Talk:McCartney III

Vinyl tracklisting

Hi - I have a vinyl copy of the album (mine arrived a day early) and the tracks are in in a different sequence to the CD. Slidin' is track 6, Deep Deep Feeling is track 7. This is presumably so it breaks better over the sides - Deep Deep Feeling opens side two. I suggest the vinyl edition is listed this way, with the break between sides noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EDRobson (talk • contribs) 14:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect album cover image

Hi I believe the photo being used on this page isn't the album cover. If you check the iTunes pre-order, press coverage, and his store they all use a more tightly cropped image. Hundopundo (talk) 21:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Recordings on the album made before 2020

An official interview with Paul McCartney has been released mentioning the fact that 'When Winter Comes' is an unreleased outtake from the 3 September 1992 recording session with George Martin that produced 'Calico Skies' and 'Great Day' off of Flaming Pie. I have attempted to add this information to the article, but it has been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoraniusCupilily (talk • contribs) 01:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I believe this is correct. The source doesn't mention the year 1992 however, but if you look in the booklet of the Flaming Pie album, the exact recording date for the two other songs mentioned above is stated there (3 September 1992). Kontrapunktus (talk) 10:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Track listing format

Wild.Reputation: As required before filing a report at AN/EW, first a discussion should be attempted at the article's talk page. I've repeatedly told you when reverting your re-formatting of the track listing that the nearest thing we have to an album style guide favours a straight, numerical track listing. Per MOS:ALBUM#Track listing:

A track listing should generally be formatted as a numbered list ... In more complicated situations, a table or the

Track list printed on the Pretty in Pink soundtrack album, listing five songs by various artists.

In the field of sound recording and reproduction, a track listing (also called a track list or tracklist) is a list created in connection with a recorded medium to indicate the contents of that medium and their order. The most typical usage of a track listing is for songs or other discrete segments on an album.

Material (music or sounds) is stored on an album in sections termed tracks, normally 10 to 12 tracks on a typical full-length album, with a slight pause engineered to occur between them. A music track (often simply referred to as a track) is an individual song or instrumental recording. The term is particularly associated with popular music where separate tracks are known as album tracks; the term is also used for other formats such as EPs and singles. When vinyl records were the primary medium for audio recordings a track could be identified visually from the grooves and many album covers or sleeves included numbers for the tracks on each side. On a compact disc the track number is indexed so that a player can jump straight to the start of any track. On digital music stores such as iTunes the term song is often used interchangeably with track regardless of whether there is any vocal content.

A track that has the same name as the album is called a title track, although an album may instead have a title that is different from the titles of any songs on the album.

History

The earliest medium for recorded music was phonograph records for home use, made of an abrasive (and therefore noisy) shellac compound, employing a large groove, and playing at approximately 78 revolutions per minute (rpm), limiting the playing time of a 12-inch diameter record to less than five minutes per side. Starting in 1926, the Edison Records company experimented with issuing Edison Disc Records in long play (or LP record) format of 24 minutes per side. The system and playback system (still mostly wind-up phonographs) proved unreliable and was a commercial failure. In September 1931, RCA Victor launched the first commercially available vinyl long-playing record, marketed as "Program-Transcription" records. These revolutionary discs were designed for playback at 33+1⁄3 rpm and pressed on a 30 cm diameter flexible plastic disc, with a duration of about ten minutes playing time per side. Victor's early introduction of a long-playing record was a commercial failure for several reasons including the lack of affordable, consumer playback equipment and consumer rejection during the Great Depression.

The 10-inch discs, mostly used for popular and light classical music, were normally pressed in shellac, but 12-inch discs, mostly used for "serious" classical music, were pressed in Victor's new vinyl-based "Victrolac" compound, which provided a much quieter playing surface. These records could hold up to 15 minutes per side. Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, performed by the Philadelphia Orchestra under Leopold Stokowski, was the first 12-inch recording issued. Since classical music tended to be written in longer pieces, albums of this length did not consist of multiple tracks, but of a single piece of music on each side, or split between the sides.

As technology advanced to allow for more than 20 minutes of recording on each side of a record, the Long Play format began to enjoy commercial popularity in the early 1950s. The popularity of the LP ushered in the "Album Era" of English-language popular music, beginning in the late 1950s, as performers took advantage of the longer playing time to create coherent themes or concept albums. Robert Christgau wrote in Christgau's Record Guide: Rock Albums of the Seventies (1981) that the popularity of this format "complicated how we perceive and remember what was once the most evanescent of the arts", observing that "the long-playing record, with its twenty-minute sides and four-to-six compositions/performances per side, suits my habits of concentration perfectly." The development of this format required musicians and record producers to consider the ideal arrangement of the collection of songs to be included in an album, including concepts such as story-telling, presenting a mix of different kinds of songs to avoid repetition, and presenting the best tracks at points in the record that will be most likely to catch the attention of the audience.

Bonus tracks

A bonus track (also known as a bonus cut or just a bonus) is a piece of music which has been included as an extra. This may be done as a marketing promotion, or for other reasons. It is not uncommon to include singles, B-sides, live recordings, and demo recordings as bonus tracks on re-issues of old albums, where those tracks weren't originally included. Online music stores allow buyers to create their own albums by selecting songs themselves; bonus tracks may be included if a customer buys a whole album rather than just one or two songs from the artist. The song is not necessarily free nor is it available as a stand-alone download, adding also to the incentive to buy the complete album. In contrast to hidden tracks, bonus tracks are included on track listings and usually do not have a gap of silence between other album tracks. Bonus tracks on CD or vinyl albums are common in Japan for releases by European and North American artists; since importing international copies of the album can be cheaper than buying a domestically released version, Japanese releases often feature bonus tracks to incentivize domestic purchase.

Hidden tracks

Main article: Hidden track

A hidden track (sometimes called a ghost track, secret track or unlisted track) is a song or a piece of audio that has been placed on a CD, audio cassette, LP record, or other recorded medium, in such a way as to avoid detection by the casual listener. In some cases, the piece of music may simply have been left off the track listing, while in other cases, more elaborate methods are used. In rare cases, a 'hidden track' is actually the result of an error that occurred during the mastering stage production of the recorded media. However, since the rise of digital and streaming services such as iTunes and Spotify in the late 2000s and early 2010s, the inclusion of hidden tracks has declined on studio albums.

It is occasionally unclear whether a piece of music is 'hidden.' For example, "Her Majesty," which is preceded by fourteen seconds of silence, was originally unlisted on The Beatles' Abbey Road but is listed on current versions of the album. That song and others push the definition of the term, causing a lack of consensus on what is considered a hidden track. Alternatively, such things are instead labeled as vague audio experiments, errors, or simply an integral part of an adjacent song on the record.

See also

• Set list

References

template may be a better choice.

This album has one singer, one featured performer, one producer, one writer. As I've said repeatedly, it doesn't get any less complicated than that.

That point overrules any other considerations, but there's also the fact that, back in October, this article's preliminary track listing was a straight list (here, then here), not a template, so the usual approach in matters of style is to follow the original method. In addition, the non-template track listing is consistent with album articles such as McCartney and McCartney II. And you don't seem at all familiar with WP:BRD either.

You wrote in your last edit/revert "There's no such thing as an 'original track'!" I don't know what you're talking about – I never said anything about an "original track".

So, in light of all the above, the track listing should be presented as a numbered list. Why do you disagree? Apart, that is, from your personal preference (eg, here and here). I'm quite happy to take this to WP:AN/EW. JG66 (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

A request to WP:RFPP has led to the page being fully protected, so at least things will settle down for a bit. I agree that a template is unnecessary.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think when the article is unprotected that it should be changed "back". A dispute over this was exactly what got the article fully protected in the first place. As for what we go with, I don't particularly care either way—I generally use the template myself, as it's now seen as somewhat of a standard amongst contemporaneous pop music editors, but I have also restored significant amounts of original numbered lists from newbie users unnecessarily changing them to templates. Here I think it's being misunderstood that a lot of editors, even those who will later add a template when there is a track order, will list tracks announced up until that point with bullet points because the order is not known. That being said, it's a bit more telling that when the "Bird" tracks were announced as the opening and closing tracks were announced, they were presented as a numbered list. Perhaps we should go with that, but I'm not so sure. I don't change lists to templates, and I don't believe, regardless of what a style essay suggests, that we should change templates to lists even if it's "simple". My vote therefore is just leave as is. Ss112 13:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree with that at all. Although in your comment you step both ways, you seem to be saying ultimately that because this issue resulted in FPP, no change should be made.

At the heart of the dispute was another editor's disruptive behaviour and unwillingness to cede to or engage with the idea that a style had been set beforehand, and more importantly that the quasi-style guide stipulates when a template or table might be needed for a track listing. And this album couldn't be further from a complicated situation, however one defines "complicated". (The style essay was downgraded from MOS status last year, from memory, but it was still generated via consensus, way back when. Following the downgrading, some steps were taken to have it recognised as a bona fide style guide, one editor was particularly keen; will add link when I find it.) The same user, Wild.Reputation, displayed the same juvenile behaviour at All Things Must Pass recently – eg, here.

In this article, it's just come down to their personal preference. The idea of the Track listing template becoming the standard option was proposed back in March 2018 and was knocked back (and yes, I was one of the editors doing the knocking). So what, are we saying if an editor's really disruptive, we just bow down, to avoid further disruption?

The only thing that stopped me reporting the user was the stipulation that a discussion should first be held here on the talk page, which I started at 13:24 on 15 December. This was just after Wild.Reputation once again changed the format, at 12:53. Two or more hours pass without W.R responding here, and then Deepfriedokra protects the page. I agree with P-K3 that FPP was probably a good idea, but I think it was always going to be enacted the more W.R continued to disrupt – in other words, the axe came down on the wrong version, because they won't engage with the rationale I put forward, let alone follow WP:BRD.

Further to that, as I've said, a numbered list is consistent with the two previous McCartney albums. JG66 (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

You might see it as "bowing down", I see it as avoiding further disruption, regardless of whom said disruption is from. Personally I don't care much for the "consistency among series of articles" argument, because in most circumstances when users suggest this, the articles inevitably differ on other aspects said users are not concerned by. Regardless, that's getting off-topic. You are right—I did ultimately say we should maintain the status quo (in this case, the way the article was when it was locked)—because there has not been a formal consensus on the matter. One has not been reached yet, even if the other editor concerned has not yet responded. I don't have anything else to say on this. Ss112 15:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 December 2020

Change the Metacritic score to 82 based on 12 reviews. TheDarkKnight180 (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Not in Billboard Charts?

McCartney's new album does not show up at all in the weekly Billboard 200 charts of Dec. 26? How can that be? It was released on Dec. 18. Does anybody now why his new album does not show up in the Billboard 200 album charts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:27C1:A980:68F3:8205:2224:A4A3 (talk) 08:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)