Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

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)} 22:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

attempt to perform some songs from "Revolver"?

Notice this item in "Background" section regarding this album:

>McCartney commented: "We did try performing some songs off [Revolver], but there were so many complicated overdubs we can't do them justice. Now we can record anything we want, and it won't matter. And what we want is to raise the bar a notch, to make our best album ever."

Did anyone go over details about what songs were involved (attempted performance of any songs from "Revolver")? It is noted in their touring, which ended in 1966, that they did no live performance of those songs, to the disappointment of some people. The newest song ever done by the Beatles on tour was Paperback Writer, which along with Rain was the SINGLE recorded at the time the Revolver LP was also recorded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Sgt Pepper - Etlinger reference

I am adding this to the Sgt. Pepper talk page, as Piriczki decided to take it off his/her personal page - it may prove to be useful in possible future conflicts concerning this page and others, particularly the obvious contempt for cultural theory and its concepts (cf. Piriczki's last edit). Best, Zamuse (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, please explain how the addition of the Sarah Etlinger ref. is a "spam". The article can be accessed here: http://www.cairn.info/revue-volume-2011-1-page-253.htm Best, 08:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zamuse (talk • contribs)

For one thing, you did not link to the above mentioned web site in the Sgt. Pepper article, you linked to "volume.revues.org/1305" and Volume!, for which it has been shown you have a conflict of interest (see Conflict of interest noticeboard) and have been blocked for spamming (see Special:Contributions/Vvolume).

Per Wikipedia:Spam, Wikipedia is not a space for the promotion of products, services or web sites. Contribute cited text, not bare links. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. If you have a source to contribute, first contribute some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source. Do not simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts. The References section is for references. A reference directs the reader to a work that the writer(s) referred to while writing the article. The References section of a Wikipedia article is not just a list of related works; it is specifically the list of works used as sources. Therefore, it can never be correct to add a link or reference to References sections if nobody editing the text of the article has actually referred to it.

The so-called "reference" you added does not verify any of the text preceding it and doesn't follow Wikipedia policy on references (see Wikipedia:Citing sources). It also violates the Wikipedia policies Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming, Wikipedia:Spam#Bookspam, Wikipedia:Spam#Citation spam, Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided (4. Links mainly intended to promote a website), Wikipedia:ELNO#Advertising and conflicts of interest and Wikipedia:ELNO#Non-English-language content.

Your claim that this is a "serious academic article" is irrelavent because it doesn't appear to verify any content in the Sgt. Pepper article and it is debatable as to whether the reference is useful, necessary or appropriate. It certainly doesn't appear that the author of this research paper has any qualifications related to the Beatles, music or art history, let alone a recognized authority on any of these subjects. Besides, the paper itself references authors Bill Harry, Ian Inglis, Kenneth Womack and Todd F. Davis, who are considered authoritive sources and are already cited as sources in the Sgt. Pepper article, rendering this research paper redundant as a source. Piriczki (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The link is to the same article : the revues.org version is the permanent link, to the same article. If you read the whole COI, the account hadn't been blocked for spamming, but because of the name. Please, next time, read more carefully before making any such false statements. Zamuse (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't intend to make it a space for the promotion of a product - I added a reference that could seem useful, as the (peer-reviewed) article deals specifically with Sgt Pepper's cover art. But I will improve the contribution, shortly. Zamuse (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

There are dozens of links in the article - you still have a lot of work to do! The "so-called reference", as you write, is once again a peer-reviewed article (actually reviewed by some names quoted on this same page!), published in an academic journal. Better than quite a few refs already present in the Sgt. Pepper wikipedia article… You might want to adopt a less arrogant tone, when commenting papers you haven't read, on topics you may not be expert of?Zamuse (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Not redundant, as it focuses on a specific aspect of the album, the links between the cover, photomontage, Pop Art and so forth. But how would you know? You decided it wasn't meant to be there, before even reading it. Anyway, no big deal,

Best, Zamuse (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I read most of it, but admit I started skimming after "these movements fundamentally engage with problematizing representation and the status quo through the appropriation of mass-mediated images." Piriczki (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Which explains why you prefer and leave Billboard links on the Sgt. Pepper page… good thing you're the watchdog! someone committed to encyclopedic knowledge! Zamuse (talk) 11:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

PS: this section should remain on the page, for use in any further "conflict" around the Sgt. Pepper page. It shows a certain contempt for cultural theory, its "jargon" and so forth. Could prove useful, later on. Thank you for not removing it. One could consider you suppressing it as a form of "self censorship", Best, Zamuse (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Baroque pop genre addition

Why isn't baroque pop included in the genre listing? I understand that the album has many different influences (notably raga rock, psychedelic pop, music hall, and classical) but sophisticated baroque instrumentation seems to be what many critics identify with the record when discussing its legacy. Harpsichords, strings, harps, full orchestras (Western and Indian), organs, and in general a very precise production. If an album like the Byrd's The Notorious Byrd Brothers can be tagged as "baroque pop" by Wikipedia, why can't the album that made the genre a staple of 60s pop (along with Pet Sounds) also bear the title? Furthermore, an innumerable amount of sources, such as ALLMUSIC, describe the album as "Baroque pop."(http://www.allmusic.com/album/sgt-peppers-lonely-hearts-club-band-mw0000649874). "Baroque pop," should surely be included in order to ensure the album is presented as accurately as possible on this website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbrito162 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Reiterating my comments from before: the source you used is a bit questionable. Editors in the past have pointed out that Allmusic's sidebar is often incongruous with the reviewer's prose (possibly not the reviewer's choice), including at WP:ALBUMS and RSN. A perfect example is Rhythm Killers and its entry at Allmusic; the sidebar lists it as "reggae", but the reviewer observes "no reggae in sight really". If this is the only source available for a certain article, then it's fine, but more explicit, authored sources are preferred, i.e. reviewer/writer A calls album B genre C, or "Sgt. Pepper's is a [genre] album". Dan56 (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sidebar chronology

I note that the sidebar, which has separate "chronology" links for the UK vs US releases, lists the White Album as the next LP in the UK canon, but Magical Mystery Tour for the US. While I understand that this is technically correct (the UK version of Mystery Tour was only an EP), since 1987 the US LP of Mystery Tour has been accepted as the canonical LP version, falling between Sgt Pepper and The Beatles. In short, the "official canon" of Beatles LPs was amended in 1987 (and maintained in 2009).

Would it be possible to list both Mystery Tour and The Beatles as the "next" album in the Sgt Pepper chronology, perhaps with a subnote that Mystery Tour only fits because of the 1987 revision? I have seen such "alternate" previous/next chronology entries used in other articles, so it might be useful here.

To understand where I'm coming from here, I'm a moderately knowledgeable fan, and I'm currently using my library's collection, in chronological order, to refresh my Beatles familiarity. I've been using the UK chronology as a guideline to do this, and I noticed that Mystery Tour (which I knew was roughly in the Sgt Pepper timeframe) was left out. A newbie fan might not know to make such a course correction. - EJSawyer (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Mr Kite poster

I see the image of the Mr Kite poster has been changed for one that the uploader says is of better quality. This also happened with the poster image in the Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite! article some time ago. I have a couple of problems with this. First of all the image is not public domain and is tagged as having no fair use rationale. Secondly, looking at the uploader's contributions (which all concern the poster) they claim to be the creator of the poster and then the original source is given as a website which gives a lot of information about how it was created and invites you to buy a limited edition copy for just under £300 here. It seems to me that, If the uploader is the creator, wikipedia is being used here as a marketing tool to promote the sale of the limited edition prints for the benefit of the uploader. That would be a WP:COI violation and also linking to a website who's main purpose is to sell a product (see WP:SPAM). Personally, I don't think that most of our readers would notice the difference between the new image and the one that was replaced anyway. What do others think? Richerman (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring by Dan56

Dan56, once again you are edit warring with me and once again its about stuffing the articles about music that you don't like with ridiculous negative reviews from low-quality sources. I know what you are up to, and you will be topic banned for WP:POV pushing if you continue. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Ritchie333, JG66, your fellow collaborator is being quite hostile towards me, with silly accusations and evasive edit summaries. He removed revscores from The A.V. Club and Paste, calling the sources "garbage". When I [ politely asked why, twice ([1], [2]) and brought up the fact that both are listed as recommended sources at WP:ALBUMS/SOURCE, he resorted to the rash response above and this inadequate edit summary. If he actually believes The A.V. Club and Paste are poor quality sources, then he should argue this at the talk page for WP:ALBUMS/SOURCE. I'm going to revert him again, since I don't feel like being bullied out of any article he edits because he's unable to have faith in my edits. Dan56 (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Dan56, please read WP:PACT. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Laser brain, this attack is once again completely unprovoked and at an article where I am the leading contributor with intentions of taking this page, with con-noms, to FAC. Dan has been consistently disruptive with me at articles I edit going back three months now. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, 3family6, STATicVapor? In a past discussion at Led Zeppelin IV, to support a point of view he was arguing, GabeMc cited a review by Chuck Klosterman in Spin magazine (in this comment). Now, he has removed a review by Chuck Klosterman, viewing his "B+" grade as "negative". Dan56 (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Dan, I said that Paste was a weak source, not Klosterman, but FTR I didn't actualy add the Klosterman quote to an article, did I? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

GabeMc see WP:OWN, we have to all work collaboratively, even if you are the leading contributor, you do not control all changes in the slightest. The A.V. Club and Paste are definitely not lacking or weak, they are undoubtedly reliable, professional reviewers, which is backed by their use by Metacritic. I also do not get any reason why the Spin review was removed, the template is only at 8 entries when the max is 10. Do you have guideline backed reasons for these removals? WP:ALBUM/SOURCES supports their use. STATic message me! 03:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BOLD I do not need a guideline to exercise my editorial discretion. In the next two months I'll build-up the material from scholarly sources and this will all make sense. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

"Instead of getting upset, read WP:Assume good faith and WP:Civility, and be bold again, but after a reversion of a bold edit, you might want to be bold in an edit on the talk pages so as not to start an edit war." Dan56 (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

John, is this edit summary and this by Gabe an attack? He seems to think I made an attack (02:31, 6 March 2014), but I don't recall saying anything like "you are a resource drain that wastes time", or "you need an intervention". I also don't recall doing anything here but ask why review sources widely accepted in album articles (WP:ALBUMS/SOURCE) were removed--they're neither "low-quality" or "ridiculous negative reviews" as Gabe described above, although I could guess it's because the scores were not in keeping with the other five-star ratings that he removed them. BTW, The A.V. Club review was written by Chuck Klosterman and Paste by Mark Kemp, whose prose he also removed from this article ([3]). All of which seems like aggressive undoing of anything remotely negative of the article's topic (WP:BULLY). Dan56 (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• What do you think, Binksternet? As someone who is never shy to call me a bully, what's your opinion on this incident? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Great point, STATicVapor, they are included by Metacritic. But not only that, they are written by Chuck Klosterman (for The A.V. CLub's review) and Mark Kemp (for Paste magazine's review), two music critics more notable than Crawdaddy!'s David Gendelman or Pitchfork Media's Scott Plagenhoef, whose perfect scores Gabe did not remove, whose reviews are not at all quoted in the section's prose. Dan56 (talk) 03:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Dan, do you even realize that this is two album articles in a row that you've presented some significant disruption to exactly at the moment where I began improving it in earnest? You are a disruptive editor, IMO. Please leave me alone. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, Gabe does not address my point about the notability of the actual critics over the ones he did not remove. Dan56 (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This is out of hand, GabeMc. Both of those sources are perfectly acceptable. This debate over "is this an attack?" is silly and a waste of time. Please, let's keep things to a discussion of the sources. GabeMc, what is it about The A.V. Club and Paste that you find unreliable?--¿3family6 _contribs 03:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say that they were unreliable sources, but per WP:IINFO, we don't include everything that suits our purposes as Dan does. If pushed I'll make a case that Dan is pushing negative reviews only on articles about music that he does not like, which violates WP:POVPUSH to the point of justifying a topic ban. This is the 6th content dispute that he has been involved in in the last 30 days. Talk:News of the World (album)#Rock, Talk:Led Zeppelin IV#Rock and roll / blues, Talk:The Game (Queen album)#IMMEDIATE REMOVAL OF "POMP ROCK", Talk:Babel (album)#Genre, and Talk:All Things Must Pass#To soul or not to soul. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." Dan56 (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the content at hand, not the contributors involved. Any points on how these reviewers are not professional? Even when they are noted, even having Wikipedia articles. The article must apply due weight to all professional critical reviews and to be honest it seriously looks incredibly bias only having perfect scores. STATic message me! 04:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

GabeMc, Dan56 is not obligated to bow out of any article that you decide to start working on intensively. Rather, you are advised to work with the interested editors that appear. Collaboration is slower than working alone but it makes for a stronger article, more resistant to change. Binksternet (talk) 05:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Bink, I never said that Dan had to stop editing articles that I choose to improve, but he's not really an editor here so much as a pusher of low-quality criticism, which he is currently doing at five other articles related to classic rock: Talk:News of the World (album)#Rock, Talk:Led Zeppelin IV#Rock and roll / blues, Talk:The Game (Queen album)#IMMEDIATE REMOVAL OF "POMP ROCK", Talk:Babel (album)#Genre, and Talk:All Things Must Pass#To soul or not to soul. Dan is the most disruptive editor that I've ever seen who wasn't an outright vandal, and I have strong suspicions that he is sabotaging articles about music that he does not like. After all, he has dozens of GAs to his credit, but only one of them are in the classic rock or metal genres, which are the only genres that he is constantly pushing negative reviews on. Вик Ретлхед, Rvd4life, and Y2kcrazyjoker4 might be willing to confirm my suspicions. Binksternet, take a look at an article or two that Dan wrote and tell me if he adds the same level of criticism there: Aaliyah (album)#Critical reception, The Way I See It#Critical reception, and Sons of Soul#Critical reception, for example have only passing negative comments as though Aaliyah has received a generally more positive critical reception than Sgt. Pepper. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The difference between Aaliyah and Sgt Pepper is that people who are capable of critical thought listened to Sgt Pepper. <grin> Hey, put down the torches, people, it was just a joke.

Seriously, Aaliyah's bar is a lot lower than the Beatles'. Taking the breathlessly idolatrous review from Rolling Stone as the baseline shows that the album Aaliyah is not misrepresented by those who brought the album's article to FA class. Binksternet (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment. Ten reviewer ratings are permitted per album (in fact, twenty are allowed for extremely notable releases, I notice), so there's room for more. We don't have anything from Mojo, Q, NME, Uncut, all of which are far more notable than Paste or AV Club. I'd be very surprised if they weren't all perfect five-star scores, in which case, by their sheer volume, they'd trump any remotely negative scores out there – but we need to find them first, of course. In the interest of reflecting the range and variation, if ten is the maximum number of ratings in the box, I'd imagine that a single non-perfect score (not both AV's B+ rating and Paste's 89/100) would be a fair reflection. This is an album that often tops critics' best-ever polls, after all – consistently in the top five, anyway. Again though, it's all hypothetical until we can add anything from Mojo, Q, etc.

The problem as I see it is whether editors then want to include comments from these less-than-stellar reviews in the main text. From past experience, they do. This approach bulks out the content of what might already be a substantial section on an album's critical reception, and if Mojo, Q et al. then come to the party in Pepper, the section bulks out even more. Which means that any attempt at a streamlined discussion under Reception will become a litany of reviewers' opinions, with an almost tit-for-tat narrative thread. I really think this needs to be avoided for an album as revolutionary for Western consciousness as Sgt. Pepper.

[I've been concerned about that same approach becoming an issue at All Things Must Pass; Dark Horse also, to a lesser extent, where the addition of a pretty nonsensical comment from Christgau seems gratuitous, in my opinion, because the overall picture regarding that album being much-maligned upon release has been well-established in the section's opening paragraph. (eg, "Dark Horse received some of the most negative reviews of any release by a Beatle up to that point ... it was "open season" on Harrison ... another biographer, Elliot Huntley, has written of the "tsunami of bile" unleashed on the ex-Beatle in late 1974." After which we have some detailed opinion from Rolling Stone and NME, which is hardly sparing in its negativity, but most importantly, it offers the reader something in the way of rational criticism, unlike the Christgau quote.)]

In the interest of providing some balance in Pepper, perhaps Carr & Tyler's point from the mid/late 1970s (in The Beatles: An Illustrated Record) might be useful: about how Pepper became an anachronism, an embarrassment, in the UK anyway. (I'd done the same thing at All Things Must Pass, with a comment from Bob Woffinden on ATMP being viewed as "faddish" by the late '70s, together with Carr & Tyler's unfavourable verdict.) Perhaps also a comment from a less-than-glowing recent review of Pepper – just as long as we don't resort to a kind of he said/she said narrative.

Oh and no, Dan56 and anyone else is not obligated to quit contributing to this or any other article. But at the same time, a user's motives for arriving at an article can come across as very suspicious – in that there can appear to be an agenda that raises questions of bias, just as much as when an editor who's committed to expanding the article for FAC is resistant to the addition of less-than-perfect reviewer ratings. As Gabe's said, there's a fair amount of history in this regard. While everyone's so quick to justify their actions with a WP: link, it seems to me it's just an excuse to avoid thinking intelligently about where they tread and what they contribute. Of course, if there were a page named WP:FOR_CHRIST'S_SAKE_DON'T_FORGET_TO_ACT_LIKE_A_HUMAN_BEING,_NOT_A_****_ROBOT, it might be different. Right now – once again – progress on an extremely important album article is focused on an unproductive discussion on its talk page. (Hardly any wonder that these articles languish with a B or C rating for so long, is it?) JG66 (talk) 09:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• There are currently four paragraphs in the Reception section and at least half of the material is negative stuff that Dan added. That's after I removed some poor-quality comments per WP:UNDUE. The problem with Dan is that he does not add this level of criticism at articles about music that he likes; just look at a few of his GAs or FAs if you think that I am wrong. This is about editorial discretion, which Dan seems to think is irrelevant when it comes to material that he has added. Dan is POV pushing negative reviews from low-quality sources on articles about music that he does not like, which he should be blocked for, not defended. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The A.V. Club

Does this wesite even exist anymore? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay I see that it does, but I still say that its not a high enough quality source to judge Pepper. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Crawdaddy?

I'm confused, why has the Crawdaddy rating been removed when it's "republished as a blog on Paste"? That's republished – meaning it existed as a separate review from Paste's? JG66 (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

"relaunches as a blog on Paste...", but my edit summary first read "rm deadlink review" (the link to the review has been dead for quite some time). BTW, the title in the citation to the Crawdaddy review read "Blogs :: Crawdaddy :: Paste", but I'm sure one of you would have noticed that had the rating been not-so perfect. Both of you have yet to address how the actual reviewers from those two sources--Chuck Klosterman (THe A.V. Club) and Mark Kemp (Paste)--are less reputed than those cited in this article from Pitchfork, Sputnikmusic, or Crawdaddy, or MusicHound. All I've heard are far-reaching arguments in an effort to keep the reception section puffed up. BTW, JG66, I'm not new to this article--I cleaned up the reception section back in December by finding notable reviewers. I'm not expecting any faith from Gabe at this point, but I'd like some from you. Dan56 (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

"but I'm sure one of you would have noticed that had the rating been not-so perfect" doesn't exactly smack of good faith. I'm talking about arriving on the scene as soon as there's talk of expanding the article. If you want to work with Ritchie and Gabe, then take my place – but for God's sake, co-operate.

I don't want to see the reception section puffed up per se; I want to see a reception section that's reflective of the acclaim the album's received. It's viewed (not by me, pls note) as one of the greatest albums of all time, if not the greatest. Of course, there are some reviewers who don't see it in that light. But given that we have ten ratings, I would've thought that a one-in-ten not-so-perfect score is a pretty accurate reflection. I mean, I've never once seen a review giving anything less than 5 out of 5 for Pepper. (Okay, you or someone else've found two – are you sure you haven't got any 5/5s to hand also?) Given its standing among critics, I would say Pepper's one rock album that would merit a wall of stars in the ratings box, other rare examples being Exile on Main St. and Blonde on Blonde. I'm surprised this has become an issue. Sgt. Pepper just is – revolutionary, acclaimed, the pinnacle of the Beatles' career. As I've said, I'm no big fan. If two or three 5/5s come to light, are people still going to be arguing for both AV Club and Paste's inclusion? JG66 (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Dan, please read WP:PACT. I tried my best, but I don't trust your judgment; see below. I've also talked to you about the issue of relating what the preponderance of sources say and I affirm here that you shouldn't seek-out negative stuff about these albums from lower-quality sources just because they say what you want to say. I concur with JG66 about your timing. This is the third article where someone other than me has expressed that concern. Unless I'm mistaken, that's almost exactly what Вик Ретлхед accused you of doing at AJFA, which does fit with someone sabotaging articles. You seem to show up and exhaust people right at the moment when they are expanding, so they waste their time and get frustrated and the article is not improved. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

For the record

Before I started copyediting yesterday, the Critical Reception section looked like this:

Upon its release on 1 June 1967,[68] Sgt. Pepper received critical acclaim.[69] It was greeted with "...paeans citing it as a bridge between pop and art."[70] Various reviews appearing in the mainstream press and trade publications throughout June 1967, immediately after the album's release, were generally positive. In The Times, prominent critic Kenneth Tynan described Sgt. Pepper as "a decisive moment in the history of Western civilisation".[71] Richard Poirier wrote "listening to the Sgt. Pepper album one thinks not simply of the history of popular music but the history of this century."[72]

In a negative review, Richard Goldstein of The New York Times found the album "spoiled" and felt that it "reek[ed]" of "special effects, dazzling but ultimately fraudulent".[73] After he was criticised for his review,[74] Goldstein published a response a month later, in which he said that he was worried "as a critic" that the album was not on-par with the best of the Beatles' previous work, despite being "better than 80 per cent of the music around today". He called it an "in-between experience, a chic", and felt that when the novelty of its production tricks wears off, "and the compositions are stripped to their musical and lyrical essentials, Sergeant Pepper will be Beatles baroque—an elaboration without improvement".[75] Robert Christgau of The Village Voice wrote in an article at the time that the album is "a consolidation, more intricate than Revolver but not more substantial. Part of Goldstein's mistake, I think, has been to allow all the filters and reverbs and orchestral effects and overdubs to deafen him to the stuff underneath, which was pretty nice, and to fall victim to overanticipation."[74] He called the album "a dozen good songs and true" in a 1977 retrospective review, and stated, "Perhaps they're too precisely performed, but I'm not going to complain."[60] Peter Herbst followed the same tack. In the 1979 Rolling Stone Record Guide he described the album as "...a thickly detailed, somewhat stiff collection of generally less-than-great Beatles tunes vaguely molded into a whole."[70]

In his Encyclopedia of Popular Music, Colin Larkin wrote that the album "turned out to be no mere pop album but a cultural icon embracing the constituent elements of the 60s' youth culture: pop art, garish fashion, drugs, instant mysticism and freedom from parental control."[63] In a 1987 review for Q, Charles Shaar Murray commented that the album "remains a central pillar of the mythology and iconography of the late '60s."[76] Anthony DeCurtis of Rolling Stone argued that it "revolutionized rock & roll" and that its "immensely pleasurable trip has earned Sgt. Pepper its place as the best record of the past twenty years." DeCurtis found it to be "not only the Beatles' most artistically ambitious album but their funniest" and cited its "fun-loving experimentalism" as the album's "best legacy for our time."[77] By contrast, Christgau said that, "although Sgt. Pepper is thought of as the most influential of all rock masterpieces, it is really only the most famous. In retrospect it seems peculiarly apollonian—precise, controlled, even stiff—and it is clearly peripheral to the rock mainstream", and asserted that "the 'concept album' idea was embodied more fruitfully—and earlier in Rubber Soul."[78] Mark Kemp of Paste wrote similarly, "for all its sonic richness, Sgt. Pepper remains one of rock's most overrated albums—its songwriting isn’t nearly as consistent as Revolver's, and its storyline is abandoned after the first two tracks and artificially reprised near the end."[64]

If you separate the positive prose from the negative you find:

Positve: 221 words

Upon its release on 1 June 1967,[68] Sgt. Pepper received critical acclaim.[69] It was greeted with "...paeans citing it as a bridge between pop and art."[70] Various reviews appearing in the mainstream press and trade publications throughout June 1967, immediately after the album's release, were generally positive. In The Times, prominent critic Kenneth Tynan described Sgt. Pepper as "a decisive moment in the history of Western civilisation".[71] Richard Poirier wrote "listening to the Sgt. Pepper album one thinks not simply of the history of popular music but the history of this century."[72]

In his Encyclopedia of Popular Music, Colin Larkin wrote that the album "turned out to be no mere pop album but a cultural icon embracing the constituent elements of the 60s' youth culture: pop art, garish fashion, drugs, instant mysticism and freedom from parental control."[63] In a 1987 review for Q, Charles Shaar Murray commented that the album "remains a central pillar of the mythology and iconography of the late '60s."[76] Anthony DeCurtis of Rolling Stone argued that it "revolutionized rock & roll" and that its "immensely pleasurable trip has earned Sgt. Pepper its place as the best record of the past twenty years." DeCurtis found it to be "not only the Beatles' most artistically ambitious album but their funniest" and cited its "fun-loving experimentalism" as the album's "best legacy for our time."[77]

Negative: 349 words

In a negative review, Richard Goldstein of The New York Times found the album "spoiled" and felt that it "reek[ed]" of "special effects, dazzling but ultimately fraudulent".[73] After he was criticised for his review,[74] Goldstein published a response a month later, in which he said that he was worried "as a critic" that the album was not on-par with the best of the Beatles' previous work, despite being "better than 80 per cent of the music around today". He called it an "in-between experience, a chic", and felt that when the novelty of its production tricks wears off, "and the compositions are stripped to their musical and lyrical essentials, Sergeant Pepper will be Beatles baroque—an elaboration without improvement".[75] Robert Christgau of The Village Voice wrote in an article at the time that the album is "a consolidation, more intricate than Revolver but not more substantial. Part of Goldstein's mistake, I think, has been to allow all the filters and reverbs and orchestral effects and overdubs to deafen him to the stuff underneath, which was pretty nice, and to fall victim to overanticipation."[74] He called the album "a dozen good songs and true" in a 1977 retrospective review, and stated, "Perhaps they're too precisely performed, but I'm not going to complain."[60] Peter Herbst followed the same tack. In the 1979 Rolling Stone Record Guide he described the album as "...a thickly detailed, somewhat stiff collection of generally less-than-great Beatles tunes vaguely molded into a whole."[70]

By contrast, Christgau said that, "although Sgt. Pepper is thought of as the most influential of all rock masterpieces, it is really only the most famous. In retrospect it seems peculiarly apollonian—precise, controlled, even stiff—and it is clearly peripheral to the rock mainstream", and asserted that "the 'concept album' idea was embodied more fruitfully—and earlier in Rubber Soul."[78] Mark Kemp of Paste wrote similarly, "for all its sonic richness, Sgt. Pepper remains one of rock's most overrated albums—its songwriting isn’t nearly as consistent as Revolver's, and its storyline is abandoned after the first two tracks and artificially reprised near the end."[64]

• Need I say more? Dan jumped on me when I balanced the comments, which were way out of line with the preponderance of sources. Of the 570 words in the section, 61.2% were devoted to negative comments, which is certainly WP:UNDUE when writing about one of the most universally appreciated albums in the history of rock music. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• The positive info could be expanded, perhaps? Instead of arguing over whether something should be cut out or not, why not just expand the info gleaned from positive reviews? As you said, it's one of the most acclaimed albums in history - so the reception section could certainly be expanded.--¿3family6 _contribs 18:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Right, that's what I would be doing now if Dan wasn't wasting my time. I always copyedit a section before I expand it, but isn't it possible that enough positive stuff had already been said, and the task at hand was more appropriately to balance the sections per WP:UNDUE? Are you saying that the proper remedy for UNDUE is to beef-up the praise? That's not a good approach to writing, IMO. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand

On the other hand, if you look at one of Dan's FAs, Aaliyah (album), you'll find quite a different balance that includes no outright negative commentary at all and a nearly 3 to 1 margin of positive to mixed.

Positive: 280 words; 72.5%

Upon its release in July 2001,[53] Aaliyah received highly positive reviews from critics.[1] At Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the album received an average score of 76, indicating "generally favorable reviews", based on 14 reviews.[54] Michael Odell of The Guardian felt that it is "as much a brochure for the current state of R&B production facilities" as it is about Aaliyah's singing. He found the music's textures "scintillating" and felt that its distinguishing characteristic is "a playful and confident reworking of the [R&B] canon."[48] Brad Cawn of the Chicago Tribune viewed that Aaliyah demonstrates Sade's grace and Missy Elliott's daring, and called its music "cool and glittery neo-soul ... equal parts attitude and harmony, and all urban music perfection."[55] In his review for The Independent, Simon Price cited the album as "further evidence that black pop is the avant garde."[56]

Nathan Rabin of The A.V. Club asserted that the album establishes Aaliyah as a significant artist unobscured by her collaborators.[34] Ernest Hardy of Rolling Stone called it "a near-flawless declaration of strength and independence", and commended her for exploring her "fantasies and strengths."[28] Craig Seymour of Entertainment Weekly praised its melodrama and opined that, apart from a few songs that stray from her musical strengths, Aaliyah "skillfully portrays love as part woozy thrill, part pulse-racing terror."[27] Slant Magazine's Sal Cinquemani found her personality highlighted on every song and compared her to Janet Jackson, but with better and more arousing metaphors.[36] Joshua Clover of Spin viewed it as her most profound work and wrote that she makes "art" out of Timbaland and Static's "formal finesse" by "investing sound schemes with urgency and emotional intricacy".[24]

Mixed: 106; 27.5%

In a mixed review, Connie Johnson of the Los Angeles Times found the album musically safe and felt that its lyrics lack the depth and "personal revelation that gives music some immediacy."[57] John Mulvey of NME found it "graceful" and "satisfying rather than extraordinary" and viewed that it is redeemed by Static's consistent songwriting.[33] Robert Christgau of The Village Voice gave it a three-star honorable mention,[51] indicating "an enjoyable effort consumers attuned to its overriding aesthetic or individual vision may well treasure."[58] He cited "We Need a Resolution" and "U Got Nerve" as highlights and called Aaliyah "a slave to her beats, but a proud slave".[59]

• In fairness, many of the comments in mixed are actually complementary. What do you think, Binksternet? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not going to bother investigating this matter. You are comparing apples to oranges here; the effort is useless with regard to improving the Sgt Pepper article. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Its not useless if we are talking about material that was added in an attempt to disrupt the article, but no worries; I should have know better then to ask for your opinion. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Gabe, you should have known better than to remove those scores as well. Dan56 (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• At another of Dan's FAs, The Way I See It, the ratio is 282/97 positive to mixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• At Sons of Soul Dan has the ratio of positive to mixed at 252/162, but as with the other two there is absolutely nothing that could be regarded as outright negative. He only pushes negative commentary on articles about music that he does not like. I think that's a subtle form of vandalism, but at the least its POV pushing. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• If you look at an article that Dan recently nomed at FAC, Misterioso (Thelonious Monk album)#Release and reception, you won't find any mixed or negative reviews. I suppose the album is universally adored. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Back to this article...

The only negative review that was ever mentioned in this article was Goldstein's, which was in the article before I started editing in December ([4]). A "B+" or an "89/100" are not negative, they're clearly positive. Dan56 (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, you argue about a "preponderance of sources", but why should we take your word for it? A quick search on GoogleBooks shows the point of view that this album was overrated (Greg Kot [5], Tim Riley, [6], Mark Kemp [7], The Guardian [8]. Dan56 (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

So, are you admitting here that you do not like Sgt Pepper (not that its required of course), because that matches the pattern at all the others where you are currently being disruptive. This is the 7th article where you've started this kind of dispute this YEAR! See also: Talk:News of the World (album)#Rock, Talk:Led Zeppelin IV#Rock and roll / blues, Talk:The Game (Queen album)#IMMEDIATE REMOVAL OF "POMP ROCK", Talk:Babel (album)#Genre, and Talk:All Things Must Pass#To soul or not to soul. Anyway, JG put the AV Club back in the chart, so what exactly are you arguing about now? What is it that you want? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

No I didn't ... did I?! JG66 (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry; my bad. Dan put it back for the fifth time in two days. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think he was referring to me, JG66. Honestly, I would love to see him prove "the pattern", since this entire thread seems dedicated to huffing and puffing about how I'm a biased editor close to a "topic ban". Dan56 (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

John, could you advise Gabe to actually address my points instead of resorting to this harassment. Dan56 (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Dan, can you please clarify what you are arguing about? The AV Club is back, okay? What else are you disputing? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• I challenge any admin to look at the five talk pages I linked above and not come to a similar conclusion. You are a disruptive editor, Dan. You push a few minority opinions on popular topics and exhaust people daily. In fact you are maybe the most disruptive editor I have ever encountered, and that's saying a lot. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The scores, which you wrongly removed, were restored. Your bold edit was reverted, so basically you forcing the issue at the talk page was pointless, because as STATicVapor, ¿3family6, and Binksternet agreed, it was ridiculous to remove them. There's no reason to continue antagonizing me. Dan56 (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• This is getting off-track. I removed some negative prose because it was out of balance and it should stay removed, but the honest truth is I removed The AV Club and Paste as low-quality sources. It had nothing to do with their rating of Pepper, which as Dan pointed out was actually very favourable. I won't remove either again, so hopefully this content dispute is over, but FTR, Paste rates Past Masters higher than Pepper which is kind-of silly. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You originally wrote "ridiculous negative reviews from low-quality sources" Mark Kemp (writing for Paste) rated it higher. What do you find "silly" about it btw? Dan56 (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I find it silly that he ranked a collection of singles higher than an album. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• This can always be a thorny issue, when we try to summarise critical commentary while keeping the proper weight in the article. I sometimes recommend using one of the recognised aggregator sites to do this, though there can be problems too with this approach. I enjoin you to continue to discuss the matter while trying if possible to allow each other to comment without becoming unnecessarily personal. If you need or want further input, please don't hesitate to ping me again. --John (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you're supposed to agree with what critics say, Gabe. If it's a notable enough critic, his or her point of view warrants inclusion even if you find it ridiculous. Edit summaries like this suggests you're treating these statements of opinion as facts ("he clearly does not know what he's talking about here"? "Know"?). It's a belief he shares. It's not anything either one of us can know or prove as fact. Christgau believes Rubber Soul was better as a concept album, he's a reputed critic, so we note his opinion and deal with it even if we strongly feel otherwise, not remove it and say he doesn't know what he's talking about--it's not a matter of fact, it's an aesthetic opinion, which are "diverse and subjective—we might not all agree about who the world's greatest soprano is. However, it is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts and the general public." You may not like or share his views, but he more than qualifies as a prominent expert in his field--popular music criticism--as do these: Greg Kot [9], Tim Riley, [10], Mark Kemp [11], The Guardian [12]. Since you're the major contributor here, do with them as you please. Dan56 (talk) 06:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Dan, we don't regurgitate nonsense just because it came from a reliable source. This goes back to our dispute at AYE, where you wanted to add several factual errors to the article because you found sources that supported the errors, which is absolutely terrible editorial judgment on your part. Do any other sources call Rubber Soul a concept album, because we need more than one source to agree when we add something that's contentious, and indeed I'm contending the ridiculous statement. In a nutshell, Christgau is a horrible source on classic rock and metal, but I suppose that's exactly why you push him at classic rock and metal articles, right? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You're having trouble discerning fact and opinion. There's a reason it's a quote attributed to a critic and not stated as fact. It's not a fact that this is a concept album, as indicated by the last two sentences in the #Concept section: "the band effectively abandoned the concept ... 'Every other song could have been on any other album'". It's an opinion, a subjective interpretation, by critics ("widely heralded as..."), and their opinion is duly noted. BTW, Christgau has been given more credit than you'd like to yourself ("eminent rock critic", "preeminent rock critic", "the rock critic's rock critic", "Along with presenting reviews of music from all genres, Christgau insightfully and tersely analyzes the cultural or aesthetic significance of many hard-rock and heavy metal recordings." He may not offer the mealy-mouthed raves of succes d'estimes you'd prefer, but perhaps you could put to rest your dislike of him since he's clearly a prominent expert in his field--rock criticism? Dan56 (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Dan, we do not repeat things that are minority opinions when they are obviously wrong just because Bob Christgau said it was true. Rubber Soul is not a concept album, and the fact that you don't realize that confirms my suspicions regarding your knowledge of the things that you lord over. An editor has to exercise discretion; we don't only regurgitate what "reliable sources" have said, because sometimes reliable sources are wrong. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• So you see, Binksternet, Dan has once again swooped-in just as an article was being expanded and shut-down editing there with arguments about including nonsensical material like how Rubber Soul is a concept album because Christgau said that it was. This is the stuff that drives good editors away, and I think Dan knows that. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a matter of opinion, not right or wrong--you can prove it to be right or "obviously wrong" as much as you can prove Sgt. Pepper's being a concept album right or wrong. And to be exact, he didn't call Rubber Soul a concept album but made a comparison--"...the 'concept album' idea was embodied more fruitfully—and earlier in Rubber Soul." This sentiment about Rubber Soul having a 'concept album' idea is echoed in The Song Cycle by Laura Tunbridge. And if it's not too much to ask, could you make your tone more civil than condescending and dismissive? I know that drive good editors away. Dan56 (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Dan, what if I produced a source that said that Misterioso was really a concept album because all the songs were recorded live? Would you include the claim even though its a minority opinion that misses the whole point of what it means to be a concept album? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Go for it. Dan56 (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Why is it that 90% of this prose is just Dan and Gabe repeating what they've already said? Can we just let it go and move on?--¿3family6 _contribs 16:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Problem solving 101; don't resolve the issue, just stop discussing it! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what the issue is anymore. All I see is a massive wall of next with you and Dan arguing the same points over and over again and mentioning edits that have been done on other articles. How about you and Dan let it rest and let some other editors weigh in? Neither you nor Dan is saying anything new at this point. Nothing is even moving toward getting resolved right now.--¿3family6 _contribs 19:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

On the substance of the matter, I don't know what the overall critical picture looks like now, but in the mid-to-late 1970s there really was a critical reaction against Sgt Peppers, at least compared to other Beatles albums. The 1975 Roy Carr-Tony Tyler The Beatles: An Illustrated Record book (a best-seller in the US) said it had many good features, but that "hindsight reveals many of the contrivances" and "its imperfections have aged badly". They think Revolver was better. The 1976 Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock & Roll Beatles entry by Greil Marcus goes on at length about the pop cultural moment around the release of Sgt Pepper, but says the music itself "for the most part has not survived its time". The 1979 Rolling Stone Record Guide entry by Peter Herbst is already quoted above, but note also that it gives Sgt Peppers only four stars, while 12 other Beatles albums get five stars. In the introduction to Greil Marcus's 1979 Stranded: Rock and Roll for a Desert Island, he says he ran a poll among the twenty contributors to the volume for best album ever, and Sgt Peppers was not named much, while Rubber Soul was in the top ten finishers. And in the long annotated discography of essential records at the end of Stranded, Marcus includes many Beatles works but leaves off Sgt Pepper, saying it was "a Day-Glo tombstone for its time" and that it "strangled on its own conceits". So there you have it. Disclaimers: I think these critics were all wet; I absolutely love Sgt Peppers and think it is a timeless depiction of everyday life through a variety of lenses and prisms. I also have no dog in the GabeMc-Dan56 fight. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Wasted Time R, I never denied that some critics don't like the album or implied that its reception was universally positive. This dispute is about WP:WEIGHT; before I started copyediting the critical reception section it was 60/40 negative to positive, which is inappropriate and unbalanced and the result of Dan's POV pushing. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

FTR, when I began cleaning up the reception section in January 2013, I trimmed the paragraph dealing with Goldstein's negative review (which had been given an overlong quotefarm before I had written anything) and added a paragraph of retrospective raves (1 January 2013) The next month, I quoted more acclamatory critics and trimmed another negative bit from Goldstein (3 February 2013), ditto later (25 February 2013), all the while defending biased, inappropriate edits like the addition of Piero Scaruffi to the article (1 January 2014). Please get your facts straight before dismissing my edits as "POV pushing". Just like Bbb23 felt your report on STATicVapor was self-serving, your comments above drawing the focus from the article to me just seemed like a lame attempt to swing editors your way. What I wrote was dead on after you forced the issue. Dan56 (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Dan, what exactly are you still arguing? Is the balance about right, or do you think that we need more negative stuff? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Improvements

As I remarked elsewhere to GabeMc and JG66, we really ought to have better quality Beatles album articles. I notice a number of people have helped trim out some of the unsourced content. I can make a stab at some of the technical data which is currently unsourced from my collection of books, and hopefully we can all pull this together for a GA. In fact, if I had to pick a Beatles album article that really ought to be an FA, it would be this one. What do people think? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping that you were planning to bring Abbey Road to FAC after GAN, but Sgt. Pepper has been on my to-do-list for a couple of years now. I'm in the middle of a couple of other projects right now, but I'd be happy to help wherever I can, so just ask. Also, if you are serious about bringing this article up to snuff, then I strongly suggest that you procure copies of Moore, Julien, and Martin. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I've had a few goes at an FA and they've been mentally exhausting. I've concluded I just don't have the time and determination to see out the 6-8 weeks at FAC and attend to all the concerns during that time, unless I go in with a co-nominator (hint, hint). Plus my philosophy is a bit like Monopoly in that I prefer to "build evenly" and think having, say, five articles at GA is better than one FA and a bunch of Bs or Cs. With that in mind, in terms of books, I prefer things that can be used as good sources for multiple articles, hence my preference for MacDonald as a good all-rounder to get articles out of C class. That said, I have Lewisohn on order now, and I'll look at gathering a few more. My biggest concern is explaining to Mrs 333 where all the books are going to be stored in the house. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Right, I hear you on buying sources that have multiple uses—you won't regret paying for Lewisohn; its an excellent source. I bought those three books I mentioned a couple of years ago when I planned to work on Pepper, but I never got around to it, so maybe I can find the time to apply them to the article. As far as FAC, the first few are the toughest; I'd say that my first 6 or so were pretty difficult, but it gets easier with each one. If you are so inclined, then I would be more than happy to co-nom Abbey Road and/or Sgt. Pepper with you. I'd like to see JG66 in one of those as well, but I presume they would rather expend the effort on one of Harrison's brilliant solo efforts. Just let me know if I can help in any way, Ritchie. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, you're too kind, GabeMc. And hats off to you, Ritchie333, big time, for doing what we've all been talking about for so long: getting these album articles up to scratch! I meant to chime in at the Abbey Road GAN, but you had it sewn up before I knew it.

I find I subscribe to that same Monopoly approach regarding GAR vs FAC, partly to do with lost time, also because I can't stand to see articles that should be GAs currently residing in the squalid Start category. Or perhaps they're only redirects right now. But whichever forum it is with the Beatles' albums, I'd be happy to help, or at least look in and make some noise. And I agree, somehow it just seems right that Sgt. Pepper would be the first one to take all the way. (Revolver, or maybe Rubber Soul, gets my vote as their most utterly magnificent piece of work, but Pepper was such a phenomenon. Still is, I guess.)

I totally agree about the range of sources needed for the articles. MacDonald's Revolution in the Head is a fine book, but he does seem to think George and Ringo were invisible; at times, it appears that "the Beatles" means John, Paul and George Martin. Make that Paul and Mr Martin, actually!

For Abbey Road, I'd add Peter Doggett's book You Never Give Me Your Money – business matters at Apple framed that album, and I've never read a book that presents such a detailed picture of ups and downs with Klein, Eastman & co., and such fair and well-reasoned arguments, imo. (It's very useful also for the Beatles' solo efforts through to the break with Klein in 1973, and beyond.) Lavezzoli's The Dawn of Indian Music in the West is a source I'd recommend for Pepper. I don't know if others agree, but so many Beatles biographers appear not to understand or appreciate Indian (or any non-Western) music, I find, and therefore miss the importance of the Beatles' work in what became known as world music … My two-and-half cents' worth! Anyway, this is very exciting. (Sure beats writing about how depressed and beleaguered Macca felt when making McCartney – I've had to take a break from that article …)

Well done, guys. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I reluctantly agree with your album choices, JG66, but I have a strong affinity for Pepper and Abbey Road, and although I've since reconsidered, the White Album was my favourite for many years. BTW, does that mean you're game to bring one or two of these works to FAC with Ritchie and I? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I'm not usually one to walk away from a discussion about the merits of each Beatles album without leaving a wall of text behind(!) I just love them when they were a band, all for one and one for all, etc. That's means Lennon leading the way, which, to me, excludes anything post 1966. Anyway, as I say, there is a logic in giving Pepper pride of place if FAC's the intended destination.

I'm not crazy about the idea of FAC, as you can probably tell; I just care about all these important articles becoming great articles, which I believe many GAs are. But to answer your question (or try to), I'm certainly up for helping expand the articles – and I'm flattered that you should ask – but whether I'd necessarily join you both as a co-nom, I simply can't say. Sorry, I hope that's not maddeningly vague for you … is it a problem, if I'm reluctant to commit for the whole hog? Besides, should it come to that, I think you and Ritchie would make a formidable team, anyway. (Heck, you're a formidable team, Gabe!) JG66 (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

No; its not a problem if you don't want to commit to the whole hog, and FTR I enjoy your walls of text so long as they aren't at one of my FACs! Maybe, you could at least commit to handling the information regarding "WIWY", as I know that you'll do that masterwork justice, and then play it by ear; if you decide to co-nom all the better. I wholeheartedly believe that the three of us could handle this monumental undertaking, but alone its far too much work. Anyway, what do you think of this, Ritchie333? Should we take Pepper first, then Abbey Road? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll certainly handle WIWY (that's a song article I've always wanted to take to GA). And I'd be happy to have some input elsewhere in the article; then, yes, play it by ear nom-wise.

Just had a quick skim of the article – quick skim, I emphasise – and it doesn't look in too bad a shape. I'm all for background and context, but I'm surprised this one starts so far back; what I mean is, it really needs to "land" at the start of the 1966 world tour and progress more quickly through the two legs to the US tour. And it has to mention the US tour – furore surrounding Lennon's "Bigger than Christ" comment, etc. It's really Japan/Philippines/America that closed them down as a touring act, so the mention of McCartney at the Indra seems a bit unnecessary. (Have to say, it's rather noticeable that the Mac quotes come thick and fast.) Harrison made some great comments about Beatlemania giving crowds in the mid '60s an excuse to demonstrate their own mania (political, social, sexual, intergenerational, whatever) – in the Anthology book, I'm sure. In I Me Mine, he mentions talking to pilots on that US tour, who say that their plane's tail was routinely shot during takeoff.

Just some ideas (I bet you're glad you asked me along now!). But do you know what I mean? I think those suggestions might set the scene better for what they were trying to escape, why it was that the idea of alter-egos might've appealed.

Also, Starr and Harrison haven't had great things to say about making this album. Partly because of their respective roles, particularly for Starr, simply keeping time on the drums for the piano track; mostly post-India-itis on Harrison's part. (Good quotes in Olivia Harrison's book, from memory.) In Beatles' Diary Vol. 1, Miles writes about Lennon and McCartney being in competition for the first time, "rather than on the same side", but that it was all coming from Lennon (p. 266). I'm always a bit wary with Miles (he does seem to find it impossible to say a harsh word about McCartney, imo), but Harrison's also touched on this – how Pepper was some sort of ego game between the two, to see who could be the most far out. Could be something to think about maybe? (Apologies upfront, btw, if any of this is already in the article. Like I said: "quick skim".)

It is McCartney's album, of course, so it makes sense that he should have a more significant presence, and that comes out in the narrative, in the reporting of the information. But my suggestion would be to lessen his "voice" where possible (i.e. the direct quotes), particularly if, say, a Harrison quote can be used instead to illustrate the point about how much of a drag touring had become.

I promise to actually read the article properly next time … But yes, Ritchie – what do you think about all this, about me contributing, for that matter? I've got plenty to do – McCartney, "I'm the Greatest", "Awaiting on You All", "It Don't Come Easy", "How Do You Sleep?", I had it all mapped out – so I'd have no problem if you wanted to keep the collaboration a bit more local …?

(PS. Gabe – "FTR I enjoy your walls of text so long as they aren't at one of my FACs!" – I love that, just brilliant!) Cheers, JG66 (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think we should take this to GA first. I might have another hour tomorrow morning to get stuff from MacDonald and Miles. The existing sourcing is not too bad, it just needs a bit better flow and narrative. I would go with background (why touring was horrible for them), concept and influence ("Our freak out!"), recording (including Strawberry Fields and Penny Lane because at least George Martin thinks they should have gone on the album), sub-sections to each song (all of which are notable - it'll give JG a section for WIWY), unreleased stuff (Carnival of Light, whatever else got deferred to later albums during this time), production notes (four track, superheroic engineering on Day in the Life), release (The Fool's sleeve), reception (by jove this is good stuff, ZOMG say the Beach Boys, Smile is doomed), commercial success, influence, typical listcruft at the end. Anyway, GA first, then we'll think about FA. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Moore, p. 70

I've placed a failed verification tag next to "According to the musicologist Allan Moore, ''Sgt. Pepper'' is a [[Rock music|rock]] and [[Pop music|pop]] album that set the stage for later works of [[progressive rock]].{{sfn|Moore|1997|p=70}}" I could not find what part of p. 70 in Moore's book verifies this either part of this statement--"rock and pop album" or "set the stage for later works of progressive rock". Dan56 (talk) 07:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Page 70 reads:

"Its enormous success was to have unfortunate consequences in succeeding years, when some truly awful 'concept' albums in the style of Pepper got taken very seriously indeed by people who should have known better.' Sgt. Pepper was the high point of a cumulative process which changed the nature of the game that was Anglophone popular music. As I have already suggested, the major available positions in the preceding few years can be summarized in terms of 'pop' (represented, perhaps, by Herman's Hermits or, now, the Monkees) and 'rock' (represented by the Rolling Stones and, subsequently, by Cream or Jimi Hendrix) with the Beatles, despite their rock 'n' roll credentials and the rollicking vocals of which McCartney was capable, tending towards the former. At the time, Sgt. Pepper seemed to mark rock music's coming of age, an issue I shall return to at the close of this chapter. Now, of course, with jaded memories, we think of it as ushering in an era of pomposity, with varying degrees of seriousness, to which punk rock formed the inevitable antidote. The case was not clear at the time, for although the entire pop/rock edifice was adding storeys at a remarkable rate, 1967 still supported a very strong 'established' popular music market in the UK, catered to by Engelbert Humperdinck (who prevented 'Penny Lante'/'Strawberry Fields' from reaching No. 1), Petula Clark, Ken Dodd and the like. The distinction between 'rock' and 'pop', and the growing paradigmatic criterion of 'authenticity' (founded on such issues as whether one could have faith in the singer's expressed emotions) was, however, still there. The question after 1967 was whether 'progressive' pop/rock was to be trusted, because it was dealing with issues 'deeper' than simply interpersonal relationships. In the long run, the answer turned out to be 'no' (at least, that is, until a later generation of bands discovered the delight of pastriching the Beatles, of which more later)."

Dan56 (talk) 08:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Are you serious? "Sgt. Pepper was the high point of a cumulative process which changed the nature of the game that was Anglophone popular music." = Pop music. "Sgt. Pepper seemed to mark rock music's coming of age" = Rock music. "ushering in an era of pomposity, with varying degrees of seriousness, to which punk rock formed the inevitable antidote&;... The question after 1967 was whether 'progressive' pop/rock was to be trusted". = "set the stage for later works of progressive rock." This last part can be reinforced by numerous RSs that I havn't added yet because of the disruption that you've brought to this article. Including: "It was in the Beatles' music of 1966 and 1967—particularly in their album Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band—that many of the elements that later characterized English progressive rock first appear.", "Althouth the progressive elements used in Sgt. Pepper's had existed for a few years ... it was this album that truly put progressive rock on the map." "Early progressive rock bands picked up where Sergeant Pepper left off" and "precursor of progressive rock's infatuation with unified concepts" GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• See Binksternet, Dan's now started a dispute regarding genres, because he thinks that describing Sgt. Pepper as rock and pop is inaccurate to the preponderance of sources. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Strange interpretation of Moore, who says that Sgt. Pepper was the high point of pop and rock music, the start of a trend in pomposity. So it would be very very much pop and rock, with just the beginnings of pomposity. Note that pomposity is not a genre, nor does pomposity compete with the genres pop or rock. You can have all of the above in one album. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, "popular music" equals "popular music", lol. "The question after 1967 was whether 'progressive' pop/rock was to be trusted" doesn't equal "set the stage for..."--this position is not "directly and explicitly" (WP:STICKTOSOURCE). The reason you haven't added those "numerous RSs" is because since March 10 you've been busy overreacting and wrangling about your block (Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Block_review_process_page_suggestion, Wikipedia_talk:Edit_warring#Does_Change_.3D_Revert.3F), which resulted from your personal attacks while attempting to re-write a WikiProject guideline (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Re-writing_the_lead). Dan56 (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

On page 18, Moore clarifies the point he was making about pop versus popular music and he was certainly referring to the former: "Sgt. Pepper then, while popular, was not 'popular' but 'pop'." GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Dan, are you seriously starting a content dispute over whether its accurate to call Sgt. Pepper a pop album? "The Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band has long been considered one of the greatest and most important pop albums in history.", "The Beatles' Sgt. Pepper (1967) is still considered by many to be the first rock/pop concept album", "Many music fans and critics consider Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band to be the greatest pop album ever recorded". It seems to me like you just want to continue the disputes here top waste our time, because just as the one above was ending you've started another ridiculous argument that smacks of competency isses, IMO. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems like you're avoiding the issue--I placed a failed verification tag to that one sentence attributed to Moore and followed the instruction at Template:Fv, to explain it at the talk page. Dan56 (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, the way I read this thread it looks like two editors (Binksternet and me) think that Moore is a sufficient source for pop and rock and only you think that it isn't, but that's not really the point, which is that yet again you are wasting the project's limited resources disputing material that is uncontentious to 9 out of 10 editors/readers. IMO, this is either a matter of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing or Wikipedia:Competence is required. What do you want, Dan? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Competence is required, one type of problem editor is one that has cognitive issues with factual material: "The best good will is for naught if a basic understanding of the facts, their mainstream interpretation and their cultural context are lacking." GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Really? then why did you feel the need to make this revision? Perhaps it's your competency in interpreting and citing sources that should be called into question? And why did Binksternet call it a "strange interpretation" and say "pomposity is not a genre"? Dan56 (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that Binksternet was referring to your "strange interpretation" not mine. I told you that the bit about prog rock is easily sourcable in Moore isn't saying enough, but why are you acting like every piece of information in this article needs to be impeccably sourced right now? There are entire paragraphs of unsourced or poorly sourced material here yet you are obsessively focused on two or three words. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was saying it is strange to misinterpret Moore such that Sgt. Pepper is not pop rock. Binksternet (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I offered No interpretation of Moore. I plainly said Moore does not say this is a rock and pop album on p. 70, and I was right--you had to cite another page from the book. And "set the stage for progressive rock..." still isn't verified by that page. Stop taking this so personally, Gabe. Dan56 (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

If you read pages 70-79, you'll see that Moore is a fine source for the sentence that you are disputing here. What else can I help you with, Dan? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

pp. 70-79

I've removed the fv tag, since this is indeed covered in Moore pages 18, 70-79. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The sentence fragment I assume you're citing ("the sophistication of progressive rock which developed partly out of Sgt. Pepper itself...") in no way means "set the stage for later works of progressive rock". You need to rewrite it so that it doesn't ignore qualifiers like "sophistication of progressive rock" (rather than "progressive rock") and "developed partly" (rather than "set the stage for later works of progressive rock"). I tried to revise it as "helped inspire progressive rock's sophisticated quality", but if you think you can do it better , please do so. Dan56 (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Dan, do you even own a copy of Moore 1997? Because if you do, then you can read pages 70–79, where you'll see that he is talking about exactly what I say he is. I think you do not own the source, but you are going off what little you can see in the google books preview, which does not include pages 75-79. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

But in your edit summary, you cited the sentence fragment I mentioned ([13]) How can it take 9 pages to say that one bit about "set[ting] the stage for later works of progressive rock? Either this position is stated directly and explicitly somewhere or it isn't. Dan56 (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

"In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, or on passing comments. Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source."

Forgive me, but 9 pages to cite a half of the sentence being written in this article seems like a stretch. Dan56 (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

That's called paraphrasing, Dan. On pages 77-79 he details the three main reasons why Pepper "set the stage" for progressive rock, 1) self-conscious lyrics, 2) studio innovation, and 3) songs that break the 3-minute mold. Are you really contesting sourced material based on a chapter that you have not even actually read? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Even though GoogleBooks doesn't include a few pages, the writer's conclusion is shown clearly on p. 79: "The role of the Beatles in this development...", not the album. That's called using well-sourced material out of context to advance a position not directly or explicitly stated. (WP:STICKTOSOURCE). There's a difference between rewording a writer's statements uniquely and reinterpreting them uniquely. Where does Moore actually say anything close to the album "setting the stage for progressive rock"? Thoughts, Ian Rose? Dan56 (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

If you finish that sentence you'll see: "The role of the Beatles in this development was crucial not only through their utilization of the studio as a working tool in its own right (as evidenced with Sgt. Pepper) but ..." Did you read 77-79, where Moore detail the three reasons why Pepper set the stage? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Moore is crediting Sgt. Pepper's with the "utilization of the studio as a working tool in its own right", not with setting the stage for progressive rock, which I think is your own conclusion from the pages you read. On p. 77, all Moore mentions is "critical reaction to what became generically know as 'progressive rock'". Dan56 (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• "The beginnings of progressive rock are normally traced to the Beatles' Sgt Pepper's". - Alan Moore, 2001. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
• "The birth of progressive rock is frequently traced back to the release of the Beatles' 1967 album". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

So you've had better sources, but have chosen to drag this discussion out? Dan56 (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Better than musicology professor Alan Moore Ph.D? Not really, but since this is not at all a minority opinion its not hard to find other reliable sources that support this point. Dan, you should never, ever, ever challenge material that is supported by a source that you do not have access to; its you who has once again wasted the community's resources arguing a tedious point. What is this, the 10th such content dispute for you this year? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You've been trolling me all year, you should know the count. You still haven't proven the Moore source supports "set the stage for later works of progressive rock", which you have since revised, so you should never, ever, ever engage in original research ;) Dan56 (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Its not OR; the cited source supports the statements, but then you don't even own a copy of Moore 1997, so how can you tell that its OR if you havn't actually read the cited source? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I have--enough variants of quoted sentences in the search engine, and any page can be had. My point stands: What "later works" did the author refer to when, according to you, he said the album "set the stage" for them? That was still your interpretation/conclusion you drew yourself of an extensive discussion rather than what could be concisely and accurately cited (WP:STICKTOSOURCE), i.e. "the sophistication of progressive rock developed partly out of Pepper", "The role of the Beatles in this development was crucial not only through their utilization of the studio as a working tool in its own right (as evidenced with Sgt. Pepper)" No matter how much of an expert you think you are on the topic (and I believe you are knowledgeable here), it doesn't give you the license to go beyond what the author directly and explicitly wrote. Dan56 (talk) 04:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

That's quite odd, Dan, because my google books preview does not show anything past page 74. Have you read all of pages 70–79 in Moore, Allan (1997). The Beatles: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-57484-6 or page 69 of Moore, Alan (2002). Rock: The Primary Text: Developing a Musicology of Rock (2nd ed.). Ashgate. ISBN 978-0754602989? Have you even read the Wikipedia article lately, because you keep quoting prose that no longer exists there? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

You keep assuming I was wrong to challenge what prose was originally there. Dan56 (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not assuming, Dan; you were wrong and the fact that you didn't even read the source that you were questioning supports my assertion that you are a disruptive editor. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

◔̯◔ Page 70 was cited, I read page 70, it clearly did not support your original research, so I tagged it. You fixed it (after stubbornly defending it), job well done. Dan56 (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a big difference between unsourced and OR, but you seem to be confusing the two. How can it be OR if it is exactly what Moore wrote? Anyway, please don't answer that rhetorical question; I just want to move-on. FTR, I expanded the page range on 16 March—just 13 hours after you started this thread—so that nothing was unsourced, but you continued to argue your point for four more days. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Moore never wrote anything like "...set the stage for later works of progressive rock", which was the version of the sentence on 16 March. You said earlier what pages Moore explains the reasons the album "set the stage for progressive rock", but you never said where Moore actually says anything like "Sgt. Pepper's set the stage for progressive rock", so I'm guessing you just assumed that was Moore's argument. Dan56 (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

1) "The beginnings of progressive rock are normally traced to the Beatles' Sgt Pepper's". - Alan Moore, 2001. 2) According to the music journalist Thomas Blackwell, writing for PopMatters and citing Moore's 1997 book The Beatles: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Sgt. Pepper "was virtually responsible for the birth of the progressive rock genre". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

We're going in circles ("So you've had better sources, but have chosen to drag this discussion out?") Dan56 (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

What exactly do you want, Dan, except to cause disruption? What are you still arguing about? Are your concerns resolved or not? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Characteristics of problem editors: "One who ignores or refuses to answer good faith questions from other editors". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Concept album

• "The Beatles' Sgt. Pepper (1967) is still considered by many to be the first rock/pop concept album, although various albums released before it had attempted unification at different levels, from collections of diverse songs on a particular theme... [examples from Woody Guthrie in 1940 to the Beach Boys in 1966] ...The Beatles' album is certainly the best known and most popular of these, and [Allan F.] Moore observes that 'Sgt. Pepper affords a looseness of perceptual clarity particularly through its lyrics, its images and the studio manipulation of its musical materials,' suggesting that perhaps its status as a concept album stems from its perceived cultural importance and reception as much as from any inherent musical unity."

• Marianne Tatom Letts, Radiohead and the Resistant Concept Album: How to Disappear Completely, page 15. Indiana University Press, 2010.
• Allan F. Moore, The Beatles: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, page 65. Cambridge University Press, 1997.

• "One year prior to the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper, ... [mentioning Pete Seeger's environmental album, and the Beach Boys' Pet Sounds] ... It was not until 1967, however, that, with the release of Sgt. Pepper, pop/rock critics and fans alike became familiar with the idea of a concept and unified structure underlying a pop album. The term 'concept album' was born."

• Martina Elicker, "Concept Albums: Song Cycles in Popular Music", pages 227–234. Rodopi, 2000.

I led with these two quotes, three if you count Letts quoting Moore, because there are a lot of reliable sources out there that talk about this or that album as a concept album. These two sources, Letts and Elicker, are more interesting to us because they tackle the question directly: what is a concept album? Both of them give Sgt. Pepper the lion's share of credit for being the first extremely popular concept album, despite the undeniable existence of previous albums with a cohesive concept. I think the idea that Sgt. Pepper is an early and very influential concept album is so important that it should be mentioned in the first few sentences of this article, and I think more text could be devoted to this issue in the article body, including quotes from those who disagree with the general tone of Letts and Elicker. Binksternet (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

And finally.....

I have my copy of Lewisohn now. However, there's been so much bickering (see above) about genres and reviews, that I don't feel inclined to work on it while there's so much back and forth. Somebody give me a prod when everything has settled down, and I'll go work on another article for a bit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the disputes have now been resolved, so please do commence with your copyedit! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction

There is an obvious contradiction early on in the main article. It says "Sgt. Pepper is a pop and rock album" but then straight after goes on to say "it represented a departure from the conventional pop rock idiom of the time". My suggestion is that a similar genre, one present in the album, 'baroque pop' (I have a source if needed) is mention in the following line "while incorporating balladry, music hall and symphonic influences." Also the album is widely widely widely known as a rock album, so my suggestion is that the section reads: "Sgt. Pepper is a rock album that is considered to be one of the first art rock LPs. A seminal work in the emerging psychedelic rock style, it represented a departure from the conventional pop rock idiom of the time, while incorporating baroque pop (source), balladry, music hall and symphonic influences." Beatlemanioose (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The album is neither baroque nor art rock, in its entirety. It is pop and rock. Binksternet (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

1) Its a work in progress that needs lots of these types of improvements, so thanks for pointing them out to us. 2) I'm no expert on baroque, but somebody who was an expert once told me that its not baroque unless it has a bass and a keyboard, which must be a harpsichord. There is some harpsichord on the album I think, but its certainly not on most of the tracks, so I'm not sure that characterizing the album as a work of baroque pop is accurate to the preponderance of sources. Maybe Tim riley could add something to this discussion. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Some suggestions

Hey GabeMc and others. I know I'd long promised to help out here … If it's still wanted, I'm making a start in my sandbox. I've just reworked the lead slightly, as a suggestion. There's been some great stuff added to the article in recent days/weeks (I love that Harrison quote post-Philippines!). But I do find that the level of input from various musicologists makes the text pretty unfathomable in places. That's not a criticism – I know how hard it gets when everyone and his dog has written entire books about one album – I'm just explaining why I've felt the need to work on it elsewhere.

There seems to be a lot of overlap between the sections currently, imo. Part of this is that same abundance of musicologist commentary, I think, because we're hearing about the album's influence and legacy so early on (in several spheres: as a possible concept album, through its innovative recording and production techniques, and its standing as a precursor to art and prog rock). I can't help feeling we end up losing out on how the album transpired, the story of Pepper, as so much text is given over to how influential each of these facets later became.

In my sandbox, the first thing I did was move Release down to just above Reception. That's important because the album's release was a huge moment, an event – MacDonald and Schaffner handle this well, from memory. It would be great to have some mention of the Beatles playing the finished album over the rooftops of Chelsea, in the early hours (from Derek Taylor maybe? or McCartney?). Also – and I realise I've previously suggested that the amount of Mac quotes needs limiting – McCartney offered a great recollection that with "Strawberry Fields" peaking "only" at number 2 and talk of the Beatles being finished, he had this "You just wait …" feeling towards the press, the more the album neared completion. I've read commentators talking about listening parties, especially in London, where people of all ages were simply bewitched by Sgt. Pepper, by its mix of pop, psychedelia, brass band, music hall, Indian classical etc. Just my opinion, but as a reader, I think it would be far more effective to learn of the album's countercultural and cross-cultural influence and sheer "wow" factor when we're in the moment – under Release: Summer of Love, June–July 1967 – rather than have these points presented with what comes across as a degree of academic detachment, through the musicologists' remarks. (It's the placement of these comments from Moore, MacFarlane & co. that's diverting, imo, not necessarily the comments themselves – although, their abundance is noticeable also.)

The other thing about this issue is that Reception and Legacy become anticlimactic, because we've heard about the album's influence, usually in pretty laudatory terms, from Concept onwards. So I'm thinking that a suitably significant Release section can draw in a lot of the album's groundbreaking qualities, at least with regard to the giant splash it made on release.

It's all about management of the abundance of information and opinions, I think, and maintaining the focus of each section within the article as a whole. (Sorry, that's so darn obvious!) I think all text touching on legacy and originality needs to be limited severely from the start, in the interests of allowing the making-of "story" to unfold. Music and Lyrics might be a place to up the commentary factor in this regard; but again, the overlap needs to be monitored, where commentators end up offering opinions that belong under Reception. It could well be that an Influence section is needed, to enable those changes, and certainly a more substantial Legacy section. Perhaps "Reissues" as well – to ensure that Release can serve the purpose I'm suggesting.

Also, I really think that the issue of Pepper being viewed latterly as over-rated needs some coverage. (It's a fantastic sound recording, no question, with not an ounce of excess, but the individual songs?) The previous discussion on this has been archived now, but while I'd suggested adding Carr & Tyler's comments on the '70s downturn in opinion, I was interested to read Wasted Time R's comments that Greil Marcus and others had offered a similar view about Pepper. (I'd figured it was simply a UK NME/punk thing.) I think that's an important detail, the critical backlash, because it adds to the subject's notability, that the album still invites debate and reappraisal over subsequent decades.

I'll try to do some work (in my sandbox) on these changes I'm suggesting. Hope it's not discouraging to read my views here, I certainly don't mean it to be, and I'll do my best to help. I just feel that the text has grown so much, I can't see the album in there. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

JG66, as I've mentioned several times before, it would be much easier for me if you would succinctly bullet point your specific suggestions, as I have far too much difficulty translating your walls of text into meaningful edits. I'm not at all opposed to adding a specific quote from someone calling the album over-ratted, but 1) Carr & Tyler's 128-page picture book is not the best source, IMO. 2 That's an odd suggestion when it accompanies a complaint about too many musicologists being quoted. I quote PhD professors of musicology and esteemed authors that are much better sources than C&T, who as far as I can tell have written less about the Beatles than I have. 3) Is this C&T's opinion, or is there really a plethora of mid to late 1970s negative critical reviews available? If so, I'd like to see what sources C&T are citing, but of course they do not provide any notes for these claims. Its not hard to find people that hated Pink Floyd in the mid and late 70s, but they were also the world's best-selling rock band at the time, so I'm not sure about that point in terms of WP:UNDUE, because neither Moore, Julien, MacFarlane, Wagner, Everett, MacDonald, Whitely, O'Grady or Hannan mention anything about a notable critical downturn in the mid-1970s. As far as I can tell, only C&T assert this, which makes it a minority opinion until we can find other sources that share this view. Don't you think? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I've added the Chelsea bit via MacDonald and moved release to before reception per your suggestion. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, and to repeat/expand what I wrote before ... in the mid-to-late 1970s there really was a critical reaction against Sgt Peppers, at least compared to other Beatles albums. The Carr-Tyler book is just one instance. The 1976 Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock & Roll Beatles entry by Greil Marcus goes on at length about the pop cultural moment around the release of Sgt Pepper, but says the music itself "for the most part has not survived its time". The 1979 Rolling Stone Record Guide entry by Peter Herbst gives Sgt Peppers only four stars, while 12 other Beatles albums get five stars. In the introduction to Greil Marcus's 1979 book Stranded: Rock and Roll for a Desert Island, Marcus says he ran a poll among the twenty contributors to the volume for best album ever, and Sgt Peppers was not named much, while Rubber Soul was in the top ten finishers. Those contributors include lots of big names at the time (and some still): Nick Tosches, M. Mark, Simon Frith, Jim Miller, Ariel Swartley, Langdon Winner, Ellen Willis, Grace Lichtenstein, Joe McEwen, Janet Maslin, Tom Carson, Paul Nelson, Robert Christgau (not to start up with that again), Jay Cocks, Tom Smucker, Kit Rachlis, Lester Bangs, John Rockwell, Dave March, and Ed Ward. And in the long annotated discography of essential records at the end of Stranded, Marcus includes many Beatles works but leaves off Sgt Pepper, saying (in another entry) that it was "a Day-Glo tombstone for its time" and that it "strangled on its own conceits". Wasted Time R (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, Moore acknowledges Marcus's critique so I agree that its notable, but what should we say about it and which source should we cite? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I hate to butt in here, as I'm over my head already, but please do not let this thing devolve into another article about picking apart a creative work with de facto write-ups by so-called "rock writers." It's pointless. Please concentrate on the album itself, and the whys/hows and people who made it. Is it just me here? :) Learner001 (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

^scratch this comment. It didn't come out as I intended and sounds very rude. sorry.Learner001 (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Wasted Time R, so you have three sources from the decade that give the album less than glowing praise (although 4 out of 5 stars isn't exactly negative is it?), but how does this translate into "in the mid-to-late 1970s there really was a critical reaction against Sgt Pepper"? Sounds like 1) the punk backlash rearing its head and nothing more, and 2) WP:OR, since we cannot collect sources from a decade to prove a point that must be made explicitly by a WP:RS. I can easily find 10+ sources from the decade that praise the album, so we aren't going to add anything about a "widespread critical backlash" unless a RS actually says this. Also, since Sgt. Pepper won Best British Album at the first Brit Awards in 1977, I think its say that ten years on, the album was still quite revered in the UK. So was this backlash a short-lived and US-centric one, because Rolling Stone obviously changed their tune by 1987, don't you think? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I was just supplying a data point, I don't intend to argue further about it, you are free to ignore it. But I object to your categorizing it as OR on my part. On page xi of Stranded, Greil Marcus said he asked for 'best album ever' among the 20 contributors I named. He lists the ten albums most frequently named, says Rubber Soul was among them and explicitly makes a point that Sgt Peppers was not among them. That's not OR or SYNTH or anything else. That is a useful critics aggregation poll, one of the few you're going to find from that era that go back to 1960s works. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I meant that its OR to assert that "in the mid-to-late 1970s there really was a critical reaction against Sgt Pepper", especially if the only basis of the claim is your improper synthesis of two or three sources. We would need a RS to explicitly state that during the 1970s there was such a critical backlash. You can't collect three sources to use as a jumping-off point for that statement, which is an obvious example of OR, but if its not then you should be able to provide a WP:RS that explicitly states that during this period there was a critical backlash. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest my talk language as the wording that could go into the article, just as a data point in opposition to the impression the current article text gives (a couple of cranky negative reviews at the time from Goldstein and Christgau, universal absolute acclaim ever since). Possible article text would be something like, "In the 1979 anthology Stranded, editor Greil Marcus polled his twenty rock critic contributors about the best rock album of all time, and while Rubber Soul was mentioned as one of them, Marcus wrote that Sgt Pepper was not." Wasted Time R (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see its lack of inclusion in this one book from Greil Marcus as anything notable and to give it special attention is WP:UNDUE, IMO. Just as many sources from the exact same time period took the opposite stance. Also, after Marcus writes that the album was "strangled on its own conceits", he adds: "after those conceits were vindicated by worldwide acclaim ...", so this is cherry-picking at its finest! (emphasis added) We don't assert a negative to prove a point that Sgt. Pepper isn't universally loved; no album ever was so the point is self-evident in the first place. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Marcus also writes: "the absence of Chuck Berry or Elvis from this book is as scandalous as the fact that the Beatles are missing, and as sensible." (p.xxi) When evaluating a source one must look at several factors, not the least of which is whether the author is pushing any obvious bias and/or agenda, which Marcus clearly is in this case (he's a self-professed die-hard Stones fan), as he is intentionally snubbing Elvis, Berry and the Beatles if for no other reason than he does not venerate them at the same level as the preponderance of sources. Really though, Elvis, Berry and the Beatles are three of the most important artists in the history of popular music, so Marcus' obvious bias against them nearly precludes him as a high-quality source when dealing with this album. Anyway, for every best album list that Sgt. Pepper isn't on there are three that it is on, so this is really an exercise in futility, since the primary goal of this article is to give a broad overview summary of the critical reaction, not a step-by-step break-down of critical reactions throughout the decades. However, if it were appropriate to break-down the reception by decade, what would that look like? 1967 to 1973 = good, 1974 to 1983 = bad, 1984 to 2014 = good? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the book, you are mixing up three different things: a) Marcus's omission of Sgt Pepper from his own annotated discography of essential records at the end of the book, which is where those first quotes are from and which I agree is just one person's view; b) the omission of it from twenty critics' submissions of the best ever in the front of the book, which I contend is a more significant sample size; c) the choices of those contributors to write about their favorite albums for a desert island being different from their 'best ever' ones, which is where the Elvis/Berry/Beatles thing comes in and which is immaterial to this discussion. You are right that writing a broad overview of critical reaction is difficult, and I don't envy the task, but nevertheless I think you overweight Goldstein and Christgau in the "Reception" section and underweight any dissenting voices in the "Legacy" section. On different matters, the placement of the contemporary Grammy awards at the end of the "Legacy" section is chronologically jarring (why not at the end of "Reception"), and the inclusion of retrospective reviews in the "Reception" section box but not the text seems a little confusing. But talk is cheap and writing is hard, so if you think they way you have these is best, stick with it. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion about the grammy awards. Thanks; I was thinking the same thing yesterday, but was unsure, so I've now moved it to the end of reception. I've also moved the later BC quote to legacy and added the bit from Marcus there. Thanks for your input, Wasted Time R. Do you think this resolves the issue, or do you have any more suggestions? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Wasted Time R, do you think that this paragraph resolves your concern about a later critical backlash?

While gathering material for his 1979 anthology, Stranded: Rock and Roll for a Desert Island, the editor Greil Marcus polled the twenty rock critic contributors regarding their choice for the best rock album of all time, and while Rubber Soul was mentioned Sgt. Pepper was not.[180] He asserts that by 1968 the album appeared vacuous against the emotional backdrop of the political and social upheavals of American life, describing it as "a triumph of effects" and "a Day-Glo tombstone for its time".[181] In his opinion, the album "strangled on its own conceits", but was later "vindicated by world-wide acclaim".[182] In 1981 Christgau stated that although few critics agreed with Goldstein at the time of his negative contemporary review, many later came to appreciate his sentiments.[183] According to Lester Bangs – the so-called "godfather" of punk rock journalism, also writing in 1981 – "Goldstein was right in his much-vilified review ... predicting that this record had the power to almost singlehandedly destroy rock and roll."[184] In the opinion of the musicologist John Kimsey, detractors regard the album as less a breakthrough and more a "break with all that's good, true and rocking".[184] He cites the preservation of authenticity as a guiding tenet of rock music and suggests that many critics denounce Sgt. Pepper in that regard, accusing the album of "mark[ing] a fall from primal grace into pretense, production and self-consciousness."[184][nb 17] Christgau wrote: "Although Sgt. Pepper is thought of as the most influential of all rock masterpieces, it is really only the most famous. In retrospect it seems peculiarly apollonian – precise, controlled, even stiff – and it is clearly peripheral to the rock mainstream".[186] In Moore's opinion, "because its cultural impact was so large, it was simply being asked to do too much."[187] GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it's much better now, thanks. I would change the "but was later 'vindicated ..." to "while later being 'vindicated ...", since he doesn't think the acclaim negates his point but exists alongside it. The Bangs and Kimsey critiques are good additions and I think the case against Sgt Pepper is now fairly presented. It would be nice to also include an appraisal that rebuts these lines of thought by making clear that contrary to first appearances, Sgt Pepper is really the Beatles album most rooted in everyday life, and that even the 'psychedelic' numbers are taken from the most commonplace sources, such as a child's drawing, a circus poster, headlines in a paper. But I don't know of a source that says it quite like this. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I have this bit in Music and lyrics: "Its primary value – according to the musicologist Alan F. Moore – "is that it manages to capture, more vividly than almost anything contemporaneous, its own time and place."[62] Whiteley agrees, crediting the album with "provid[ing] a historical snapshot of England during the run-up to the Summer of Love".[63]" GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

High pitched tone near the end...

It's commonly said that the high-pitched tone toward the end of the album - before the infinite loop of chatter and laughter - was intended to annoy dogs. One description of the piece (I thought it was here but it must have been either deleted or come from a different article) said that it was added because The Beatles wanted to add the barking of any nearby dogs to the experience of listening to the album. I wonder if there's a connection to The Beach Boys' Pet Sounds (a huge influence on the album at large), which ends with the (recorded) sound of barking dogs (and a passing train). Perhaps, since Pet Sounds ended with a recording of dogs barking, The Beatles wanted to one-up them with the sound of live dogs barking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elliosenor (talk • contribs) 15:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The Making of Sgt. Pepper-Doc

Everyone involved or interested should watch this - or watch it again - now. It really captures the essence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZdTtOLoPsQ If you search Youtube, better quality versions are available in "installments." The current w article is quite good, but the quoteables on this vid from the significant people involved (Beatles/Martin) should be a large part of the foundation, eh? Thoughts?Learner001 (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I usually avoid citing to video sources whenever there are equally helpful print sources available, especially since Martin, George; Pearson, William (1994). Summer of love: The making of Sgt. Pepper. ISBN 978-0-333-60398-7, is a particularly strong source that includes most if not all of the same information as the documentary. In this case the doc is not available commercially, so I'm not even sure how we would get the needed data to use it as a reference (maybe the credits). Also, I don't think that we need any more quotes per se, but if there are any in particular that you think we should include please let us know. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Right, and I knew you would come back with that, but I was not talking so much about quoting the vid version, but about getting people's heads around the album through the sights and sounds, as much as with what's now in print. Otherwise, everything that's critique should be in critique, and everything that's "first person" (people who were actually there) should be presented as such. Just thoughts...Learner001 (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Its certainly a nice little doc that's well worth the time to watch. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the ? to watch was not aimed at you. Keep up the great work! Learner001 (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Freak Out!

Pet Sounds is excellently represented in this article, but Zappa's Freak Out! is minuscule in comparison. There's a lot about it. Zappa quote about "Lovely Rita": "The way they're doing "huffa-puffa, huffa-puffa" in the background? Yes, I do, as a matter of fact. There's also a coincidence in the use of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band as a reprise and the way we do "America Drinks" and "Goes Home" on Absolutely Free." The We're Only in It for the Money cover isn't even mentioned.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Note #3 mentions Freak Out! and We're Only in It for the Money, the other stuff is not notable, and its sourced to Zappa, which is the worst possible source for this kind of claim. The preponderance of reliable sources do not draw a strong connection between Zappa's Freakout! and Pepper beyond the fact that both albums were mastered without rills. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)}

And that McCartney considers Sgt. Peps to be the Beatles' version of Freak Out!.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 05:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC).

Not really; the two albums could hardly be more distinct. Norman does report that McCartney supposedly said something to that effect, but its not repeated anywhere else and especially not by McCartney in direct quotes. As far as I can tell, Macca has never publicly acknowledged more that a passing intrigue in Freakout!, and more to the point, according to Julien: "Freakout! therefore appears to be no more than a possible influence on Sgt. Pepper." If you can supply a RS that critically analyses the two albums, drawing an explicit connection between them then please do share that source; I'd be happy to reevaluate the point should more information become available, but as it stands now, my reading of the preponderance of sources indicates that the point does not merit more than a footnote. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I found that in the biography Blackbird, McCartney states that Freak Out! was "the first pop album that wasn't just a collection of singles", but I can't see the entire page. Nothing else though.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The only thing McCartney says in Many Years From Now about Zappa, is that he asked permission to do the Sgt. Pepper parody cover, which Paul told him he did not have the power to grant, and that Zappa thought that "Zapple" was named after him. McCartney says that Lennon invented the name "Zapple" and that it had nothing to do with Frank. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

FTR, Geoffrey Giuliano is about the worst possible source for Beatles articles. You would be better off citing Wikipedia, but obviously, you are well aware of that. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually I wasn't aware of that. Now I'm wondering about this edit. A lot's been said about Pets influencing Peps, but McCartney's quote is the only(?) direct source that's ever elaborated on the specifics of its influence. I'm not sure for what reason why it was removed. I think it's notable enough that he singles out the instrumentation, vox arranging, electric bass, and percussive patterns. Otherwise it is kinda hard to understand what the two albums have in common inasmuch as they are said to be. Even Wilson was stumped. So was I for a while.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The liner notes from the 1993 version of Pet Sounds are not the best choice for this material, which is not repeated in any source that I know of, so its origin is dubious and not notable, IMO. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The complete liner notes with McCartney are available online. I don't think there's much dubious stuff there. McCartney repeated some of what he said to Leaf on his Oobu Joobu radio show as a segue before playing "You Still Believe In Me" (sadly can't be heard on YouTube anymore). And here. The writing itself reappears in tons of sources.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

1) None of these are reliable sources for Wikipedia, and 2) The text that comes up with that google search is not the same text that you added to the article. If you can find the details in this note in a RS, I'll gladly restore the point. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Release Date

Perhaps it's utterly insignificant, but are there any thoughts on why RIAA would post the release date as June 2 ? http://riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?content_selector=gold-platinum-searchable-database/the-beatles Learner001 (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

"Sgt. Pepper was released on 1 June 1967 in the United Kingdom and on 2 June in the United States."[147] GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Good work on release date. Learner001 (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but at least one of the following statements is incorrect, and possibly both, as we don't yet have enough information to verify the complete truth of the release:

    1 - SPLHCB was released internationally and simultaneously on 6/1/1967.
    2 - SPLHCB was released in the US on 6/2 and in the UK on 6/1/1967.

The problem is that you can NEVER NEVER NEVER have 6/2 in the US at the same time that you have 6/1 in the UK. The reason is that UTC (or GMT) in the UK will ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS be at least 4 hours or more AHEAD of ET in the US. It also depends on DST and which US time zone you're comparing to if not ET. In other words, you don't cross the International Date line between the two. You could have 5/31 in the US and 6/1 in the UK but never 6/2 in the US and 6/1 in the UK. So, you can have two different dates, but that's simply because time marches on.

So, take your pick:

- US release on 5/31 and UK release on 6/1 (possible for about 4-5 hours)

- US release on 6/1 and UK release on 6/1 (possible for the rest of the 24 hour period)

- US release on 6/1 and UK release on 6/2 (possible for the following 4-5 hours, but counter to the universally held notion that it was released on 6/1, especially in the Beatles' own country)

- US release on 6/2 BUT NOT AT THE SAME TIME as UK release on 6/1 (counter to the traditional and official worldwide simultaneous release on 6/1)

The one scenario you can't have is:

- US release on 6/2 and UK release on 6/1 at the same time. Not possible, not even in the Twilight Zone (wellll, maybe yeah in that particular TZ <g>)

I realize that the respected RIAA website states release on 6/2, but for that information to have any value, either in proving or disproving it, first it needs to be determined if it's referring to US release or UK release. My guess is wrong info, and that somebody at RIAA counted time zones in the wrong direction. That or just a typo, it happens.

The only other possibility that I can imagine (sorry, pun was not initially intended), is that 6/1/67 was intended by the Beatles as a symbolic global date for the release, and not intended to be considered literal by time. "Release in the UK on 6/1? Yeah, sounds good. Symbolically it's now considered to be released everywhere on 6/1, regardless of what the clock says."

...sorry, I know...more questions than answers. I just needed to point out the tiny but significant flaw with the Note #30 reference to Int'l date line (in the Pacific, by the way) and the US release on 6/2.

Thoughts anyone?

PS: almost forgot, even Wikipedia lists today 6/1 as the the album's release date under it's home page's "On This Day...". Well, it did a few minutes ago anyway. Jeez, what a coincidence - I just reloaded the page and now, at a bit past 8pm ET, Wiki states that in UTC (London) it's now 6/2, and all you folks in the US, take a look at your clocks...still 6/1? I thought so...I couldn't have planned that if my life depended on it <g>.

Fgoron2000 (talk) 00:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The endnote has been fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks much. Now we just need to figure out how to fix the RIAA site (just kidding)...I do wonder, though, where they got their 6/2 date. Fgoron2000 (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Acalycine (talk · contribs) 23:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Problems:

• In regards to 1b, the article contains weasel words and peacock terms such as "widely regarded as one of the most influential albums ever recorded". Who made this claim? There are some other words to watch in the article as well.
• In regards to 1b, the lead may be too long, since the article has fewer than 15,000 words (prose size), it's lead should be 1 to 2 paragraphs long, according to WP:LEADLENGTH.
• In regards to 2c, this connects to the words to watch, since they are unreferenced, the claims come under original research.
• In regards to 4, this again connects to the words to watch, since the article contains peacock terms and weasel words, it's bias.

Final commentary: It's a lengthy article with a ton of references which is good to see, good job with the speedy fix and the amount of interesting content in this article. Accepted! Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 00:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Acalycine! I've removed the unattributed weasel words from the lead, but I'm not sure that having four paragraphs in the lead contradicts any guidelines; per MOS:LEAD: "it should ideally contain no more than four paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate." GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I've trimmed the lead to three paragraphs. Does this address your concern? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

BTW, WP:LEADLENGTH says "Fewer than 15,000 characters", not words. This article has 8,200 words but more than 30,000 characters. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The article is fine now, what I was talking about with the lead length was the table with the suggestions on that linked page. I've accepted the article as a GA. Well done! In regards to your comment about characters not words, thanks, I always get characters and words confused... Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 01:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I just checked back at this article to see what else needed sourcing after being away, and noticed it's at GA. Nice one Gabe! Next stop FAC? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Next stop peer review, then its on to FAC. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Horns

I linked the first hornist. Any reason why the instrument is called French horn, while the article is simply horn (instrument)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda! I'll bet its the wrong link; nice catch. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) In the UK, it's most commonly called the French horn, and this also helps avoid confusion with a band's "horn section" or the tenor horn. Bencherlite^Talk 21:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Regent Sound Studios

Regent Sound was listed in the infobox for several years as one of the studios used in the recording of Sgt. Pepper. Recently, this has been removed, restored and removed again; the reason for the removal is that so little was recorded there that it doesn't deserve mention.

Fixing a Hole was started at Regent Sound on 9 February 1967. Harpsichord, drums, bass and Harrison's solo were recorded, along with McCartney's guide vocal and Lennon's rhythm guitar. When The Beatles came back to the song at Abbey Road on 21 February, the only overdubs were McCartney's double-tracked vocal; the guide vocal and rhythm guitar from Regent Sound were erased.

The 9 February session is notable for being the first time The Beatles used a British studio other than Abbey Road. Quite a lot was accomplished that night and it would be negligent to not acknowledge the work done at Regent Sound.

Is there any one else opposed to including Regent Sound Studios in the infobox? Radiopathy •talk• 22:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Fixed? You don't need to be so confrontational all the time. Maybe consider starting a talk page thread before you edit war, so its not always a caustic battleground mentality. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK appearance date

An anonymous user changed the DYK appearance date to 30th April 2014, presumably in mistaken reliance on the entry at "Recent additions" (diff). However, as that page makes clear, the date/time shown is the date that the hooks were removed from the main page, not added to it. A check through the page histories shows that it was added to the main page on 29 April 2014, which fits with the time when the bot updated this talk page to add the appearance. Bencherlite^Talk 17:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

mellotron

took out the phrase/link "tape loops" & substituted a brief description of how the thing actually works. how many more times- they're NOT loops!

-)

duncanrmi (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Well I know that, but this is a featured article, so the factual accuracy has to be absolutely top notch. I have borrowed the main book source from Mellotron's own article to substantiate this, and done a slight copyedit to bring it inline with the existing prose. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Misattribution of quote

I've corrected the attribution of the quote in the last sentence of the lead taken from the The Oxford Encyclopedia of British Literature as it was written by Kevin Dettmar not David Kastan. The article on The Beatles was written by Dettmar, Kastan was merely the the editor of the encyclopedia - see:[14]. Richerman (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Genres

I removed a comment that said "Please do not add, remove, or reorder genres without prior discussion. (This ablum has been widely recepted and acknowledged by the band & the general public as a baroque pop record. This genre is necessary." Where is the discussion on this talk page? The word "baroque" does not seem to appear in the recent PR or FAC. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)