Talk:Love (Beatles album)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeLove (Beatles album) was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 29, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed

Different track listing[edit]

Here's a track listing from this article [1]:

'Because' 'Get Back' 'Glass Onion' 'Eleanor Rigby'/'Julia' (Transistion) 'I Am The Walrus' 'I Want To Hold Your Hand' 'Drive My Car'/' The Word'/'What You're Doing' 'Gnik Nus' 'Something'/'Blue Jay Way' (Transition) 'Being For The Benefit Of Mr Kite!'/'I Want You (She's So Heavy)'/ 'Helter Skelter' 'Help!' 'Blackbird'/'Yesterday' 'Strawberry Fields Forever' 'Within You Without You'/'Tomorrow Never Knows' 'Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds' 'Octopus's Garden' 'Lady Madonna' 'Here Comes The Sun'/'The Inner Light' (Transition) 'Come Together'/'Dear Prudence'/'Cry Baby Cry' (Transition) 'Revolution' 'Back In The USSR' 'While My Guitar Gently Weeps' 'A Day In The Life' 'Hey Jude' 'Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (Reprise)' 'All You Need Is Love'

Can anyone determine if either one is correct or incorrect? Thanks. --luckymustard 15:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And this article, [2], actually calls the songs mash-ups. It also has a track listing. --luckymustard 15:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

The article "LOVE (album)" is vacant so there is no need to use the extra "The Beatles" in the title. —☆ CieloEstrellado 02:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for it - the reasons make sense to me. Jason 03:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I went ahead and did the move, but there was some non-trivial GFDL history at LOVE (album), and there was no good way to merge the histories, so I just swapped the pages' locations. Now most of the history can be found here, and some old edits can be found in the history at LOVE (The Beatles album). -GTBacchus(talk) 22:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged any substantial edits into this article's history, and left the old redirects deleted. --kingboyk 13:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't it be Love instead of LOVE? --Lukobe 06:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's specifically refered to as LOVE in cited sources. Just64helpin 18:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linked songs lead to original recordings[edit]

I thought the link to the songs would have entries on the LOVE versions of each song, but to my surprise the link lead me to the song page of the original recording. I was hoping to see a analyst of the song including which bits come from what song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.177.155 (talk • contribs)

Info will be added to each song's respective article when it is cited. Entirely new articles for the LOVE versions are not needed. Just64helpin 19:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miami Herald[edit]

While the Miami Herald is right with the information used and cited in this article (i.e. the song titles), it should be noted that there are errors in the sentence that contains that information. The newspaper article says:

There are two things wrong with that sentence. For one, the drum solo is from "The End"; The Beatles never recorded a song called "Abbey Road". And secondly, there is no feedback involved in the first chord of "A Hard Day's Night". Nevertheless, as an outside source, it's useful as a confirmation of what we already know, but can't write because of WP:NOR. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it refers to Abbey Road as an album (hence the italics). Since the only drum solo in the album is in "The End", one can assume that it's the song referenced. Just64helpin 18:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that article, both song and album titles are in italics, so it really doesn't help any. You're right about the solo, though. (I'm not sure Ringo got very many drum solos on any album.) Even so, as it stands, there are still two errors in that sentence. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 21:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The End contains Ringo's only drum solo, unless of course you include the ”Wild

Drum Track” at the end of Take 7 of Strawberry Fields Forever, included on Anthology II. (this is Bernsteinp, but i can't log in right now -- i forgot my password.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.151.54 (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ringo has a small solo in "birthday", so its not his only solo smile: --96.238.247.129 (talk) 04:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gnik Nus[edit]

Originally, "Gnik Nus" was linked to Sun King (song). Then, someone (anonymous, I think) came by and added the note about it being played in reverse. I fixed it up so that it matched the formatting of the list, and unlinked the list entry because it was the only one not the same as the original song. It was then relinked and the note was expanded to say that it "included elements of" Sun King played in reverse. Then all of this was removed, reverting it back to where it started. I'm just wondering, what is the reasoning behind this? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 16:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three Minutes Longer?[edit]

I think how exactly needs to be explained.213.254.90.177 01:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC) I agree. What is the additional three minutes?[reply]

I've explained this now. The difference is actually less than two minutes. --KJBracey 09:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Night[edit]

Who erased my addition about "Good Night" being incorporated into "Octopus's Garden"? It's described in the Pitchfork review and obvious to anyone who listens to it. Additionally, while the review doesn't explicitly say it's also incorporated in "All You Need Is Love," it's clearly the same sample. Personally I think Wikipedia: No original research should be allowed to be bended a bit in a case like this, as something like what song is incorporated into what song is 100% verifiable if you just listen to them. Anyone have any thoughts? --DanyaRomulus 00:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The addition about "Good Night" being incorporated into "Octopus's Garden" is currently in the article and is cited. Wikipedia's policy on original research is not negotiable, as the WP:NOR lead clearly states. Just64helpin 17:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain as to whether using a song as a source of information is original research. (I'm defaulting to that it is, for now.) To clear this issue up once and for all, I began a discussion at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Audio recording. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 01:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The audio recording does not specifically state where the sample came from, so it cant be used as a source of cited analysis. Just64helpin 14:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Includes elements of...[edit]

Is it just me, or is this track listing going to get out of hand if people keep extending these lists? Given that the Martins have said they've sampled bits of hundreds of songs, I'm sure eventually almost everything in the Beatles' catalogue could be added. And I don't think a track listing is the place for a detailed analysis of the samples and mash-ups. --KJBracey 21:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm planning on converting the "includes elements of" notes to a separate section once sufficient information is cited.Just64helpin 21:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in knowing as many of the songs that are included in each track like most fans, why can't we all agree on what is included and add it, after all the real track listing won't be touched, everyone has that as a basis, it isn't any different adding the story of the wood pigeon to 'Because' than it is to add the drums of 'Why Don't We Do It In The Road?' to 'Lady Madonna'. We should go to town on adding everything we possibly can, obviously by agreeing it first hand, what do you all think? 11:14am 27th March 2008Paul McMarkney (talk) 11:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion on this right here. Just64helpin (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article Rating[edit]

I recently changed the rating of the article to "A", but it was then changed to "B". I'm curious as to the reasoning behind this. It seemed to fit into the "A" class, especially because we've been good and have included references since the beginning. One or all of us should also probably duplicate this information into Talk:Love (The Beatles album)/Comments. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 01:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'll change it back, then. Just64helpin 18:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't A - A means it could be FA, which it couldn't. It wouldn't pass GA right now either - it misses important info, namely the critical reception the album has received. LuciferMorgan 23:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The article provides a well-written and complete description of the topic" - this is for A on the assessment scale, and as I just proved this doesn't qualify. It's certainly B, and definitely not A. LuciferMorgan 00:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guardian album review for use. LuciferMorgan 01:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Observer album review for use. LuciferMorgan 01:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NME album review for use. LuciferMorgan 01:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BBC album review for use. LuciferMorgan 01:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uncut album review for use. LuciferMorgan 01:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Independent album review for use. LuciferMorgan 02:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sgt Pepper in Strawberry Fields[edit]

I'm a little bemused to why my addition of "Sgt Pepper" to the track elements of "Strawberry Fields FOrever" was deleted. It is very obvious to anyone who has actually listened to this album. Solipsist3 00:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Likely because of the Wikipedia Policy of No Original Research. It must be verified by a reliable, outside source in order to be included. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citing The Beatles' Love Flash Site[edit]

Many new bits of information are presented in interviews on The Beatles' Love Listen page. One such new bit was the recently reverted "Yesterday"/"Blackbird" information. How do we go about citing an audio recording contained fully within a Flash animation? And why don't we go about extracting the new information for the article? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 19:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing multiple citations[edit]

Under "Track Elements" I have added some material on "Get Back." This info was found in Reference #13. This means that "Get Back" should have references to #9 and #13. I can't figure how to make that work. Can someone else?KXL 14:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Just64helpin 18:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come Together End Part[edit]

"Can you take me back where I came from", where is this from? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.87.184.150 (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

"Cry Baby Cry" as shown in the tracklisting. Just64helpin 21:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand whoever-wrote-the-first-bit's confusion; That part isn't in the white album's lyrics, and some consider it to be the beginning of Revolution 9. (this is again bernsteinp. i still can't remember my password). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.151.54 (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't really part of either song - it was just a left over piece of ad-libbing by McCartney casually recorded but entirely independently from Lennon's "Cry Baby Cry" and "Revolution 9". It was used as a 'random' link on the White Album. MegdalePlace (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's autually a combination of "Can You Take Me Back?" with strings from "Eleanor Rigby", piano from "A Day in the Life" and percussions from the album version of "Let It Be". Kenny Saxton (talk) 3:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

GA Nomination[edit]

Can the person who nominated it for GA add a "Reception" section? I named five different sources for a "Reception" section on this talk page awhile back. LuciferMorgan 22:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA review[edit]

The article is well sourced, but it isn't well organized. There should be some sort of Reception section and the Track elements section should be prosified. Keep trying and I'm sure this article will soon reach GA status. -- Scorpion 17:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Madonna[edit]

The beginning part: could this possibly be "Why Don't We Do It In The Road?". 67.87.184.150 00:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It definately is, we could add that in the article - Kyodes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.21.154 (talk) 17:28, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
Not really. See WP:NOR. Just64helpin 21:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really get this NOR issue when something is clear like this. It's definitely that song, no doubt. Is it really necessary for someone else to have published a statement to the effect?
On a similar point, suppose you were doing an article on say the Monopoly board and you stated "there are four stations, called, Xxxx, Xxxx, Xxxx and Xxxx. Is this original research? I would have thought that if we're discussing something verifiable by others, it's not really "research" at all, just a description.MegdalePlace (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A similar question was previously discussed here. As for your Monopoly comment, an analogy would be stating that "the font used for the stations is directly taken John Doe Magazine". Comparing item A to item B to determine C is original research. Just64helpin (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's an engaging debate. I think that in adhering to policy two things are needed: 1. Observation of the rules, and 2. Interpretation which respects the spirit of the rules (and not always the strict letter).
To go back to the Monopoly analogy - I would disagree with your comment. I'm not determining where the font was taken from, which requires background knowledge of the process of derivation (ie we 'make up' C as we know A and B, and so draw a causal conclusion). But that's not what I'm saying with the Monopoly example. I am only saying A and B are the same, and not saying one was derived from the other. Fonts have mathematical characteristics and can be identified that way. It it's Times New Roman both times, there's no external reasoning going on.
To use a different argument, say a Beatles album cover featured a photograph of the group. Do I need a source to assert this? Or can I just assert what is patently clear to all? 81.96.164.105 (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By stating that one thing matches another, you're still implying that the one thing was derived from the other. This would be especially apparent within the context of the "Track elements" section. Having "so-and-so contains elements of such-and-such" (with a source) right next to "what-and-what was previously heard on" (without a source) seems quite leading. Just64helpin (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The argument against using OR is a bunch of bullshit. Look at Girl Talk's album Night Ripper. I don't see one damned citation. agahnim 03:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Drive My Car / The Word / What You're Doing"[edit]

Any official word on why the track is credited as "Drive My Car / The Word / What You're Doing", rather than "Drive My Car / What You're Doing / The Word"? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 05:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe instrumental bits from "The Word" show up in the medley before "What You're Doing" does. I'll look for a source. Just64helpin 16:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The track listing in the article is what it says on the Cd box, regardless of what order they're in in the actual song. (bernsteinp, who wants to log in, but can't) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.151.54 (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iamaphoney[edit]

Information on a claim that Iamaphoney found the Love "code" has been removed from the article. The rationale for the removal is that the claim is not substantiated by a verifiable source. If you wish to discuss the change, please do so in this topic. Just64helpin 13:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can claim to have the code. What makes the claim substantial is if a reliable source publishes it. Just64helpin 21:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: If you have found a reliable source, cite it (click here). Do not add links to videos containing copyrighted material. Just64helpin 17:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.75.248 (talk) 8 July 2007
Please also keep in mind that editing an older version of the page removes all contributions that came after that version. Such edits will be undone immediately. Just64helpin 20:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should any reference to the alleged code be in there at all? Is 'The Rock Radio' really a reliable resource? I've never seen a reference to any such code in any other source. And the claim seems to be placed at a random point in the article as well. 71.57.95.144 (talk) 07:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The iamaphoney issue rears its ugly head again. The article should not contain anything about his claim whether there is evidence or not. It's not notable. John Cardinal 20:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that the diff that removed the Iamaphoney bit is linked from an outside webpage. Users that edit this version to end up removing all edits that have been made after it. This is a serious problem. Just64helpin 21:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In iamaphoney's youtube video on the subject, is that the love version of because being played backwards? (bernsteinp. if you've read the talk page, you know about my problems by now.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.151.54 (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music videos?[edit]

What about the highly sophisticated, original music videos for the Love tracks provided by user CapitolRecords that keep popping up on YouTube lately (a few have been deleted already)? Have they ever been officially released for sale? --Tlatosmd 17:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hate[edit]

There's a wee parody of the album going about called Hate... doesn't seem you can download from the website anymore, but it's pretty popular on torrent sites. I don't suppose it might be worth a little mention here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.11.130 (talk) 16:07, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant and inspired. The downloads worked for me. 71.205.136.119 (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it ought to be mentioned in the article.78.86.61.94 (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the Beatles?[edit]

The piece starts with the assertion that Love is an album by the Beatles. I think this needs to be considered. It is an album consisting of a collage of their music, but is it really "by" them? If I took a load of shakespeare lines and assembled a stream of quotations for artistic effect, would the resulting work be "by Shakespeare"? MegdalePlace 20:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is a collection of music originally performed by The Beatles, approved for release by surviving members of the band. You could also use the fifth Beatle argument for George Martin, but I wouldn't. Just64helpin 20:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have made an alteration to the sentence for clarification. I maintain that while the music is by the Beatles, the album itself is not. The album is a collage, which forms a piece of creative work in itself, using the original songs as materials. It's a small point, but the opening sentence did jar somewhat. MegdalePlace (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can see what you're getting at, although I think it can be justifiably described as a Beatles album, purely on the basis that it was released and marketed as such with the full approval of those with the legal power to say so. By that argument, the degree to which the finished work actually relies on the creative efforts of the Beatles, or not, becomes technically (if not artistically) irrelevant! In a way, I think saying Love isn't a Beatles album would be like saying Let It Be isn't ... on the basis of the tapes being handed over to Phil Spector after the end of the band's direct creative input, and without their full artistic approval / control of what was eventually released! That said, your alteration was a good one that marks a fine difference, and is one I find entirely reasonable. So no need for me to have said anything, really. ;) Jellyman (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carnival of Light[edit]

I'm not sure, but I think that the transition between Somthing and Being for the Benefit... has a part of Carnival of Light in it. I think I read it in the booklet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muchachos (talk • contribs) 18:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think so. The songs are connected by bits from "Blue Jay Way" and "Nowhere Man", and I think the odd orchestral dubs are from "Mr Kite" itself, although I don't recognise all of them. If there is a bit of "Carnival" in there, it's been slipped in quietly! MegdalePlace (talk) 11:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template Problems[edit]

I fixed the infobox. For some reason, the template said "Template:infobox album" instead of "Template:Single infobox" mrfunnyd 17:49, November 30, 2007 (UTC)

Love is an album, not a single. This is even indicated in the article name, so I'm a bit puzzled as to why you think it's single. Just64helpin 23:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double Grammy winner[edit]

Love won two Grammies last night - not bad for a group that stopped recording together (with a couple of exceptions) 38 years ago... 147.70.242.40 (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All You Need Is Love finale[edit]

At the end of All You Need Is Love, we hear snatches of Baby You're a Rich Man, Rain, and Sgt. Pepper. But like 2 or 4 counts before Baby You're a Rich Man, there is a guitar part that comes in that was not part of the original All You Need Is Love. I have tried to listen to it and figure out where it is form, but it is buried too far beneath the rest of the soing for me to hear it clearly. Does anyone know what song it's from?

In clarification, I'm not asking to put this on the actual page, I know it's original research. Just wondering if anybody knows, that's all - just leave a reply here if you do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mellophonius (talk • contribs) 05:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Think its the ending to a Hard Days Night in a different tempo and it ends with The Beatles Third Christmas Record 1965 --Muchacholoco (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muchacholoco (talk • contribs) 17:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I listened to Hard Day's Night and I think you're right about that guitar part. I don't have any of the Beatles Christmas stuff so I can't listen to it :(. -Mellophonius —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.223.219 (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no idea what it is. I did make a list of everything I could identify once before though. agahnim 15:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone edited the All You Need Is Love page and said it was the guitar riff from Ticket to Ride. I still think it's Hard Day's night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.117.212 (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly believe my self its Ticket to Ride now, because when i lightly plug my headphones into my 4g ipod i am able to hear background noises louder and foreground noises lower i will try to upload a clip of the sound. I've also discovered a strange cartoony Xylophone section in strawberry fields 3:05 into the song, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muchacholoco (talk • contribs) 21:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interview with Giles Martin[edit]

Son of George Martin and producer of Love, Giles Martin speaks in this interview and touches upon the process, selection, and mixing of songs. 2008 (Full disclosure, I am an editor at Crawaddy!, but I am not posting this link on the page to avoid COI concerns.) Please use the review and cite it if you feel so inclined. Best,Asst. Editor, Crawdaddy! FenderRhodesScholar | Talk 23:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promo sampler and interview album[edit]

this article has one major flaw:there were two albums that were promo only that were associated with "LOVE" they were very important in the promotion of "LOVE" so I feel as though they should definitely worth adding to the article along with photos.

Sure Please add more info, just make sure that it's sourced. How did you find out about this? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The Code"[edit]

has there been any follow up as to what the code was or if anyone found it? MaJic (talk) 09:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source article is old, and I have never heard of such a thing since. I imagine there's no basis to it. If George Martin said it at all, it was most likely a joke. Otherwise, there would be better sources by now. I suggest a delete from the article as it's not relevant.
I know this is a bit old, but, i've seen elsewhere that the code is the top half of the 'LOVE' logo on the album cover, mirrored from the bottom of it so it's looks like it says "CODE". --92.237.84.183 (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. JPG-GR (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love (The Beatles album) → LOVE (The Beatles album) — caps — Eiduringi 21:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The album has always been referred as capitalized on the album's description and the cirque du soleil's official website

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed merge from LOVE (4 Track Sampler)[edit]

Support - LOVE (4 Track Sampler) should not be a separate article; the contents should be merged here. It's a limited release that isn't notable on its own. The current version of LOVE (4 Track Sampler) is unreferenced and is likely to stay that way. It's unlikely to grow as an article and the contents can be moved here without disrupting this article in the slightest. — John Cardinal (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per John Cardinal's reasoning. AtticusX (talk) 06:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but sources should be found first. Deserted Cities (talk) 06:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support The articles suggested to be merged are unsupported and have no meaning to be a separate article. --Colonel Valh ala-112 03:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying Samples: Let me put it in these terms[edit]

Note: rather than simply digging up the old dispute, I've done that and proposed a way to reduce tensions if it isn't resolved. Read to the end for the latter. /Note

Wikipedia articles do not consist solely of sentences cited by secondary sources. The article for Hammer starts with an unsourced summary describing the object in question. The article for Electric Guitar describes its subject in much more specific detail. That's because policy and precedent alike say that citations are primarily needed for non-trivial analysis and potentially contentious statements.

The point is that many (not all!) of the identifications we'd like to make are as trivial and non-contentious as saying the top part of a guitar is called the headstock. You might have to refresh your memory of the original song, but when anyone hears it in the mixed version it's clear as day. That's just the obvious ones, yes. Anything speculative can just stay out.

We won't even make definitive statements that X is the source of Y if we phrase it "elements of X song can be heard at 1:34." That simply describes what the album sounds like. It describes the subject of the article in uncontroversial ways, just as they did in Hammer and Electric Guitar.


Oh, and if these small steps remain unapproved how about we reduce tensions by providing an outlet for the people wanting to add observations? This is the LOVE article on The Wikia Beatles Wiki. They would love to have this information, and that way a reference will be built somewhere on the web.

P.S. A lot of good info can be found on this other Beatles wiki. It's not collated but on the pages for each remixed song there's usually a section like this. --Qwerty0 (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia, etc. But Wikipedia is not a random collection of facts nor a repository for trivia. In a mundane topic like hammer, it is necessary to make simple, non-controversial observations that do no constitute research at all (original or otherwise.) When analyzing a piece of art, it is necessary to indulge in research and that can't be original on Wikipedia. I think that the Beatles Wikia is an excellent place to deposit this material, but I do not think it is going to be fit for an encyclopedia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

iTunes release[edit]

The album's just been announced as being released on iTunes on February 8th, 2011. It will include two exclusive extra tracks: "The Fool on the Hill" and "Girl" (both Love remixes, obviously) --BrowndRemastered (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added this to the article using the iTunes Store listing as a reference. jhsounds (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vinyl Catalog number[edit]

I have Love, on Vinyl and it does not have any catalog number of any kind. --Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 18:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I stand corrected, I forgot to look on the spine - till now. :P --Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 19:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

iTunes duration in infobox (and any reissue duration in any infobox)[edit]

Hello,

I was surprised to see that the duration for the iTunes version was erased from the infobox. It appears that it had not its place in the infobox according to Radiopathy as it's not part of the original release. But on this page [[3]] it appears to me that this restriction only applies to date and label.

I personally believe this duration is a relevant information and that it has its place in the infobox, next to the CD and DVD-A length. After all are we really talking about a re-issue per se, or a new format available? But I cannot argue much than that: English is not my native tongue and I'm no Wiki-Guru...

It's also true that in these times of countless reissues it could give endless listings (imagine 'Live at Leeds', 'Smile'…)

At least it should appear somewhere else in the body of the article, no?

But if you all believe it's no relevant information, well, let's drop it :)

Thank you for reading,

Megatof (talk) 09:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. : the iTunes version has a duration of 86 minutes and 41 secondes.

For what it's worth, I asked a similar question at Template talk:Infobox single about Rock Band lengths, and was told it's not appropriate for the infobox. GoingBatty (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An idea for a song medley[edit]

I think they should have combined "I'll Be Back" with "Wait". The reason why I thought of this is because before I'd learned both songs well, my mind imagined bits from both of the songs and stuck them together. And for a little while I actually thought that those lyrics I remembered came from the same song. C.Syde (talk | contribs) 23:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOVE song mixes[edit]

Pretty much the only difference between this version of Help! and the original is that the instruments are more distinguishable on the LOVE version.

The main difference I've noticed between this version of A Day in the Life and the original is that the progressive orchestration is seemingly more restrained during the first of the two orchestrated parts. And I think the song has been polished, giving it a higher quality sound.

It doesn't say that Blackbird/Yesterday is a medley "transition", yet, I can't hear any guitar work from Blackbird once Yesterday begins - how is it not a transition if the two tracks seemingly don't cross over? -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 10:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Love (Beatles album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone check link 25 ?
the reference is regarding Tomorrow Never Knows.
the link goes to a Tom Cruise thing. WaitTillWhen (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WaitTillWhen  Fixed! Although the page talks about Cruise at the top, there are several unrelated stories on the page, including one on Love. I've fixed and moved the reference, and pointed out that other parts of the sentence needs other references. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you hear these samples?[edit]

I found some samples listed in the "Track Elements" section are not audible to me. Can anybody kindly point them out for me? 1. Drum roll from "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!" in "Lucy in the Sky with Diamond" 2. Harmonium from "Cry Baby Cry" in "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!/I Want You (She's So Heavy)/Helter Skelter" 3. Piano from "Dear Prudence" in "The Fool on the Hill" Kenny Saxton (talk) 3:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Kenny Saxton: If something is supported by a source, it stays. If it seems a pretty extraordinary claim (i.e. if the sound doesn't seem to be there at all), then perhaps we need to add "according to …" to the statement.
In the same way, per my 2nd revert of your changes, we can't just add details that aren't supported by a source. That's original research, and over the years, this article seems to have been a magnet for OR. And further to your post on my talk page, if a detail that's currently in the article is not supported by a source (say, for "Girl" or "Fool on the Hill"), it shouldn't be there, or it needs a cite needed tag. JG66 (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion about whether we should list very audible samples to the list have been talked many times (Like the "Good Night" and "Sgt. Pepper" issues in this page). I think as long it is audible, we should list it no matter if any resaerch or review mentioned it. And there're definitely "Eleanor Rigby", "A Day in the Life" and "Let It Be" samples in the "Can You Take Me Back" part. You just need to listen. Kenny Saxton (talk)
You're wrong. The inclusion of a portion of "Good Night" appears to be supported by the Pitchfork reference; I don't know about the "Pepper" issue. There are requirements on Wikipedia that all article content be supported by a reliable source. Unless it's been decided somewhere that there's a clear exception in the case of remix albums, that's the rule we adhere to. So, either cite a past discussion where consensus has been reached for this across the encyclopaedia, or start one and achieve that consensus. i.e. WP:BURDEN JG66 (talk) 05:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
New reference added, hope you understand Chinese. Kenny Saxton (talk)
I think you need to familiarise yourself with what Wikipedia is and what it is not. No, I don't speak Chinese, but you snuck in a whole load of other changes with that last edit, none which were accompanied by a new source. JG66 (talk) 07:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you don't understand Chinese, how could you tell my source isn't reliable? Believe it or not, this is the reliable source. Just get yourself a translator and read the article. Me and the author dug the Beatles' music really deep. We trust and stick to our ears not rules. To be honest, I am a producer too, that's why I have access to the multitrack sessions. Not every truth must be confirm by researches or reviews. If you can prove me wrong on these samples, I'll delete them right away. Kenny Saxton (talk)
And the sundry other changes you slipped into that edit without a source of any kind? With regard to your so-called reliable source, Wikipedia doesn't, and needn't, trust your ears – that's the point. JG66 (talk) 08:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kenny Saxton: "Trust ears, not rules" is not a valid approach on Wikipedia. Our goal isn't to say everything that is true but everything that is verifiable. Are your only sources in Chinese? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: I view all languages of sources, this is the only reference I found support my findings. Like I said, prove me wrong on these samples. If you can't, I beg you please read the reference I post. Kenny Saxton (talk)
@Kenny Saxton: Strictly speaking, we can have non-English sources here but English is preferred for obvious reasons. Can you establish that this Chinese source is reliable and verifiable? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: I can say for sure that source is reliable. That website (www.zhihu.com) is for people good at a specific field to answer questions raised by those who don't know much and want to know. The author is apparently familiar with the multitrack sessions and have done a lot of research. I trust his judgement. Kenny Saxton (talk)

LOVE song mixes - Again[edit]

I'm resurrecting the section which I started back in December 2014, because no one has responded to it, and it's been over three years, so time to start a new section about the same subject so that I can hopefully get some answers this time.

  • Has anyone noticed any differences between the mix of "Help!" on this album and the original album mix? The only differences that I can hear - if any - is that this one has been remastered and possibly received some stereo enhancers to give the song a more modernised sound and feel. But I'm not sure whether this is the case, or I'm imagining things, simply because I'm desperate to find out the difference between the original mix and this one.
  • Without the "Sugar Plum Fairy" vocal introduction found in this mix and the absence of the sound effects found at the end of the album mix of "A Day in the Life" - these sound effects were also omitted from the song's appearance on the "1967-1970" compilation, can anyone hear any differences between this mix and the original album one? One thing I can hear is that the progressive orchestration is seemingly more restrained during the first of the two orchestrated parts. And unless my ears are deceiving me, the song has a more polished and high quality sound. I mean it has been remastered after all.
  • Once the music from "Yesterday" begins, can anyone hear any elements from "Blackbird", or does the instrumentation from "Blackbird" stop once the instrumentation of "Yesterday" starts? If it's the latter, then why is "Blackbird/Yesterday" not considered a transition when listed on the back cover of the album?
  • Oh yeah, and while I'm at it, does anyone know where the spoken vocals found during the instrumental bridge of "Octopus's Garden" come from? Because I can't find them anywhere in "Lovely Rita", "Yellow Submarine", or "Helter Skelter".

― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 06:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

C.Syde65, I don't have any answers to your questions, specifically, I'm afraid. But have you checked out John C. Winn's two [very good] books on the Beatles' recordings? Using previews available at Amazon and on google, I've used them quite a bit in song articles, and while he's not always necessarily right (say, on which Beatles played what), he is super thorough. On each entry in the books, whether it's a recording session, live show, interview or appearance at an airport, he lists which bootlegs or official releases contain the song/interview/archive footage, whatever. So, where relevant, you'll find mention of elements of a track that were used in the Love mashups. Other than that, all I can say is that if no reliable source discusses a particular detail about these Love tracks, even if we can hear them, it really has no place here. JG66 (talk) 08:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Regarding your question on "Octopus's Garden", I think the spoken part is from the movie of "Yellow Submarine". Kenny Saxton (talk) 07:38, 24 March, 2018 (UTC)

Few Questions About The Samples/Details That Not In The List[edit]

When I was listening to the album again this morning, I noticed some samples not in the list here. Can anybody help me confirm whether it is true? [All the samples I mentioned can be heard clearer on 5.1 surround sound versions]

  • At about 1:06 in "Within You Without You/Tomorrow Never Knows" starts a reversed drum which I spoted in the take 26 of "Strawberry Fields Forever". I compared the multitrack sessions, and they are identical. Also, at the ending part, before the keyboards from "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds", there's a sentence of lyrics from "Rain" (the sun shines).
  • In the bridge part starts at 1:35 in "Octopus's Garden", I heard drums and few guitar notes from "Polythene Pam".
  • In the "Cry Baby Cry" part of "Come Together/Dear Prudence" (with "Cry Baby Cry" transition), I heard pitch-shifted strings from "Eleanor Rigby", piano from "A Day In The Life" and drums similar to the album version of "Let It Be".
  • In the ending of "All You Need Is Love" I heard drums from "It's All Too Much" and Geroge singing "I don't mind" from "I Want to Tell You".
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenny Saxton (talk • contribs) 05:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And some samples in the list are audible to me. Can someone point the out?

  • Harmonium and other elements from "Cry Baby Cry" in "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!/I Want You (She's So Heavy)/Helter Skelter".
  • Drum roll from "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!" in "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds".
  • Elements of "Let It Be" in "All You Need Is Love".

Kenny Saxton (talk) 07:56, 24 March, 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Love (Beatles album)[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Love (Beatles album)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "wwsales":

  • From Slumdog Millionaire: Music from the Motion Picture: "'Slumdog Millionaire' soundtrack sells 2 million units". Neapolitan Music. Retrieved 27 January 2013.
  • From Soundtrack album: The Bodyguard Soundtrack worldwide sales:

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Love_(Beatles_album)&oldid=1198716950"