Jump to content

Talk:Yesterday and Today

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeYesterday and Today was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 19, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed

Butcher cover

[edit]

I think the 'butcher cover' ought to be displayed within the article. It's the one thing that makes this album infamous outside the US. --kingboyk 23:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOT an external link! Sigh. If you want something done, do it yourself right? :) I'm gonna merge the article on the cover into here and add a picture. --kingboyk 04:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was my understanding that Lennon and/or the Beatles had nothing to do with the use of the butcher photo on the cover of this LP. Snopes [1] has a very persuasive article indicating that the photo shoot was for a different purpose entirely, complete with an interview with the photographer wherein he states emphatically that the shoot was not intended for any LP cover. Is there any source indicating that anyone in the band or their management had "insisted" that the photo be used for the cover, as the article claims? --G0zer

It is stated here and in other articles about the Beatles that the 'butcher' picture was originally used on the cover of the UK single of "Paperback Writer". This is incorrect. The picture was used only for promotion of the single, which was not issued with a picture cover in 1966. For the 1986 reissue, the 'butcher' picture was incorporated in the sleeve design. I will try to correct this wherever it appears. --Jd204 00:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

[edit]

What is up with the title of this article? Not only does Yesterday...and Today redirect here (and Yesterday... and Today not), but the title it redirects to has some oddly spaced periods in it! If the title should have an ellipsis in it, then it should be Yesterday… and Today (compare Let It Be... Naked vs. Let It Be… Naked), but I see no indication on either cover that it should have any ellipsis at all! I'm really in favor of moving this to Yesterday and Today. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 03:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The ellipses in the name seem to be a common convention but plenty of Google hits show references that ignore them. As you say, the acid test (pun unintended) should be what's on the cover and they ain't there... Cheers, Ian Rose 10:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the ellipsis does appear on the back cover (at least on the horribly damaged version that I have, which has no front cover remaining), but I still stand by the fact that the article title should be without an ellipsis (or a horrible excuse for one). —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 03:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The ellipsis also appears on the record label itself. [2] In fact, according to the label, the title (with full punctuation) is "Yesterday" …and Today. Note the ellipsis is actually shifted to the word on the right. Also, as depicted in Nicholas Schaffner's The Beatles Forever, an interim cover was proposed and scrapped prior to the official "trunk" cover. I found a picture on the Web which matches the one in the book. [3] On this cover, the ellipsis is visible on the front. That said, I don't have a problem with moving the article to the less confusing title. Critics seem to split the difference. Schaffner doesn't use the ellipsis, but the Rolling Stone Album Guide does. Due to Capitol's inconsistent typography, I think we have multiple valid options availabe to us. --GentlemanGhost 13:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is their spacing and punctuation inconsistent, but Capitol is also inconsistent with their capitalization. The front cover has "And" while the back cover has "and". Obviously, all of these possible interpretations would be a redirect to the actual article, which I still suggest we move to Yesterday and Today, as per the final front cover and Wikipedia's capitalization policy. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 06:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this discussion has been posted for so many months and no one has objected, I've gone ahead and moved the article. Next, I will fix and double redirects that have resulted. --GentlemanGhost 06:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, I did a cut-and-paste move and consequently truncated the edit history of this article. (Newbie mistake, send me hate mail if you must.) In order to redeem myself, I have made a request at WP:MOVE to fix this, if possible. --GentlemanGhost 23:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Belated follow-up: An admin moved the article name properly and restored the edit history, so we're in good shape. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ninth album?

[edit]

The first paragraph states that this is the ninth official album, however it is not in the sequence at the bottom of the page. The information in the box below the photo shows this album between Revolver and Sgt Peppers, and would be the 7th in the series of official album releases. Does anyone have any objection to updating the information in the first paragraph and at the bottom to match? --Baronvon

Actually, the first paragraph states that this is the 9th Capitol release by the Beatles, not the 9th official album. This is accurate and not in conflict with the template at the bottom of the page. The trick is that the Beatles' album releases in the U.K. and the U.S.A. were not synchronized. Yesterday... and Today is a U.S.-only release, containing mostly songs that were previously released in the U.K. on other Beatles albums. I presume that is why the creator of the Beatles template did not include it in the list of "official" albums. Since the Beatles were a British group, it is reasonable to consider the U.K. record chronology as official, especially since these releases usually preceded their American releases. I hope that helps to clarify. --GentlemanGhost 12:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section on Record Collecting, etc

[edit]

My apologies in advance to whoever labored over the lengthy and exceedingly detailed section about Peter Livingston, etc. -- but that section is far too long and detailed to belong in this article. It is simply disproportionate, and actually somewhat off-topic. A short paragraph summarizing the story would be fine, and more than adequate. I strongly suggest that it be taken down. Perhaps it can be moved elsewhere -- possibly incorporated into the article about record collecting? I'd like to know if there are any serious objections to my proposal before I proceed. Cgingold 11:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Text for Butcher Picture

[edit]

It previously read "Alternate Cover." I think it should read "Original Cover" maybe "Banned Version" or something of that ilk. I would like the jury to look at this. Sixstring1965 21:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've noted before, the original cover should be listed at the top of the infobox, and the alternate cover should be listed in the {{Extra album cover 2}} section, using the upper caption "Alternate cover", per Template:Infobox Album#Cover and Template:Infobox Album#Template:Extra album cover 2. I think an argument could be made that either cover is the original cover. The field "Caption" for the upper image and the field "Lower caption" of the bottom image is the place to note what the respective image refers to. I don't see what's wrong with using "Alternate cover" as the upper caption in either case, or why this article should not adhere to the album article guidelines. --PEJL 22:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's plainly not an alternate cover. Sixstring1965 22:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also consider dropping the Butcher picture into the Butcher section. Sixstring1965 22:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've discussed this before, and you keep stating that it's not an alternate cover, but have yet to explain why that is. --PEJL 22:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reformatted the picture. Hope you like it!Sixstring1965 02:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a couple of questions remaining:
Through the evolution of this statement, there still remain no citations for this. If we cannot cite the provenance of the reasoning behind the title, we cannot tweak the wording enough to avoid the need for a citation. I don't think it can stay in its present form. I will wait until morning to wait for some feedback from others here. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must object to moving the cover out of the infobox as well. When there are alternate covers, they should be listed in the infobox in the Template:Infobox Album#Template:Extra album cover 2 section. As I've said before I see no reason why this article should not follow album article guidelines. --PEJL 05:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Arc, I have a citation I'm going to add for the "early album proofs. It was getting late and I didn't have time to finish.


The Butcher picture is now in it's section which explains the story behind it. I think it works better that way then having it as an alternate cover which is misleading. Sixstring1965 13:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To explain a little better, having the butcher cover photo moved to it's section makes the story more encyclopedic and I think it flows better. Sixstring1965 13:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I was at it, I added the citations requested. Why isn't time spent on fixing these problems instead? Sixstring1965 14:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Six, I am still a little concerned witht he last sentence at the end of the Lead. While the citation does indeed say that the word yesterday is indeed in quotation marks, how does that make it noteworthy? If you are implying that the quote refers to the song of that name that is the sort of quote you should be looking for. The way it is, it isn't noteworthy and runs into WP:UNDUE problems, especially since its in the Lead. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't know where to go on that one. Perhaps you can reword it. My main concern was the butcher problem. Sixstring1965 21:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Six, just so I understand the situation as it stands now, you are saying that you prefer the original Butcher image not be used as the placeholder (even though it has every right to be there) because you thinkt he image is better utilized as a descriptive image in another section? I'm not faulting your judgment here, i am just asking.
On the yesterday topic, I am strongly tempted to remove the sentence entirely, for without a connection to the song Yesterday, it has no value to the article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arc, Exactly. The butcher cover shouldn't be recognized as an alternate cover in the main section as it was the original cover. The trunk cover would be best described as the alternate. Since this poses a problem in description, I think it works much better with the section of the same name. As far as the "Yesterday" thing goes, I could very well take it or leave it. Althought they did quote the word as a play on words for the song. Do what you want on that one, I trust you'll do it proper.Sixstring1965 22:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I gotcha. I agree with your reasoning that the article is better off describing the original cover in its own section, as there is more to say about it (and there are more references for the topic). I will remove the Yesterday thing, as the citations doesn't really speak to the Yesterday song reference as well as it could. Some refs aren't very strong. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA

[edit]

Strange that this has been nominated without any recent discussion (9 October 2007?) Hmmm... Anyway, it needs more references, but I hope it will pass.--andreasegde (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never nominated an article for GA before, but I thought that this one might meet the criteria. If not, I'm sure whatever suggestions are made will help move the article in that direction. As far as the lack of recent discussion, I presume that there was enough compromise on the issues to satisfy all concerned parties who made points here on the talk page previously. However, I didn't actually verify this. I suppose someone may have just given up fighting for their point of view. :) I did, however, re-read the article to make such it didn't have anything that I considered to be a glaring fault. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe bringing it up here beforehand might have proven to be helpful. As I don't think we can withdraw it now, we are stuck with this premature action. I am unsure as to how long we would have to wait if the article is refused GA - since I don't think its representative of GA-quality articles - but perhaps it would be very, very wise in the future to work within the community of discussion before doing something like that again, GG.- Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too true, compadre Arcayne. BTW, the nominator can take it off the GAN list anytime, and even if it has failed, they can put it back on straightaway (although this is probably not a good idea.)--andreasegde (talk) 09:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arcayne, I'm sorry that you feel that the nomination was premature. However, I don't see how receiving impartial feedback will hurt the article. Also, I'd like to point out that discussing the nomination on the talk page beforehand is not a requirement for nomination; it's not even suggested as a "good practice". However, I will certainly think about doing so next time as I don't like being bitten. Moving on, where can the article be improved? --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Andreas, are there items in particular that you think need further reference? Or is it that you would like to have more sources in general? Thanks! --GentlemanGhost (talk) 05:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back on this, I get a strong whiff of ownership. Gross. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

Find as many as you can. Sentences such as ""first state" covers, are very rare and command the highest prices", "Nevertheless, the album reached #1 on the U.S. Billboard charts by 30 July 1966 and was certified gold soon after", "Apart from the butcher cover, this album is of interest to collectors for the appearance of unique mixes of Revolver-era tracks unavailable elsewhere", "In particular, John Lennon pushed to use it as an album cover", all need references. That's just a start - there are a few more.--andreasegde (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Click on this to see an album of photos. Click on the photos to enlarge them.--andreasegde (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is also good.--andreasegde (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think the "Lennon pushed" quote (and ensuing material) were all sourced by the Schaffner book, but I'll double-check. I wasn't sure if you needed to reference each sentence or if one reference was enough to cover multiple sentences. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They cover one subject, even if it is spread over two or three sentences. As soon as the subject changes, it needs another one.--andreasegde (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsuccessful GAN

[edit]

I don't think this meets the broad criteria of WP:GA?. Compare it to some of the GA Beatles articles (here) - a lot of the songs there have a lot more information, including much more reception and release info, plus more on songwriting. I don't think this article is quite there yet, but I'd be happy to take another look if you wish to renominate it at some stage. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

buythebutchercover.com

[edit]

User Riptastic (talk · contribs) has been adding the link http://www.buythebutchercover.com/Home/Butcher-Cover to the External links section. I don't personally think that this site meets the WP:EL guideline as it is merely a website selling variations of the butcher cover. However, I mention it here as in case anyone wants to weigh in on the usefulness of this link. As of now, I have again removed it from the article (but I let Riptastic know my rationale). Cheers, GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cover image use

[edit]

I realise the "butcher cover" is the original cover, but since it was replaced and is little known outside of collectors and Beatles enthusiasts (I'm both), shouldn't the main cover image used for the article be the cover that's best known?216.153.143.247 (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. We could swap the images in the infobox. Radiopathy •talk• 17:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree In the context of history, the vast majority of albums were sold with the trunk cover, and I for one was never even aware of the existence of the "butcher" cover. It is a short-lived (thus collector's item) controversial variant, and despite it being Lennon's and McCartney's first choice, Harrison correctly identified it as another example of the "naive and dumb" things the young Beatles did. Thus I believe putting it in the primary slot becomes a WP:POV issue, adding undue weight to Lennon's and McCartney's controversial view; the technical point about it being "first" is irrelevant. As a variant, it still meets the criteria for "Extra album cover" as documented on the template. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Release date

[edit]

According to http://www.mp3.com/albums/1253/summary.html, The Beatles Bible and many other sources, Yesterday and Today was released on the 20th, not the 15th. I cannot find any sources saying the 15th.

Also, should the album be considered a studio album? It is not an official studio album, just a collection of songs from UK studio albums from 1965 and 1966. It's more of a compilation released for Americans because some of the songs on the proper UK albums had already been released in the US. Mclay1 (talk) 07:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the release date should be the 20th (per Lewisohn 1988, p. 201). I think it should stay a "studio" album. For most of the songs, this was the first release in the US. All the Capitol releases prior to Sgt. Pepper had similar changes. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

[edit]

From all genres, "rock n roll, pop" is the last to fit.

Drive My Car, And Your Bird Can Sing, If I Needed Someone, Day Tripper - they're all classic rock songs.

I'm Only Sleeping, Nowhere Man, Doctor Robert - they're more into psychedelic rock.

Yesterday, We Can Work It Out, Act Naturally - yes, they're kinda pop, but not exactly. If we ignore Yesterday for a sec (it doesn't have an official genre), We Can Work It Out and Act Naturally are kind of folk rock songs.

But seriously, non of the songs in this album are rock n roll. Pilmccartney (talk) 08:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:V and WP:NOR. Wiki libs (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only Beatles record to lose money for Capitol

[edit]

This statement is very broad and without further explanation may be confusing to some readers as to why it lost money for Capitol. It may also be false. The claim comes from the book The Beatles Forever by Nicolas Schaffner and is in reference to the cost involved in removing 750,000 "butcher" covers and repackaging the records, estimated to be $200,000 to $250,000. I believe the statement in the book is a somewhat mistaken interpretation of the press reports at the time of the album's release which suggested the additional $250,000 cost would negate the profit on those records. That is entirely possible, however it does not take into account sales of the album beyond that first pressing. This album went on to sell an additional 1.25 million copies (at least) so it is unlikely to have lost money for Capitol. Also, Schaffner's book was written in 1977 while the album was still in print so such a definitive outcome could not even have been possible at the time. Piriczki (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. Perhaps someone has a source with an updated version of the story which demarcates when EMI/Capitol finally started to see a profit from it. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate cover nominated for deletion

[edit]

The alternate cover for the album -- the more common LP cover, with the Beatles posed around a steamer trunk -- has been nominated for deletion. The debate is about whether or not this second version of the album cover should be kept in the article, or removed. Interested editors are encouraged to give their opinions, at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 August 29#File:YesterdayandTodayalbumcover.jpg. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 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) 23:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Capital stereo mixes NOT used on the 2014 U.S. Albums boxed set

[edit]

This article contains an erroneous statement: "The true stereo mixes of "I'm Only Sleeping" and "Doctor Robert" that appear on Yesterday and Today are different from the ones used for the subsequent release of Revolver in the UK,[7] and were unreleased on CD until their inclusion on the The U.S. Albums boxed set in 2014." The alternate stereo mixes used on Yesterday and Today were in fact, not included on the US Albums boxed set. That set caused some controversy in that all the original Capital mixes were substituted for the UK mixes found on the 2009 remastering of the Beatles catalog. You get the original U.S. track listings for these albums, but not the mixes. So I've amended the statement to delete the reference to the U.S Albums box.

RfC: Should this be categorized as a studio album or a compilation album?

[edit]

The article currently describes Yesterday and Today as a studio album, without a source verifying it; I could not find one myself. My revision to compilation album, backed by a source (multiple verify this position), was reverted by JG66 who argued that it is "a typical US-format studio LP in that it included recent hit singles". I've since tagged the "studio" description as unsourced and added statements to the contrary. Dan56 (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
  • Both (with condition) - Placing "Compilation" ahead of "Studio" in the infobox type/longtype fields and in the lead, on the basis of the third-party sources discussed below that actually make the distinction of it being a "compilation". Dan56 (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Studio - Wikipedia's obsession with defining every album as either "studio" or "compilation" has reached the point of absurdity. Piriczki (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Studio. This is a studio-format LP, and contains tracks previously unincluded on a U.S. LP. Just because it contains some that were does not make it a compilation. To label it as such could be compared to calling Yellow Submarine a compilation simply because it contains two previously released tracks. It's all just record label confusion with a capitol 'C'. Best, Liam Gibson (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Studio. Back in the '60s, albums by British bands typically saw a bit of re-shuffling when they were released in the American market. That doesn't change the fact that Yesterday contains no material that had seen earlier release on a U.S. album (the previous comment is incorrect in implying that some of them did have earlier U.S. album release). And so, it's not a "compilation album" as that term is commonly understood. As for the fact that the Beatles never recorded these songs as a distinct album (which, by the way, is true of every Capitol Beatles album before Revolver), the article already does a good job of explaining that to the reader. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Material added to the article contradicting "studio album" (based on Riley, Beviglia and Music Radar:

Both Tim Riley and American Songwriter journalist Jim Beviglia classified Yesterday and Today as a compilation album, and MusicRadar said it was one in a series of "hit-filled compilation albums" that the American Capitol label "sliced and diced" from the Beatles' original British albums.

Furthermore, there was already a sentence in the article before my addition that said:

The hodge-podge nature in which Capitol Records compiled their albums irritated the group, who felt they had "put a lot of work into the sequencing" of the British albums.[12]

This source, a Beatles reference book, also verifies "compilation". Dan56 (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They do say that, but then one should consider the many sources who simply call it an "album" or "Capitol's latest LP release". That last source, Shea & Rodriguez's Fab Four FAQ, for instance, calls it "the Yesterday … and Today compilation" on the page you linked to, but it's "the Yesterday … and Today album" on pages 89, 98 and 459.
Well, a compilation is a type of album, obviously... Dan56 (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The mention of how "Capitol Records compiled their albums" is confusing in this context. Yes, Capitol compiled the Beatles' North American LP releases until 1967 – "reconfigured" might be the better term. Yesterday and Today is no different from any of Capitol's previous Beatles LPs, as far as their approach and the type of release. Since 1964, the policy was to combine non-album single and EP tracks with material they had stockpiled through releasing 12-song albums vs 14 songs in the UK. (The Beatles' North American releases is unsourced, but it probably explains the issue far better than I can.) The fact that the US versions of A Hard Day's Night and Help! were genuine film soundtracks (half-filled with film-score music) was a huge bonanza for Capitol. Half of the Hard Day's Night (UK) songs could therefore form the foundation for Something New – and it rolled on like that until this point, mid 1966. Put it this way, if Y & T is a compilation album, then so is The Beatles' Second Album, Something New and Beatles VI. Perhaps some writers refer to those others as compilation albums also, I don't know. Music Radar does with Something New, but also with Beatles '65 – which is a total joke, because '65 is just Beatles for Sale à la Capitol. The US Rubber Soul would have to be a compilation album as well, then, if Beatles VI is one.
Also, because the Beatles' catalogue was standardised for CD release in 1987, there is a tendency to retrospectively view some of the Capitol releases in a bad light – who wouldn't call them "grab-bag collections", "dodgy compilations", etc. That's just reinterpreting what an official release was at the time. In the 1983 Rolling Stone Record Guide, John Swenson points out the anomalies between the band's UK releases and the US product, but he gives no idea that certain US releases were or should be viewed as compilations: e.g. "Beatles VI and the Help! soundtrack established a holding pattern until Rubber Soul, the breakthrough record which followed up the strategic ideas of Beatles '65 … 'Yesterday,' the 1965 hit, headlines Yesterday … And Today. This LP had the legendary 'butcher' cover (which was pulled off the market) and included such tremendous songs as 'Dr. Robert,' 'Day Tripper,' 'Nowhere Man' and 'Drive My Car.'" The most authoritative sources (e.g. Lewisohn, MacDonald) may refer to Capitol "compiling" a new US LP, but they establish early on that the company's whole release policy was about hoarding and compiling/reconfiguring the band's UK catalogue for North America, and there's no mention that Capitol released compilation albums. In his book Beatles '66, Steve Turner states that A Collection of Beatles Oldies, released in December 1966, was "the first Beatles compilation record". To my mind, that's an authoritative statement from someone who understands the subject.
He doesn't intimate that it's a studio album either, so... and I guess Riley is chopped liver? Dan56 (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to follow the description given by a few sources (and maybe more, admittedly) and label Y & T a compilation album, then it affects those other US albums also. For instance: John Kruth, in his book This Bird Has Flown, does call Beatles VI a compilation album, but to my mind (and to a good few Amazon reviewers) that book's appalling, and no way should we trust writers like him over the likes of Lewisohn or MacDonald. Top sources – authorities – such as those last two seem to view Y & T as Capitol at it again: another US bastardisation of the Beatles' work, and particularly damaging to Revolver. And whatever's done here, we need to think about the effect on The Beatles discography, and templates like Template:The Beatles compilations. JG66 (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Beatles discography is complicated, and you're certainly knowledgeable on that topic, but can we focus on this article's topic? The possibility of affecting other articles isn't a valid reason to thwart a change that would improve this article. Let others deal with the rest if and when the time comes. Also, as I said above, I would be fine with categorizing this album as both to reconcile both viewpoints (there is longtype available, like it's implemented at Parade (Prince album)), but the "studio album" position has to be verified/found in some published literature. Otherwise, we'd be reconciling verifiable information with an unpublished assumption, or at worst favoring unverifiable over verified. Dan56 (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think this article's topic cannot be viewed without consideration for its place within the wider context. It depends on how one approaches this encyclopaedia – either as a series of standalone articles, or as a work in which each piece works in harmony with another. I think it's no exaggeration to say the Beatles' discography is the most pored over of any artist's discography, and I'm mindful of not making Wikipedia look stupid.
On the subject of the term "studio album" with regard to the Beatles, I can't recall ever reading any source using it, whether for one of these exclusive Capitol releases or one of the band's "canonical" works. The top sources talk about the Beatles working on/releasing a "new album" and, in terms of the North American market, Capitol preparing "a new album/LP/release". "Studio" never comes into it. The first time I came across this categorisation for a Beatles album was here on Wikipedia, where it appears to be needed to tie in with the discographical album fields: Studio, Live, Compilation. Which is why I highlighted the fallacy of focusing only on sources' application of "compilation album" in relation to Y & T: one could well find a good many references to Y & T as a compilation album, yes, but I'd say there are far more that just call it an album or something like "a new Capitol release". They're not going to call it a studio album, just as they don't use the term for Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper etc. To repeat, every album release by Capitol had an element of "compilation" about it, and there are no signs – whether one looks in the most reliable sources, or at contemporary press reports and reviews, or in a pre-1987 US appraisal of the band's career such as the Swenson/Rolling Stone piece – that Yesterday and Today was in any way a departure from standard policy. Tim Riley? He's a very good writer and an established music critic, for sure, but he's in no way a Beatles historian on the level of Mark Lewisohn. Riley, like Joe Bosso at Music Radar and so many others, add their opinions and interpretations to the Beatles story, but with that, they can end up attempting to redefine something that should be beyond interpretation. A Capitol album release from June 1966 was a commercial event and its musical content was in line with an established company policy agreed with EMI – the nature of that release in terms of its categorisation can't be open to reinterpretation.
Having said all that, I'm not dismissing what you're saying. (Just keen to establish the counterargument: a) No one I've seen uses the term "studio album", and if it's required here, I imagine we need cite-needed tags at every other Beatles album article; and b) This album is no different from, say, Beatles VI or Rubber Soul US – just another mid-'60s day at the office at Capitol Records.) I hadn't noticed a previous suggestion from you about a possible dual, studio-and-compilation categorisation. That might be feasible, and I wonder about the possibility of extending it to Capitol's The Beatles' Second Album, Something New and Beatles VI. Would you be open to me posting notification of this RfC at Talk:The Beatles discography and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies? I've got sources (e.g. Kruth, Robert Rodriguez) that might support the dual categorisations – okay, while it's not per the Beatles-historian route I advocated above, it does address your concerns – but I'd like to ensure we're working in tandem with the discography. Judging by messages there in the last day or so, Piriczki is in the process of overhauling the whole Beatles discog, splitting the 1962–1970 album releases into more logical "UK" and "US" categories (rather than Studio, Compilation, etc) – so the timing could be perfect. And input from WP Discographies would be welcome, because I'm wondering how this Y & T-type situation applied to other bands from the era. JG66 (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My reservation about having both "studio" and "compilation" used is it wouldn't be good precedent for verifiability; we'd be making an exception because it's the Beatles, it seems. Dan56 (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
People seem to have this fantasy that albums are conceived, written and recorded in a single flourish of creativity. It doesn't always happen that way and people seem to be irked when they find out how the sausage is made. I doubt if anyone at the time had any issue with how Capitol put out the Beatles' albums. It wasn't until after the break-up when Lennon complained about Capitol (and everything else under the sun) that fans adopted his opinion about the bad old record company. I could see defining something as "studio" or "live" but this compilation thing causes all kinds of problems when an album is not produced in line with the fans' fantasy. By definition you would have to say almost every Capitol album except Revolver was a compilation but I doubt most people see them that way. Piriczki (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So both of you would basically agree the sources are wrong, right? Dan56 (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that any writer can characterize the album any way they want but that doesn't make it a "fact" that is "verified" and must be followed and accepted by the whole world. This article, with a citation needed tag half way into the very first sentence, is a perfect example of how idiotic Wikipedia's need to shoehorn every album into one of three categories really is. The template should be changed so that field can left blank for albums that don't fit these unnecessary definitions. Piriczki (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since we're citing our opinions instead, I think this album fits both categories, compilation more so than studio, though. More than half of its songs were released on studio albums before it. And instead of Smiley Smile (as JG66 cited), I think a closer parallel would be Flowers (The Rolling Stones album). Dan56 (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
6 of 11 songs had been released on singles in the prior 9 months, none of the songs had been previously released on LP in the United States. Piriczki (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. This was entirely in keeping with what Capitol always did. Those Rubber Soul tracks were "new" songs to US record buyers, and giving an LP release to both tracks from their December '65 single (at the first opportunity) – a non-album single in the UK – was standard. Having two songs left over from a previous UK album (the Help! tracks) was no surprise either, because Help! US was a dedicated soundtrack album. JG66 (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see the common thread in your arguments is the record being new in the United States, which I don't believe makes this album, in and of itself, a studio album and not a compilation; I'm not missing the point, I just don't agree your point is relevant to either definition. I also see discussing this further just complicated it more by introducing all this ancillary information. So I will change my vote above to "Both" (but placing "Compilation" ahead of "Studio" in the infobox and lead, on the basis of the sources that actually give the distinction). Dan56 (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've received a request to comment on this matter, and to my way of thinking, from the songs included and the title itself, it is a compilation album. Netherzone (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Ninth" or "Eleventh"

[edit]

@WingsVs.ExpectingToFly: I've reverted your change in the numbering, because I believe that you are getting the higher numbers by counting the Canada-only releases as separate albums (if I'm mistaken about that, please let me know). But this raises the question of whether Capitol of Canada should be considered to be the same company as Capitol. It also raises the question of whether the lede's use of the word "American" means "United States" or "North America". Before we start changing the status quo, we should discuss these basic questions. I look forward to your response. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NewYorkActuary: Well I actually mean by US release mate.

Okay, but then what are the ten U.S. Capitol releases that preceded the Yesterday album? NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NewYorkActuary: Here is a list of All of the Beatles albums released in the United States with the release year and record label:

1.) Introducing... The Beatles ( Vee Jay 1964 ) 2.) Meet The Beatles! ( Capitol 1964 ) 3.) The Beatles Second Album! ( Capitol 1964 ) 4.) A Hard Day's Night ( Capitol 1964 ) 5.) Something New ( Capitol 1964 ) 6.) The Beatles' Story ( Capitol 1964 ) 7.) Beatles' 65 ( Capitol 1964 ) 8.) The Early Beatles ( Capitol 1965 ) 9.) Beatles VI ( Capitol 1965 ) 10.) Help! ( Capitol 1965 ) 11.) Rubber Soul ( Capitol 1965 ) 12.) Yesterday And Today ( Capitol 1966 ) 13.) Revolver ( Capitol 1966 ) 14.) Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band ( Capitol 1967 ) 15.) Magical Mystery Tour ( Capitol 1967 ) 16.) White Album ( Apple 1968 ) 17.) Yellow Subamrine ( Apple 1969 ) 18.) Abbey Road ( Apple 1969 ) 19.) Hey Jude ( Apple 1970 ) 20.) Let It Be ( Apple 1970 ) @NewYorkActuary: Your right there was ten Capitol Records releases but it was actually their 12th overall released in America.

Thanks for getting back on this. There are two questions that come up when counting the early American releases. The first is whether to count the non-music Beatles Story. And the second question is whether we are counting only the Capitol releases, and not the two that were released by other companies (and note that Hard Day's Night was released by United Artists, not Capitol). So, if Yesterday was their 12th overall release, and you leave out Story, Introducing and Hard Day's Night, you get to the numbers that originally appeared in the lede. I'll note that the language in the lede probably ought to be clarified in some fashion to make clear that they are counting only the music albums. I'll also add that there is a more subtle question as to whether Introducing and Early Beatles really should be counted as separate albums, because the Capitol version strikes me as more of a re-issue of Introducing than as a truly separate album. But I'll leave that question to this article's regular editors.

One last point -- you really should be signing your posts. You can do this by typing four tildes (i.e., ~~~~) at the end of your post. Or, you can use the button that appears right below the Edit window (the one that says "Sign your posts on talk pages").

Thanks again for following up on this. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NewYorkActuary: I think we SHOULD counted both questions. We change it to twelth overall release and besides the Story album you asked was apart of the US albums box set released in January 2014. (talk) 3:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Studio album?

[edit]

How is this a studio album when it's ACTUALLY a compilation McGuinessTom1941 (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion above under Talk:Yesterday and Today#RfC: Should this be categorized as a studio album or a compilation album? NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Buddy listen, this is really confusing as the discussion ends when the last person says that it's a compilation. 24.247.218.39 (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC) @NewYorkActuary: @NewYorkActuary:[reply]
Tkbrett directed me here. Another case in point - There Are But Four Small Faces - I reckon it's a compilation of half a studio album (Small Faces (1967 album) - 7 of the 14 tracks) plus some A and B sides. 2.24.70.191 (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another good example - Bolan's Zip Gun versus Light of Love.
Or how about The Amazing Kamikaze Syndrome versus Keep Your Hands Off My Power Supply?
Although Dirk Wears White Sox is an interesting subject for study. I say the 1984 Epic/CBS version is just a glorified Ants mk1 compilation for the American market, not a true edition of the 1979 Do It Records album.Romomusicfan (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed release date from 20 June to 15 June

[edit]

As explained with the edit, the text mentions that some retailers did carry (and sell) the "butcher cover" LP until the Capitol recall kicked in. In the Collectivity section, the article currently states:

An extremely rare original "first state" stereo copy that was not from the Livingston collection was presented for appraisal at a 2003 Chicago taping of the PBS series Antiques Roadshow. It was still in the possession of the original owner, who had bought it at Sears & Roebuck on the day of release in 1966 – the only day that the original 'butcher cover' versions were on sale before being recalled by Capitol.

This is sourced to an Antiques Roadshow page (here), which goes nowhere ... I've found this Roadshow appraisal, where there's a linked page, "Beatles Butcher Cover", which the site terms an "article". I haven't been able to access this PBS article because of site maintenance; if anyone finds they can, please let me know. (It'll be useful to confirm the "only day" point, as it will much of the first paragraph of the Collectivity section, I imagine. Bruce Spizer's book would be the go-to source for the latter, too – if only more was available in the google books preview.)

Robert Rodriguez also writes, referring to Capitol's pressing plants working around the clock to have the album back out in the marketplace: "An indeterminate number of paste-overs were then reshipped, and made it to retailers. (Meanwhile, a precious few independent distributors fulfilled orders with the original cover; a handful of people actually bought a 'butcher' cover off the rack before they were reclaimed.)" A "handful of people" might be slightly dramatic, but the point is the album was released, in that it was commercially available in some stores and available for purchase.

If anyone disagrees with this change, I'd understand it. Without being able to get better informed through Spizer, especially, or the Antiques Roadshow article, it does look a bit flimsy. Perhaps a few hundred, a couple of thousand?, slipped through to stores for a day or so before the Capitol edict came down – but does that make it a 15 June (or 14 June) release? A lot of sources go with 20 June, btw – Castleman & Podrazik, Turner's Beatles '66, Lewisohn, Ian MacDonald (all cited in this article). On the other hand, Miles' Beatles Diary, Rodriguez's Revolver (by implication) and the timeline sidebars in Mojo Special Limited Edition: 1000 Days That Shook the World (The Psychedelic Beatles) set it out the way I've described in the recent edit. I've not looked at fansites like recmusicbeatles.com, because we can't use them – even though I've found in the past that when reliable sources contradict one another, it's those same sites that, in giving so much detail and thought to everything Beatles, help determine which version of events and which RS's to go with. JG66 (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found the appraisal on YouTube if it is any help. Tkbrett (✉) 11:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Singles

[edit]

Originally this page only included the single for Nowhere Man. I added the Yesterday and We Can Work It Out / Day Tripper singles to the list. These were removed by @JG66. He noted that, "Per sources, [the] Nowhere Man single sets up & signals the upcoming album", distinguishing it from the others "which are not the same as singles 'from' the album". I am not sure I understand what the specific difference is as all three had been released prior to the album being issued. Tkbrett (✉) 11:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's all pretty academic now. As outlined at Template:Infobox album#Template:Singles, the candidates for inclusion are "songs on the album that were released as singles during the marketing and promotion of the album", which means none of them in the case of Y & T. JG66 (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I suppose it makes sense to include Nowhere Man, given the paragraph on this article stating, 'Similarly, the February 1966 single "Nowhere Man" – a song Capitol omitted from its reconfigured Rubber Soul in December 1965 – was a typical practice whereby the company exploited the most commercial-sounding EMI LP tracks and signalled a forthcoming album.' That is referenced per Schaffner, which I unfortunately do not have on my bookshelf. I think it ought to be added back without the other two, along with a note on the page source to stop other editors from making the same mistake I did. Tkbrett (✉) 12:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Material yet to be released in UK

[edit]

OK, we have "The June 1966 LP was unusual in its inclusion of tracks that had yet to be issued in the UK." (Those were the 3 tracks left off Revolver by Capitol.)

This isn't the only case of early release in US. I know that Beatles VI had 4 songs not yet released in UK: You Like Me Too Much, Tell Me What You See, Dizzy Miss Lizzie (all then appeared on non-soundtrack part of the UK Help! album), and Bad Boy, which was unreleased in UK until British Beatles "oldies" LP reached late 1966 Christmas market.
(The rest of Beatles VI: the 6 songs which were on Beatles For Sale but not on Beatles '65; Yes It Is, flip side of Ticket To Ride and available for use on Beatles VI because it was not in Help! movie.) Carlm0404 (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and nowhere in the article does it say that Y&T was anything more than "unusual" in this respect – we're not saying it was a unique repackaging approach by Capitol. JG66 (talk) 07:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beatlesebooks.com has, regarding Beatles VI: Since George Martin was happy to comply with their request the year before, resulting in him sending "Long Tall Sally" and "I Call Your Name" for inclusion on the US album "The Beatles' Second Album" months before they were heard in Britain, Capitol didn't hesitate to ask again. Carlm0404 (talk) 07:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yesterday_and_Today&oldid=1247024714"