Jump to content

Talk:Abbey Road/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

The whole idea of any "medley" itself has no source

There's no source that says these songs are a medley/medleys to begin with, so this OR criticism is strange--how is the pre-existing interpretation any less OR? I don't particularly care if we get a medley source, however, as the fact that there are two medleys is self-evident (we have at songs that transition into each other seamlessly). As far as two medleys being the correct interpretation, it's simple: there is NO transition between "bathroom window" and "golden slumbers". If the whole idea is that they're medleys because they "transition" or "blend together", then there's no way to claim there's one medley from "because" to "the end" (you might as well claim that "Here Comes the Sun" is the beginning of the medley). As for Golden Slumbers/Carry That Weight/The End, they do transition together. Regardless, if we can't find a "medley" source, we might as well do away with medley/medleys organization and just have the tracks (with a brief note about how they're medley/medleys). Byelf2007 (talk) 17 January 2011

The sources mentioned above do in fact say that these songs are a medley, so it's not OR. Saying it is two medleys is by definition OR as there is not source provided. It doesn't matter if all sources say there are one, two or ten: we go by what the sources say and sources have been provided. Remember the principle of "verifiability, not truth". Everything you say above may be true but it is your opinion and therefor OR. And saying there is no point in mentioning a medley at all is not the answer as these songs are commonly called a "medley", whether or not they fit your definition of a medley. And it would be more helpful if you left the section as is until this is settled rather than changing it to suit your own POV (i.e. WP:BRD. freshacconci talktalk 00:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't see an inline citation for the medley, so I guess that is his point. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 23:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Correct. Byelf2007 (talk) 20 January 2011
Except you are attempting to replace content that you claim to be unsourced with something that is unsourced. That's a bit counter-productive. The issue at hand is that there are sources available for the use of medley in the singular as provided above. They are currently not in the article itself but that can be rectified. Unless you can provide reliable sources that verify the claim that this section is two medleys, it remains OR. The claim of one medley is not OR: there are sources available; they have just not been added to the article yet. freshacconci talktalk 19:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Which I now see has been done, so that's that. freshacconci talktalk 19:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
And I have to say, the effort it took to add the citation needed tags could really have been spent adding the sources to the content, which as I have said, was clearly available. freshacconci talktalk 19:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's Comes the Sun

We can't have it both ways: either Lennon played on Harrison's song, or he didn't. The source of personnel at the song claims Lennon as a 'non-player', claims he was away still recovering from his auto accident. This source claims the opposite. I asked this question before - does anyone else here Lennon's voice on this song? I do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.97.204.243 (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The section has been corrected. Piriczki (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Maxwell Silver Hammer

Didiierbardon (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

When a pope dies in Rome, attendants take a special silver hammer and knock on his head a few time to "make sure he his dead". I remember this curious custom being explained in the news when Pope John XXIII died. I always assumed the custom was the inspiration for the song. I imagined the Beatles, McCartney it turns out, had been amused by it and decided to use it. Is it plausible? If it is, it is worth mentioning in the Maxwell Silver Hammer section.

Unless it can be verified in a reliable source, then no, it should not be mentioned. See WP:OR. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 17:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Album art speculation

The album art section is missing discussion of popular theories about the supposed symbolism of the cover art. —howcheng {chat} 06:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The Last Memento Of The Beatles

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

Rowan Ayers is an interesting figure, but there is a paucity of (reliable) information on him. Rowan Ayres [1] may be the same person. Looking at what I've found he worked on Line-Up and may have worked on Late Night Line-Up, Points Of View and others. He proabably started out as a journalist, "in Fleet Street" is a bit vague. Rich Farmbrough, 10:37 21 September 2006 (GMT).
Rowan Ayers was, if memory serves, the editor of Late Night Lineup, which was a programme broadcast almost every night on BBC2. It was usually live. The album was certainly previewed on the show as I remember watching it. It was accompanied by animations and dancers (I remember a girl dancing to 'Something'). There should be a reference in the appropriate issue of the Radio Times. Delverie (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The Cover Photo

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

Ringo represents the minister, actually.

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

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

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

It could be "profetic"? Unlikely, whatever that is. HM211980 (talk) 01:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)HM211980

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

There is plenty of evidence on the cover to suggest Paul McCartney was dead at the time of release. Paul McCartney is walking out of sync with the other Beatles and is the only one barefoot. Also, people claim John Lennon is dressed as a priest, George Harrison as a mourner, and Ringo Starr as a gravedigger. The licence plate of the WV Beatle Beetle on the photograph says "28 IF", supposedly meaning "Paul McCartney would have been 28 years old at the time if he were still alive". I can understand all of this symbolism, but when it comes to the actual question of Paul McCartney being dead, my opinion is that it's all a mistake, pure coincidence. Paul McCartney is still very much alive. JIP | Talk 21:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

"In the scene, the group walk across the street in single file from left to right, with Lennon leading, followed by Starr, McCartney, and Harrison. McCartney is bare-foot." .. so is it not from right to left then? (0:43, Wednesday March 30, 2010) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.226.57 (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

From right to left, that was only on the outtakes (that never got to the cover). Here they are: [2]. BTW, this picture could also be called "Three Beards and a Cig". ;-)--Paracel63 (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC

You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning the name of this band in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Drum Solo

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

I'd call that a "drum break" instead of a solo. Simply playing drums without much accompaniment doesn't constitute a drum solo just like the first few moments of "Come Together" don't constitue a bass solo. One would only really call it a solo if the musician is doing something beyond the normal melody/rhythm of the song, at least in my experience. zellin t / c 12:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and the drum solo in Birthday is something different and "beyond the normal". It is most definitely a solo. Prenigmamann (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Prenigmamann
It is decidedly not a solo for various reasons, not least of which is that the drums are accompanied by a shaken tambourine.Vonbontee (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

So has the solo in "the end" 86.176.187.97 (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Working title

Is this [3] a trustworthy piece of information that the album's working title was "Everest"? I had never heard of this before.--Mycomp (talk) 07:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Everest was a title they were considering before coming up with Abbey Road, although I wouldn't necessarily characterize it as a working title. There are also better sources that can be cited if this were to be added to the article. Piriczki (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Pop and blues

Currently the genres for this album are "Rock, pop, blues", whereas pop and blues are just two secondary genres out of many others which aren't included here. Why are only these two listed out of so many? It should list either all of the sub-genres or none of them, because to just show 2 of them is very misleading and not very encyclopedia-like. And if all of them were listed, there'd by about 10 or 15. Since there are too many subgenres to list, let's just keep the primary genre, Rock. Plus, the genres of the album are already covered in the article ("the album also incorporates genres such as blues, pop"). 86.172.242.55 (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It's been a while since I started this section, and there has been no objections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.5.96 (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I didn't get around to commentating, but I think it is a good call as the guidelines suggest being general.--SabreBD (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Crossing blocked off

Is there any reliable sources stating that gates have been put up on both sides of the crossing to stop people walking across?--Gg53000 (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Abbey Road Crossing Cam. Piriczki (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!--Gg53000 (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Music samples

Just a quick note- remember that you need to have a separate, specific rationale for each use of each sample. At least one sample used in this article does not have a rationale for this article. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Abbey Road/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 03:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)

Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 03:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


1: Well-written

Check for WP:LEAD:

  1. Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  Done
  2. Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  Done
  3. Check for Introductory text:  Done
    • Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO):  Done
    • Check for Relative emphasis:  Done
    • Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN):  Done
      • Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE):  Done
        • Abbey Road is the eleventh studio album released by the English rock band the Beatles.
      • Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE):  Done
      • Check for Proper names and titles:  Done
      • Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None
      • Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None
      • Check for Pronunciation: None
      • Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK):  Done
      • Check for Biographies: NA
      • Check for Organisms: NA
  4. Check for Biographies of living persons: NA
  5. Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  Done
    • Check for Non-English titles:
    • Check for Usage in first sentence:
    • Check for Separate section usage:
  6. Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  Done
  7. Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER): None
 Done

Check for WP:LAYOUT:  Done

  1. Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  Done
    • Check for Headings and sections:  Done
    • Check for Section templates and summary style:  Done
    • Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS):  Done
  2. Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  Done
    • Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER):  Done
    • Check for Works or publications:  Done
    • Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO):  Done
    • Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR):  Done
    • Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER):  Done
    • Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL):  Done
    • Check for Links to sister projects:  Done
    • Check for Navigation templates:  Done
  3. Check for Formatting:  Done
    • Check for Images (WP:LAYIM):  Done
    • Check for Links:  Done
    • Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE):  Done
 Done

Check for WP:WTW:  Done

  1. Check for Words that may introduce bias:  Done
    • Check for Puffery (WP:PEA):  Done
    • Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL):  Done
    • Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL):  Done
    • Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED):  Done
    • Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED):  Done
    • Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY):  Done
  2. Check for Expressions that lack precision:  Done
    • Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM):  Done
    • Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM):  Done
    • Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME):  Done
    • Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None
  3. Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  Done

Check for WP:MOSFICT:  Done

  1. Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  Done
    • Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI):  Done
    • Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT):  Done
 Done


2: Verifiable with no original research

 Done

Check for WP:RS:  Done

  1. Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING): (not contentious)  Done
    • Is it contentious?: No
    • Does the ref indeed support the material?:
  2. Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  Done
    • Who is the author?:
    • Does the author have a Wikipedia article?:
    • What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?:
    • What else has the author published?:
    • Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?:
  3. Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  Done
  4. Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):
 Done

Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:  Done

  1. Check for Direct quotations:  Done
  2. Check for Likely to be challenged:  Done
  3. Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP): NA
 Done
  1. Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  Done
  2. Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  Done
  3. Check for original images (WP:OI):  Done


3: Broad in its coverage

 Done
  1. Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources:
    1. Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS:
    2. Check for Out of scope:
  2. Check for The range of material that belongs in the article:
    1. Check for All material that is notable is covered:
    2. Check for All material that is referenced is covered:
    3. Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered:
    4. Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge:
    5. Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):
b. Focused:
 Done
  1. Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH):
  2. Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):


4: Neutral

 Done

4. Fair representation without bias:  Done

  1. Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  Done
  2. Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  Done
  3. Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  Done
  4. Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  Done
  5. Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  Done
  6. Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  Done
  7. Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  Done
  8. Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  Done
  9. Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  Done
  10. Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  Done
  11. Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  Done
  12. Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI): None
  13. Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV): None


5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images  Done (NFC with a valid FUR) (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license) (Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license) (PD)

Images:
 Done

6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  Done

  1. Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  Done
  2. Check for copyright status:  Done
  3. Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  Done
  4. Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):  Done

6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  Done

  1. Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  Done
  2. Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  Done
  3. Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  Done


I'm glad to see your work here. As per the above checklist, I do have some insights that I think will be useful in improving the article:

  • "It is their last recorded album, although Let It Be was the last album released before the band's dissolution in 1970." (it’s not clear. Which one is the last Abbey Road or Let It Be? )
That's a can of worms alright! To keep it simple I have stated that Abbey Road was the last album the group started recording (22 February 1969), but Let It Be was the last one to be finished (cf. MacDonald p. 322 noting that the backing track to "I Me Mine" was recorded on 4 January 1970). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • "Although it was an immediate commercial success, it received mixed reviews from music critics who found its music inauthentic and criticized the production's artificial effects." (or "Although it was an immediate commercial success, the album received mixed reviews because the critics found its music inauthentic and also criticized it’s artificial effects."?)
I've split this into two sentences. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • "Since its initial reception, however the album has been viewed by many critics as the Beatles' greatest work and is ranked by several publications as one of the greatest albums of all time." (Can you rephrase it to boost the flow? I think a comma is missing after however. Can you use active voice for "has been viewed by many critics" and "is ranked by several publications"?)
Changed to "By contrast, critics today view the album as one of the Beatles' best and rank it as one of the greatest albums of all time" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • "The album's cover … " (better "The cover of the album …")
Do you mean "The album's cover" is better than "The cover of the album" (which matches your suggestion of passive voice above). It appears to already read as such. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Are you sure you want to link "zebra crossing" in the lead? It’s pretty common.
In the UK, perhaps, but in the US (where the album was very successful), they call this a crosswalk. This is a British album by a British band, so we use British English, but we can't assume all Americans instantly know what a zebra crossing is. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Do you want to clearly differentiate between the contemporary and the retrospective reception in the third paragraph of the lead?
Now it's been copyedited down to less space, I think it's less of an issue. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the sentence "At one point, according to Beatles author Ian MacDonald, after McCartney declined to attend a recording session due to an acrimonious argument, Lennon visited his house, climbed over the garden wall, verbally assaulted him and smashed a picture he had previously given McCartney." can be broken into simpler sentences to make it easier to follow. ("acrimonious argument" or simply argument? Argument with Lennon? It’s not clear. Can you a bit neutralize it? acrimonious, assaulted, smashed, bitter are too colourful or is it the position of the source?)
I've chopped down this sentence a lot. It's too much information (the assault is mentioned in MacDonald but only as a footnote). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the sentence "Halfway through recording, at the end of June, Lennon and Ono were involved in a car accident, and after a doctor had advised Ono to stay in bed, one was installed in the studio so she could supervise the recording process." can be more clear.
See above Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • "Thus, though the bulk of Let It Be was recorded prior to Abbey Road, the latter was released first, and Abbey Road was the last album properly started by the Beatles before they disbanded." (Can you make it more clear?)
Reworded this. It was quite waffly. MacDonald p322 specifies clearly that the 4 January 1970 date was to clean up work on the January 1969 material. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the sentence "Lennon was on hiatus from the group and working with the Plastic Ono Band during the September 1969 lead-up to Abbey Road's release, because the group had rejected his song "Cold Turkey"[16] which was effectively the first official sign of the Beatles' impending dissolution." can be broken into simpler sentences to make it easier to follow.
Agreed. I've removed the sentence about "the first official sign of the Beatles' impending dissolution" because received wisdom as documented by sources is that following the rooftop concert, the general public had no real idea that a split was imminent and hence why the Daily Mirror piece on 10 April 1970 claiming McCartney had quit was major international news. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. Ritchie333, please feel free to strike out any recommendation you think will not help in improving the article. All the best, --Seabuckthorn ♥ 22:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


Thanks, Ritchie333, very much for your diligence, care and precision in writing such great articles. Promoting the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 23:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

English

Hi, given that it is a British band, surely the article should use British English? Thanks, Matty.007 17:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It certainly should. I'd be interested to know what isn't in the article, as I have read it from top to bottom several times recently to check it was ready for GA. If there are typos, be bold and fix them! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

FAC stuff

Right, let's see if we can get a Beatles album all the way to the best quality we can. GabeMc and evanh2008, what do you think? I've done bits of trimming over the last month or so, and Evan's had a look too. Gabe's a bit of an albums-to-FAC copyediting expert, so I'll let him have a look, unless he wants to do Sgt Pepper first. Any other thoughts? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I won't be able to contribute anything substantial here until after Pepper gets promoted to FA. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I am not interested in working on this article at this time. Good luck! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Vocal credit on "Because"

There is no specific lead vocal credit on this song. MacDonald's book, on page 320 (where I sourced it from) says : "Lennon - vocal, guitar; McCartney - vocal, bass; Harrison - vocal, moog synthesizer; George Martin - harpsichord". That's it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Best album?

When reading this article, I came across this sentence, "Many critics have since cited Abbey Road as the Beatles' greatest album." However, the only cited source to back up this statement pretty much says the same thing without backing it up with any sources/evidence. Isn't this giving undue weight to one source? I mean, I have seen plenty of magazines rank Beatles albums such as Rubber Soul, Revolver, and Sgt. Pepper above Abbey Road. Plus, would this be an example of weasel wording? I am confused and would like some clarification. Thanks! Johnny338 (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Weasel wording involves the use of one source's opinion ("[source so-and-so] said this is the best") to cite a sentence that gives the impression of a widespread opinion ("it has since been viewed as the best"). Of course the source cited should say the same thing, otherwise it wouldn't be verifying it, right? In any case, "many critics" having done so doesn't mean many critics haven't done the same for those other albums. It would be weasel wording if the source in question was used to cite "most critics" or w.e. Dan56 (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification! However, I am confused as to why this one source is being used for such a controversial view. Who are these "many critics"? How many critics constitutes "many"? I wouldn't have a problem with this sentence except the source doesn't verify its claim. Perhaps a better sentence would be "Many critics have since cited Abbey Road as one of the Beatles' greatest albums"? Or perhaps, "Many critics have since cited Abbey Road as one of the greatest albums of all time"? It still seems to me that undue weight is being given to this one source. Or maybe I'm wrong? Johnny338 (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, the burden is on Wikipedia to verify its claims, not the sources. If there is a better source that holds a different opinion as to the consensus among critics on where Abbey Road stands in the Beatles' best albums, then it's controversial IMO. Otherwise, there's no source saying something different about this topic. Dan56 (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! That clarifies everything! I'm still somewhat bothered by the claim, but I'll leave it alone unless I can find a source that says otherwise. Cheers! Johnny338 (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Genres

While we're all here, I spotted another change to "genres" in the infobox and my heart sank. We went through all this with the White Album just the other week, so can I get a quick show of hands for just having "rock" in the infobox here? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The way it is cited and phrased in the lead is a bit misleading, as the source cited says that certain "instrument figures" on "several tracks" give the album a "progressive rock touch" ([4]). A "touch" doesn't imply it's one of the album's genres. Dan56 (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Dan56. This album is best described as simply rock. MaximumEdison (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Agree: Rock only. Radiopathy •talk• 05:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

CD Universe

I saw this change a day or two back, and at first look it seemed correct – 5 stars at the top of the link, not 4 as given in the article. Of course the 5-star rating is from CD Universe customer reviews, and not from the 1970 Down Beat album reviewer. But it raises the question: is CD Universe a reliable source for reproducing this sort of information? (And also, shouldn't the citation make it clear that this information is published in a CD Universe listing, and not say that it's from a magazine review? Which is why I think anyone might see the 5 stars on the page and move to correct the rating in this article.)

Personally, I'd like it to be acceptable to use product info from a site like this as a source for professional reviewer ratings – it'll save me having to track down a lot of old, old magazines. But CD Universe is an online retailer, so how does that work? Put it another way, take a site like Acclaimed Music. Not that it appears to be offering anything else but information, but if something reproduced on CD Universe is considered reliable, can we also take details offered at Acclaimed (where album links from each year include appearances in critics' "best albums" lists and some reviewer ratings) and include them in Wikipedia articles? JG66 (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Since the Down Beat review being cited is a print source with an issue/date for people to locate it, the external link is just a courtesy and not really even necessary to include. The information for the review snippets I'm assuming is from Muze, not the retailer; the copyright at the bottom of the product page reads: "© 1996 - 2014 CD Universe; Portions copyright 1948 - 2014 Muze Inc." A similar product page at hmv shows Muze in the copyright as well and includes the same "Industry reviews" ([5]). So if the question is whether Muze is a reliable source, I think it is, but print sources don't require external links if there is enough information included for people to locate the actual copy themselves, such as issue number or date of publication. Also, the recent change from four to five stars is one of many I'm assuming is by fans or others who take issue with Down Beat's score, rather than them checking the source and mistakenly using the customer reviews average rating. Dan56 (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Dan's right. Frequently I've found the best sources are print, not web, and we put convenience links in because the print sources can be cumbersome and difficult to find. Down Beat is definitely a reliable source, so the score should be included. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay ... I'd agree that Muze is a reliable source in itself, but even with the stated "Portions copyright 1948 - 2014 Muze Inc.", this is a CD Universe listing, and there's no way of telling what info there comes from Muze. It's not as if there's a box headed "Product description supplied by Muze". As I say, I'm not against citing to these listings, but I can well imagine it being an issue for other editors. I just wonder if it might be an idea to establish such citations as being reliable – Muze via CD Universe and HMV – at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. JG66 (talk) 04:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I think by process of elimination, or in other words, the fact that the magazine review snippets are present at sites that both credit Muze, it's safe to say Muze is responsible for that content. But this BestBuy product page offers solid proof of that instead--click on "Editorial reviews", and it shows the same review snippets under the heading "Abbey Road [2009 Remaster] [ECD] [Digipak]: MUZE Review". Dan56 (talk) 04:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
"I think by process of elimination ..." – quite, and I don't need any persuading that it's sound, personally. But I would be anticipating problems from reviewers and/or other editors. So all I'm saying is it might be good, for all album articles on Wikipedia, to have it set in stone – the likes of CD Universe, HMV and BestBuy's product info being RS through Muze's input – and perhaps expand the page for Muze also. JG66 (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes we get bogged down in whether a source is reliable or not, and I think what often gets overlooked is facts are what reliable sources point to. So the answer to "is 'x' a reliable source" should always be "depends on the fact". In this case, we are citing a professional reviewer's opinion of the album - the only possible contention for reliability is if the source falsely attributes the reviewer or otherwise states a false opinion. I don't think that's likely, and even if it were, its significance in the article (in a section that is devoted to opinions) is minimal. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Well said, agreed. Dan56 (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Abbey Road music style

Has anyone else noticed that most of the songs on this album have quite a distinct drum beat and style that distinguishes them from most non-Abbey Road session Beatles songs? I know that it probably isn't worth mentioning in the article, but still. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 06:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a cursory mention of this under Ian MacDonald's opinion of the album, plus the information about the transistor based desks would suggest this too. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay! :) -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 00:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

This album versus the Red Hot Chili Peppers The Abbey Road E.P.

I notice there is a dispute between Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk · contribs) and Horatio Snickers (talk · contribs) regarding the sentence "though the musical content is different". Now, my view is simple : you do not need to cite the sky is blue. And indeed, the source supplied, a simple AllMusic track listing of the RHCP EP will show you that the musical content is different. Does the EP have "You Never Give Me Your Money on it?" No. Does it have "I Want You (She's So Heavy)"? No, it doesn't. It is not original research to state that the musical content is different, and the only conceivable way I can think this would be true is if the content in one or more of these records was unknown or contentious. But it isn't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

We're talking about a pop rock band from the 60's vs. a funk/rock/metal band from today, why is the phrase present at all? Do we need to inform the reader that the music of two different bands is...different? Tarc (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I took the view that a casual reader unfamiliar with either or both records may assume the EP was a tribute album, particularly since a number of these are mentioned elsewhere in the article (eg: McLemore Avenue, The Other Side of Abbey Road). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I think it may be so obvious as not to need stating at all. Curious readers can easily click through to the other article and inspect the track list for themselves. --John (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Curious readers well get a nice surprise or a nasty shock when they see four guys stark naked aside from socks! Anyway, I can't get excited about six words (well I can, but these words don't include "won", "lottery" and "jackpot") so if consensus is for it to go, that's cool. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Isn't life dull without the occasional bit of spice?! Incidentally I am indebted to both of you for pointing out the existence of this record whose existence I was previously unaware of. I will be listening to it in the next few days and I may let you know how I get on. Thank you. --John (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
It's been a while since I listened to it, but the EP's take on "Fire" is so fast that it will set a speed camera off. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I suppose the content is, pedantically, original research per the policy's definition, but I'd say the it's fine per WP:IAR, WP:BLUE and even just common sense. Putting the reference after the text might be a bit misleading but I suppose some people might prefer it stylistically. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 22:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Succession box

This article seems to be missing the succession boxes. Only Beatles album I've found like that thusfar, and I've just gone through the U.S. releases chronologically. - Bossanoven (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

That's because the sequence (being studio albums of original content) is the same in the UK and the US. Yellow Submarine (album) is another one, and so is Let It Be, but that's not a GA like the other two, so I'd take that with a pinch of salt. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Perhaps this needs clarification. I am referring to the chart succession boxes (being that this was number one) that appear at the bottom of pages of relevant articles. Both of the other titles you mention retain said boxes. - Bossanoven (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Medley

"It [Because] is sometimes considered part of the suite". The trouble is, there are huge amounts of Beatles books out there and everyone's got their favourite. Mine is Revolution in the Head (that ought to be obvious by now) which states categorically that "You Never Give Me Your Money" was always intended to be the opening number (which is why "Carry That Weight" reprises the themes before leading into "The End"). Unless the source given is a newer interview with McCartney that says "well it was actually", then I think this is maybe applying undue weight for mere speculation. Your thoughts, please. I'll have a look round for draft track sheets, which should give us a better idea. Paging @JG66:. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Every Beatles recording/mixing session is well documented by Mark Lewisohn in The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions. Based on that documentation it is very clear that from the earliest rough mix to the final mix the medley consisted of "You Never Give Me Your Money" to "The End". Also, "Because" was not recorded until after McCartney had begun assembling the medley. Piriczki (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, Lewisohn p.183-4 shows the rough mix of the medley put together on 30 July, with the first backing track to "Because" starting on 1 August. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply. Good point. I did not factor in WP:DUE when adding the information about "Because". I agree it should not be listed as part of the medley based on this. However, since there is a source, is there any where/way this opinion can be listed? In other words, does there have to be something definite or can the article simply say something like: "On rare occasions, 'Because' is considered part of the medley"? Thank you. Geeky Randy (talk) 02:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
The source you cited doesn't support that statement. The authors only included "Because" as well as "Her Majesty" for the purpose of discussion. The fact is it was not part of the medley. Piriczki (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
That's right. (I never got the ping, btw, just happened to see some activity here.) Part of the reason "Because" might be considered part of the medley is that it seems more like a musical piece than a song (unlike "Here Comes the Sun") – that and the way it's sequenced, of course. But "Because" was never part of the Abbey Road medley: fact. We don't have a source to support any such statement, but if one can be found, saying that some listeners do take the start of medley to be Lennon's track, I agree it might be worth including. JG66 (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Noted. Thank you. Geeky Randy (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Who is that bloke on the front cover?

A dispute has arisen as to who is the man walking down the street on the front cover. The article says, via a source to TC Palm that it was Paul Cole but Bobthemod disagrees, citing personal evidence, says its Leonard Emery. Does anyone else have any evidence one way or the other? I thought about not mentioning any name at all, but this is one of the most famous album covers in history, so that might not be suitable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

As most of us know, claims of personal knowledge without a reliable source to back it up is generally worthless on Wikipedia. Since the identity of Cole is reliably sourced, it should stay unless there is compelling evidence provided to the contrary. Sundayclose (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Everest (cigarette)

By "POV" I mean the due weight of the working title is lop-sided. I have added the information as a one-sentence footnote, citing MacDonald, which gives a better balance overall as to its significance when compared to the rest of the album. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Ritchie333, I still don't get it, how is adding factual information (that too as per their official website) be considered for due weight? I did not add any comments / opinions from my side. Please help me understand this. As far as "working title" is concerned, it is a fact that the working title of the album was "Everest". Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I think describing Everest as a working title is overstating it. From various interviews it sounds more like it was one of several ideas for a title that were considered and rejected as the album neared completion. It might be worth mentioning in a sentence or two in the Album Cover section but not a whole section in itself. Piriczki (talk) 13:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Piriczki, actually the words "working title" was used in one of the secondary sources and has not been coined by me. The official website of The Beatles clearly states (and I quote) "While we were in the studio, our engineer Geoff Emerick always used to smoke cigarettes called Everest, so the album was going to be called Everest....." unquote. So this was clearly the choice before Paul McCartney decided to go out on the road. To my judgement, there is nothing wrong in sharing this bit of information which is available from variable, independent, primary and secondary sources. As you have suggested, I will chop the old narration and mention it under the "Album Cover section". Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that having an entire section on this issue is undue weight and prefer a one-sentence mention. Considering how iconic the Abbey Road cover is, this blip of information should not dominate the section. Sundayclose (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Hey Sundayclose, saw your revert on the page. Being a personal fan of The Beatles; especially this album - I agree with you about the iconic status. However, what I have mentioned is also mentioned on their website (see this). Both primary and secondary sources are mentioned and nothing has been quoted out of context. I would also like to point out that naming the album and shooting the cover photo is also a part of the history and must be mentioned. Your thoughts please. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you have already pointed out what's on their website. That still doesn't merit more than a footnote or sentence. There's lots of information about the album on their website. This is a bit of a content dispute, so the usual process is to see if you get more support here. No need to state your points here more than once or to re-add the information. BTW, I'm also a huge fan of The Beatles; lots of people are. Sundayclose (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
If I might propose a middle ground: I think the information about the Abbey Road title and album cover design having been the result of a snap decision to go outside and take a photo one day during production is quite interesting, and is precisely the sort of information I expect to read in an article like this. (I'm a Beatles fan as well, though this isn't my favorite of their albums.) The bit of trivia that the original working title of the album was Everest, and that that name came not directly from the mountain but via a cigarette brand, is also interesting, and I'm not sure relegating it to a footnote is necessary to prevent giving the fact undue weight. Certainly there shouldn't be more than one or at most two sentences (one about where the name came from, one about why the title was dropped) mentioning "Everest", though. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 16:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
If we want to add some weight to it, they were serious enough about the title that there was brief talk of actually flying to Mt. Everest for the cover shoot. That's significant as the actual cover photo and subsequent naming were on the spot (because no one could be bothered to actually go anywhere to complete the task of photographing a cover). Two sentences should do it. It's trivia but sourced and kind of interesting trivia. freshacconci talk to me 17:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with GrammarFascist and Freshacconci. A dedicated section, as originally added, was excessive, but an end note underplays it. The point might seem relatively trivial; on the other hand, the title they did settle on resulted in EMI Studios being officially renamed in 1970, so the album-title issue is worth some extra discussion, imo. JG66 (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I suggest one very well constructed sentence (not a footnote) with mention of the cigarette brand inspiration and thought of flying to Everest. If it's worded properly it shouldn't require more than a sentence. In fact, I think moving the current footnote to the text of the article will work. Sundayclose (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Hello everyone, I am the one who originally wrote that text. I went by the discussion with Piriczki and inserted shortened version of the text (which was later reverted), I will leave it to the editors here to amend it (as deemed fit) and add it back to the article. Additionally (and unrelated topic), can someone also give reference number 185 a look? It gives an error. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Broken reference 185

About that broken reference Arun Kumar SINGH mentioned... I went in to try to fix it, and had a devil of a time finding where the references were in the article; they're part of a table in the Certifications section. Here's the relevant Wikimarkup:

{{Certification Table Entry|region=France|type=album|artist=The Beatles|title=Abbey Road|award=Gold|relyear=1969|certyear=1977|recent=false|salesref=<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.infodisc.fr/CDCertif_O.php?debut=167|title=Les Albums Or :|publisher=Infodisc.fr|language=French|accessdate=20 August 2012|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20140421054242/http://www.infodisc.fr/CDCertif_O.php?debut=167|archivedate=21 April 2014}}</ref>|salesamount=379,800}}
{{Certification Table Entry|region=France|type=album|artist=The Beatles|title=Abbey Road|award=Gold|relyear=2009|certyear=2011|note=2009 remaster|autocat=yes}}

I couldn't see any way to fix the broken reference other than removing the 2009 remaster from the table entirely, but I wasn't sure that was the best solution. On the other hand, according to the referenced source itself, only the original release of Abbey Road was une album or. I'm entirely unfamiliar with both the Certification Table template and the cited website, though, so I'll let someone else take things from here. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 00:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Photo too small.

Can we replace the cover photo with a larger version? Is that against the rules? Does it have to be a small image? --RThompson82 (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It's standard size for Wikipedia's use of a copyrighted album cover image. Any larger and there could be copyright problems. See WP:Non-free use rationale guideline. Sundayclose (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Legacy

Interesting example of interior design inspired by the album cover

I added this photograph of some pub toilets to the article because it's an interesting addition to legacy aspect of the album - there's no existing mention, in the article, of interior design being influenced by the album. Sundayclose reverted the edit, citing POV, and wants me to establish consensus before reinserting it. How do other editors feel about its inclusion?Obscurasky (talk) 07:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I feel that the notion that the album cover influenced interior design based on one bathroom in a bar is ridiculous. Piriczki (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
There is no reason that "interior design" needs to be singled out as a criterion for inclusion from among thousands of images inspired by the Abbey Road image. Why not "cartoon characters" in an image inspired by AR? Or "clothing" inspired by AR? The list could go on. Selection of any of these, including "interior design", is the preference of the editor who suggests it, thus is POV and requires consensus. My opinion is that any of these, including "interior design" (especially a toilet), is unencyclopedic. Most articles related to Beatles albums are of very good quality; this image would weaken the article's quality. Sundayclose (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Piriczki, it would indeed be ridiculous to believe that notion; but that really isn't what the image conveys (or what I have suggested). Sundayclose, the POV thing really just doesn't hold water, at least not in the narrow way you're defining it here. Your point, that there is 'no reason that "interior design" needs to be singled out as a criterion for inclusion' is fair enough, but the urinal picture adds an interesting, and somewhat unusual, dimension to the legacy section. Certainly more so than cartoons, clothing, etc, would.Obscurasky (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
The point about POV, Obscurasky, is that it is your opinion that the image of a urinal is interesting, and that is exactly what POV is: everyone doesn't agree with your opinion, and so far there certainly isn't anyone here that agrees. So that's why it needs consensus. It also is your opinion that images in the article need to be "unusual" and that cartoons and clothing are not more interesting than urinals. So POV holds lots of water. And please explain how the image doesn't convey "the notion that the album cover influenced interior design based on one bathroom in a bar." You have specifically emphasized "interior design", and the image is from a bathroom in a bar. Piriczki has described it quite accurately, and I see nothing in your explanation that refutes it. You think it's "interesting"; in another context I might agree that the image is interesting (such as weirdimages.com), but in a well-written, encyclopedic article about a Beatles album, an image of urinals in a bar has no place. Sundayclose (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Label

The label for this album is Apple Records and no reliable source says otherwise. Discuss. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I have tried twice to change a link to Billboard (a large outdoor advertising structure) to a piped link to Billboard (magazine), which publishes the Billboard 200 chart cited in reference 161. However, Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) has reverted the edit twice and asked me to discuss it here. Your help would be appreciated. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, your edit involved more than changing the "Billboard" link, if Ritchie333 wants to comment on those changes. Sundayclose (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
The billboard dab is fine, and I've changed that back (I would have changed it sooner but real life intervened). The other stuff, well I'm not going to revert again as it's a silly thing to edit-war over, so if you really really want {{main article}} instead of {{main}}, it's not really important one way or the other, is it? I have some Kelly's Eton Mess so I am now suitably chilled :-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: I really wanted the bot to fix the Billboard link - the rest is just AWB general fixes. Feel free to discuss the template replacement at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser. GoingBatty (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

"You Never Give Me Your Money"

Regarding "You Never Give Me Your Money", in his biography Paul McCartney: Many Years from Now McCartney says "This was me directly lambasting Allen Klein's attitude to us: no money, just funny paper, all promises and it never works out. It's basically a song about no faith in the person..." In a 1996 interview in Mojo, McCartney said:

The message with 'You Never Give Me Your Money' was more to Allen Klein: "You only give me your funny paper." It wasn't particularly to the other members of the band. I didn't really feel like they were to blame. We were kind of all in it together, and it wasn't really 'til Allen Klein came in that we got really divisive and started getting our own lawyers and stuff. 'Cos he divided us. It was basically him that divided us. He got John and Yoko off in one corner and he got a meeting with them through Derek Taylor, and said, "Here's what I wanna do." And John arrived the next day and said, "Right, this guy now represents me." At which point George and Ringo said, "Oh well, I suppose he represents us too, then." They just fell in with it. At which point I said, "Like hell it is, I'm not going to be represented..."

Why does the article say that it is doubtful that the song is about Klein? Piriczki (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The trouble with Barry Miles' book is that I feel it's notoriously POV and shouldn't be used much, as it seems to almost be rewriting history to give it more of a pro-McCartney perspective. Hence why I felt it was important to have something that counteracted it and made it less POVish. McDonald also reckons McCartney's memories of the Abbey Road sessions are rose-tinted, and he's forgotten the acrimonious bits. JG66, any thoughts? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Both of the above are direct quotes from the author of the song. Piriczki (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
It's a tough one. Miles' book (well, lets face it: McCartney's book) is very POV – "notorious" is the word I'd use too. But then MacDonald's perspective is often very blinkered, because he's so opinionated and appears to determine facts based on his opinions. I guess if the composer of a song says that it's about something or someone in particular, then that should be good enough. But with McCartney, it often strikes me he alters his story based on what other people have written about the song.
Don't know what to suggest. What's also confusing in this instance, imo, is that it's only the opening two lines that are about or directed at Klein. Everything else, it seems, is McCartney addressing the other Beatles, particularly Lennon. That's my interpretation, sure, but I have read somewhere that the song also addresses the loss of unity within the band – a wistful look back at the Beatles' early years, etc. ("Out of college, money spent … Oh, that magic feeling"). JG66 (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The author of a song is not the best source, per WP:POV and WP:OR. And the Beatles are notoriously unreliable when it comes to who-wrote-what and who-played-on-what. The best course of action would be to mention both versions: Paul's insistence on Klein being the subject and MacDonald's "however". freshacconci talk to me 19:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I'll admit that complaining about Miles' POV, then citing MacDonald is the pot calling the kettle black, but in this specific instance, what he says is believable, as we tend to only remember the nice bits in life and blot out the unpleasant bits. After all, straight after the album was recorded he hid in Scotland with Linda and children to have a break from it all. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Chris Thomas

There seems to be a slow-burning edit war about Chris Thomas being credited as producer in additional to George Martin. What sources have people got for this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Lewisohn's The Beatles: Recording Sessions lists Glyn Johns or Chris Thomas as producer on some sessions where George Martin was absent, although he also says their roles were unclear. Neither were ever given producers' credit on any albums so that would be a good indication of what their role was, or wasn't. Piriczki (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
MacDonald lists a few of the songs with Thomas and/or Johns credited as producers, and plenty of the White Album songs with only Thomas (no Martin) as the producer. I mention that because the same IP user added Thomas at the White Album. The more I read about the Beatles, the more it amazes me that Martin retained the sole producer's credit for almost their entire career – but he did, so I guess we have to stick with that in the infobox.
The thing I find hard to reconcile, though, is the way we then handle the categories (Albums produced by …) If we were to stick to the official credits, then there should be no Category:Albums produced by [member of the Beatles] listed for Abbey Road, nor for Thomas and Johns. In the same way, Revolver and Sgt. Pepper should not be included in Category:Albums arranged by Paul McCartney and Category:Albums conducted by Paul McCartney, because McCartney didn't receive an official credit for those roles. But, since it seems that categories have been allowed to follow sources, not credits, we end up with a category where Abbey Road is listed as an album that Chris Thomas produced, yet a reader comes to this article and the infobox tells them that the album was produced by George Martin only. JG66 (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
That's pretty much my line of thinking. Perhaps we ought to stick this in a footnote somewhere, that some sources consider Thomas a de facto but not officially credited producer. Mind you, Lewisohn's book shows pictures of McCartney actively working the desk when mixing Abbey Road and by this point had a pretty good idea of who should play what and when (sometimes to the point of irritating everyone in earshot, mind you), which in some eyes could count as "production" as well. Indeed, "Maybe I'm Amazed" sounds like an Abbey Road out-take, and it's pretty obvious where the production on that should be credited to. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, the point is, as Martin once said, all the Beatles had become really good producers. From 1965 onwards, in his words, he was more a "facilitator", and on the White Album, an executive producer. So yes, Thomas stepped in on the White Album uncertain of his role, but he did end up producing, certainly on Lennon and Harrison's songs, and he and Ken Scott got an amazing amount done on that album. (I read in Tim Riley's Lennon bio that Lennon wanted to see Thomas credited.) Anyway, I think the end note idea is probably a good one, here and at the White Album. As you know, this has become something of a perennial issue. JG66 (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

How do we know when the "medley" starts and ends?

This is not distinguished on the album's liner notes, is it? I've seen Walter Everett propose that "Because" marks the beginning of the medley for the way that it ends with D minor, which may have been a deliberately chosen as a cadence for the opening A minor chords of "You Never Give Me Your Money". I'm not sure if anyone's ever pointed out, but I've always taken "Sun King" as an extension of "Here Comes the Sun". And why wouldn't "Her Majesty" be included?

All the more reason that the sections should be divided by "side one" and "side two", IMO.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Haven't we had this discussion before? I'll need to get in front of my books, but I am absolutely certain that MacDonald says the medley was intended to start with "You Never Give Me Your Money" and the middle 8 and end in "Carry that Weight" was deliberately written as a coda to the melodies heard at the start. Indeed, the running order of the LP was a very last-minute affair; originally the closing track was going to be "I Want You - She's So Heavy". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry you're right, I missed #Medley somehow.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Yes, we have discussed this before; scroll up to see it. The current medley lineup is cited to Lewisohn, which can be considered a very reliable source. There are so many people who claim to have knowledge of what went on with The Beatles, so we have to sift out which sources are most likely to actually know. I say leave it like it is. Sundayclose (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
"leave it like it is" - you missed a sure fire pun there :-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Subheaders

Does anyone actually oppose this configuration?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, the established individual song section has had long-standing, probably because each song is independently notable. That's pretty unusual for an LP. Nobody else has ever complained about in the last 5 years, as far as I know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - I see no reason to change what has worked well for a long time. As Ritchie333 points out, it's rare for every song to be independently notable. Sundayclose (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

It makes for an unnecessarily long, list-like ToC. Almost every 1965–70 Beatles song is independently notable, and yet this is the only article of their entire discography with this arrangement. There isn't actually much said about the songs save for one or two trivial factoids. This is a case of "the sum of the parts" not being greater than "the whole". Plus, the layout doesn't look good on 1080p+ resolutions, which are more commonplace than they were five years ago.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Hey @Ritchie333: how about adding the TOC limit template? That way, the song subheadings will appear in the text, but not in the Table of Contents. I'm experimenting with same over at Revolver – here – problem is, I can't work out where to put the template without the ToC appearing above the Lead paras … But that's just me being inept. JG66 (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I would add that perhaps the hat notes (or whatever they're called) should go. I think they look pretty unsightly when there's one after each and every subhead, creating a uniform stacked look each time. JG66 (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
@JG66: Did this stuff get fixed, or did I forget to do it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Ritchie333, no, you ignored me, you b*gger!! No, I left it as is. Just thought that the combination of temp TOC limit and removing the hatnote (is that what they're called?) from under each song heading could be the answer. But if you're fine with things as they are now, and Sundayclose obviously is, then no worries, it's all good. JG66 (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abbey_Road/Archive_2&oldid=1136288222"