User talk:JG66/Talk archive/2021

Precious

Beatles goodies

Thank you for quality articles about the music of The Beatles, such as Old Brown Shoe and a steady flow of other GAs, for upgrading Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, with exquisite edit summaries, for collaboration towards FA, for "big, big thanks to all the reviewers who have helped/put up with me, of course", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2408 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Gerda: Hello and thank you. I'm truly honoured! Best, JG66 (talk) 07:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you today for you share in Aftermath (Rolling Stones album), "about a 1966 album by the Rolling Stones, an artistic breakthrough that advanced the band's musical legacy, a critical and commercial hit that rivalled the Beatles, one of the most critically acclaimed albums in history, a cultural milestone connected to 1960s Swinging London."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey Gerda, thanks again. Nice to see the article up there on the main page (so I gather). Means it's a magnet for vandalism and other disruption, of course, but hey ... Best, JG66 (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Anthony Fantano

A RfC has begun at WP:RSN regarding Anthony Fantano's reviews should be count as reliable. Please add your comments there if interested. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hiya TAP – yes, I've seen it progressing, with some interesting opinions each way. I may well weigh in there sometime soon. JG66 (talk) 05:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay. I'm just letting you know about this. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Paint It Black chartings

Hi JG66, re Special:Diff/999257024, that was implemented following the style from Shake It Off, which is on its way to FA-hood (full disclosure: I am a co-nom there, but did not write that section) and in general I have reorganized the layout of the article based on FAs. My aim is to bring Paint It Black to FA and as such I try to follow established examples which are more developed and closer to that standard. I am definitely open to suggestions for improving it and bringing it closer to the standard. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I have reworked it on Shake It Off to avoid "atop" for the most part. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi TheSandDoctor. That's very good of you to follow through and take feedback so well (which, if I'm honest about, was presented quite sarcastically on my part ... sorry about that).

Yeah, I'd seen a comment from you saying you were introducing a Track listings section to be consistent with the "Shake It Off" article. Have to say, that addition really surprised me, having worked here for years pretty much solely on 1960s/70s music articles. I imagine the various formats would be numerous, and therefore useful to list, for any single from, say, the late 1980s through to perhaps the '00s, because it was quite common to have different configurations for 7-inch vinyl, 12-inch, cassette, and especially CD (where singles basically became EPs in many cases). But it is odd seeing a track listing for something as straightforward as "Paint It Black", imo. There's nothing similar at "Like a Rolling Stone" or "Hey Jude", for instance – if you are looking for consistency across FAs. Make of that what you will, it's up to you, but it's not as if elements like chart tables or album reviewer ratings boxes are a must when there's only one or two chart placings or reviewer ratings for the article. JG66 (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hard rock songs

Have you looked at the VH1 list of greatest hard rock songs or other articles on hard rock? Gee, Won't Get Fooled Again is No. 6, Barrcuda is in the 30s, everyone knows Sunshine of Your Love is ultra-significant. If I were you (the supposed keeper of the article) I'd be embarrassed by it and its inconsistency in the information given on different bands. Why have you not actually made it a proper, accurate article??? I was anything but biased.

Informed analysis: What are you talking about? I've made six edits in total there, since 2017, half of which were addressing your recent original research. You need to read policies and guidelines such as WP:VERIFY rather than continually changing article content to what you think it should be. This seems to have been a common complaint about your contributions to Wikipedia, judging by the litany of warnings on your talk page. (I'd be embarrassed about that ...)

At Hard rock, since November, you've been altering sourced content without bringing any new sources to support the changes. This rewording, for instance, is outright manipulation of a supported statement. The existing sources don't support your changes. So, I'll bounce your last question back to you: Why don't you actually make it a proper, accurate article using reliable sources relating to the subject, in keeping with Wikipedia policies??? JG66 (talk) 04:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You did not address the four main points I made.

I will add that adding chart positions when random other songs have them seems to be pretty useful to me - all the info is from the pages on the particular song or album. Stating a song that is on a certain album is not something that needs to be cited. People should appreciate when someone does work to add useful info instead of flipping out. If you think Won't Get Fooled Again should not be mentioned, that is pretty strange. Same with Barracuda.

(edit conflict) Are you simple or something? I explained quite clearly that I've had little or nothing to do with the article's content, and I've replied with an overarching point that's far more significant than your petty quibbles about specific hard rock-related items. The latter should be raised at Talk:Hard rock along with any other concerns you might have about the article – which is GA status, meaning it has been reviewed and the sourcing has at least been spot-checked. Either that, or edit the article yourself and bring new sources to support the additions you wish to make. But you seem incapable of this; instead, you're forever complaining that everyone's wrong (at Hard rock, the Who, and most other articles you visit). So: you make it right if it bothers you so much, but in the right way, which you'll find described on policy pages I mentioned, starting with WP:VERIFY. JG66 (talk) 05:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

That 74.74.128.248 IP

Hi! We were thinking the same thing. I reported the IP on the AIV noticeboard. Perhaps one of 'em will get noticed. Cheers! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 01:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi UncleBubba. That's funny – because I was holding off, thinking, Go on, someone, file a report somewhere. I get confused with those 'boards and the correct procedure, etc. As you say, hopefully one of us has got it right! JG66 (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

You wrote ..

"don't think author link is needed unless for books". Well, it is never needed for anything. No article on wp is "needed." It is appropriate, tho, and done all the time. And especially helpful here, in evaluating the credibility of the author. --2603:7000:2143:8500:9908:4467:7D2D:5F71 (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

You're talking about at Give Me Love? I don't agree (and there are many editors here who are far more wary of overlinking in references than I am). At Give Me Love, none of the other authors of one-stop web or print articles are linked in the references. It's different if we're citing the author's opinion in the text or directly attributing a statement to them, because the link's appropriate in the text anyway, and it helps support the inclusion of the opinion or any statement that might require attribution. But this is neither – it's just a journalist doing their job, reporting on an event. JG66 (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Is there a wp guideline that you have in mind that mandates the revert? Thanks. 2603:7000:2143:8500:DDB2:A4E1:CCC1:91F3 (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

For an article that conflicts with your view, see the higher (FA) rated article on the Beatles, and look at the sources section, where you will see a number of notable authors linked to. An author of an RS is simply an author of an RS - there's no distinction in our rules that I can see for some authors vs others. I cannot find anywhere a rule that says that our practice should be different for articles. The rationale remains the same, under our MOS for linking in general when there is a wp article properly to be linked to. Nothing that I have found in our guidelines supports your view. 2603:7000:2143:8500:DDB2:A4E1:CCC1:91F3 (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Or see the Bob Dylan FA – Bob Dylan#References. And I don't know of a guideline that supports your view either. You just seem to have a problem with anyone disagreeing with you. I've explained that no other print or online magazine reference at Give Me Love carries an author link. JG66 (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

That's an NOOTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument.2603:7000:2143:8500:DDB2:A4E1:CCC1:91F3 (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

What ...? Better still, just go away. I've tried to respond to your question, given an example FA, just as you have. JG66 (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• • • • • • Since your wrote what, and appear to be unaware of the concept - Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. 2603:7000:2143:8500:DDB2:A4E1:CCC1:91F3 (talk) 03:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

George Harrison navigation boxes

Hi, I see you have been creating navigational boxes for some of George Harrison's albums. Do you mind then if I nominate the corresponding track list templates (those in Category:George Harrison album track list templates) for deletion as they are now redundant? Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, it's good of you to ask. As long as it's only for the five(?) albums that now have navboxes, then sure, no problem. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:Albums recorded at A&M Studios has been nominated for deletion

Category:Albums recorded at A&M Studios has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Greetings/Suggestion

Hello, JG66, despite the reverts you've made to my edits, it's okay, I won't question your qualifications to do so, considering the prodigious volume of material you've done on the Fabs and related artists. Let it be, let them be. But I request you to give Bobby Whitlock's first-person narratives a good amount of credence, since he was actively there during, before, and after, that creative period of ATMP. He's in Youtube, and I find his stories very compelling. Moving forward, I would also like to suggest, ever so gently, if you could do an article on JL's "Across The Universe", particularly as it was originally written and composed for the World Wildlife Fund. I've done a project of my own for WWF and, in my view, John's contribution is a fine incentive for other musical artists to follow his precedent. Peace and Love, Buszmail (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Busz. Nice of you to drop by, and to be so gracious about being reverted. I confess, I'm not sure where it is that I've reverted your additions – sounds like it's All Things Must Pass-ish.

On one hand, you're right – Bobby Whitlock has become quite visible in terms of an inside voice into the recording of that album. On the other, his recollections are often contradicted by other contributors and, most importantly for Wikipedia's coverage, not recognised by third-party secondary sources such as biographers and music historians. Basically, on Wikipedia, we're advised to limit usage of primary sources (interviews, autobiographies) when it comes to stating something as fact; if the recollections are picked up by biographers/historians, we're into secondary-source territory, which is good.

So – and again, I'm guessing we're talking about an article related to ATMP? – Whitlock's recollections put him centrestage throughout, it seems to me, but others don't recognise his significance in the same way. One example that comes to mind is his claim in his 2010 biography that he was the horn arranger for Delaney & Bonnie – this despite the fact that D&B's horn section was already in place and Leon Russell preceded him as the band's keyboard player. This point then rolls on (if I remember right in the 2010 autobio) to ATMP, where he seems to place himself almost as Harrison's right-hand man ... We have to watch how much credence we give to someone (anyone) in their sixties or seventies recalling events from several decades before, and that's why secondary or tertiary coverage is preferred.

I've got nothing against Bobby W, and his recollections are often great fun. But Harrison and other ATMP contributors all tell their own story. In his autobiography, for instance, Bobby Keys talks about GH and Jim Price working out the horn arrangements for ATMP – not a word about Whitlock. Klaus Voormann and John Barham, in Simon Leng's Harrison biography, don't recall BW as anything but one of the two main keyboard players, along with Gary Wright (which is not to dismiss that level of contribution). Wright, in Mojo features on the album and in his autobiography, doesn't single out BW either. (And neither does Wright, nor Voormann, Barham, etc, advance themselves as indispensable collaborators in the way that BW does, it must be said; nor does Alan White, Eric Clapton, Ringo Starr, or Joey Molland of Badfinger – they all just contributed.) Don't know if any of this resonates with you ... JG66 (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Magical Mystery Tour - CD (remastered, 2009)

Hello, you reverted my contribution of the track listing and track times for a remastered, enhanced release of the aforementioned Beatles album. AFAIK, this album was basically released in mono, with some 'experimental stereo' on a few tracks? Some later releases added with synthetic stereo.

This album is, apparently remastered from scratch from a clean A/D conversion and digitally reprocessed in "enhanced" stereo. Cite:

• Magical Mystery Tour, TheBeatles.com
• The Beatles | 2009 Remasters – CD Review, VintageRock.com
• The Beatles – Magical Mystery Tour, Discogs
• The Beatles – Magical Mystery Tour, Discogs
• The Beatles – Magical Mystery Tour, Discogs
• The Beatles – Magical Mystery Tour, Discogs
• ...

Incidentally, I forgot to mention that this release includes a video of the making of the movie of the same name (03:35 '.mov' file).

I realize that the order of the tracks follows the same order of the tracks on the LP (side 1 & side 2), but this has a much improved audio quality. I suppose that if the order was different, then my contribution would have stayed? Perhaps, a little editorial preamble would have made the cut?
Enquire (talk) 07:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Enquire. I've moved your message to Talk:Magical Mystery Tour, where I'll reply soon. I think all interested editors should be aware or have a say, which is why I always prefer to discuss on article talk pages. JG66 (talk) 07:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Get Back and Let It Be

Hello! Thank you for your comments regarding my edits. Upon further evaluation, I have to agree with you that the Get Back sessions essentially became Let It Be. With this in mind i have decided to redirect my new article to Let It Be, keeping it as a redirect link only. My apologies.--HighlyLogicalVulcan (talk) 08:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey HighlyLogicalVulcan. As I said, it might be an idea to raise the issue at Talk:Let It Be – all you've had so far is my reaction. (Which is one of the reasons I always try to steer discussions away from user talk pages to the article talk page.) I had thought of starting a spin-off article, years ago, but it would be for the Twickenham filmed rehearsals – ie, before the band had the idea to formally record a new album. Because that is/was a Smile/Lifehouse–style abandoned project, and the available tape and film footage get no end of coverage in books and music magazines, of course. JG66 (talk) 08:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I'll raise the issue at Talk:Let It Be.--HighlyLogicalVulcan (talk) 10:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Devo pages

I pitched my question to the WT:ALBUM page and only got one response and then radio silence. I made an executive decision to at least remove the tour percentages and flag some of the pages for OR and needing more citations. I also found two big errors on the tour dates for Something for Everybody, which I can verify because I was there, so I deleted those. Now I'm wondering just how much of the information in all the tour date sections is incorrect. What a mess. Sorely tempted to just nuke those sections entirely at this point. Let me know if you have any further thoughts and thanks for your help.—The Keymaster (talk) 08:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

Hello and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I saw that an article you created, Template:Ravi Shankar has not been added to any categories. According to the guideline Wikipedia:Categorization, every article should be in at least one category. Please help by adding categories to the articles you create. You can take a look at the categorization FAQ. If you need further help, ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Jax 0677: I don't know what you've done to the template page but now all the articles where t:Ravi Shankar appears carry a banner saying that "This article needs additional or more specific categories" – when the article doesn't. JG66 (talk) 03:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Tracklisting template

Hey, thanks for contributing to so many Beatles articles, much appreciation. Although, if you were recently so eager to convert the tracklisting to the Plastic Ono Band reissue, then what do the very same templates do here? ;-) Why don't we put those back to the Lennon's album, wouldn't we? You admit yourself there they're so much more readable. Thank you. — Kochas 09:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I can't understand what you're saying. The Plastic Ono Band article had an existing style that did not use tracklist templates, and no template is needed for such a straightforward album anyway (one artist, no featured performers, same production team throughout). The Pepper 50th Anniversary article sprang off from the main Sgt Pepper article, so that track listing is in same style as the latter article (where multiple lead singers does mean it's more of a complicated list). And I don't admit the template option is more readable. I think it looks utter shit and so only use it when it's really needed – which is what MOS:ALBUM#Track listing (–> "Style and form") supports. JG66 (talk) 10:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Guess you've understood me after all, we don't need to depreciate ourselves. ;-) First thing, yeah, you seem to always point to the essay that advises and gives opinions on styles — not rules (I'm sure you're aware of that). So wherever you look, you see tracklists that use this template. Whether we perceive it as shit, or utter shit for that matter, or a masterpiece (I used to hate it as well, but I've changed my mind, the thing works way better than a list). And second, I've pointed out you used the template yourself. The spin-off nature of articles has nothing to do with inheriting templates, does it?... — Kochas 12:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll try to keep it simple.

MOS:STYLERET says to retain existing styles.

The Album Style Advice was changed to an extension of the Manual of Style by an administrator in March 2012. That's around the time I first contributed here and, from my experience, everyone cited it and treated it as the WP Album Style Guide. (The page got renamed, by a non-administrator, sometime last year, I believe. There was a discussion about ensuring it returned to MOS status shortly after that; I don't know what happened to that plan.) As it said in that 2012 edit, and still says: "A track listing should generally be formatted as a numbered list". The exceptions are "for more complicated situations" – and John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band is hardly that, in its 1970 form or the 2021 eight-disc box set.

The very first track listing at John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band, back in 2002, was a bulleted list. This was changed to a numbered list in August 2004, when an infobox was also added as, from what I've seen, all albums articles were developing in line with the encyclopedia's growth. So, that is the article's established style.

You first came to John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band on 24 March 2021. You changed the article's established style in the track listing to one of your choosing.

You originally said here, with regard to the templated track listing: "You admit yourself there they're so much more readable." I don't believe I've ever said that – which is why I gave my opinion above about what I do think about the look of the track list template.

You keep referring to the Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band: 50th Anniversary Edition article as being in some way telling. I syphoned off content from the main article to create a dedicated page, because the main article was growing so large, and there's no question that the 2017 reissue received sufficient coverage to merit a separate page. But my actions were a basic, lazy, cut-and-paste, same with the 2017 chart details; there was no plan or intention beyond trying to ease the load at the main article, and doing it quickly. (ie, You're viewing the result at the new article as significant, and only that, but not appreciating how it came about.) At the 50th Anniversary Edition article, as it currently stands, it should in fact be a standard, non-template track listing. The list came over without any of the lead vocal credits that get into "complicated" territory and have dictated the style at the main article. In other words: at Sgt Pepper: 50th Anniversary Edition, the template treatment either needs to be removed, because the listing does not currently warrant the treatment; or the lead vocalists need to be carried over from the main album article and the template treatment can be retained. JG66 (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort of replying, however I myself expect my co-contributors actually able to acquire whatever is not simple. Otherwise, any manuals of style here are worth, as you've put it, utter shit, while one exalts themselves. Also, you take it all too damn serious and bureaucratic (my honest guess, you could apply for an actual Bureaucrat per se). You're the first person ever who had anything against a tracklisting template that I've put in here, hence my intrigue. Of course, I'm aware how such articles (like the one I took as an example) are created, nevertheless you left the one intact (after the spinoff), but took the time to fiddle with my eight discs. In the end, not gonna linger the discussion. Glad to be of help. Please let me know if two columns are okay with the numbered list, since the whole thing drags on and on. — Kochas 18:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I can only understand portions of your English. If I appear overly serious and bureaucratic here, it's because I've had to try to make allowances for the immediate audience – God forbid anyone should fiddle with your eight discs ... JG66 (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Chart names

Hi JG66! I wanted to follow-up on this edit over at Sentimental Journey. So I just realized that all of these charts (specifically UK Albums and Billboard 200) haven't been consistently called those over the years. When expanding Bowie's articles, I have been labeling it the Billboard 200 this entire time and putting (OCC) for UK Albums (correction – using the chart template which adds that). Is it customary across WP to have these charts named what they properly when at the given time? More specifically, I'd like to know if you think I should go back through Bowie's albums and rename these charts to what they were at that time? I ask because I know all the Beatles articles are done in this way and I want to make sure I'm doing it right (I've never been good with charts and such). Thanks! – zmbro _(talk) 19:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Zim. Well, the chart templates will do that, as you say. With the Billboard chart, it wasn't even a top 200 until May 1967 (it was a top 150 or 175), and it still didn't adopt the Billboard 200 name until 1992. I don't know what to suggest. To my mind, we'd call a studio what it was called at the time, and we'd refer to a country as it was known at the time (ie, "Soviet" [not Russian] tanks invaded Czechoslovakia [not the Czech Republic] in August 1968; the Rolling Stones were due to play in Yugoslavia in 1967, not in Serbia and Montenegro). And we'd refer to a guitar manufacturer, a music publication, a TV show, radio station or record company in the same, contemporaneous terms, rather than the 21st century equivalent. (eg that Ringo album got reviewed by Don Heckman in Stereo Review, not in Sound & Vision.)

Stones' Aftermath also uses the contemporaneous chart names, which I think I might have imposed there a year or more ago, so does Pet Sounds. It's not just the UK and US chart names: Ireland's IRMA, Germany's GfK, similar official organisations in New Zealand, Australia, Italy, Spain – none of these were active until the early 1990s, maybe even early '00s in the case of some of the European industry associations. JG66 (talk) 03:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. Maybe we should open some type of discussion somewhere where we could get more feedback on this. As it stands this consistency issue seems to stem all the entire site in regards to albums and singles. – zmbro _(talk) 23:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe ... probably. I'm afraid that after all these years, I don't really have faith that the effort of trying to address an issue centrally usually pays off. When you're working locally (ie, on a 1960s/'70s song or album article), the problem's as clear as day – and I wouldn't expect articles on, say, English football seasons/teams or feature films to revise history in the way that music articles appear to. In fact, sports articles, from what I've seen, definitely do not do this.

I was looking at Paint It Black just recently: the combination of information at Commercial performance and Charts is a joke. There was no "official" German chart; there were five or more charts of equal status in the UK (and the OCC was just a twinkle in some future chart buff's eye); Ireland's IRMA and Spain's AFE, the same. If editors used the best, well-researched books covering the period – Jon Savage's 1966: The Year the Decade Exploded, for instance – we wouldn't get near this sort of historically inaccurate picture. JG66 (talk) 08:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Hmm maybe you should bring that up at "Paint It Black"'s talk page. I worked with the editor who brought it to GA on expanding reception and a few other sections but I know I didn't help with charts. In fact, the reason Blackstar failed its GAN was because the commercial performance section was considered "weak". Even the commercial performance section of Let's Dance is substandard because I don't know any better.

In regards to the overlying chart name issue, I've noticed 60s articles tend to follow the naming conventions of then while 70s ones don't. It even goes beyond charts tbh. I've had several IPs over the past year change RCA → RCA Victor in Bowie infoboxes while I've kept them at just RCA (even though Harry Nilsson's RCA records say RCA Victor). It really feels like there needs to be some sort of standard set in stone regarding naming conventions of then and now, as there's an incredible amount of inconsistency. – zmbro _(talk) 17:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

There's a Place

Hey there. I was wondering if you would mind having a look over the page I've been working on: "There's a Place". I think I want to get it up for GA status and to do the same with other Beatles articles, but I also want to make sure I'm not not making the same mistakes in every article I write; I always appreciate hearing straight criticism from someone who knows what they're doing. Cheers. Tkbrett (✉) 02:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tkbrett. Well, thanks for thinking of me. I'll take a look soon, have some things to fix in another article while they're still in my head.

One thing that strikes me immediately is that, as far as I know from reading sources over the years, "There's a Place" is generally viewed as a mainly Lennon song. In the article, you seem to favour McCartney's Many Years from Now version of events (by presenting them first, if nothing else). There's always been some controversy surrounding that book – I'm always slightly wary of McCartney's claims. Are you sure the authorship issue is being presented in line with how, say, Lewisohn, MacDonald, Riley, Everett, Gould, Hertsgaard see it? JG66 (talk) 08:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, you're right; I've rewritten that section to give a better picture of where the consensus lies. It seems somewhat fraught, because all anyone has to go on are two sentences from John in the Playboy interview and one paragraph from Paul in his book. If only the song were as popular as "In My Life", then maybe those Harvard supercomputers would be working on this one as well... Tkbrett (✉) 14:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

There's also a well-known interview Lennon did, focusing on the Lennon–McCartney songs, with NME editor Alan Smith, which was then published in the US in Hit Parader in 1972. I've seen the transcript archived at archive.org and it's used in a couple of Wikipedia articles, from memory (I'll link to it if I can think of where I've seen it).

Most important thing is that the WP article reflects what the majority of reliable/secondary sources say, rather than just the primary sources. I could be wrong, but I know I've read that "There's a Place" is so Lennon, and a precursor to his introspection on "Hide Your Love Away", "Nowhere Man", "I'm Only Sleeping", etc. Again, just wary of how one of us can sit with a primary source close to hand and heart, but miss how third party sources present the issue. Really glad you're expanding these articles, btw – great stuff. JG66 (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, I wasn't aware of that interview. There's no doubt regarding the many issues with primary sources – especially Paul – I just wish there was more out there on some of these early tracks. And you're absolutely right: Hertsgaard specifically mentions "I'm Only Sleeping" and "Tomorrow Never Knows" as being in the same vein. I think the latter may be a bit of stretch, especially when a more obvious example like "Nowhere Man" is right there, but ah well... Anyway, thanks for your kind words; ultimately I'm hoping that I can help remedy the dearth of well written pages on pre-1965 material. Tkbrett (✉) 16:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Tkbrett, here's the link I mean. "Place" appears towards the end, under "A list of songs, according to Lennon, written by himself, about which he has no comment". JG66 (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks muchly. Tkbrett (✉) 17:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Time mag

Yo. Regarding this:

The mag's called Time, but we're not using "magazine" as if it's part of the publication's title (we're not naming it Time Magazine), it's merely a descriptor (same as, say, including the word "album" before or after the title of one of the band's LPs))

That's not actually what we're doing, though, is it? Consider by substitution:

• The review was published in Time magazine
• The song was released on Rubber Soul album
• Ringo Starr was the drummer in the Beatles band

Clearly the second two are weird. You'd write "The song was released on the album Rubber Soul", so you could write "The review was published in the magazine Time", if it were necessary to explain that Time is a magazine.

"Time magazine" is just idiomatic - people say and write "Time magazine" and "Rolling Stone" magazine, but they don't write, for example, "NME magazine" or "New York Times newspaper". It's not a big deal but to me there's basically no reason to write "Time magazine" or "Rolling Stone magazine" when we can just write "Time" or "Rolling Stone". Popcornfud (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Popcornfud: First, I think this is better suited to the article talk page. But I don't really agree with your logic above – there are various ways to, and different reasons for, describing those names. In a non-musical context, for instance, "magazine" might be a welcome addition with mention of Rolling Stone; similarly, in a musical context (because the publication's scope is way beyond music), some sort of identifier or description is welcome, imo, with Time. (Same when it comes to Life magazine.) Beyond that, as I say, different terms or different types of terms require a different approach, assuming that the name needs some sort of descriptor (ie, partly the context). In other words, taking your examples, we'd say: The review was published in Time magazine; The song was released on the Rubber Soul album/the album Rubber Soul; Ringo Starr was the drummer in the rock band the Beatles ... And the context might require: "in the New York Times newspaper" – which might be better written as "in the newspaper The New York Times". The NYT's so well known, so the likelihood of that particular publication ever requiring a descriptor is fairly unlikely, of course. JG66 (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

JG66, I think you've missed my point slightly.

Writing "Rolling Stone magazine" or "Time magazine" isn't functioning grammatically in the same way as "the album Rubber Soul". You give examples such as:

The song was released on the Rubber Soul album

The song was released on the album Rubber Soul

Right. So if we need to give context that Rubber Soul is an album, then we can use one of those formations. Agreed. But note that we do not use:

The song was released on Rubber Soul album.

Do you see the distinction here?

For whatever reason, it is idiomatically common, in English, to write "Time magazine" in a way that is completely unlike any other noun formation - we don't write "The song was recorded on Rubber Soul album" or "They sailed on Titanic ship" or "They live in Canada country" or "Yesterday I watched Terminator movie". I suspect the idiom emerged long ago from the abundance of magazines that actually have "Magazine" in their title, which led to some confusion at some point.

Now, I'm not saying it's wrong and must be wiped from the English language. Language is language, its rules come from usage, not outer space. I'm just saying it's unnecessary to do this, something that people say and write without thinking because it's a sort of cliche.

Feel free to move this discussion to the article talk page if you want, but as 1) this affects writing generally and has nothing to do with the article specifically and 2) hardly matters a damn (it's more a point of interest to me than a hill I want to die on) I thought I'd go here instead. Popcornfud (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

"Writing "Rolling Stone magazine" or "Time magazine" isn't functioning grammatically in the same way as "the album Rubber Soul" ... That's precisely my point – we shouldn't be looking for some sort of grammatical consistency when the terms demand a different approach.

I'm sorry, I didn't read the rest. To repeat: some things (most things, imo – I'm getting increasingly puzzled by this) belong on the article talk page. I enjoy and appreciate a lot of your contributions here, but I do think this is an example of being perhaps a little too pedantic. You're letting uniformity be the guiding principle, yet missing the wider perspective. JG66 (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, the "wider perspective" is that there's no advantage to writing it, so we might as well cut it. That term does not demand a different approach - it's pointless. That's it. Popcornfud (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

<edit conflict>Well, which is it – "It's not a big deal but to me", or are you determined to be pedantic? Don't answer here, raise it at Talk:The Beatles if you wish. JG66 (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey - despite your recent underlined instruction, I'm replying here as this is purely personal. Just wanted to say I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers, and probably came off more pushy than I meant above; I purely intended to have a chat about an issue related to copyediting, a topic about which I am endlessly pedantic passionate, not seek consensus about an article change. Sorry about that. Cheers. Popcornfud (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

One year!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda. Wow, one year older and – who knows – perhaps wiser too. Best, JG66 (talk) 10:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

All Things Must Pass reissue

No question you're getting it right? :-) – zmbro _(talk) 21:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Zmbro, I'm not with you ... Are you saying I'm wrong about something? I don't understand what you mean. JG66 (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Ha! Oh crap, I've just understood what you meant – but because you didn't put a comma before "right", I took it to mean I didn't get something right in a change I made ... Oh yes, I'll be getting the reissue. That album just astounds me. JG66 (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Haha all good, I was on mobile so having correct grammar is hard sometimes. Yeah I'm really looking forward to it. I'm really excited for the non-Wall of Sound production, as imo it's way too much on tracks like "Wah-Wah". I was impressed with the title track's remix so I can't wait for the rest. – zmbro _(talk) 23:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Where's the love for the 18-CD 50th anniversary deluxe package of Sentimental Journey? Tkbrett (✉) 00:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah, see, this is what user talk pages are really for ... (not "Why did you revert my edit at article X").

Zim: Yeah, I definitely welcome a less cluttered "Wah-Wah", and "Let It Down" and "Awaiting on You All". In "Awaiting", for instance, there are these Tibetan(?) cymbals playing on the first beat of the bar of the choruses, but I only happened to hear them in the Martin Scorsese documentary Living in the Material World, when Harrison's seen at the mixing desk isolating certain tracks. Man, I'd love to have the desk for "Wah-Wah": turn the clompy bass gtr down; take most of the reverb off the drums; move George's crunchy main electric guitar to 9 or 10 o'clock in the stereo image, giving it main presence, like a Keith Richards early '70s guitar part; move Clapton's murky wah-wah further right to 4 o'clock or later (ie, way lesser presence compared with Harrison's riffs and arpeggios).

On the other hand, much as I like the remix they previewed of the title track, I'm also a little concerned about what's been lost there and what might be lost on the rest of the album. On "... Pass", you can now hear his vocal better, but I think it loses something without the reverb blanket. Put it this way, I don't think that song has ever sounded better than early in the Scorsese doc, when it accompanies the footage of bombs dropping on Liverpool.

Tkbrett: Well, sure, but now I'm concerned about what Macca will do for Band on the Run's 50th ... If the Lennon and Harrison estates have gone to town on their product, imagine Planet Macca. Puppy dog Jet yelping (versions 1–7); the Helen Wheels Landrover revving up, ready for the drive to Scotland; Paul whistling "Mamunia" in the bathroom ... Oh dear, oh dear – that man hardly needs any encouragement at the best of times.

I really enjoyed expanding the Sentimental Journey article, btw. I often find the most rewarding articles to work on are when you're maybe not a huge admirer of the music, or at least you have a fixed opinion that you don't like it or probably wouldn't like it, but the subject's of interest so you look to ensure that the article at least conveys the motivation and the work involved. Within that process, you end up learning such a lot, which in turn affects that opinion you walked in with: you gain some appreciation for the subject and realise how narrow-minded you've been, perhaps, and to some extent that might have been guided by music journalists whose brief is to be narrow-minded. That's the thing that keeps me contributing to Wikipedia, I think – there are no end of song articles, particularly, where I've ended up rethinking my (perhaps low) opinion after reading about what went into, or what sources say went into, the creation of the song/album/tour. It ends up putting the descriptions of public and critical reception into context rather than letting them dominate: OK, perhaps a record didn't sell or it bombed with the critics, but that's far from the main point in the story. Anyway, just thought I'd share that. JG66 (talk) 08:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Macca could release an album of him whistling while doing the dishes and I'd still eat it up. Who am I kidding though, there's no way he does his own dishes.

No doubt, I find that sentiment is applicable to a lot of things in life; researching deeper into a backstory almost always makes me more appreciative of that thing. I never really understood the significance of A Collection of Beatles Oldies until I read through the page you worked so hard on. Also Thirty Three & 1/3, which I had previously passed over. After stumbling on its page one day, I decided to give it another go, only to find there's actually a lot to love there. Tkbrett (✉) 15:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The day has finally come. I just listened to the remix and have to know, what do you think overall? :-) – zmbro _(talk) 18:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Zim, you're in the US, right? I'm in Australia – my copy hasn't arrived, I don't know if any of the shipments have made it here yet (priority for US and UK seemed to be the message pre-order). So, the answer is – bored and annoyed that the reissue's out there but not in my hands – I don't know! I'm told I'll be getting it between 13 and 17 August, if I remember right. Gosh, darn. Everyone has choice / When to and not to raise their voice ... yes, yes, I know that. JG66 (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

You're kidding! That blows. I have so much to say about it...I guess I'll just have to relisten in a week. xP – zmbro _(talk) 18:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh, it blows mightily. Interested in your "so much to say about it" (so much good? bad?)... Aargh, give me a week or so – just hope lockdown here doesn't interfere with delivery dates. JG66 (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Well? Tkbrett (✉) 18:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

^^^ – zmbro _(talk) 02:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm now being told an ETA of 23 August ... ****ing Amazon. JG66 (talk) 07:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Zim: Okay, it arrived yesterday. (Yeah!!) I went crazy and bought the full super-Uber-duper box, so it's taken me 24 hours just to come down to earth from the wondrous visual and design aspect; actually listening to it took second place ... You first (don't be shy) – what do you think of the new stereo mix? JG66 (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

SWEET. I went ahead and gave it another listen so everything is fresh in my mind. I'll start by saying, I think it sounds phenomenal. I think they did a very good job remixing it. The vocals sound super crisp and have been brought to the forefront. Thought this was evident throughout, but particularly on "Isn't It a Pity" and "If Not for You". "Isn't It a Pity" V1 is still the better version by far, but V2 sounds substantially less filler and much more necessary this time imo (the original was like ok, there's a 5-min repeat of a 7-min song...why?).

One of the things I didn't like about the original was the over-produced Spector sound, most of which has now been taken care of. "Wah Wah" I think had the biggest issue, but here the drums and vocals are brought more to the forefront and the whole track feels cleaner rather than drowning in reverb. I even heard backing vocals I've never heard before which is a huge plus. "If Not for You" also toned down the reverb which was a surprise, as I didn't realize there was much reverb on that in the first place. Other tracks I think benefited from the Spector tone-down were "Let It Down", "Awaiting on You All" (that one no longer feels overblown ala Oasis' Be Here Now), "Art of Dying", and "Hear Me Lord". All of these feel much less reverb-y that I think benefits them quite a bit.

Speaking of never-heard-before sounds, "Let It Roll". Omg. It sounded like a completely different mix. The light guitar was much more prevalent (literally heard notes I've never heard before), vocals are crisper (pun intended), the backing vocals were actually hearable (I straight up always thought they said "so fine..." not "Sir Frankie Crisp" – but at the same time I've never been the best with lyrics xD). "Let It Roll" was honestly one of the last tracks I was expected to hear differences in, but omg this is definitely the definitive version of the track now.

I'll also say it, I kinda dig "I Dig Love" now. I think this remix has done the track some justice. Don't get me wrong it's the weakest song on the entire album, and it was always a skip on repeat listens, but now I think it won't be a skip from now on. The drums thud more, his vocals sound better, and as a whole, it feels livelier than I remember.

However, as you said, the title track does sound much clearer but it feels it's missing something. That's actually one track I think benefited from Spector's input. Don’t get me wrong I love the song and I think it still sounds great, but the vocals sound a little too loud now.

"Behind That Locked Door" imo sounded louder, like volume-wise than I remember (I recall it being one of the quieter tracks but that could just be me). "Apple Scruffs" I felt the same way. Idk if it's a loudness thing or what but that's what I felt. "AS" the woodblock sound MUCH less prevalent than the original but other than that, that never had the Spector issue, as that one always sounded like Spector never knew it existed.

Some tracks I didn't really notice huge differences in (other than sounding clearer) were "I'd Have You Anytime", "My Sweet Lord", "Run of the Mill", "Beware of Darkness", and especially "What Is Life" (which is probably my favorite song on this album so that was a small letdown). Now it's been a while since I heard the original mix so I very well could be just forgetting.

I've never been a fan of the Apple Jam tracks. I listened to them once back when I heard the album for the first time and thought they didn't add much to the already superb record. With that being said, I didn't listen to the 2020 remasters as to me the album ends at "Hear Me Lord", but if you think I should listen I will.

This is my analysis. Overall, I think it's a very well-done remix that does the album well, as Spector's influence hasn't always been the best (looking at you "Long and Winding Road"). One thing I never really appreciated about the album was side four ("Dig" to "Lord"). That's where the album always started to fall off, for me at least, but I actually really enjoyed hearing side four this time and will honestly keep most of it in my repeat listens. Anyways, let's hear it...

Tkbrett I wanna hear your thoughts too... – zmbro _(talk) 17:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Zim, that's fabulous. It's like you read my mind on a lot of points, particularly the side four tracks. Will give you a proper reply when energy and intentions align – I'm still a bit gaga from Uber splendour: the Olivia H.-curated scrapbook, Friar Park oak bookmark, George and the gnomes figurines, etc. But "Wah-Wah" 2020? Oh my god, that's magic ... JG66 (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Homework and the ATMP mining academy

Okay, here we go. I've done a load of homework for this, making notes as I listened to the 2020 mixes, then listening to the 2014 Apple Years version for some context. I've found myself going back and forth between liking and disliking the new mix. Again, "context" probably is everything: a) this doesn't replace the full Spector version, it's just an alternative; b) Dhani and Paul Hicks have done it to appeal to a generation of listeners who only stream music and, in that format, ATMP sounded underwhelming, apparently (according to their comments here).

I feel like I've spent a lifetime "mining" the sound of ATMP, trying to decipher what's going on and where, what particular instruments are there, what a certain half-buried sound is, etc. It's always been an album where you can hear different elements depending on how you're listening to it – eg, on a CD player (I really should get back into vinyl, I know), or through headphones, or MP3 files through tinny speakers on my computer, or lossless files played through Sonos or something. I've found different details come to the fore in My Sweet Lord, Isn't It a Pity (especially), Wah-Wah, depending on this source.

So – with my ATMP miner's hat on – I love the 2020 mixes for revealing what sounds like an autoharp in Isn't It a Pity (at the start of the track and then from about 3:45, anticipating the "What a pity" refrain [although, going by Dhani and Hicks' comments in the Uber scrapbook, it could be a Moog synth anticipating and then complementing that refrain]), the subtleties in the string arrangement there too; fantastic high harmonies in the third and fourth verses of Wah-Wah (behind the lines starting "And I know how sweet life can be"); the astonishing bass playing in the final choruses of What Is Life; slide guitar doubling the horn lines in the last verse of All Things Must Pass ... And if it's not new discoveries I've made, it's the clarity given to things I always knew were there: eg, texture of the strings again on My Sweet Lord and the zither/autoharp flourishes; more isolation of individual keyboard parts on If Not for You and Ballad of Sir Frankie Crisp; a recognisable difference between slide and horn parts on Awaiting. Also, several songs just sit better, because of the (reduced) level of drums and bass – Wah-Wah, If Not for You, Let It Down, Hear Me Lord are tracks I've listed in that department in my notes.

The real winners

The real winners overall, imo, are Wah-Wah, Let It Down, I Dig Love, Art of Dying, Pity V2 and Hear Me Lord. I agree with what you said about side four appearing to trail off before. This point always bugged me because Art of Dying and Hear Me Lord are excellent songs, yet the downward vibe seemed to be established by opening the side with Dig and then furthered by the mushy sound of the other three tracks. Now, Dig actually has a right to be on the album, as far as I'm concerned: you can hear the dynamics, the cleverness in the bass part (eg notes not played, which another instrument then fills – I could never discern that before), and Ringo's drums are actually more effective by being pulled back, with the slap echo/delay removed. In fact (and Dhani refers to this in that Rolling Stone piece), it's bringing the slap echo effect under control – it seemed to be all over Jim Gordon's snare, if not the whole kit, on Let It Down and Hear Me Lord pre-2020 – which contributes to what I see as certain tracks "sitting" better.

On Wah-Wah, although that's not slap echo-laden, the main reason for the overall improvement seems to be that Ringo's drums and Klaus' bass no longer have reverb on them; that echoey presence, as with the overkill applied to Let It Down generally, was just pure, revolting bombast before(!) And it didn't flatter them as musicians either – for years I'd always wish that Gordon and Radle had been the rhythm section on Wah-Wah because Ringo and Klaus just didn't seem connected with the other performers; Ringo sounded lazy, Klaus seemed to be plodding along. In the 2020 mix, we're hearing them alongside and complementing the others, and it finally makes sense.

Similar with Art of Dying and Hear Me Lord, especially now Clapton's wah guitar doesn't dominate throughout Dying. I still think the true quality in those two songs doesn't really come through, but that's down to performance and arrangement. There's a brilliant early version of Art of Dying on bootlegs – take 9, with Ringo drumming, lovely heavy pianos, chiming acoustic guitars, fantastic live vocal too – which I've always thought is way superior to the hard rock Dominos version. Dying take 9 would've made a prefect side four opener, and we'd never be talking about the quality of songs dipping towards the end of the album. It's a shame also that Hear Me Lord was recorded late in the sessions, after Badfinger had departed, because I think that one would have benefited no end from the full, acoustic rhythm guitars, live percussion, "rock orchestra" approach of Wah-Wah, MSL, Pity, etc. Hear Me closes the album proper, of course, so it needed the full shebang (massive Jesus Christ Superstar/Godspell send-off – something like that). It should tower; Art of Dying (Take 9) towers.

The big losers

Ah, but then there are the real losers. I'm sure it's come from reading the likes of Greg Kot and John Harris writing about ATMP over the years, Scorsese's comments also, but I've always had this picture of the album as a great rock 'n roll cathedral full of hope, worship, yearning, resignation, love for the world, and/or transcendence. Isn't It a Pity, My Sweet Lord, All Things Must Pass, What Is Life and Awaiting on You All are probably the key tracks in that regard, but Pity and MSL are also the big losers in the 2020 mixes. Pity is such a massive statement yet it's tamed down now. In the quest for clarity, the opening verse seems to have dispensed with the wall of keyboards, just like when Ringo's drums announce the second verse, it's no longer such a grand moment. If I had to pick one passage of music from all the ex-Beatles' solo careers that is utterly timeless and effortlessly perfect, that would have to be the start of the second verse of Pity through to the end of the first section of slide/strings soloing. But that extended moment is kinda blanded out now; yes, it is/was "Wagnerian, Brucknerian", but it worked – it worked beautifully. My Sweet Lord's diminished too. To borrow another quote from the same 1970 review, ATMP is "the music of mountain tops and vast horizons", and I rue that with the new treatment for Pity, MSL and possibly the title track, it's been brought down to the foothills and a more myopic vision.

Other things are lost throughout, and that's the downside of this thing I'm calling "mining": it's as if for every new sonic discovery there's something missing from before. I was fascinated, for instance, to be able to hear what each of the three keyboard parts on If Not for You are doing, but the trade-off is that the track's lost its radiant wash of harmonium, organ and harmonica. Not only that but previously the keyboards were presented and mixed at a level that formed a great arrangement in itself: the song starts with harmonium; piano then enters on the second verse; and Hammond comes to the fore from verse three, after the first bridge. It just seems to me that this structure and build-up is underplayed now. And as vastly improved as Wah-Wah is overall, I'm missing the thunderous grand piano in the playout when it sounds like Preston or Brooker have taken a hammer to the low-register keys. Similar with Pity – I love the insistent, one-note horn line during the second half, but I can't hear it now. Gordon's muscular drumming doesn't quite come across either anymore, eg on Run of the Mill, Awaiting on You All and Art of Dying.

Basically, it's the drying out – de-reverbing – of George's vocals. Sometimes his voice is so compressed and dry, he ends up sounding distracted, bored almost, where before his singing was yearning and angelic; I'd Have You Anytime, My Sweet Lord, All Things Must Pass particularly. His slide soloing's often too compressed as well. Thing is, he would have recorded his vocals with some reverb, and that affects the way you sing ... It's not just his lead parts – all the O'Hara-Smith harmonies now lack a bit of spacey psychedelia that was so cheeky, playful and effective on, say, Wah-Wah, Behind That Locked Door and Apple Scruffs.

And with all that, the new mixes end up downplaying another album-wide theme, I think: the seasons. There's spring and autumn variously evoked in the songs and sounds, while it always seemed to me that Ballad of Sir Frankie Crisp captured a perfect hazy summer's day in Friar Park's (then wild) sprawling acres. The reverb, wash of sound on keyboards, and spacey vocals all helped create this effect. Nicholas Schaffner described the strings on Beware of Darkness and the title track as reminiscent of "Blue Jay Way fog" (another quote that has always stuck in my mind), and I think atmosphere has now been lost in the quest for clarity. Sure, the Wall of Sound on Wah-Wah, Let It Down and perhaps Awaiting on You All was overly bombastic before (although I always found the reverb on Awaiting added to its urgent, crazed-preacher message), and some clarity would always be welcome in several other tracks – Pity, especially, What Is Life, Frankie Crisp, All Things Must Pass, Pity V2. But we've lost so much atmosphere now, whereas before the songs conjured up their own mysterious sound-worlds that I think the listener actually felt aware of entering and being surrounded by ...

Yeah-but, no-but

Well, I've written way more than I ever intended to, and I've ended up creative a far more negative picture than I thought I felt. Hmm. It's doubly strange because I'm one very happy Uber Deluxe Edition customer and, as much as I coveted, say, the full White Album 50th Anniversary box with all the trappings, I've never done anything so decadent with regard to splashing out on these mega reissues. (On guitars, yes, but not on someone else's music ...)

Hopefully, I'm about to round the bend and return to the "like" section of the circuit – further to what I said at the start: "I've found myself going back and forth between liking and disliking the new mix." Gotta say I've got a lot of respect for Dhani and appreciation for how he and Olivia handle the GH legacy. So if Dhani says he and Hicks did the remix for a certain reason, I'm not going to argue with that.

Probably best to return to the sheer wonders of the Uber. It's jaw-droppingly glorious. The massive scrapbook offers so much on the album and links all its themes – G leaving the Beatles, nature and the seasons, spirituality and transcending our limitations. I'd been worried that the GH estate might leave all this and the book detailing the recording info to Kevin Howlett again; thank god they didn't. And that Recording book finally clears up so many issues that biographers have long guessed about and made more confusing. (Which, of course, means major reworking is needed at the ATMP album and song articles ... I've been groaning, wincing, at the thought.)

The two discs of demos are fantastic, the first with either G solo or accompanied by Ringo and Klaus running through 15 songs, the second with G alone on another 15. Some of the performances are amazing. Check out I Dig Love (it's probably up at the Harrison YouTube channel) – completely different arrangement, sounds more like a Billy Preston or Doris Troy R'n'B track. It's also interesting to hear G either playing something close to or just singing parts that would end up as elements in the arrangements on the proper recordings. He always had the melody of the big instrumental break in Pity worked out back in the Jan '69 Get Back era, of course, but, according to the notes I made, you can hear part of what becomes Clapton contributions in G's playing on the Wah-Wah and Have You Anytime demos. The outtakes disc is another eye-opener, although I confess it's the one I'm least familiar with so far. More homework to do. But Wah-Wah take 1 – ah, I feel like I was born to be in that band ... Best of all (and it's there in the demos with R & K too), it's great to hear GH leading a band, sounding so relaxed, and singing and playing so well in that set-up.

So, thinking about what grabs me about the discs of demos and outtakes, it's odd somehow that where G's performances as a singer and guitarist sound so natural there – as they do on the official album (pre-2020 mix) – it's a quality that seems to have been removed or played down in Dhani and Hicks' reworking of the main album. Again, the compression applied to G's vocals, as if he's singing in a wardrobe, and to some of his slide parts ... I just hope it now sounds better to people who only stream music. JG66 (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm definitely with you overall. You always have a mixed bag when it comes to all of these recent remixes over the past 10 years. For some, they make the albums substantially better (i.e. Sgt. Pepper), but for others they don't really do anything (i.e. White Album). I think the ATMP remix, as a whole, does the album justice. As we both have said, side four specifically is much better now, but others like side one aren't that much better (which I find ironic considering "My Sweet Lord" is debatably Harrison's best-known solo song).

As you said, the massive reverb I do think gave some tracks like "Awaiting" some better flair for the overall message (even if it was a little too much for me), but it completely ruined tracks like "Wah-Wah". You just have to take these things with a grain of salt. Take Bowie's recent TMWSTW remix, I enjoyed it on the first listen, but then people on YouTube started pointing out some inconsistencies which when I went back I noticed and now I just listen to the 2015 remaster. I'm wondering if they'll remix Hunky Dory since that 50th is coming up pretty quickly, but I honestly wouldn't be upset if they don't.

The thing about Harrison for me is nothing he made after ATMP tops ATMP. I recall after I started communicating with you on the regular years ago I decided to finally listen to all his solo stuff. I enjoyed most of LitMW, most of 33 & 1/3, and a couple of the big singles, but overall didn't appreciate anything near as close to ATMP. I honestly wonder if the Harrison estate will do anything for any of his later releases going forward. It makes total sense why they remixed ATMP (considering Harrison himself wanted to), but who knows if we'll see box sets/remixes for LitMW on.

ATMP is such a special album because it really showed how talented Harrison was. He sat in the shadow of Lennon & McCartney for years and after feeling neglected for so long he finally just gave it everything he had and created one of the best albums of all time. It really is hard to maintain that level when you start incredibly high (*cough*Illmatic*cough*), and imo not having each other there for inspiration/competition really affected every Beatles release from '73 on. The best Beatles solo records for me will always be JL/POB, ATMP, Ringo, and a tie between RAM and Band on the Run (I can never decide between those two).

Regarding ATMP, I'll probably listen to the 2020 mix from now on (not that I don't love the original mix, but the new mix has been mastered specifically for streaming, which is how I do most of my listening nowadays anyways - and Apple Music has it in Lossless which I wanna listen to one of these days). Like all remixes, you have positives and negatives to both, but overall, I think the 2020 mix reassures us that ATMP still holds up extremely well to this day, and I'm hoping it will allow more and more people to start listening. Would George himself have remixed it differently? Possibly, but we'll never know... – zmbro _(talk) 18:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Still listening to the new mix? (zmbro, you too). Around a month or two, after the hype died down, I fell off listening to the new AR and White Album mixes, whereas I'm still listening to the new Pepper mix. With this one, I've been somewhat selective in which tracks I return to, since I don't think it's an improvement on the album as a whole. I find I mostly end up going to the multitude of wonderful bonus tracks. Tkbrett (✉) 13:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Tkbrett I haven't in a while. I checked out the Let It Be remixes and thought those were fine, not great but fine, way better than the White album. It was nice hearing the Get Back mixes, makes me thankful they didn't release those. Pepper mix is by far the best of all of them. I also enjoy the AR one as well but I agree, the collections are definitely more useful for the bonus tracks. Absolutely can't wait for the Disney+ doc. – zmbro _(talk) 13:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

No, though not deliberately – on my ageing Mac, I was able to download all the CDs (with the drive grinding and bucking like crazy) but iTunes won't let me play the Lossless files. Don't have a turntable or a Blueray player, for the vinyl and Blueray versions included in the Uber, and having just moved home, I haven't yet bothered to connect the speakers to the CD player someone gave me recently; plus, I keep getting distracted by unpacking boxes and coming across old issues of Uncut that I never knew I owned. (I mean, the Uber box is like the Tardis; there's probably cassette and reel-to-reel ATMPs in there too.)

I've listened to the 2014 Apple Years ATMP plenty, though. So I get My Sweet Lord, Pity and What Is Life in all their Wall of Sound cathedral splendour, but lose out on the welcome, de-bloated 2020 mixes of Wah-Wah and Let It Down ... I will plug those speakers in, because I'm starting to miss having my once-daily dose of Run of the Mill (take 63 or something), What Is Life outtake, etc.

As mentioned before, I never went for any of the Fabs 50th sets. Sort of wish I did – the White Album would be the first one I'd want.

Oh zim, I was so tempted to take the bait when you got the discussion onto top 5 Beatles solo albums. I've got too much love for the world – it has to be ATMP as best of the best, because on that album Harrison expresses so much love and concern for the world. I read Dhani saying that the songs seem especially relevant and insightful in the covid era; normally, you'd think that's an exec producer hyping a reissue, but he makes a good point.

But Ram? Oh Ram ... I've never been able to fathom that one; I think it's got a lot to do with being a musician – I find myself getting so frustrated at (what I take to be) McCartney's confusion on some tracks, fussy arrangements masking indecisiveness or songs where one or two ideas are stretched out because he hasn't really written the song ... A couple of my good friends really like the album. If I can get back to the UK for a visit, I'm planning to sit down with them and have a Ram conference: play the album, pause it at the places where I want them to tell me what that bit is doing there, what Macca was thinking, what he was trying to achieve here ... and how it is they're able to live with it! JG66 (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Haha I'm with ya. I HATED Ram at first. I recall listening while driving and turning it off before I finished the whole thing xD. But I revisited it years later and now whenever I hear it I find myself going through the whole thing again and again. I mean, the thing practically invented an entire genre. If Paul really did go into the studio not having written everything that's definitely unlike him, but I can respect him for trying (and imo it worked out well); I mean if we're going to discuss that we can't not mention Bowie, who did that for literally every release post-1975 (and for '76–'80 I'd say that worked very well).

Sidenote, now that you and Tk are working on Monkey now I wanna revisit all that extra WA stuff in that 50th set xP – zmbro _(talk) 16:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh sure, it ended up being very influential, but all the indie/lo-fi I've heard is way better; you don't sit there thinking, What the @#$% is that bit about? It's thought out and it makes sense, or at least it convinces because the artist sounds convinced. Whereas Macca doesn't appear to know what he's doing (and unlike Bowie, or Harrison for that matter, he's not a natural collaborator, or he wasn't in the '70s). Admittedly, it's partly because we know the story behind the album and the emotional turmoil he was in after the Beatles. Given that, I've never been able to shake the thought: Paul, you're tired, you're emotional – forget about the record. Go home and get some sleep. You know?

You'd be perfect for the fourth delegate's chair at Ram Conference 2021–22, zim. JG66 (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Sour Milk Sea

How do you know Sour Milk Sea wasn't recorded during the ATMP sessions? The Harrison estate seems to disagree. 82.26.31.56 (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll speak for JG but if you took one look at the actual article it very clearly states it was recorded in June 1968 and released the same year (by Jackie Lomax, who Harrison wrote the song for btw). I can't speak for the Harrison estate but it was recorded and released in 1968, the sessions for ATMP didn't start formally until 1970, so it does not below in the template. – zmbro _(talk) 23:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, the song was played with a tape rolling during the 1970 sessions, it seems. But this has been revealed on a catch-all, scrape-the-barrel, lavish reissue box set, so I struggle with the idea that it's a genuine outtake in the way that I Live for You, Woman Don't You Cry for Me, When Every Song Is Sung, etc, were. Also partly because the song had been a highly publicised Apple single for Jackie Lomax. This issue relates to a recent discussion at WT:ALBUM#Extended track listings for bonus editions, reissues etc. I mean, in the case of Template:All Things Must Pass, do "Wedding Bells" and the Beatles' "Get Back" deserve to be there, just because a tape happened to capture the musicians playing them and a 50th Anniversary super deluxe box set includes them? I don't think so.

Same with Lennon's Plastic Ono Band: Johnny B. Goode, Ain't That a Shame, Get Back (again), Goodnight Irene, Honey Don't, You're So Square and a few more were all jammed briefly, in some cases for about a minute. But they're hardly outtakes in the sense of being under any sort of consideration for the album; they're just being included on a mammoth box set aimed at completists and über-fans. Another similar example: the compilers of the 50th anniversary box set of The Beatles chose to include tracks like Lady Madonna, The Inner Light and Across the Universe – all predating the White Album sessions and light years away from that project in terms of mood and the Beatles' history. Do those early '68 songs belong in Template:The Beatles (White Album) just to reflect a connection made 50 years after the event, for a commercial repackaging? No way. Besides, the abundance of literature on the White Album over half a century has never made that sort of connection. JG66 (talk) 04:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

rvt nuisance edits?

I see that you've done a bunch of reverts with this summary; what is wrong with them? I am not accusing you of anything, but I saw the diffs and they don't really seem like an obvious nuisance to me. jp×g 07:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

JPxG I've just filed a report about the editor in question at AN/I. At 1967–1970, they added false information on the contents – eg, Hey Jude was not on the White Album; the compilation does not include Revolution 1; Ballad of John & Yoko and Old Brown Shoe were not on the Abbey Road album. That sort of thing ... similar thing at the other article(s). JG66 (talk) 07:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:GH Dark Horse backcover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:GH Dark Horse backcover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

In regards to..."the issue raised concerns She's a Woman, and this is one of a few song articles cited on that article's talk page, which is fine but it doesn't mean it's necessarily relevant to this article at all – talk page discussions should be centralised not spread across several pages, and Talk:She's a Woman is the obvious place"

...but the point is that all articles should be treated equally and with the same levels of information if that information is available. ...and to say that all these UK Top 20 hits by the various hitmakers mentioned are not worthy (and by people who have had hits in North America too, not a random one-week, one-hit wonder), when random bumf like 65 recordings of the same song by Phish is...its a bit one sided, as if you played a Phish song on Alan Carr's Name That Tune or on The Hit List nobody watching would know who they were, as nobody is that bothered about Phish over here, Fish maybe. However, Phish are one of those things only people over there get, with every issue of Relix having to have an article about them I guess (with Relix operating as some kind of Phish love-in most times, with Phish being the band you cannot criticise). Again its people in North America making that judgement... but again it becomes a bit one-sided and biased against the Brits, you know a bit like "well it happened in Britain and so it not important"...even when you are talking about tunes that were originally by people from Liverpool (not far way from where I am sitting now). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.238.125 (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

E.C.

Hello, I have brought up the Eric Clapton matter here, and I have received an answer that I found satisfactory, albeit a bummer. I think it is best to leave the Clapton page for now, although I remain very much skeptical about the attributed quote verbatim. I myself see no more reason to believe it than that, say, the FBI is in possession of Hunter Biden's laptop. But because of this VNT policy, for all my apprehension about it, I might as well table it regarding Wikipedia.

I would also like to say that I did not appreciate being called "overzealous" in the conversation (especially when it was only a few hours long and a few replies each), or my quoting you being described as "robotic repetition". Perhaps you have different customs than I, or some other difference (I do recall you being bothered by the quoting somehow), in which case I can at least understand. You also have my apologies about my initial approach to the matter confusing you as to what my purpose was; again, I thought it was the safer route.

Anyway, I wanted to let you know that I have decided to table the matter about the article due to the VNT policy, but will continue to be doubtful about the matter itself. GarfieldHelper0 (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

GarfieldHelper0, the zeal I referred to, and became concerned about, has to do with that same issue you've discovered regarding VNT. And also the BLP policy's view on reliable sources. You were obviously unaware of these details – but equally, I was unaware that you weren't familiar with Wikipedia's approach on both points. I apologise if you found my use of the word "overzealous" offensive.

It can be frustrating, but Wikipedia's just about reflecting what reliable sources offer on a given subject. I think that section at the Clapton article does need some work, to ensure we're not giving anything undue coverage. But that doesn't mean completely ignoring four reliable sources and what they offer; it's about approaching the topic neutrally and trying to convey the message using the fewest words. JG66 (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Contemporary reviewers

Hello again. Thanks for your recent fixes on "She's a Woman". One of your edit summaries reminded me of something that's been on my mind writing articles about these earlier songs; namely, where do you find contemporary reviewers? Obviously there is no shortage of retrospective takes from different authors and journalists, but I have found it somewhat difficult to find what critics were saying in 1963 and 1964. I assume most were still reviewing operas. I recently got my hands on Schaffner's book, and I noticed he is often one of the few that describes what the initial reaction was to a new single, but beyond him I haven't found much. Hoping you may have an idea of where else to look. Cheers. Tkbrett (✉) 15:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Tkbrett, hi there. Are you familiar with wordlradiohisotry.com? Complete back issues there for Billboard, Cash Box, Record World, for US singles and album reviews, only spot coverage, unfortunately, for UK publications like Melody Maker, NME, Record Mirror, Disc over the same period. Always disappoints me when it comes to the Beatles (a British band after all, not American) that the coverage is incomplete for the UK mags. I've just seen something in Billboard's single review worth adding at "She's a Woman". I've also got the NME Originals issue on Lennon from about 2005, which includes portions of contemporaneous reviews of the Beatles' records – will add Derek Johnson/NME comments at the article also.

Man, I love Schaffner's book. It's got that perfect mix of wonder, because he was a teenager during the '60s, and reflection, because he's writing in the late '70s. JG66 (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

This is exactly the sort of thing I was hoping existed! Wonderful, thanks.

I'm enjoying Schaffner quite a bit, particularly his writing style. Of all the Beatles books from the 1970s and '80s, this one seems to be a gold nugget. Tkbrett (✉) 17:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The Beatles

Hi JG66. I don't understand your revert just now. The Beatles are listed under level 3 vital articles, at WP:VA. The only reason it was changed to level 4, was because there has been a mix-up with the bot which maintains the talk page notices, as well as a recent now-reverted splitting of the VA into people and non-people. Note that the Beatles are also listed on the level 4 page, but that's standard practice that higher level articles are also listed at the lower-level pages. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Amakuru. Well, I don't pretend to know anything about the Vital Article process, but my revert was simply based on what I saw at WP:VA#People, as stated in my comment with the edit. So, as long as we're consistent between that page and the article talk pages, fine. Mind you, I don't see it as any great leap that the Beatles might be up at level 4 along with, say, Charlie Chaplin, Walt Disney, Beethoven – I mean, cultural historians do put them in such company. But again, I have no knowledge of the VA levels. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I think maybe you have the levels the wrong way around! Level 3 is a higher level than level 4 in the WP:VA hierarchy. 1 is the highest, and 5 is the lowest. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Ha, okay ... And there's proof positive that "I have no knowledge of the VA levels" whatsoever! JG66 (talk) 13:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

As for why the Chris Farley mock interview is "relevant" to the Paul is Dead hoax, it's a section listing examples in pop culture. So why doesn't that qualify? I also see that you've needlessly forced me to find an article to justify the Radio Dinner reference, even though it's quite blatant. WillieBlues (talk) 02:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Please assist

I see you are editing on User_talk:0mtwb9gd5wx. Can you look at their edits on Theater World? They are reducing the article to entirely about some Daniel Blum, off-topic, and they have deleted the entire talk page. Thanks. 38.73.253.217 (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Reverts

All of the articles were either "the English band" or "English band". All I did was make them consistent. I don't see the issue and I think you're being frivolous. One of the articles listed in the MOS (the Beatles white album), says "English band". Not with "the" preceding it. Find me where in the MOS that states that correct way. Jennica✿ / ^talk 06:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Jennica, it's to do with the issue of False titles. In Brit English music articles, FA reviewers have insisted that these so-called false titles be avoided. I think it's a pedantic approach when one talks about musicians, songwriters or producers – because one does say "producer Jimmy Miller ..." – but not with something like a band – because one would never say "band the Rolling Stones". Right? I seem to recall discussing this with you somewhere else, a year or two ago, and you were fine with that reasoning. Point is, you've now been changing song and album articles to the phrasing you prefer but that phrasing is not in keeping with a preferred style of quality Brit English writing. Whether it appears in our MoS, I don't know. Perhaps it's an issue to raise there anyway. JG66 (talk) 06:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

alright. I concede. I didn't know there was a preference. I'm sorry. Jennica✿ / ^talk 06:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Jennica, that's good of you, and no worries.

Just to say that I'm surprised you're now adding "the" to the opening sentence in, say, David Bowie articles. As mentioned, I think writing "by musician [/producer/arranger/drummer/sitarist/etc]" is okay, because we do say that, unlike "by band [/company/charity/etc]". I guess what I'm talking about is adopting a middle ground when it comes to false titles. I'm English, and couldn't be less tabloid-friendly, but phrasing like "Other contributors included the guitarist Eric Clapton, the producer George Martin and the keyboardist Nicky Hopkins" (which is similar to something I saw imposed at one FAC) jars no end with me – just sounds unbearably formal, as if it's from a royal court transcript. The problem with going with "by the English musician David Bowie" is that every guitarist, keyboard player, drummer, bassist, horn player, producer, mixing engineer, graphic artist mentioned in the article should then be introduced with "the", creating the potential for the sort of ultra-clunky phrasing I just highlighted. JG66 (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm still a little confused. I did read this though. it's from the Times style manual.

"“Do not make titles out of mere descriptions, as in harpsichordist Dale S. Yagyonak. If in doubt, try the ‘good morning’ test. If it is not possible to imagine saying, ‘Good morning, Harpsichordist Yagyonak,’ the title is false.”"

🤔 Jennica✿ / ^talk 16:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Jennica, you seem to be missing the point I was making, about finding a middle ground. We're not obliged to follow the wishes of a few FAC reviewers to the letter across the entire encyclopedia (and I have read editors complaining that some FAC reviewers are just precious and pretentious); and it's not as if false titles are frowned upon by all quality institutions in British English. In other words, using false titles is not inherently un-Brit English.

The Times says no to "[by] harpsichordist Dale S. Yagyonak", okay, but at least it's something one does say. But – to repeat – no one with a reasonable command of English would ever say "by band Cream", "with company IBM", etc. So it's in those situations that "the" is necessary. But it's not necessary, in the sense of being essential, in examples like "harpsichordist/guitarist/singer/musician [name]". Add to that what I was saying about how, if the word "the" is added for a singer/musician/rapper in the opening sentence of a lead, then all other individuals mentioned in the article would need to be introduced in that way, and the very clunky wording that can result with an abundance of "the"s. JG66 (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Geoffrey Giuliano

Why are you reverting information about his most prominent role? CaptainPrimo (talk) 03:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Where's your source for the statement? Not just that it is an acting role of Giuliano's, but that it's his best known or most prominent. The article's a BLP, so neutrality and no original research is especially important (WP:BLP), and everything on Wikipedia should be sourced anyway (WP:VERIFY). JG66 (talk) 04:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Apple scruffs

Hi JG66. Been listening to the All Things Must Pass reissue and that prompted me to look up Apple scruffs. I see you worked on it back in April. Is there a reason why Lizzie Bravo and Gayleen Pease aren't mentioned? I've always been under the impression that they were "scruffs" and it might be a better place for the info than the present stub on them.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Pawnkingthree. Yeah, I remember when I was working on that article, I came across sources saying the scruffs were formed after Apple moved into Savile Row, meaning mid '68 at the very earliest. So that's after Brazzo and Pease were recruited from outside EMI for the "Across the Universe" session, obviously. And the idea of the scruffs' "formation" is quite relevant, because it was an organisation of sorts, with membership cards and a hierarchy, and their name originates from the Apple offices. Some sources might decide that Brazzo and Pease were Apple scruffs but that's revisionism; they were no more Apple scruffs than the fans who kept vigil in 1966 outside McCartney's home in St John's Wood, when he moved into the house, or Harrison's in Esher, after he married Pattie Boyd. There were always devoted fans hanging around, but there were no Apple scruffs until Margo Stevens arrived, or perhaps until Pritchard went to London, which is early in 1969. Perhaps the article could state this more clearly and give some idea of the date.

Oh, and you've reminded me that I meant to nominate Lizzie Bravo and Gayleen Pease at AfD. I'm slightly incredulous that anyone would think they merit their own article, separate from "Across the Universe" ... JG66 (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I hadn't been thinking the dates through clearly enough - they can't predate the formation of Apple. I have of course seen sources describing them as scruffs but that's being too loose with the definition. I agree that Bravo and Pease are an obvious redirect only. Everything noteworthy about them can be said in the song article. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, considering this that resulted in no action, in case it can be useful, I suggest WP:3RR (more obvious to show warring with diffs and to expect a fast response) or WP:RFPP (page protection would also help in case the IP address is hopping or creating sockpuppet accounts). And sorry if I'm stating the obvious, —PaleoNeonate – 09:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi PaleoNeonate, thanks for the thought, both here and on the ANI page. (It was just as you said there: IP finally deigned to use the talk page at All You Need Is Love, but didn't gain consensus and added the unsourced details again in the article.) I can't help thinking they're focused on bigging up the legacy of the recording studio, Olympic Studios – reliable sources be damned and NPOV too.

I may well request page protection, if nothing else. Perhaps Zmbro or Tkbrett have the interest/energy in tackling the OR/synthesis/undue addition(s) at All You Need Is Love. I don't right now – which is why I thought I'd let it slide, then fix it when I nominate the article for GA sometime. Thanks again, JG66 (talk) 09:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I find with IP editors like this one, they tend to get extremely invested in a page for a couple days before losing interest and disappearing. I can try reverting the crappy additions in a day or two, since I didn't do any reversions when they were happening. Maybe if the IP sees three different editors are removing their additions, they'll catch the hint ... if not, then the ANI will maybe be of more help. Tkbrett (✉) 12:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Tumbling Dice

Hello:

I'd appreciated it if you would respect the tag on this article and refrain from editing it now. Thank you! One edit conflict is enough.

Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Tumbling Dice

F.Y.I. There is no British English tag on Tumbling Dice.

Twofingered Typist (talk) 11:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Very surprised about that, considering it's a GA. Thanks for letting me know. JG66 (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

While My Guitar Gently Weeps

Yeah, thanks I should start a discussion on that. Thanks again, - FlightTime (open channel) — Preceding undated comment added 02:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Those are being reverted en masse with some semi-auto tools around here

No need to revert over something insignificant like that, and you're going to make editors angry if you blanket revert a whole bunch of other changes as well, right? Please see WP:REVERT. It has some common sense items that you may be able to use. Dawnseeker2000 02:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

OhConfucius's "Sources" groups of scripts is where I got it from. Is there discussion about the evolution of that bit of formatting code anywhere? I thought it was standard these days to be away with it.Dawnseeker2000 03:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, why do "OhConfucius's 'Sources' groups of scripts" have any special significance? (They might influence your personal approach, but why should they govern anyone else's?) I've seen instructions, probably in one of the template documentations, saying that 20em columns can be applied when citations are author short form. You talk about using common sense – that makes perfect sense to me when there's a mass of white space created needlessly with perhaps 100 citations allowed to run on and on down the page. JG66 (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. Can you please add a link so that we're both at least on the same page? Unintentional pun, but it works! Dawnseeker2000 03:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Will do. I saw it quite recently but templates aren't my thing (I concern myself with article content and how a page works as a complete piece) – so I'll have to work out where it was I stumbled across the instructions. JG66 (talk) 03:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Take your time. There's no real rush, but it you happen to come across it please do post it. There's real good that can come out of two editors with the same understanding. Dawnseeker2000 03:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dawnseeker2000. I've just found something at Template:Reflist#Columns. It's not the (more detailed) instruction I recall seeing earlier this year – somewhere, I don't know where – but it does allow for that point I mentioned regarding short-form citations. No, not every single one of the perhaps hundreds of individual citations in an article might be set as so-called shortened footnotes; that's because, like many editors, I don't see the point in using the short-form approach for one-stop web and print articles (ie, why force the reader to make two moves when those details can be presented in one place, whereas within books, box-set liner notes, documentary films, etc, there are often multiple locations invoked). But the vast majority of those hundreds are short form.

Aside from that instruction at t:Reflist, I have come across other related templates that refer to alternative column widths and while they state that 30em is the default option, there's no stipulation that it has to be observed. For example, at Template:Refbegin: "Can be any value generally (e.g. 20em, 50em, etc.)" As before, I point to situations where there are hundreds of citations – perhaps as many as 500 – creating a humungous list towards the foot of the page when some of the size/length can be swallowed up by the implementation of a basic spacing-saving device like reducing column width. It's also worth bearing in mind that a list of references is hardly something that's going to be read in its own right, from ref 1 to ref 500, whereas sections like Further reading, See also, External links, and foot-of-page navboxes, and categories are all areas where readers actually choose to go for information – which is another good reason to at least try to minimise the extent of the intervening list of refs where possible, surely. JG66 (talk) 06:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, hold on. I need to go back and look at the edit that this conversation originated from. Give me a bit. Dawnseeker2000 11:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Dawnseeker2000, This would be it, I reckon. JG66 (talk) 12:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The original setting is on the left. The right-hand pane is what I changed it to.

Alright, thanks for that. Thanks also for providing a good amount of text of what you're thinking. Can we though start from the beginning, so to speak, by just looking at why we're here. So at the moment, I'm going to not necessarily ignore what you've written, but instead just look at the presentation of the two version of the article that we crossed paths on. If that lead us somewhere, great. If I need to respond to what you've painstakingly taken the time to write out, that is OK too. Please let me know what you think of the side-by-side.

I don't know if that was worth reverting, but again, after having seen both together like this, maybe you can offer reasoning. I am not sure there is a reason to prefer one over the other. In other words, I don't see a deficit in either of the styles. Dawnseeker2000 10:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Harrison & Dylan performing "If Not for You".jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Harrison & Dylan performing "If Not for You".jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ✗plicit 06:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

A. J. Weberman

Hi there, my apologies for disrupting very nicely standardized formatting on the references to the AJ Weberman page. My personally preferred method of citation is without template, but I’m happy to adopt whichever method other editors on that page prefer, what I’m really interested in establishing standard citation methods throughout the page.

One area I would suggest we should format uniquely though, would be the section listing his publications by bullet point. For example, the list of publications is typically formatted a bit more simply, beginning with the title of the works instead of the author’s last name, since that information can be assumed to be Weberman by definition. A simpler format such the publications section of the Jim Hougan page can make the information much easier to scan and absorb quickly.

What do you say we work together? I’d happy to adopt your template method for all my citations if you wouldn’t mind letting me simply the citation information in the publications list. I’m going to be expanding on the source material and linking to a lot of digitized content in the next few days.

Let me know what you think! Neighborhood Review (talk) 08:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I forgot to ask about the punctuation errors you had mentioned. Where you referring to moving the periods and commas at the end of quotations to the inside of the quotation mark? It’s my understanding that’s the correct punctuation as discussed here.

• “Put commas and periods within quotation marks, except when a parenthetical reference follows.”

• Example: He said, "I may forget your name, but I never forget a face." Neighborhood Review (talk) 08:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the choice for references, it's a case of retaining existing styles per MOS:STYLERET. (I'm not a fan of the templates myself but where an article's is in reasonably good shape and the referencing style is by and large consistent, I'll respect that approach. If I start an article from scratch, well, it's my call.)

Wikipedia follows what's called logical punctuation (MOS:LQ) as apart of its own style guide, not an exterior one as you've linked to.

I agree that the list of Weberman publications can be set differently, because they're not sources for the article text, of course. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 08:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Tumbling Dice

F.Y.I., I'm pretty sure WP does not recommend you simply slap a "British English" tag on an article 17 years after it was created by an American user. Having done so, I trust you checked the whole article to fix any other instances? Regards, Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

RE: While My Guitar Gently Weeps

Alright, I guess it isn't consistent. But there are a few other Beatles articles that list vocalists before non-vocalists. I know that the default order is J, P, G, R, so what do you think should be done about the articles that don't follow this guideline? I'll try and relocate the ones that don't follow this guideline if it turns out that they should be edited to make them consistent. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 06:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

About the Let It Be article...

So I'm in shock at how poor of a state the Let It Be article, and all its tracks, are in. I honestly never realized that. We should try to do something about it. I could make do with MacDonald and Lewisohn and see what Rock's Backpages has to offer but can't do much else. I'm also still doing Hours in the meantime but after seeing how shitty all these articles are something needs to be done. Tkbrett you should join too. – zmbro _(talk) 01:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi zim. Yeah, it's pretty darn lousy. I've been trying to build it up since about February (take a look at the state of the article back then) – there seemed/s such an obsessive focus on Glyn Johns' two Get Back submissions at the expense of almost everything else. There's a lot more to come, not least a section dedicated to Release.

I'm not going to have time to really commit to it until mid January (and yes, I still plan to nominate Rubber Soul for GA, and need to rework All Things Must Pass to allow for all the historical info unearthed by the ATMP @50 reissue [where did the year go?]). Anyway, it might be an idea to wait for all things Let It Be/Jackson Get Back to die down – you know: the usual swarm of activity by IPs when the subject is the focus of a huge media campaign, anniversary reissue, etc. JG66 (talk) 07:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah that would be a good idea. I've thought about getting the Get Back book myself but haven't decided yet. If I do I'm sure that'll help. – zmbro _(talk) 14:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)