Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5


Genres

As of now psychedelic rock is listed as the main genre of this album. Should progressive rock be mentioned as one of the genres? I would consider songs like Good Morning Good Morning and A Day in the Life to be progressive, it fits many of the definitions given here on Wikipeda. The album can even be found on progressive rock websites: [1][2]. I also think baroque pop should be mentioned, The Beatles were influenced by Pet Sounds and songs like She's Leaving Home is described as baroque pop here on Wikipedia.

Finding exactly right genre is difficult, definitions may vary and not everyone bother to classify the exact (sub)-genre. It looks like genres of songs/bands/artists appears to usually not have a source, but reached by consensus. I think a discussion is a good idea here. So let's hear your opinions and/or sources. Helpsloose 00:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What you think the album sounds like is irrelevant for encyclopedic purposes, and those webcites aren't reliable sources we can cite. Prog didn't even really begin to formulate until 1968. Psychedelic rock is sufficient. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
See this: [3][4][5][6][7][8]
I think this is barely enough to put progressive rock there, does anyone agree with me? And what do you think about baroque pop? Helpsloose 20:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Only one of those is a reliable source, the Allmusic link, and that says "The earliest rumblings of progressive and art rock could be heard in the poetry of Bob Dylan and conceptually unified albums like the Mothers of Invention's Freak Out! and the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, all of which suggested that rock was more than just teenagers' music and should be taken seriously as an art form", which is followed by "Prog-rock began to emerge out of the British psychedelic scene in 1967, specifically a strain of classical/symphonic rock led by the Nice, Procol Harum, and the Moody Blues", which establishes the album as a precursor to prog, not prog in itself. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Although I sometimes disagree with Allmusic, in this case they can't really be faulted. The Progressive rock article gets it spot on IMO with the founding fathers of prog, and although you could call The Beatles experimental in a sense, prog they were not, according to major definitions of the term then or now. Over the last year or so I've seen more grief about musical genres than most other things (except homeopathy), and it's tiring. Even today, there was a difference about Sugababes; hell, does it really matter? (Sorry, it's Friday night here). --Rodhullandemu 21:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I give up. I see also that Allmusic mentions many genres ([9]), but progressive rock is not one of them; so I agree (at least for now) to not list progressive rock. Even if some of the songs may be progressive rock, it is probably not enough to be one of the main genres of the album anyway. Allmusic do lists prog-rock/art rock as one of the many genres of Abbey Road ([10]) and MTV Shop lists it under the same genre ([11]). But I don't bother starting a new discussion about adding prog-rock and the other genres to that article, it looks like most people wants as few as possible genres in the infobox. Helpsloose 21:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
There are 12 distinct tracks, all with arguable distinct genres. I suggest listing 12 genres would overload the infobox to the point of stupidity. --Rodhullandemu 22:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
this is stupid, why is it that other albums (like jimi hendrix's electric ladyland) have 5 (or more) genres listed and sgt.pepper has only one? it makes no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.12.241 (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

WOW!!!

Holy moley (is that how you spell it?), this article is nearly 70,000 bytes and its hardly even sourced! If you were to ever actually get it sourced it would be like 100,000 bytes. Im no expert on the beatles but Im guessing some if it could be trimmed. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 01:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Crap we can remove

  • Works directly inspired by Sgt. Pepper: None of this is needed at all. Every even moderately influential album gets covered in its entirety . A simple delete should do the trick. (Only on Wikipedia do tribute albums have so much coverage)
  • The list of parodies of the cover: This is pretty much Trivia 101. Replacing the whole thing with "Given the iconic status of the cover, it has been parodied a number of times" should be enough. indopug (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Organization

Okay, using the FA Loveless as a guide, here are my suggestions for how this article should be organized.

  • Background (their decision not to tour; their time spent apart (such as Harrison going to India); the "Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane" single)
  • Production Recording
  • Music and Lyrics Music
  • Concept/Theme (since it is the concept album)
  • Album artwork (I hear the album cover is kinda famous)
  • Release
  • Reception
  • Release and reception (promotion, contemporary reactions, chart info)
  • Legacy
    • Technical Innovation (Not sure what you mean; shouldn't this be in the recording section?)
    • Awards Accolades (Awards like the Grammies go to reception, accolades like the "best ever" lists come here)
  • Track Listing
  • Personnel
  • Sources
  • References
  • External Links

I think that's good for this article. There are a lot of sections here that can be combined into these basic sections. Of course, more sub-sections can be created under these if necessary, but they should fall under these basic sections. Please vote in the next section. Thanks. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 16:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't need consensus for this at all actually. indopug (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, just go for it. Be bold. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay then. I just wanted to make sure that my sections were okay; I guess I really didn't mean consensus, more like "let's go for it?" Anyway, thanks Indopug for the suggestions, and I'll get to work right away! Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 21:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done

Also, I moved A LOT of paragraphs around to fit with the new sections. Check out the edit. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 02:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

What a real gentleman Kodster is. Not only checking things out with other editors (as per the extensive list above) but doing it in such a friendly, and helpful way. If there was ever a paradigm for new editors to follow, it would be Kodster, without a shadow of a doubt. About this article I would say go for it, Kodster.--andreasegde (talk) 09:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Andreasegde, you make me blush. ;-) Thanks for the "inspiration", but I'm sure we'll need a consensus before permitting such original research on Wikipedia. :) Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 17:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sod original research - it's a fact:)[1]--andreasegde (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, one is allowed to delete the Notes section, but it was good fun.:))--andreasegde (talk) 16:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


Article

I have to be honest and say that this article will need a complete overhaul to bring it up to standard:

  • although they were still extremely efficient and highly disciplined in their studio habits.
  • and songs were growing longer (such as Dylan's "Desolation Row," "Like a Rolling Stone," and "Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands").
  • He reluctantly issued the two songs as a double-A-sided single
  • this song segues seamlessly

That's after a very quick look. I wish anyone who wants to take it on the best.--andreasegde (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the "good luck". Considering the fact that the article is 59 kb long and has only 32 refs, it's safe to say that we'll need it. ;-) Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 14:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Original research

Because Wikipedia requires reliable sources, our best bet is to indiscriminately remove all cases of original research (not necessarily on the article page) and fill in the necessary info as we find it in academic sources. A lot of this info is gratuitous (i.e., speculation) and should be removed. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 15:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


Sleeve text

I recently added a short note under the track listings heading saying that the track listings was intned to be different and I then found to my displeasure that it it has been removed - the reference to my edit is the big sleeve in the cardboard box, the one with the cutouts in, and this is in turn 'extracted' from 'The Beatles at Abbey Road', published in 1897. I would like a more expereinced editor to advise me on whether or not this would be suitable for this article - thank-you, JC P.S. I am new to edditing and any advise would be deeply appreiciated. 86.149.249.64 (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

We would regard reference to a "thing itself" to be a primary source and to be avoided if possible. However, you mention a book, which would be regarded as a valid secondary source. If you add the information and reference it to the book using the {{cite book}} template, that would be admirable. --Rodhullandemu 18:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I am afraid that i can not find any reference to the said book outside of the album sleve, does anybody know of this book and can give me an ISBN or a link to a relevent website Winnie412ii (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi Winnie:

    The sequence of songs on Pepper is famous in itself, being - on the vinyl version - two continuous sides of music, without pauses between songs, or 'banding', to use recording parlance. But the line-up of side one, as first conceived, was different to how it finally evolved, and was as follows: 'Sgt.Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band'; 'With a Little Help From My Friends'; 'Being for the Benefit of Mr Kite!'; 'Fixing a Hole'; 'Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds'; 'Getting Better'; 'She's Leaving Home'.

    from "The Beatles at Abbey Road, by Mark Lewisohn, 1987". It should be on amazon.com. Hope that helps. --Rodhullandemu 18:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats brilliant thanks - I'll edit it tommorow if I can ind the time! Winnie412ii (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have just eddited the page , please could anyone coment on it as to wheather I had done it right - thank-you! Winnie412ii (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Good start! I've taken the liberty of rewriting it a bit and adding a reference to the book in our usual format; I've also removed reference to the sleeve since I don't really think it adds very much. --Rodhullandemu 18:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll remember that for next time 86.149.249.64 (talk) 06:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"Professional" Review

Can someone explain to me why Piero Scaruffi's review is included here? Is he really a noted music critic that deserves to be cited in an encyclopedia article? As far as I can tell he is terribly biased against popular music. 169.229.107.148 (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's here because Scaruffi is an writer approved by Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums. The fact that he seems to be biased against "popular music" (whatever you actually mean by that) should be taken into account in reading his reviews, but policy requires that we direct our readers to all points of view and not just those we happen to agree with. If you want to change Scaruffi's acceptability by the whole project, that is the place to do it, not here. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 12:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
You know what I mean by "biased against popular music", you wiki-snob. 169.229.82.36 (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
And you know what I mean by WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I've set out how and why Scaruffi is acceptable as a source, and how his reviews should be treated. "popular music" can mean many things from Glenn Miller to Eminem so such a comment is too wide-ranging to be meaningful. Take it to the parent project, please. --Rodhullandemu 01:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

well he's out of the list so we can delete his reviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.255.43 (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Although your removal of Scaruffi reviews may be done in good faith, please note two important points about your rationale for deleting them. First, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums is a project page, not a policy page. Secondly, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Review sites is not an exhaustive list of acceptable review sites. In fact, the introductory sentence to the section states: "The following is a list of some websites with reviews or links to reviews that you can use in album infoboxes" (emphasis added). It does not prohibit any review site (except those listed as Non-professional or Non-English). I'm not arguing for or against the quality of Scaruffi's reviews, just that your rationale is not policy, only your opinion. So you need to discuss on the articles' talk pages and wait for consensus before removing Scaruffi reviews, or come up with a much better rationale. Scaruffi reviews are linked on a lot of pages, so I think you will encounter some problems by unilaterally deciding to remove them without consensus. Thank you.

ok sorry, so i'm for kicking the guy out, because his reviews aren't professional, he just writes what he thinks and what is his opinion without any sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.255.43 (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

After reading these last batch of comments about Piero Scaruffi and then looking at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums page and reading the comment there, I must ask, why is this guy still in the info box? It seems it was agreed to remove him as a professional reviewer on album pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.112.93 (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC) you're so right i also can't understand why we can't kick him out? i mean he isn't anymore on the list and on this album are enough reviews so we don't need his here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.173.169.210 (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is Piero Scaruffi's score not allowed, yet George Starostin's remains? As far as I can tell, they're on the same level of professionalism (that of amateur internet rock criticism). I think reviews that have gone through a printing/publishing process should be the only ones allowed. And that doesn't include the thousands of websites that include Scaruffi's or Starostin's that lurk about on the internet. Anyone can make a site like this. I'm not taking sides, just asking for consistency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.53.175 (talk) 07:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Scaruffi is more than qualified for this position. Beatlesfan are hurt by this. Their logic is that Scaruffi doesn't have publication, whereas Christgau and Starosin do not as well. Christgau's review on Sgt. Pepper is not in publication. "because his reviews aren't professional, he just writes what he thinks and what is his opinion without any sources." lol, that's called an opinion and every critic has one. What qualifies that a critic is professional? Are you stating that some critics are right, and some are wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.34.13 (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Scaruffi is as qualified to comment on anything as I am, but Christgau's opinions certainly seem to be accepted within the music industry, although often terse and unjustified. Scaruffi may have a point because his opinions are at least justified. But he's a self-published source and therefore only a reliable source if you happen to agree with him. That's just not good enough for an encyclopedia. However, since the Albums project seems to have reached consensus that his reviews are not authoritative, and he has been removed as a recommended source, this discussion might be better held here. It's been nearly nine months since we last thrashed this out, so perhaps a new discussion is overdue. IT seems that "Wikipedia interprets lack of drama as a threat, and routes around it" Rodhullandemu 23:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding me. Christgau's review was published either in the Village Voice or Rolling Stone. He's written for every significant publication going over a period of more than four decades. And you want to put his view on the same level as some inarticulate pinhead who started up his own website because he had too much free time on his hands, merely because Christgau's review happened to be sourced from his own website (which I promise you gets 100 times as much traffic as Scaruffi's). —Preceding unsigned comment added by William Bowe (talk • contribs) 15:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Title origins

We should probably include a section on the origins of the title "St. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band," yes? I remember seeing some details of it in a book I read, but I'll get to finding it. Turbokoala (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

External link to tribute albums

I had added an external link to a page that lists tribute albums to Sgt. Pepper's which was removed by User:Radiopathy's bot in less than an hour. Wikipedia contains no such list (at least that I've found) and I had thought it would be of interest to readers; the link provided the information without significantly extending an already-long article. So, what criteria for external links does this violate, and why would the readers be better off without a list of Sgt. Pepper's tribute albums? (BTW, I've made over 500 edits and I think this is the first one that has ever been reverted.)--Drake Redcrest (talk) 12:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not using a bot., first of all. Second, I'm assuming good faith, which is why I questioned my own assumption in my edit summaries. A good discussion here should answer both of our questions. Thanks. Radiopathy •talk• 17:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. To stimulate the discussion, can you tell us some of your reasons for deleting this? Thanks, --Drake Redcrest (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Since Radiopathy has not explained his rationale for deleting the link after several days, I elected to restore it since I continue to feel that it adds more than it detracts.--Drake Redcrest (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

remastered version

According to Rolling Stone (and T(t)he Beatles website), EMI are releasing remastered versions of all the Beatle LPs (UK versions) Sept 9 2009. The mono version of Sgt Pepper is also being released but only as part of a boxed set of mono albums. With Beatle things, I tend to wait until it happens before I believe it(!), but the article will presumably need updating when it happens - it would be nice to be able to get the mono version for less than what the boxed set will cost. Apepper (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The single

After McCartney left Capitol, they took liberties with the releases. Capitol issued a single, with picture sleeve, in 1978 (#9 years after the fact). It was also released worldwide: http://rateyourmusic.com/release/single/the_beatles/sgt__peppers_lonely_hearts_club_band_with_a_little_help_from_my_friends___a_day_in_the_life_f1/ Hotcop2 (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't get the single info correct in the box, but the info's on the page, if someone could put it up properly.... Hotcop2 (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorted. Radiopathy •talk• 01:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Hotcop2 (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


Pet Sounds

I find it appalling that the Beach Boy's Pet Sounds isn't mentioned anywhere on the page. Without Pet Sounds and Zappa's Freak Out, there wouldn't be a Sgt. Peppers! --BuddyOfHolly (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There should be two mentions. McCartney's quest to better "Pet Sounds" resulted in "Peppers" (sic) and Brian Wilson's nervous breakdown following its release. Hotcop2 (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think that the reason for Brian's breakdown was the release of Pepper - I never understand that statement when I read it. Brian had his first breakdown in '64 so he had a history of depression. I think it was much deeper than just hearing Pepper even though I'm sure he was blown away by it. But he was blown away by Rubber Soul (amongst other records) as well and there was no breakdown then. Of course we will never know the exact reason why he went downhill around 1967, but I'd say it has more to do with his depression/mental illness and his increasing drug intake. If you read the story of Smile for instance, Brian was growing very paranoid believing that a song he was recording caused fires to burn and that Phil Spector and various mind gangsters were spying on him. I think Brian had bigger worries than Pepper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.154.95 (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Frank Zappa

The article says that Zappa did not like the album, which may be true to some degree considering 1968s We're only in it for the money (and its cover art) by him and The Mothers. But it's worth knowing that that album was not made to mock The Beatles specifically, but is an overall satire on the late 1960's hippe culture and the conservative establishment. As a matter of fact, the album also mocks Jimi Hendrix, but Frank has also expressed an interest for Hendrix music, see this interview. As for The Beatles, he didn't dislike them (see this interview), and have said that he liked a few of their songs, even covering "I'm the walrus" on his last tour in 1988, as you can see here.
- 217.211.92.186 (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the phrase indicating he didn't like the music as unsupported. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Date

Hey, well... in this page, said that the record was released in May 26, 1967, that's true?.--Julio1017 (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Changed ratings to C

I've changed the ratings of this article to C as there is no way it meets the criteria for B. Large parts of it are unreferenced and it's full of POV and original research. Here are just a few examples:

"Since the other songs on the album are unrelated, one might be tempted to conclude that the album does not express an overarching theme. However, the cohesive structure and careful sequencing of and transitioning between songs on the album, as well as the use of the Sgt. Pepper framing device, have led the album to be widely acknowledged as an early and ground-breaking example of the concept album."

"However, traces of this initial idea survive in the lyrics to several songs on the album ("A Day in the Life", "Lovely Rita", "Good Morning, Good Morning", "She's Leaving Home", "Getting Better", "Fixing a Hole" and "When I'm Sixty-Four"), and, it could be argued, provide more of a unifying theme for the album than that of the Pepper concept itself."

"However, it seems that in reality it is nothing more than a few random samples and tape edits played backwards. The loop is reproduced on the CD version, where it plays for a few seconds, then fades out. Although most of the content of the runout groove is impossible to decipher, it is possible to distinguish a sped-up voice (possibly McCartney's) actually reciting the phrase "never could see any other way". Played backwards, the last element of the original LP loop that is Sgt. Pepper's Inner Groove appears to be George Harrison saying "Epstein" (obviously missing from the CD version)."

"For example, the stereo mix of "She's Leaving Home" was mixed at a slower speed than the original recording and therefore plays at a slower tempo and at a lower pitch than the original recording. Conversely, the mono version of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" is slightly slower than the stereo version and features much heavier flanging and reverb effects. McCartney's yelling voice in the coda section of "Sgt. Pepper (Reprise)" (just before the segue into "A Day in the Life") can plainly be heard in the mono version, but is barely audible in the stereo version. The mono version of the song also features drums that open with much more presence and force, as they are turned well up in the mix. Also in the stereo mix, the famous segue at the end of "Good Morning Good Morning" (the chicken-clucking sound which becomes a guitar noise) is timed differently and a crowd noise tape comes in later during the intro to "Sgt. Pepper (Reprise)".

Other variations between the two mixes include louder laughter at the end of the mono mix of "Within You Without You," a gush of laughter during the intro of the reprise version of the title track and a colder, echo-less ending on the mono version of "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!".

Need I say more? Richerman (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

UK all-time biggest-selling albums

You might use this link, which I found on the "(What's the Story) Morning Glory?" article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6151050.stm Kvsh5 (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper's uniforms

I'm very new to Wikipedia, and am might be jumping in too quickly, but I see a possible error in this article. The uniforms worn by the Beatles are attributed to Manuel Cuevas, a western tailor based in Nashville, TN. This contradicts Paul McCartney's story of the suits' origin:

"For our outfits, we went to Berman's, the theatrical costumiers, and ordered up the wildest things, based on old military tunics. That's where they sent you if you were making a film: 'Go down to Berman's and get your soldier suits.' They had books there that showed you what was available. Did we want Edwardian or Crimean? We just chose oddball things from everywhere and put them together. We all chose our own colours and our own materials: 'You can't have that, he's having it...' We went for bright psychedelic colours, a bit like the fluorescent socks you used to get in the Fifties (they came in very pink, very turquoise or very yellow). At the back of our minds, I think the plan was to have garish uniforms which would actually go against the idea of uniform. At the time everyone was into that 'I Was Lord Kitchener's Valet' thing; kids in bands wearing soldiers' outfits and putting flowers in the barrels of rifles. "

-Paul McCartney in The Beatles Anthology - Page 248 ISBN: 0811826848

I've edited the page on Manuel Cuevas. Should this page also be corrected? How should conflicting citations be addressed? --Ponyfortruth (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Cuevas says here that he made some clothes that ended up as "part of" the uniforms - not that he designed them completely so there may be some truth in both stories. In the reference used it was the interviewer that said he designed the uniforms - not Cuevas himself. Cuevas didn't refute what was said but maybe he just let it go to be polite - who knows? I see you removed a citation in the Manuel Cuevas article but you shouldn't have done that. The way to address conflicting citations is to put both in and say something to the effect of "x says this but y says that". What you shouldn't do is try decide yourself which one is right and which is wrong. Richerman (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. I thought I might have been a bit quick to edit that. I'll correct the Cuevas article to include both sides. I'm not sure how the interviewer, Glenn Beck, did his research for that interview or where that information came from. It would be helpful if TV hosts provided footnotes with citations. :) This site has some detailed photographs of the suits including images of an M. Berman Ltd. label inside Paul's trousers: http://www.costumersguide.com/cr_pepper.shtml It does not identify the source of the images, though. I'm not sure that site would meet Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source. --Ponyfortruth (talk) 01:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


As of today, November 20 2010, I see the section on the uniforms still attributes the entire design to Cuevas. There's an interesting range of opinions and facts at work here, from what I have seen. The only conflict I see is that Cuevas is given full design credit at present, where two sources - Cuevas himself being one - support his partial credit.

- Cuevas. At the time he was a recent but established couturier based in Nashville TN. On the air, Glenn Beck tells us that Cuevas designed the costumes. Cuevas was there with Beck, but didn't comment at all according to the transcript. No support, but no denial. Separately, a National Geographic report of an interview in which Cuevas says that clothes he designed for The Beatles in Nashville ended up as part of the Sgt Pepper costumes. Thirdly, although Cuevas lists The Beatles as past customers on his own web site [12], the only detail that expands that mention is a photo of John Lennon in black suit and shirt. I thought it strange that Cuevas made no mention of Sgt Pepper costumes, as notable as they are compared with other things he has mentioned. But from both of these sources, a comment from Cuevas himself has more weight than a comment from a media host.
- M Berman Ltd. At the time the firm was a long established costumier based in London, England. The Sgt Pepper photoshoot took place in London. There is no mention of Nashville. There is a quote from Paul McCartney, in a book about The Beatles, telling us that the band went to the company to get their costumes, and that they were not just one item but a collection of different things that they just assembled from different things. Also, on a costumer's web site, we read that the costumes came from the company, and there's a set of photographs from the Sgt Pepper cover photoshoot, including a pair of Paul's pants showing the M Berman label. I don't know that we need the costumer's web site to support anything, because McCartney should be a trustworthy source.

So, I think that we have all we need to make a decision based on Cuevas' and McCartney's words. Cuevas says that part of the uniforms were his design. Paul McCartney says the uniforms came from M Berman but were a collection of various pieces rather than an entire set, or even four discrete items.

Doesn't the evidence weigh down in the direction of some of the M Berman items having been designed by Cuevas, and some in-house by M Berman? Without going to the sources directly, that's probably as close as anybody will get. So why can't we have something along the lines of this: "M Berman Ltd supplied the uniforms; some items were designed by Berman and some by Cuevas." We have two citations which support Berman's and Cuevas:

- Comments by Paul McCartney that support Berman's as the main source, and
- Comments by Cuevas in the National Geographic interview that support his partial role.

There is no conflict there. The present attribution is only supported by a third party comment which was neither denied nor accepted by Cuevas. Both of the other citations are arguably more valid, because they come directly from people who were involved at the time.

But this has bounced around for a little while, so what do you think? Thyrd (talk) 05:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

one paragraph of the opening text

Making use of orchestras, HIRED MUSICIANS and innovative production techniques, the album incorporates elements of genres such as music hall, jazz, rock and roll, western classical and traditional Indian music.

the hired musicians makes it sound like they used session musicians, what they did, but only for the orchestral parts, so it shoule be made clear that all non orchestral instruments are being played by the band themselves. they're not the beach boys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.44.229.168 (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Run-out groove loop audio

My original research contribution was reverted as such. However, I feel this is worthy of discussion here. My (reverted) contribution was:

Using Audacity, the free audio editor, it is possible to reverse this section (select section with mouse, then use function Effect+Reverse) and slow down the speed Effect+Change Speed... to make it more intelligible. This function changes speed based on turntable speeds (78rpm, 45rpm & 33⅓rpm). If the speed is changed from 45rpm to 33⅓rpm, then it does sound rather like "Will Paul come back as Superman?". However, if the speed is slowed down from 78rpm to 33⅓rpm, then the result is more diffuse and could, indeed, appear to sound like "We'll fuck you like Superman" although it is far from clear.

My notes were:

This contribution is original research, but is something that can easily be replicated. I am surprised nobody has noted before that the speed of playback makes a difference...

I actually searched to find out if I could find links to reports on the differences heard when playing back the reversed audio at various slower speeds, but could not find any.

For convenience, I have uploaded the resulting audio files to mediafire.com

The first is, of course, an mp3 audio file, the second is the native Audacity file format.

Both files have the same audio content in four segments:

(1) 00:00 run-out groove loop audio as recorded
(2) 00:35 run-out groove loop audio played back in reverse
(3) 01:12 run-out groove loop audio played back in reverse, slowed from 45rpm to 33⅓rpm
(4) 01:56 run-out groove loop audio played back in reverse, slowed from 78rpm to 33⅓rpm

Played forward, it does seem to sound to me like never could see any other way which is similar to what McCartney claimed It really couldn't be any other. However it is also possible to make sense if it is played in reverse.

Feel free to download either or both of these files and listen. What do you think? In my humble opinion, in take 2 and particularly 3, it seems the most coherent interpretation is "Will Paul come back as Superman?" with not much apparent ambiguity. However, if you slow it down still further, the words seem to become more diffuse and a hard k sound seems to emerge which is probably why some think they hear "We'll fuck you like Superman" ... although this needs a little more imagination.
Enquire (talk) 02:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

for a while i thought it said agave lucy ending of the war but now im proven to be wrong. oh yeah, the loop belongs in a day in the life so it is not a single track. (Coolioride (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC))

This page is for discussing improvements to the article and really isn't the place to discuss this as original research isn't allowed - end of story. see wp:verifiability - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" Richerman (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Wikipedia: How to do it correctly, and still have friends" (2008) p1

Psychedelic rock

I understand that not every song on the album fits into psychedelic rock. However, a large portion of the songs on the album are in fact psychedelic rock songs and the article even describes it as "a defining album in the emerging psychedelic rock style", so I think that psychedelic rock should be listed alongside rock in the infobox the way it is in the infobox of the Revolver article. Does anyone have any opinions? --John of Lancaster (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Psychedelic rock makes allot of sense, so I'm fine with the infobox. SgtPetsounds (talk)18:55, 27 December 2010.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sgt._Pepper%27s_Lonely_Hearts_Club_Band/Archive_2&oldid=497801110"