, he also said that it's "well worth... the three hundred thousand dollars you gotta pay to get it". So, my question is, was he talking about anything serious, or was he just messing around? Gordon P. Hemsley 01:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, now I know why I was reluctant to ask in the first place. He must have been referring to the DVD release of the set, joking only about the price. Oh well. Gordon P. Hemsley 01:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Bootlegs[edit]

re: [1] would that fit somewhere else perhaps? ++Lar: t/c 05:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

A Category:The_Beatles_bootlegs already exists for this purpose. You can just enter bootlegs individually (using the guidelines from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums), and include the category tag [[Category:The Beatles bootlegs]] at the bottom.
As for just listing Beatleg titles, the main Article for The Beatles bootlegs is unwieldy and needing cleanup; however, its talk section would be the appropriate place to start a discussion on developing a list of Beatlegs. Rather than cluttering that article tho, I think a separate The Beatles bootlegs discography, linked to The Beatles bootlegs, and with links in turn to boots meriting their own pages, would be the way to do it. (Presuming it's worth doing.) edgarde 13:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Beatlegs -- even ones with cover art modeled on the Anthology albums -- are relevant here. However, there is a 10-DVD Anthology Directors' Cut 1993 [2][3] bootleg, taken from an early edit, supposedly shown to representatives of the band for approval, including much material that was later excised for various reasons. The differences are interesting, but I hesitate to add it here because it might stir the bootleg pot unnecessarily. edgarde 13:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Bootlegs are not relevant here. Giving credence to badly put together bootlegs with ropey material in the same terms as the official anthology albums is misleading. As this now seems the consensus view I've removed them from the article. simonthebold 09:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Why does this need citation?[edit]

"The Anthology covers required Voormann to recreate his cover for Revolver within the collage, to some extent.[citation needed]" - Don't people know that Voormann painted this collage, he didn't just tear up colour photocopies of the actual album covers to make it. Therefore, he had to recreate his Revolver album cover, within the Anthology one. This is interesting if you like this kind of information; differences can be found not just with the Revolver cover but between the three Anthology CDs. My question is, why is the fact that he had to recreate his Revolver cover dubious, and why is citation required?

It doesn't require citation. I've fixed the sentence to make its meaning more clear. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.66.226.95 (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Beatles RfC[edit]

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 that band's name 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) 23:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:The Beatles Anthology/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*This feels like it should be 3 articles, or maybe 2, since there are DVDs and two different albums covered by the article. Somewhat unstructured but a lot of material there. Needs album and dvd covers. --Lar(14 March 2006)
  • 2nd opinion: The albums already have their own articles. I think this should be retained as an overview page but cleaned up. We can use the "main article" thing to point people to the articles on the albums. I'd favour one strong article (i.e. this one, expanded) on the TV series, DVDs and books. Can always be split out later if gets too large. Definitely needs a splash of colour. --kingboyk 05:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 00:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 07:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)