Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Track listing numbers

@JG66:, @Radiopathy: I notice a small edit war has broken out over track numbers. MOS:ALBUM#Track listing says "Albums originally released primarily on vinyl or cassette should similarly list the tracks of each side separately under sub-headings named "Side one" and "Side two" but says nothing about whether the track number should continue on side two (and above), or reset to 1. The "Disc one", "Disc two" example given immediately below it suggests numbers continue to rise.

If we can reach a consensus here, I'll update the MOS. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Blimey, that ain't an edit war! No, my thinking is that an album's often referred to as, say, a 14-track album, so in our track listing, the addition of "Side two" signifies the break well enough, but the original list can continue for each selection. Admittedly, I'm influenced by having worked on articles for a couple of Indian classical albums, where there might be only one selection per LP side – so that's worth bearing in mind in a discussion like this. With that sort of an album article, it's a case of trying to do away with the likes of:

'Side one'

1. "A Very Long Track Indeed"

'Side two'

1. "A Very Long Track Indeed (Reprise)"

As far as the current wording goes, I get where Radio's coming from, and the phrasing there is confusing. I'd think that in instances where it's something as substantial as "Disc one", Disc two" (i.e., a whole disc), the list should start again each time. But for LP sides, not – for the reasons explained. Might be an idea to check the FAC here, because I'm sure Gabe would've been right on it; could well have been an approach he's followed from Are You Experienced or another album FA, where reviewers/delegates perhaps supported having an unbroken list over two LP sides …? JG66 (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I can do better than that - consider Third or Tales of Topographic Oceans - a double album, one track per side. Listing the tracks as 1. 1. 1. 1. is a bit silly isn't? Of course, neither are FAs, so let's find some articles that are - Highway 61 Revisited, Rumours and The Dark Side of the Moon. All high in the list of WP:ALBUMS/500 (this article is #1), and all have contiguous track numbers. So that's my 2c in the ring - I'll go with your version. (Technically, this is an edit war, albeit one that does not require any sanctions, as I counted bold, revert, revert and no discussion. That's one more revert than WP:BRD.) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The vinyl album is the initial release. The numbering of "Side one" and Side two" should be consistent with the actual album numbering, otherwise it's original research. If the initial release was on CD, then yes, numbering from one to sixteen, or whatever, would be appropriate, but we can't make up our own numbering system, or combine vinyl and CD track numbers. Radiopathy •talk• 23:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's keep the vinyl sides in order, starting from 1 each side, since that was the original layout.

Ignore the strawman arguments here. There's no need to bring up arguments about other albums that have one track per side; why would those tracks even be numbered? It is sufficient to call those tracks something like "side 2" rather than "side 2, track 1". Binksternet (talk) 00:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

But several featured articles don't do this - why? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

It's along the lines of WP:OTHERSTUFF: just because those articles do it doesn't mean it's correct or appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiopathy (talk • contribs)

WP:OTHERSTUFF is an essay (not a policy or guideline) for handling AfD debates. These are featured articles! They are supposed to represent the pinnacle of what Wikipedia articles can be, and they should have excellent writing and sourcing and conform totally to the entire manual of style. If you sincerely believe that one doesn't, you must list it for re-assessment immediately. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Alright, here it is in a nutshell: we are editing an article about a vinyl album in the post-CD/iPod era. People who are not familiar with the technology and the hardware are probably not aware that each side of a vinyl album almost invariably starts with track one; they are wrong when they list the first track of side two as, e.g., number 9, when, if you actually look at the record itself - the reliable source - you will see that track one of side two is, in fact, number one.

If you use contiguous numbering in an article about a vinyl album out of ignorance, you are not adding deliberate factual errors into the article, and your edits should merely be corrected without comment or edit warring. However, disrupting with edit wars and pointless discussions is most certainly not welcome. Radiopathy •talk• 17:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Rills

I've started a discussion about this article's usage of the term rills; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Rills--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

As the word is unnecessary, I've been bold and removed it. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 01:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Original concept

The article states that the original intention was for an album "thematically linked to their childhoods." While there are sources that say this, it doesn't appear that any of the Beatles or George Martin ever said this. If anything, their comments seem to contradict this claim. In Many Years from Now Barry Miles writes:

"Sgt. Pepper is often described as the first concept album, but it was not initially conceived as such. There was never the intention to make a themed album, a 'northern' album, or present a mini-opera as the Who did later."

and

"Paul does not remember any overt decision by himself and John to write songs with a northern theme, even though these first two [Strawberry Fields Forever and Penny Lane] would indicate a concept album along those lines."

Regarding those two songs, George Martin has said:

"They were all intended for the next album. We didn't know it was Sgt Pepper then – they were just going to be tracks on The New Album."

Martin has also said the album "didn't start out life as a 'concept album'" and that "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band was the song that triggered the whole idea of the album becoming a 'concept' album."

Considering the contradictory evidence from primary sources, perhaps this passage should be removed from the article. Piriczki (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I sort of see what you mean – the lack of support from primary sources. But under Recording & Production in the article, the statement is supported by both Everett and MacDonald. Given their standing and the fact that (right or wrong) the claim seems so familiar in relation to the Sgt. Pepper story, it might be an idea to simply credit this supposition to those two authors in the prose?

Personally, I see a host of other problems with the article. Sorry to say, because I know GabeMc's now retired, but I find the text variously exhausting and impenetrable – with the attention given to each leg of the 1966 world tour, the early introduction to a conceptual theme that doesn't in fact have any relevance until late in the sessions (the "alter egos" theme, not childhood), the continual input from musicologists, then the showdown of opinions between Goldstein and Christgau that runs over the Reception and Reappraisal sections … And the focus is so McCartney-oriented. Of course, he guided the project, but the others weren't just passengers; there's plenty of notable info missing regarding both their antipathy towards the project and their genuine contributions. It's seen as a landmark release in the history of world music, for instance, by Ken Hunt in Rough Guides: World Music and Peter Lavezzoli in The Dawn of Indian Music in the West. (Also: there are dedicated song articles for each track, lest we forget; it needn't all appear here when discussing the parent album, surely.) I don't know if anyone's even vaguely interested in addressing any of this, but it's something I tried to broach with Gabe at the time. (Despite his and my frequent altercations, I love the guy and miss his participation on Wikipedia hugely, btw.) In short, I think the whole structure of the piece is relevant to a discussion of the legitimacy or the presentation of the point about a possible childhood concept/theme. JG66 (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not just the absence of support from primary sources, those sources directly contradict the claim. Even MacDonald acknowledges that McCartney denies the childhood concept, quoting him saying "there wasn't any conscious we'll-sit-down-and remember-our childhood." In Many Years from Now McCartney indicates there wasn't a designed theme even with the two songs "Strawberry Fields Forever" and "Penny Lane," saying "I think we wrote them round about the same time, we were often answering each other's songs so it might well have been my version of a memory song but I don't recall." I think it's just a myth, like the story of "Fixing a Hole" being about McCartney repairing the roof of his Scottish farmhouse, of which he said "People just make it up! They know I've got a farm, they know it has a roof, they know I might be given to handyman tendencies so it's a very small leap for mankind ... to make up the rest of the story."

I suggest the passage be changed to "It has been said that the original intention was for an album thematically linked to their childhoods although McCartney denies this." Piriczki (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I've got MacDonald and Miles sources, and they do indeed say this. The Anthology TV series also has Lennon rejecting the concept album entirely, with Ringo saying "we did St Pepper and Billy Shears, then everyone said sod it, just do tracks", though I don't have my VHS copy anymore. It's a shame GabeMc's gone, as he's got the full gamut of sources to work with. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Honor vs. Honour

DNFTT. BencherliteTalk 16:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The site en.wikipedia.org is an American website. The internet is, itself, an American invention. The last two wars fought between the US and the UK were won by the US. The correct spelling is h-o-n-o-r. When Britain does something of note, we'll change it back. And, don't say, "The language is English." It's bastardized French and German, anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.137.226.147 (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Please read the note on your talkpage, we have accepted standards on Wikipedia. If you continue to change it will be considered vandalism and you could be blocked.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 03:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC) (edit conflict) The site attempts to be universal: see MOS:ENGVAR. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 03:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Consensus has been long established that British groups use British English. Also, this is a Featured article that has undergone a rigorous review of prose and sourcing, and therefore new editors should exercise caution in editing it, as the odds of being reverted (due to the edit not conforming to the FA criteria) are much higher. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC) And while we are being childish, the computer was invented in England, the World Wide Web was invented by an Englishman, Wikipedia has been built up by many non-Americans from all across the World, and American English (note that term English) is a bastardised form of British English. And guess what? - the Beatles were English too :-) Richerman (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Next week, Richerman will be devoting a few sentences to explain the relationship between this and this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Is the Pope Catholic? Richerman (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC) I think we can assume the Pope's American … JG66 (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Personnel

The list of musician contributions to this album has changed dramatically in this article over the past few months, despite the same sources being used. In addition to this the personnel information in the main article doesn't match the information in the album songs' articles. A wikipedia article of this standard should be more thoroughly examined before any additional change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.217.145.189 (talk) 09:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

you what?

@Binksternet: I'm confused, I gave a perfectly good rationale for my edit, and the changes are valid – what do you mean, "Rv ... Block evasion by Chowkatsun9"? JG66 (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was aiming to get rid of this one edit by a sockpuppet, not your work. Binksternet (talk) 17:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, no worries. If I'd looked harder, I would have seen as much, I'm sure.

Just a note (to everyone) about that Personnel section. I've been comparing the current version with how it read in May 2014, when the article made FA, and the two are quite close, though there are some inconsistencies. I plan to go back and check everything against MacDonald, because, from a quick comparison, I can see that Lennon's so-called "vocal percussion" on Lovely Rita doesn't appear to be included (yet we do have "vocalisations" under McCartney); there's "kazoo" under Harrison, say, but no "comb and tissue paper"; and I'm not sure where McCartney's "electric piano" has come from … Also, if they're being cited to MacDonald, the session musicians' contributions to Within You Without You are incorrect (well, MacDonald or otherwise, they are incorrect): harmonium shouldn't be there, swarmandal should be, and it's dilrubas plural.

Figured I'd raise this up-front. On the other hand, I only have a 1998 edition of MacDonald, so if anyone's got the '05 edn and sees a discrepancy or two, give me a shout. JG66 (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Correct title?

This article is called "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" but when you read the text on the album cover it says "Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band". Should the apostrophe be there or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.77.222 (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

That's just the logo on the drum skin - the title on the back of the album has an apostrophe. Richerman (talk) 21:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Punk Reaction

Despite my extreme passion for this album, the reception section is missing a vital aspect, the 1970's punk out roar against the album. A huge amount of critics began to diss it, primarily in the punk scene. It was panned for being pretentious art pop, not true rock music. As a matter of fact, by the late 1970's the albums reputation had severely waned. However the 1980 death of John Lennon has been credited as re elevating the Beatles to legend, near untouchable status. I feel a section in the reception to needs to talk more about the up and down reception of the album through the years. Its 1967-Mid 1970's legendary status, universal panning by the new, predominant punk scene, then its rise back to good grace. The only negative review that goes into detail is the goldstein one, which isn't sufficient to talk on the varying degrees of critical reception. Of course, expand the negative section would probably mean expanding the positive section. If we can reach a consensus on the expansion of the reception section to include the Punk Wave's public and widespead attacks on the album, ill begin to work. Please weigh in. Joshua0228 (talk) 00:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua0228: Saw your comment but it's taken me this long to find something that might be useful to include. Having done quite a bit of work recently on Beatles releases either side of this one (Revolver, "Strawberry Fields", Magical Mystery Tour etc) I've come across this, from John Harris's "The Day the World Turned Day-glo!" feature (Mojo, March 2007, pp. 72–89):

Pepper's impact was seismic and universal, a matter not just of a dizzying cultural moment but an art form – rock music, that is – reaching multi-coloured maturity. In 1974 the staff of the NME made it their Number 1 all-time album, and it's hard to imagine a dissenting voice back then. At least 10 years after its release, Sgt. Pepper was still commonly regarded as rock's defining masterpiece.

Yet, 11 years further down the line, the 100-strong best-ever list published in the same title found no place for the album at all …

What on earth had happened to Sgt. Pepper? Though by no means universally degraded (a 2006 Radio 2 listeners poll had the album back on top) Sgt. Pepper had taken a protracted beating from which it has perhaps yet to fully recover. Regularly challenged and overtaken in the Best Beatle Album stakes by Revolver, the White Album, even Rubber Soul, it suffered more than any Beatles record from the long fall-out after punk, and even the band's Britpop-era revival mysteriously failed to improve its standing.

Harris goes on to cite how the album was synonymous with the Baby Boomers and "the comfy nostalgia-tinged smugness that befell the decade's progeny in the 1970s"; the 1978 Sgt. Pepper movie with the Bee Gees and Peter Frampton; and that: "After the era-closing death of John Lennon and voguish relegation of Paul McCartney, there's also an ongoing reluctance to embrace an album so blatantly motivated by the creative energy of the latter."

(That does contradict what you say about its standing as a result of Lennon's death, of course.)

It's safe to say that Harris is offering a very British perspective, particularly regarding the influence of punk; having said that, I think our article's possibly overly focused on what American commentators have to say. From memory, the 2nd edition of Carr & Tyler's The Beatles: An Illustrated Record offers some relevant comments – unsurprising given that they were NME journalists and this revised edition was published in 1978. I remember suggesting that Carr & Tyler's views would be worth including, and I think the same reappraisal argument that you're referring to was taken up by @Wasted Time R: early last year. (It'll be in the archives – and/or maybe it was discussed during FAC, not sure.)

I agree something should be mentioned in the article, although I really don't see that this would then require "expanding the positive section" as you suggest. The article's bulging at the seams already with the amount of comments and asides we get from musicologists and the like – through "Recording and production", "Music and lyrics", "Reception", "Reappraisal" and "Legacy". (I'm thinking especially about Reappraisal, given all that's preceded that section, and in the way it seems as though almost every sentence is followed by a long endnote offering a further comment/quote.) I've said it before: I reckon something's got to go. There's not just this legacy/punk issue to consider, but other points are missing. I'm thinking of: the immediate aftermath to the release and how, in many biographers' eyes at least, the Beatles appeared burnt-out post-Pepper; the LSD influence, and how the album became synonymous with the drug after the furore of McCartney's announcement in June 1967 that he'd taken it; the resentment the Beatles had towards Martin after critics made a point of praising him for his contributions (the Beatles' contention being that he, Emerick & co. were merely facilitating the band's ideas); and, most obviously, the fact that Harrison and Starr, and to a lesser extent Lennon, are practically invisible, when they've had plenty to say about Sgt. Pepper … JG66 (talk) 10:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping and for remembering this. Yes, my comments are in Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band/Archive 4, look for "On the substance of the matter" and then later "to repeat/expand what I wrote before". A bit of what I wanted ended up in the "Reappraisal" section of this article, but basically I never had much luck getting GabeMc to agree with me on anything. In particular he disliked the Carr-Tyler book, while I think it's an important part of Beatles historiography. Note that it was the 1975 first edition of Carr-Tyler that I was quoting; they were ahead of the curve, then the Sgt Pepper backlash intensified with the onset of the punk era.

I agree that there are other points missing and that there isn't always a clear reason why material got stuck into Notes rather than being in the main text. I don't agree that this means something's got to go. This is likely the most written-about album of all time, and as a result it's going to have a long article. In my view it's better to include everything of significance and let readers decide what they want to read than to omit material and never give readers a chance. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I think An Illustrated Record is a good source. Being one of the earliest critical retrospectives of the Beatles, it did a lot to shape others' opinions (in my opinion). Other good sources are the articles "It was twenty years ago today..." by Kurt Loder and "Rock's most influential album?" by Michael Goldberg (both in Rolling Stone June 18, 1987). Loder offers a good synopsis of the re-appraisal of the album and the Goldberg article features quotes, positive and negative, from critics, producers and musicians. Piriczki (talk) 13:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the Carr & Tyler can be ignored at all, it was landmark – eg. this. At the same time, I see Gabe's point, because Tyler (particularly) had a rather sinister agenda: he landed with a splash at NME by gleefully crucifying Lennon and Harrison over 1972–73. Heck, I loathe the book, personally – but I love Nicholas Schaffner's Beatles Forever. Answer is, they both belong. JG66 (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Piriczki: Hey, thanks for those suggestions. I've found the Loder piece online. He doesn't seem to offer anything as authoritative (or should that be "sweeping"?) as the John Harris/Mojo article, aside from saying that Pepper sounds dated and faddish. It's all useful, anyway. I think it's important that Harris qualifies his statement with the phrase "Though by no means universally degraded", although he's perhaps overstating the case regarding the album's critical downfall, I don't know. Acclaimed Music lists Pepper's various appearances on critics' best-album lists. Looking there, I'm surprised to see the album still at number 1 in the 1987 edition of Paul Gambaccini's The World Critics Best Albums of All Time. Then again, with relevance to the (UK) punk backlash, it should be noted that most of those critics polled by Gambo were American – at least, that was certainly the case with his first book. I used to have an old, old copy of that 1977 edition (from memory, the top ten went something like: the Beatles at numbers 1, 5, 6 and 9, Dylan at 2 and 3, Stones at 7 and 8 – it would be interesting to see how the top ten looked in '87). JG66 (talk) 04:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

You'll be happy to know Sgt. Pepper was #1 on Rolling Stone's 100 Best Albums of the Last Twenty Years in 1987. Piriczki (talk) 06:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that Chicago Trib piece – even though I was old enough to be listening to the Beatles records as they came out, I wasn't quite old enough yet to form a real appreciation for their work, and so I too read Carr-Tyler, Schaffner, and Castleman-Podrazik cover to cover when they came out. In particular, as an American, nothing of the early Beatles period made musical sense to me until Carr-Tyler came out and I saw the British versions of the albums; around the same time they became available as imports, so I bought them and started hearing the coherent evolution of their sound for the first time. Carr-Tyler was a bestseller in the U.S. and I would guess it helped a lot of other Americans gain a new perspective on Beatles musical development too. As for their having it in for George I quite agree, and I was/am a huge George fan, but still the value of the book far outweighed its faults. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

<edit conflict> @Wasted Time R: Slightly surprised you think all the detail is needed, but then I'm a big believer in GA-ing song articles, and I see almost all the tracks on this album as GA-worthy – if the commentary given on each one were just siphoned off to the dedicated song article. My point is, even before Reception, Reappraisal, etc, I find this article an exhausting read: we've heard what everyone else thinks of it, but what exactly is it? (That's partly what I mean about the band element being invisible: the article's focus seems to be McCartney, Martin, Emerick.)

GabeMac – well, he was very good at blanking editors that challenged him, and all too ready to take things very personally. It's unfortunate, because he misconstrued things that were merely symbolic of a shared passion for the subject. I was reminded of that when I followed your archived link, saw him referring to my "walls of text". I dunno, I think article content merits discussion, and that might involve something beyond a bullet point, author name, and a page number … Having received the first of a few warning salvos from Gabe, and seen him remove my comments from this album talk page the day after he nominated the article for FA, I stayed away from the subsequent FAC in the interests of harmony, given his and my clashes in the past. That sounds very Within-You-Without-You of me – well … Well, I'm not interested now (and wasn't then) in marking anyone's homework or chasing vendettas. My point is that this is a Wikipedia article yet in many ways it doesn't represent the Beatles' album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band; it's too focused on McCartney's guiding role in the album's creation, with musicologist-speak serving as auxiliary interference. Of course McCartney's role should be highlighted, but not to the extent that other band members get hardly a look in. I've got no end of sources that suggest a more group-oriented perspective than we present here, while still acknowledging McCartney's crucial input. (Wasted Time R, please don't take this as being aimed at only you. I'm beaming far and wide!) JG66 (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Nothing so taken. And there are certainly reasonable differences of opinion about article length; there's a classic argument that the more skillful writers are the ones who can make it shorter (I guess that's not me :-). Regardless, going back over the "Side one"/"Side two" sections, I agree that they are heavy going. Musicological content is okay (WP articles are often technical, look at anything in medicine, math or physics for instance) but I would distinguish between song material that relates to the album as a whole, which belongs here (segues between songs, common lyrical themes or musical motifs, or album-wide trends such as McCartney handling a lot of the lead guitar parts) versus per-song material that is unique to that song and can be relegated to the song article (like the long quote about Yoko re "Lucy" or the back history of "When I'm Sixty-Four", just to take a couple of examples). As for the article overplaying McCartney's role, if I remember correctly at some point I said Lennon's role was being overlooked but Gabe dismissed that by saying John was heavily into drugs and out of it during this period. In any case, I will note that after giving all my comments at various stages, I did not give it a 'Support' at FAC, so I certainly have no objections to it being revised. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I don't mean to sound anti-musicologist. It's an important perspective to include; I only know Everett's book, which is great. What I'm talking about is that there's so much of it, almost as if the approach is that we simply have to hear from Womack, Moore, Riley, Everett, MacDonald at (almost) every turn. Not only that, but Tim Riley (music critic) and Ian MacDonald are all too quick to don a critic's hat and offer their personal opinion, rather than a musicologist's assessment. It's a thin line between the two, I realise, but to my way of thinking, critical opinion belongs under Reception (Reappraisal, Legacy, etc); whereas, in a section like Music & Lyrics, we should be reading description and interpretation of the songs, some background on their creation, and any role they serve in the context of the album.

I've been applying the latter approach when cutting down the similar, musicologist-heavy text GabeMc added discussing side one of Revolver (I'm up to the fifth or sixth song there). I've tried to retain the notable points offered by the musicologists, while limiting the level of straight-ahead personal opinion we get from them. And I have to say – as with Sgt. Pepper – I can't see that a fair and balanced approach was consistently applied previously, when it comes to the selection of which personal opinions to include. The note from Riley about "Within You, Without You" on Pepper, for instance ("In Riley's opinion "Within You Without You", which he describes as monotonous, dull and "directionless", is "the most dated piece on the record ... [it] could easily have been left off with little to no effect" on the album.") – I find that pretty gratuitous after we've had MacDonald's similar comments. As a comparison, at Revolver, I noticed that Gabe had included MacDonald's unflattering description of "Love You To" ("sourly repetitious in its author's usual saturnine vein") yet not so for MacDonald's view of "Here, There and Everywhere" – namely, that that song's "overall effect is chintzy and rather cloying". Lest anyone think I'm just some outraged Harrison fan – a) I'm not!, and b) one couldn't possibly work on Harrison song and album articles without being prepared to tackle the extremely diverse opinions his work usually attracts (as I said above re Carr & Tyler and Schaffner, they both belong). So I've cut MacDonald's statement on "Love You To" from the album but have included it in the song article's Reception section; also, I've added the comment about "Here, There and Everywhere" to Reception at that song article, but not the album article, obviously. The point about the inclusion of Riley's comments being gratuitous is that he would seem to have no appreciation of Indian classical music – in that, "directionless" is a ridiculous thing to say about a song that effectively condenses the various sections of a raga. That's his opinion (fine, and I'd be sure to include it at the song article's Reception section), but rather than his comment on this appearing in the album's Music & Lyrics section, what's needed is some informed description from authors such as Peter Lavezzoli or Gerry Farrell, who, given their expertise ([1], [2]), are able to appreciate what Harrison was attempting in the genre. JG66 (talk) 07:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow, you aren't kidding about GA'ing song articles – I just looked at your user page – there are obscure Harrison tracks, especially from Living in the Material World and Extra Texture, that I've forgotten (even though I own the albums) and am surprised even have articles, much less GA articles. Anyway, you are certainly right about the polarized response to his work, both during the Beatles and after. But I agree that preference in an album article should be given to intelligent criticism over reflexive dismissal. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, define "obscure"! No, I know what you mean. In fact there are plenty of times when I've worked on an article about a song I didn't much like, let alone intend to take to GAN, but then gradually changed my opinion, or at least came to appreciate the track in a new light. And that's purely due to the level of discussion it's received and what that reveals. (I've long wanted to do more work on other artists' articles also, as I'm not short of decent sources. It just never seems to work out that way!)

Going back to the Beatles, say, I was amazed just recently to see how highly regarded Harrison's "It's All Too Much" is, and the whole post-Pepper/Magical Mystery Tour era also. This is completely at odds with the picture that MacDonald and others present as fact, when they echo George Martin's belief that May–October 1967 was something close to the nadir of the Beatles' recording career. And that's a perfect example, imo, of how the MacDonald/Riley-like take on things is not always reflective of the consensus of opinion, and why we should be more discerning about their presence in the interests of accuracy. FTR, I used to regard MacDonald's Revolution in the Head as something of a bible – but any reverence has been completely shot down over the last 3+ years, almost with every Beatles-related article I've worked on. Now I see MacD's, and Riley's, views as blurring the lines between musicologist, Beatles historian, and music critic. The quote from John Harris at "Too Much" casts some light on this, regarding the Beatles in late '67, just as the 2009 review scores for the MMT album tell their story. The other thing is, "Tomorrow Never Knows" from Revolver was ridiculed by the majority of reviewers in 1966, according to sources I have (scandalous but true), while the likes of "Yellow Submarine", "When I'm 64" and "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!" have all received their share of unflattering comments in subsequent decades. Nowhere in the two album articles' Music & Lyrics section does this get mentioned, which is absolutely fine if we're agreed that such details don't belong, and so long as that approach is applied consistently (which is my point about the inclusion of MacDonald's opinion on "Love You To" vs omission for "Here, There and Everywhere"). I think the same when it comes to giving several writers' high praise (their personal opinion, again) of a particular track: most of that belongs in the album's Reception or Legacy sections, if space allows, but most likely in the song article's Reception section. JG66 (talk) 07:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Revisiting the issues discussed above

(Namely: album's critical standing, particularly in the post-punk era; attention afforded McCartney, and Martin and Emerick, at the expense of the other 3 members of the Beatles; focus, with regard to level of comments and opinions from musicologists)

I was sure this discussion had been archived after all this time, but obviously not. I've just added a box quote from author/critic Chris Ingham which, I think, highlights quite well the main views offered by detractors of the album in the years since 1967. If it's not that one, then perhaps Ingham's words could be paraphrased and taken into the main text under Reappraisal, and instead, we set part of John Harris' 2007 comments in the box there ("What on earth had happened to Sgt. Pepper? Though by no means universally degraded … Sgt. Pepper had taken a protracted beating from which it has perhaps yet to fully recover … even the band's Britpop-era revival mysteriously failed to improve its standing." etc.)

As we discussed, I had thought there would be something suitable in the Carr & Tyler book ('78 edition), but I must have it mixed up with another source – the text I was thinking of just isn't there. Alternatively, in his 1987 review for Q, Charles Shaar-Murray makes some points that could be useful: "It has been both hailed as rock's definitive masterpiece and attacked as the incarnation of the moment when the music went off the rails almost for good. No longer is popular music trash, it was said … Now it is art … [The album] was accepted as a cultural landmark and inspired other performers to produce records which ranged from the furiously inventive to the risibly pretentious – the very same span which Sgt. Pepper itself encompasses. It is an album immovably fixed in time, as "dated" a record as anything in pop, and it only very occasionally transcends its status as a curio, a period piece." (I should stress that CSM comes out overwhelmingly in support of Pepper; I'm simply quoting portions that apply to this particular issue.) And/or there's the Loder/Rolling Stone piece from the same year, of course.

Part of the reason I favour two or more of the above is that they could allow us to cut down the long strands under Appraisal where musicologists and other commentators appear to be locked in debate. I'm talking particularly about the extended end notes, numbers 31 to 33. And, as mentioned previously, we do seem to hear predominantly from US critics – Marcus, Christgau, Bangs, Goldstein – and this after more of the same under Reception.

Also – and again reflective of the presence of musicologists at each and every turn, throughout the article – we completely ignore all of the reviewers whose ratings or scores appear in the ratings box under Reception, although there is a quote from Larkin/Encyclopedia of Popular Music later, under Legacy. Okay, Sgt. Pepper is probably the most discussed album in the history of popular music, and the article should reflect that, but it does seem as if the musicologist's voice is being used to trump any dissension among the critical rabble. My point is, and the 1987 Q review is a perfect example, one single source could handle almost the entire scope of the discussion under Appraisal. CSM raises most of the points currently attributed to Marcus, Goldstein, Bangs and Kimsey, but he also gives us much of the same conclusions we get from that combination, and all in the space of a few sentences. (In other words, CSM is quite capable of trumping the arguments himself.) Ingham and Harris also conclude their discussions in much the same way. I'm not suggesting that Shaar-Murray, Ingham and/or Harris completely replace what's there, because the introduction of Marcus and Bangs is welcome. Just that those post-1987 commentators could streamline the discussion no end. And I imagine that the reviewers included in the ratings box might be able to do the same (AllMusic, A.V. Club, the Tele, Paste, Pitchfork, Rob Sheffield) – which has the added benefit of ensuring that the article includes prose from those reviews, if that guideline's a concern.

I'll come back with more as I go. Since April or thereabouts, I've tried to include as much explanation as possible in the edit comments, so hopefully that's helpful. JG66 (talk) 06:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Broken citations

Many of the citations on this page were broken: for example, the inline cites to "Harry" gave two years: 2000 and 2002, but in the references section only the 2011 encyclopedia was mentioned (twice) and there were no inline cites to "Harry 2011". Similar errors occurred with many of the other inline cites and references. I have corrected them. DrKay (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper aided, not innovated

While trying to make Pet Sounds#Legacy and Good Vibrations#Legacy more comprehensive (a hard task since the album and single has nowhere near as much global coverage as Pepper), I've noticed that in many discussions of rock history, the two albums are almost always mentioned hand in hand, and are often leveled with the same distinctions (the single seems to have been largely overshadowed by Pet Sounds, it's only occasionally recognized for its impact, almost never related to Pepper).

However, even though Pet Sounds (and "Good Vibrations") was released 13 (and 8) months before Pepper, there are numerous sources in this article that cite Pepper "for innovating" or being "the first" for things such as using recording studios as composition tools, being one of the first concept albums, transforming rock music into an art form, inspiring an interest in extended form, etcetera. Maybe not even just Pet Sounds; these statements could just as well be applied to recording artists like Frank Zappa or Phil Spector. Here are some specifics from the article that I found a bit narrow-minded, could be improved with a broader perspective, or removed entirely for being wrong or misleading:

• In MacFarlane's opinion, Sgt. Pepper's most important musical innovation is its "integration of recording technology into the compositional process"
• The musician and producer Alan Parsons believes that with Sgt. Pepper "people then started thinking that you could spend a year making an album and they began to consider an album as a sound composition and not just a musical composition. The idea was gradually forming of a record being a performance in its own right and not just a reproduction of a live performance."
• Rolling Stone's Andy Greene credits it with marking the beginning of the Album Era.
• For several years following Sgt. Pepper's release, straightforward rock and roll was supplanted by a growing interest in extended form
• MacFarlane notes that – despite these concerns – Sgt. Pepper "is widely regarded as the first true concept album in popular music"

On the other hand,

• The first figure in this tradition [art in rock] is Phil Spector ... He is important as the first star producer of popular music and its first 'auteur' ... Spector 'changed pop music from a performing art ... to an art which could sometimes exist only in the recording studio ... this immense conceptual shift paved the way for art rock.'
• [On Freak Out!, there are] countertextural aspects ... calling attention to the very recordedness of the album ... Zappa seems to be setting the tone for the experimental rock records that many of contemporaries would follow, perhaps most famously the Beatles (Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band), the Who (The Who Sell Out and Tommy), and Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys (Pet Sounds and Smile).
• Brian Wilson's evolutionary compositional masterpiece [Pet Sounds], was the first rock record that can be considered a "concept album". ... This trenchant cycle of love songs has the emotional impact of a shatteringly evocative novel, and by God if this little record didn't change only the course of popular music, but the course of a few lives in the bargain.
• The album, though [lyricist Tony] Asher denies that such a policy was consciously activated, is in many respects the first concept work ever in rock.
• In the wake of these albums [Pet Sounds and Sgt. Pepper], many rock musicians took up the "complete album approach".
• ["Good Vibrations"] probably signaled the most strongly at the time that some rock & roll from then on was destined never to be heard in concert performance, and that some popular musicians were shifting the principal focus of their careers to making a more thoughtful and elaborate recorded product than could ever be conveyed live.
• "Good Vibrations" may yet prove to be the most significantly revolutionary piece of the current rock renaissance ... In no minor way, "Good Vibrations" is a primary influential piece for all producing rock artists; everyone has felt its import to some degree, in such disparate things as the Yellow Balloon's "Yellow Balloon" and the Beatles' "A Day in the Life"
• [The] format [of "Good Vibrations"] has been borrowed by such other ambitious efforts as Wings’ “Band On the Run,” The Beatles’ “Day In The Life” and Elton John’s “Love Lies Bleeding/Funeral For A Friend.”

It would be more fair to include references such as these, and to remove egregiously inflated statements. Anything else would be misleading, containing subtext like "Sgt. Pepper's was an album that singlehandedly", "the Beatles were the first", etcetera.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

You raise some interesting points there. I'd add that the Beatles' previous album, Revolver, has received a similar level of recognition as a work that revolutionised the idea of what a rock/pop album could and should be. Meaning that, depending on which album is the focus of a particular writer's brief, Pet Sounds, Revolver and Sgt. Pepper (and a few other works from this era no doubt) can each be singled out and assigned the same glorious claims. I agree with you on the point about removing "egregiously inflated statements", certainly. I think this is part of an article-wide problem whereby, at least around this time last year, there was just too much hot air from musicologists and the like, and from so early on in the article also – to the point where, once we got to discussing the album's release, it was almost an anticlimax because there's the element of inevitability. (i.e. of course the album was viewed as a revolutionary work in June 1967, because we've had so much from musicologists saying or implying as much under "Music and lyrics", if not before then. And we've still got Reception, Reappraisal and Legacy to come … ) I'm using the past tense here because I did try to cut a lot of this last year, but I'm not sure to what extent it might still be a problem.

So, if your removing some of the statements from MacFarlane and others also removes the repetition – or at least, the sense of "Hang on, haven't I already read something like this earlier on?" – then that would be great. Personally, I've never been able to read through this article from start to finish, I just get worn out by the "it's absolutely brilliant" tone that seems to predominate almost from the start. Btw, it's that sort of hammering-home of each point that I was trying to address back in October, when you wanted to retain four consecutive statements regarding the influence of Pet Sounds on Pepper (under "Concept and inspiration"; one such statement is at least tucked away in an end note). No argument from me at all about the importance of Pet Sounds, and I believe it was me who brought the relevance of Freak Out! more to the fore also. But it's the re-stating of the same item of information that gets wearing. (Hopefully, it's less of a problem now, but a year or two back, "Recording and production" was especially bogged down by the same statement-via-musicologist/quote-McCartney/ditto-from-Martin/recollection-from-Emerick approach.)

I realise this was a popular FA listing back in 2014, also that this talk page's archive will show that I routinely rant on about the same issues regarding overstatement (bias, really, in some instances) and lack of a clear, effective narrative and structure. I keep expecting editors to turn up here and tell me to can it, that it's a brilliant article as is – I certainly don't assume I must be right. Anyway, if you fine-tune the areas you're concerned with, I'm hoping it will go some way to addressing the wider problem. JG66 (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the article is more or less perfect as it is. I'm just suggesting that, instead of being in the forefront, those conflicting statements should be in footnotes, or much more ideally, replaced by sources that credit Pepper for being among "influential" and "revolutionary" works (where applicable).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Baroque pop

The genre should be added in the infobox, as it is already sourced in the article. Synthwave.94 (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't even see the recent changes on this page. It should stay in the infobox. The genre is correctly supported (unlike "psychedelic rock", even if I have found a source for this genre) and "rock". Synthwave.94 (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose

1. The source is an NME fluff article with no writer attribution (WP:QUESTIONABLE).
2. "Rock", "pop", "psychedelic", and "art rock" is how the album is most often referred to in critical works, and placing "baroque pop" alongside them violates WP:UNDUE.
3. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. Infoboxes are supposed to be limited to 2-4 genres. Pepper is also referred to as "a marriage of rock, music hall, and folk music". Are we gonna add those last 2 to the infobox too, just because we can find one source for it? I think 4 is enough. We don't need baroque pop.

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

1. 1. NME is a reliable source and the fact there's no specific writer is absolutely irrelevant.
   2. There's only one source which supports "art rock" in the article (reference #278, Jones 2008, p. 49: one of the first art rock albums) and the psychedelic rock genre is currently unsourced (but I found a source for this genre).
   3. There's no specific guideline regarding genres in infobox. Five genres is perfectly acceptable (see for example Nine Inch Nails, another featured article).

Synthwave.94 (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

...None of which are properly sourced. I checked the citations and nobody calls NIN a synthpop group. And attribution is absolutely relevant (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS). I believe I could also find several more sources for art rock. I've looked far and wide for someone that calls Pepper a "baroque pop album", and that NME article is the only place.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The only one ? Are you sure ? Synthwave.94 (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, you have two (technically still one), and so I'll concede for now. When I can find two sources for "music hall", "folk rock", "raga rock", or something else ridiculous then I'll come back.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I think there should be a section under LEGACY for cover parodies and cover versions.

Cover parodies would include Zappa's We're Only In It For The Money and Stephan Pastis' Pearls Before Swine Collection Sgt. Piggy's Lonely Hearts Club Comic.

Cover versions would include Big Daddy's 1982 version in the style of 50's artists, and the Flaming Lips With A Little Help From My Fwends in 2014.

There is also the Robert Stigwood film and soundtrack.

I don't feel my wp skills are up to this task!

Leinad trofmoc (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the album, not individual songs. Covers and parodies should go in articles for individual songs. Note, however, there are restrictions about including covers (see WP:SONGCOVER). Sundayclose (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Cut-outs

I have a copy of the album that I bought new in the 1980s, and they were still packaging the page of cardboard cutouts with it. Since this album is probably still being produced as an LP, I was wondering if they still do this, and whether other formats (cassette, compact disc) ever had an include like this. B7T (talk) 23:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

David Crosby on harmony

Can this be added? What do you think?

Derek Taylor writes that David Crosby sang harmony vocals "on one track". Here's the ref: < ref >Taylor, Derek (1987). It Was Twenty Years Ago Today. Fireside. p. 18. ISBN 978-0-671-64201-3. < / ref > Airproofing (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

He visited the studio one day but there is no indication he participated in the recording. Piriczki (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Not to be facetious or anything, but isn't Taylor's mention an indication? Could you expand? Airproofing (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

David Crosby has spoken about this visit several times, particularly being very impressed to hear the newly finished song "A Day in the Life," but he has never suggested anything about participating in the recording. And Derek Taylor was no longer employed by the Beatles at this time so his information isn't first hand. There's a photo of Crosby in the studio with them which is probably the source of this myth. Piriczki (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

OK. Sounds reasonable. Thanks. Airproofing (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree, but I have read in a couple of Byrds bios that Crosby sung on one track. Maybe it's come from Taylor's Twenty Years Ago Today, maybe not. Thing is, Taylor was with the Beatles in an official capacity when writing that book – in that, along with the TV documentary of the same title, it was an official publication tying in with the album's twentieth anniversary, I believe. JG66 (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Taylor may have been with The Beatles when he wrote the book, but not when Pepper was recorded. Considering the vast amount of questionable Beatles lore out there, sometimes propagated by people close to them, we need an additional and better source, but I doubt that one is available. Sundayclose (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

TFA for 50th anniversary?

Interesting that user:JG66 should mention in the previous section the possibility of this article being Wikipedia:Today's featured article on the 50th anniversary as I was just coming here to suggest we push for that. As things stand at the moment there is no chance of that happening as it has been a TFA before, but that doesn't mean we can't suggest it. As it happens I managed to get a second appearance for a TFA once before by suggesting that we ran the Transit of Venus article to coincide with the occurence of transit on 5 June 2012 - but I think that was only the second time a TFA had been rerun. I achieved it then by making a request to the then director of TFAs, but since then things have changed. There is an ongoing discussion about rerunning TFAs at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Time to think about re-running TFAs but they are talking about only rerunning articles after at least 5 years and there is some opposition to that. This article was a TFA less than three years ago so do others think it's worth making a request? BTW there is an article in todays Sunday Times saying that Apple are planning a rerelease of the album with Strawberry Fields forever and Penny Lane included, to mark the 50th anniversary. [3]. Richerman (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Richerman … Personally, given the situation you've outlined, I wouldn't be pushing for this article to be a TFA again. There's the issue I raised above – the need to convey the retrospective reviewer ratings in prose (per MOS:ALBUM#Album ratings template), if nothing else. Another point that someone raised here in the discussion a couple of years ago (having been stonewalled during the FAC, so I gathered): the absence of anything substantial on John Lennon's perspective. The "Concept and inspiration" section reads pretty much as if the entire project was McCartney's, and worse, that it was mainly an attempt to copy recent albums by the Beach Boys and the Mothers of Invention. Lennon was doing his own thing, as his biographers have it, and it should be represented too. Not to mention the Beatles as a whole: they were all into progressing with each record. That is there, in a way, but it's in one of the many long notes (nb7), under Recording and production. Anyway, I'll add a part II to the section above this, to give some more detail … JG66 (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh certainly, we would need to be sure it was up to scratch before it was put forward. There's nothing like an upcoming deadline to concentrate the mind...:-) Richerman (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I hear you on deadlines ... I'm fabulous at applying the requisite focus, but equally adept at missing 'em! JG66 (talk) 06:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Concerns about: due weight under Retrospective criticism; inadequate coverage of Lennon's input

"Retrospective criticism" section

I think we need to address the coverage we're giving to detractors of Pepper under Retrospective criticism. This is partly because of the release's upcoming 50th anniversary and, I'm assuming, the likelihood of the article appearing again on the Wikipedia main page, but also further to points I made here back in 2015 or thereabouts, that no mention whatsoever is given to the uniformly rave reviews appearing in the ratings box. There's no doubt that Pepper's reputation has suffered massively since the 1980s if not before. As mentioned in the earlier discussion, its fall from grace was handled quite thoroughly in John Harris' 2007 feature on the album in Mojo; I've since come across other pieces that carry a similar message: Bob Stanley in The Guardian, Steve Turner in Q, and NZ critic Graham Reid on his site Elsewhere. As a sort of stopgap measure/bandaid solution in 2015, I added the box quote from Q/Mojo/Selector critic Chris Ingham, but I can't help thinking that, with the recent addition of the Opponents subsection, together with the failure to include critical assessment from the ratings box in prose, we're giving undue weight to the album's detractors.

My suggestion is we cut down the paragraph on Greil Marcus' view and perhaps halve the amount of text afforded others under Retrospective criticism and /Opponents. Then, introduce some of the comments from the likes of AllMusic, Pitchfork and The Rolling Stone Album Guide. FWIW, I do share the opinions of the album's many detractors, wholeheartedly. But try as I have, I just can't find any example where a rock critic has committed, in a dedicated album review, to conveying this unfavourable picture of Pepper in terms of a low or middling score or rating. Thoughts, people, please … JG66 (talk) 06:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It does seem like that section is weighted rather heavily, especially considering how most of the detractors seem to make similar points and claims. On an unrelated note, In the review score box, I'm seeing the A.V. Club showing a review of A+, when that article actually gave Sgt. Pepper a B+. But beyond that, I question whether that article is even a valid review -- yes, it is facetious, but on the other hand it is also an honest and important opinion... I honestly do not know how that should be handled, but I have seen that article referenced in the review box for every other Beatles album, so I imagine it must have been discussed before. --Ansalern (talk) 06:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I've corrected the score. I spotted another one recently (Paste) that had been upped to 100/100 … Naughty.

I recall reading some objections to including the A.V. Club 2009 reissue reviews, years ago. I'm not too bothered; to my mind, it's like many of Christgau's Consumer Guide "reviews" – you can wonder what on earth the writer's talking about but as long as there's nothing ambiguous about the rating (which there is with Christgau's bizarre symbols). If anyone comes across a review from Mojo, Q or another UK publication, I think that should be included, because the ratings box here is noticeably slanted towards US reviews right now. JG66 (talk) 06:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Lennon's input

In the past discussion(s), we also questioned the article's continual focus on McCartney, to the detriment of any perspective on Lennon, particularly. I then added a few bandaids to address this, cosmetically if nothing else. For instance: adding a box quote from Lennon on the drug issue under "Music and lyrics" (replacing what was a third McCartney box quote), and one from Harrison under Songs/Side two; also, from memory, a few sentences on Lennon, Harrison and Starr's unfavourable recollections of the sessions (some of which possibly belongs much later in the article). While Ian MacDonald and others do seem to paint Lennon as something of a zombie during the Pepper period, I've found other sources that aren't so quick to dismiss his input – they point out that his LSD intake, rather than hindering his ability to contribute, informs much of the album.

I think this playing down of Lennon's, and the others', input has partly resulted from the 20th anniversary campaign (It Was Twenty Years Ago Today, etc.) in 1987. As well as an attempt to address some of the scorn being directed at Sgt. Pepper and the Summer of Love ethos generally during the "greedy" '80s, if not long before then, this campaign coincided with McCartney ramping up the tenor of his complaints – subsequently furthered to the max in his book with Miles, Many Years from Now – that the Beatles' avant-garde leanings were being incorrectly credited to Lennon alone in the years since the latter's murder. So he succeeded in placing it beyond doubt that he directed Pepper, and pushed the album's cultural context in relation to the Beach Boys' Pet Sounds (which barely gets a mention in the pre-'87 Beatles biographies I've collected, and never in terms of it having an influence on Pepper) and to Zappa & the Mothers' Freak Out! Martin has certainly supported this line since 1987, and McCartney's dominance has also been underlined by Miles' book and by Geoff Emerick in his 2006 autobiography. But against that, one should bear in mind that Many Years from Now has been seen as Miles on the payroll, simply trotting out McCartney's claims and underplaying the others' role in the process, and that Emerick's book (his whole attitude towards anyone but McCartney, in fact) was trashed by Ken Scott as wildly inaccurate and mean-spirited, a view that author Robert Rodriguez also supports. I'm not arguing for a minute that Sgt. Pepper wasn't a McCartney-led project, nor that Pet Sounds wasn't a key influence on McCartney and Martin – besides, that is the picture that so many secondary and tertiary sources present anyway. Just that Sgt. Pepper was entered into as a full group project and was very much seen as one at the time and long afterwards, judging by the likes of Nicholas Schaffner's The Beatles Forever (1977), Carr & Tyler's The Beatles: An Illustrated Record (1978), Bob Woffinden's The Beatles Apart (1981) and Mark Hertsgaard's A Day in the Life (1995).

The other, directly related thing is the article's avoidance of how LSD served as a major inspiration for all things Beatle at this time. (Just guessing, but is the lack of such info in keeping with a desired tone across the encyclopaedia with regard to mentions of recreational drug use, perhaps? If so, then I don't know how one could begin to adequately describe a work from the psychedelic era.) By McCartney's admission, he had finally taken the drug after 18 months of badgering from his bandmates, in late 1966, by which point LSD had become illegal in the UK. Then, shortly after the album's release, he caused a controversy that MacDonald and others have likened to the More popular than Jesus episode, by publicly confirming that he had taken the drug and singing its praises. The article's near silence on the LSD factor contributed to the feeling I had back in 2015, that McCartney came across as having invented, initiated or somehow been on top of everything – the Beatles' decision to quit touring seemed to have emanated from him (which is why I added mention that he was the last to tire of playing live); that his bandmates appear to simply, willingly, follow their "leader" (hence the added comments about Lennon, Harrison and Starr's dissatisfaction with the project in retrospect, although maybe their complaints just add to the overly simplistic message, thinking about it …). Seems to me that by dealing more fully with the band's LSD use, we'd not only be presenting an accurate picture of the context in which Pepper was created and released, according to most sources, but it would automatically invite more about John Lennon and his muse. After all, he called Pepper an "acid album". JG66 (talk) 05:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

McCartney created the Sgt. Pepper concept and calls himself the album's "director". I've never seen the other Beatles take issue with his claim. I recall the opposite actually, with Lennon saying that he was losing interest in the group by the time of Pepper.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Right – and to repeat: "I'm not arguing for a minute that Sgt. Pepper wasn't a McCartney-led project …" I'm talking about the article's omission of anything substantial relating to Lennon's input (particularly in the "Concept and inspiration" section) and the LSD-informed perception that provided inspiration for the album. Like Harrison, Lennon was "losing interest" in being a Beatle since 1965, but that search for something meaningful outside of what the Beatles had come to represent didn't make him absent from the creative process. He fed it directly into their music. JG66 (talk) 04:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Lead's opening paragraph and the foremost historical merits of Pepper

My concern is with this sentence:

Time magazine declared it "a historic departure in the progress of music" and the New Statesman praised its elevation of pop to the level of fine art.

Two questions:

1. Why is it especially notable that reviewers for Time and New Statesman praised the album? Is it because these magazines did not typically regard popular music so highly in those days? If so, I think the statement does not age well, and the vast majority of people reading the sentence will have no idea that that's what they're supposed to infer.
2. Shouldn't it be more general and non-specific? Example: "... upon release, was lauded by critics who recognised it as an innovative work" would impart the same information in less words and without privileging certain institutions or individual opinions. The lead doesn't even tell us why Pepper was innovative until we're three paragraphs in.

IMO the sentence is a poor summation of the album's historical merits. Based on my understanding of what was most important about Pepper, I think the sentence should be replaced with something that acknowledges these points:

• It was an innovative work; specifically for its approaches to music production, songwriting, and graphic design
• It had strong, immediate associations with the late '60s psychedelic zeitgeist (Summer of Love)
• It helped bridge a cultural and social gap between low art and high art

Not sure how to paraphrase this in just a few words but maybe somebody else can work it out.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

First broadcast?

I'm pretty sure that the first broadcast of this album was over pirate radio. I can't remember which one, but it took place before the official release of the album. I remember it because I was in London at university at the time and a group of us recorded the album on a tape recorder in a flat in North London (I was holding two pairs of wires together throughout the recording because we hadn't had time to properly wire the setup).

I realize that such a tidbit doesn't change the course of history, but if somebody could track down which radio station achieved the coup it might be of interest.--50.68.134.51 (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, Radio London (from your own article on Pirate Radio): "In 1967, Radio London got an eight-day UK exclusive on the Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, playing it first on 12 May 1967 – the album was in the shops on 1 June 1967" --50.68.134.51 (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Great story! That's right – it was Radio London, where their friend Kenny Everett was given the exclusive. I agree it could be worth adding. I thought I'd seen it there in the past, in fact. JG66 (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/6music/events/overrated/shortlist.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928081133/http://www.abpd.org.br/noticias_internas.asp?noticia=187 to http://www.abpd.org.br/noticias_internas.asp?noticia=187

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 18:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Track listing

Regarding this, my revert and then this. Are we no longer bothering to cite a source for album track lists, or something? IdreamofJeanie? ... JG66 (talk) 07:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

As per previous editor, the album is the source, as with, say Bat_Out_of_Hell_II:_Back_into_Hell#Track_listing (first one that came to mind). IdreamofJeanie (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

New article for 50th Anniversary Edition

After seeing the first chart peak come in, I'm thinking a separate article's needed: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band: 50th Anniversary Edition. And it's not as if the release is being ignored by the critics either, of course. This approach would be consistent with box-set spinoffs for Layla, Pet Sounds, etc. Does that sound right? JG66 (talk) 10:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Reception and Retrospective sections

While these sections do mention postitive the vast majority of these two sections are heavily negative = unbalanced. PumpkinSky talk 01:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Totally agree, and it's one of a few problems I've raised about this article over the years. Please see Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band/Archive 5#Concerns about: due weight under Retrospective criticism; inadequate coverage of Lennon's input. Also, the more I read about this subject, the more I realise it's ridiculous there's no mention early on of how LSD informed the whole outlook of the album. JG66 (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@PumpkinSky: Obviously how balanced the sections are is a matter of opinion. Those who feel positively about the album probably would agree with you. However, "balanced" does not mean that positive and negative get equal weight. Our goal is to capture the consensus of notable music critics. But you raise an issue worthy of discussion. I haven't checked the archives, but I suspect this has been discussed here in the past. My personal opinion is that the second paragraph of "Reception" could be trimmed because the overall reaction in the early years was overwhelmingly positive. As for "Retrospective criticism", I don't doubt that current views by critics are more negative than in the past, but do we have any way of knowing how much weight to give each side? Sundayclose (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying it needs to be exactly 50/50 but for this topic 90% negative is ridiculous. PumpkinSky talk 02:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Every reason why Pepper was well-liked is enumerated elsewhere in the article, so of course those sections are going to seem "90% negative" when you ignore what's written under "Recording and production", "Music and lyrics", "Release", and "Legacy".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Another point:

* You imply that the the article is filled with a bunch of contrarians tossing Pepper into the garbage. Actually, there is only one negative review mentioned under "Reception", and it's Goldstein's, which is notable for the backlash it caused. With regards to "negative" press, the rest of the body only references two contingents. The first is rock fans who didn't like Pepper for its supposed pretentiousness and inauthenticity. This is a huge part of the album's legacy for reasons already noted in the main text (see also this talk discussion). The second is the group of folks who say that Pepper was the first concept album, which isn't really a point against the album, just a matter of whether there's any merit to the claim. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: Hey, I don't feel positive towards this album, as I've said before (it's not even in my personal top 5 Beatles albums) – but I do want to see it represented accurately and fairly on Wikipedia. And that's not the case right now in terms of its critical reception. The article's reviewer ratings box carries uniformly good ratings and scores, and try as I have, I can't find any instance of a music critic having given it a score commensurate with its somewhat tarnished image since the 1970s. (Take a look at the album's ratings on the page at Acclaimed Music, for instance, not that it covers much outside album guides.) The way I see it, music journalists' anti-Pepper sentiments might flow freely when discussing another Beatles album or the era in general, but when it comes to a dedicated review, no one seems to commit to slaying the thing. It's puzzling. Particularly when looking at the results at Metacritic for the Pepper 50th Anniversary edition and comparing the scores with comments made by many of the same publications over the last two years, when they covered the 50th anniversaries of Rubber Soul and Revolver ... Aside from that, there's the problem relating to MOS:ALBUM#Album ratings template, as mentioned here in March: the ten reviewer ratings included in the article's box are not handled in the main text in any way. That has to be addressed.

I'm all for ensuring we represent the dissenters' opinions; I added the box quote from Chris Ingham, and I raised the possibility of using John Harris's 2007 piece in Mojo to cover the anti-Pepper phenomenon in a general way, same with a Stanley piece from The Guardian. Problem is, even after all we had originally from Marcus, Bangs and Christgau under Retrospective criticism (much of it very good), there's subsequently been an additional, Opponents subsection, and that takes us way over into "unfavourable/mixed" territory. I don't know what the ratings box (subtitled "Retrospective reviews") is doing in a section discussing the album's contemporary reception, but it clearly tells a different story regarding the album's retrospective standing among music critics.

In my opinion, this particular issue is part of an article-wide problem, anyway – information often appears in the wrong place. I've mentioned the need to include something under Concept and inspiration about how the Beatles' prime focus was to follow up on the advances they'd made with Revolver; instead, that point appears under Recording and production and, before that, the subject of Pepper's concept and inspiration is defined as a) a product entirely of Paul McCartney's imagination, and b) an attempt to copy two other 1966 releases. In the same way, a lot of the latter-day critical plaudits might come through in the Concept and Legacy sections, but if so, it's indirect – we hear mostly from musicologists who recognise the album's place in the development of pop music, but not from music critics saying that they still like it now. The closest thing to that, until we get to a couple of best-albums lists, is DeCurtis's comment that it was an "enormous achievement". But even then, it's cloaked in the context of the album's contemporary role, as a work that "revolutionized rock and roll". Sorry to say it, not for the first time – and I fully appreciate how tough it is to pull together a piece on something as monumental as Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (even the song articles are mighty tough) – but the focus/structure in this article's just completely off. JG66 (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

best ever goes last huh?

The most important fact about this album is that it is arguable the most important album ever. Why are you telling people it got grammy awards in 1968, a far less significant fact, before that? People decide whether to read an article from the first lines. Maybe they just wanted to know who it was by, but if they realize it's the #1 of all time they might stick around to read the rest. SonABC (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The Grammy awards are a fact. "Most important ever" is an opinion. Facts > opinions.

As for getting people to "stick around to read the rest", we aren't here to convince people to read this or any other article. If we were, we would puff up every topic to get people to stick around and every article would start with "(Subject) is arguably the most important, best, biggest, brightest, most incredible-est ___________ in the history of the world!" - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The first paragraph should describe general consensuses, not individual opinions. For that reason, the "first rock album to win Album of the Year" factoid does seem a little out of place. I don't think it should be moved/removed though.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many voting member there are, but I'd be hard pressed to call an Album of the Year Grammy an "individual" opinion. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

It's a single entity, which is what I meant.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Release date confusion (May 26 v. June 1)

This was brought up 7 years ago with no response. If the album was issued in the UK on May 26, why are we using June 1 as the release date? --Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

It was originally scheduled for release on June 1 but it was moved up to May 26. Not sure why people cling to this "official" (whatever that means) release date of June 1, maybe it's just tidier, start of the Summer of Love and all that. Considering it was released on May 26, 1967 and the 50th anniversary edition is going to be relased on May 26, 2017, it will look pretty stupid if the article says it was released on June 1. The infobox is supposed to have the earliest date anyway. Piriczki (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the infobox should have the earliest date, but in view of the widespread belief than it was released on June 1, I thought it best to leave that date in the infobox - surely the (UK) and (World) are sufficient clarification. True, there is an explanation of the date confusion in the article, but it's a long way down. Sorry, Ilovetopaint, but I'm going to revert your reversion of my edit. Since the infobox as it stands, with just 1 June, is beyond question factually wrong, please do not revert again without consensus on this page. --Pfold (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. The album was released in the UK on May 26, released on June 2 in the US, and released simultaneously worldwide on June 1? That doesn't quite make sense. Piriczki (talk) 01:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The claim about "simultaneous worldwide release" should be replaced with the Everett source then? Does he actually have it right? It's strange that the release date in this article would have been wrong for all these years. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 03:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually the German article says (admittedly unsourced) it was released there on May 30th, making June 1st look even less useful. Everett is certainly right - it's the day I bought my copy in the UK! June 1st probably has some validity as the previously announced "official" release date, but an actual earlier release on the home territory should obviously have precedence. --Pfold (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

To clarify some things, the May 26 date for the re-release has to do more with the Friday 'new release' street day than the anniversary. Personally, can't say I've ever heard of a possible May release prior to this year. I don't think it was released that early, but it's quite possible that retailers jumped ship and gave it an early street date due to hype. Back in 1967, it would have been a bit more difficult to track these sort of things, but my best guess is June 1st was the date scheduled for release. All in all, I would just stick with the date that the official Beatles site uses Orion XXV (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Not sure where the 26 May release date is coming from, but I've always read that the album was officially released on 1 June 1967 and 2 June in the United States. I think the 26 May release date is just for the 50th Anniversary release? AllMusic has 1 June as its release date as well. TheOnlyOne12 (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to be blunt, folks, but you're quite wrong on this. The Beatles site only gives a single world-wide release date, which may be right for most countries, but we know it's wrong for the US anyway, and seems to be wrong for Germany too. The sources for 26 May and the reasons for the rush-release are impeccable. Retailers did not jump the gun, EMI was forced into it *nationally* by early unauthorised radio play. And as for the notion that it was harder to keep track of these things, well, that's just hilarious - we didn't have a load of websites promulgating dubious info, for a start. Here's a quote: "The Beatles' publicist Tony Barrow revealed that he had no objection to Radio London playing the album early, and neither had the Fab Four. In fact he believed that this early airplay was responsible for EMI bringing forward the release of Sgt Pepper's by a week." [4] --Pfold (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure whom to trust on this date discrepancy. Every news source I've seen on this topic says June 1 UK release. The book "The Complete Beatles Songs" by Steve Turner says June 1. And we all have heard the famous story about Jimi Hendrix playing the opening song of Sgt Pepper just 2 or 3 days after the album's release (with Paul in the audience). That concert was on June 4. If the album had come out on May 26 nobody would remember it as having happened days after the release. Ianmirwin (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Just want to second Ianmirwin's comments above. Nearly every source you can find cites June 1 as the UK release date, and even Paul's story -- that he tells during every concert -- is consistent with that date. I think the amount of discussion on this topic demonstrates that the May 26 date does not sound right to most fans. If you leave it that way, you'll be constantly undoing revisions. Is there some way to show both dates at the top of the article? Or at least include an asterisk? 67.82.243.217 (talk) 02:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC).

Those of you who are making claims about "every source" need to start citing some very reliable sources to that effect. 26 May is well sourced in the article, and you can claim that "every source" says this or that, but we need some sources just as reliable or more reliable as what is already in the artice (with page numbers if it's a book). As for the comments that "we all have heard the famous story" and "Paul's story", what you think you've heard is completely irrelevant. If I claimed that I heard Paul say that it was released on some odd date, that doesn't mean it's true. Sundayclose (talk) 02:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I was able to find reference to the June 1 release date in three separate books in my house, in addition to numerous periodicals on the internet. Here are the books: The Complete Beatles Songs by Scott Turner, p. 179, ISBN 9781780977119. Beatlesongs by William J. Dowlding, page 153, ISBN 0671682296. John Lennon: The Life, by Philip Norman, page 497, ISBN 9780060754013. And the reason I was citing the Paul story is because he tells it all the time and every Beatles fan has heard it a million times. If you want proof, here's a video of him sharing the anecdote for one of countless times. [5] But Paul may certainly be wrong (he's not immune to embellishing stories, as we know). I'm not saying it absolutely wasn't May 26 but there are plenty of legit sources saying June 1, it seems. Ianmirwin (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Did you actually pay attention to the McCartney video you linked? At least twice he said the album was released on FRIDAY, and Hendrix played it on Sunday. 26 May, 1967 was a FRIDAY. No, McCartney didn't get it wrong. It was 26 May, 1967. Sundayclose (talk) 04:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Source I see say Hendrix played 4 June 67 for example https://www.beatlesbible.com/1967/06/04/mccartney-harrison-watch-jimi-hendrix-london/ --John (User:Jwy/talk) 04:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

In Miles' The Beatles Diary, McCartney and Harrison see Hendrix on Sunday, 4 June at the Saville Theatre, and Hendrix opens with "Sgt. Pepper". (The previous Sunday, the Beatles weren't even in London. They were down at Epstein's country property, drinking tea.) JG66 (talk) 09:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify the point about Tony Barrow's comment and what that article then says about the release date: "In fact he believed that this early airplay was responsible for EMI bringing forward the release of Sgt Pepper's by a week. It came out twenty days after its first outing on Big L." Radio London first played the album on 12 May – so 20 days later clearly doesn't support a release date of 26 May.

Over the years I've read so much about this album, and without a doubt, 1 June 1967 is by far the most common date given for the release. I struggle with the idea that Mark Lewisohn, Ian MacDonald, Barry Miles and so many other writers could get this wrong. I think we should go with the most widely accepted date, 1 June, but add a note next to it, to qualify the statement by mentioning the alternative date. Yes, we want to get it right, but we're also obliged to reflect what the majority of reliable sources say. Sgt. Pepper's release is identified as a seminal moment in modern history, for better or worse, and the 1 June '67 date is enshrined as fact in so many other contexts and in sources relating to popular culture and the development of music.

I've got a few more sources to check, though. There was a Mojo feature on the 40th anniversary with contributions and input from all the usual suspects (even someone called "Paul") – that might shed some light on this issue. JG66 (talk) 06:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, have a look at this NME album chart for 31st May 1967 - not a transcription, an actual image of the printed chart. And this image of an article from DISC magazine. These are contemporary music industry sources, printed in the days surrounding the release. --Pfold (talk) 09:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd been wondering about what the various UK charts could tell us. I'm surprised about that NME date. The Official UK Chart, at the time Record Retailer's chart, gives number 8 for the album's debut week with a date of 3 June (select "Chart facts" for Sgt. Pepper). Melody Maker's LP chart showed the album in at number 1 on 3 June, according to the chart tables in Castleman & Podrazik's All Together Now. JG66 (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

The date in parenthesis on the NME chart is the end of the survey week. The cover date of that issue was June 3, 1967. Obviously an album could not have been on a sales chart with a survey week ending May 31 if it hadn't been released yet. Piriczki (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

There is some inconsistency in how the Official Charts Company refers to the dates of its charts. Sometimes a particular chart is referred to by the date on which it was compiled, but (potentially confusingly) at other times it is referred to as the chart of a week ending on a particular date. So, for example, a chart published on a Sunday would also be referred to as the chart for the week ending the following Saturday. Assuming the dates on the site are correct, the chart in which Sgt. Pepper's entered at number 8 was compiled on Sunday 28 May 1967, i.e. the week ending on Saturday 3 June.

And, to be clear, the 28 May – 3 June 1967 doesn't mean the sales for that time period; it means that's the period for which that was the current chart (cf. the chart for 26 May – 1 June 2017, which was published yesterday). –CapitalLetterBeginning (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that it's very confusing(!). I agree that all of this adds credibility to the late May date, and in fact I've only just followed the link that Pfold provided for the Disc piece, where it's explicitly stated. I still struggle with the idea that all statements regarding the supposedly momentous date of 1 June 1967 are wrong. For that reason, I'd be tempted to stick with the majority of sources, but I can't argue with the logic behind a 26 May release date. JG66 (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

One reason for the confusion is that June 1st is indeed the correct release date for *most* countries in the world, which is probably why even the Beatles site keeps it. If someone simply says that it was released on June 1st, that's a reasonable statement; it's only if they say it was released on that date in the UK (or the US, for that matter) that they're wrong.

Secondly, don't forgot that almost all of these sources for June 1st are not *primary* sources - they've just copied it from elsewhere (that's particularly true for most of the online sources, except where they're written by or transcribed from contemporary observers) - so they're not *independent* sources and their numerical majority is of no account. --Pfold (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that calculating a "majority" of sources to decide on a date is biased and, frankly, absurd. That logical fallacy assumes that no modern source is influenced by any other modern source. Some of them don't indicate their source and some (such as Beatles Bible, a very unreliable source) likely don't even know their source. The most credible sources are the images of publications printed BEFORE June 1 that are linked above. If we deny the validity of those images, then apparently Obama actually wasn't born in the United States. People's memories become distorted, and incorrect information can easily spread from one source to another. But photographic images don't lie, unless someone wishes to propose that a "26 May" conspiracy is afoot. Sundayclose (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Hang on, that's pretty sweeping. Besides, WP:WPNOTRS states that secondary sources should be favoured over primary. I agree that the two primary sources here are highly persuasive (and primary sources often help us determine which of two or more versions of history as reported in secondary sources is the most likely). But to say that primary trumps secondary fails to factor in the chance that, say, the very next week Disc might have run a piece saying that "Contrary to what was announced last week about the release of the new Beatles album …" Put it this way, Billboard announced in November '67 that the Magical Mystery Tour double EP was to be released in the UK that month before Capitol's US LP; that didn't in fact happen, as we know from the many secondary sources (and from other primary sources, no doubt). JG66 (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The point about the DISC evidence is that is shows May 26th was planned by EMI, and not the result of some rogue retailers jumping the gun. And what WP:WPNOTRS doesn't say and should is that independent contemporary sources from those with first hand knowledge trump sources created decades later by people who are just copying from elsewhere and don't say where. --Pfold (talk) 08:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

With all respect JG66, I understand Wikipedia's preference for secondary sources, but there is simply no other way to explain the NME image except that there was a one-chance-in-a-billion fluke that NME printed the wrong date (including the wrong day of the week), or that there was some bizarre attempt by NME to misrepresent the release date. I've never been an advocate of overuse of WP:IAR, but I think this is one situation where we can safely ignore the preference for secondary sources. Sundayclose (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, SundayC. As I said previously, I was always interested to see what might come to light via the UK chart compilers. I'm merely (then) responding to some rather blustery statements ("Sorry to be blunt, folks, but you're quite wrong on this"; "Those of you who are making claims about "every source" …") that seem to have governed the tone of this discussion. In fact, it's not a case of one side winning, here or anywhere on Wikipedia; the win for everyone is just that we get it right, through a combination of reliable sources and common sense. Because I'm all too familiar with this idea of there being two or more versions of almost any item in the Beatles' history, I'm keen to see we handle it correctly: Sgt. Pepper is widely viewed as having been released on 1 June 1967, yet that date has to be incorrect. Ideally, we need a source that actually says as much, because I don't believe we can just ignore a date that's, as many commentators would have it, etched into the annals of pop-culture history, if not the 20th century. JG66 (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Its not up to us to determine the release date ourselves, but to report what reliable sources say it is. If new information from reliable sources is available that refutes what previously-considered-reliable sources say, then lets change it. But I don't see such references on the page... --John (User:Jwy/talk) 01:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Everett (p. 123) says that in the UK Sgt. Pepper "was rush-released six days ahead of its official date, June 1". So there's a reliable source supporting the alternative to the widely reported actual release date. My point, though, is that we need a source that covers the issue more effectively, along the lines of "While the album's release date is frequently given as 1 June 1967, its UK release actually occurred on 26 May …" Otherwise – which I think is what you're saying – all Everett and others offer us is a different account of events (an entirely logical one, it would seem, given the UK chart info). JG66 (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

From The Beatles: The Ultimate Recording Guide by Allen J. Weiner which lists the release date as May 26: "The album was rush-released on May 26, but Jun 1 was the officially announced release date, which has been traditionally observed ever since." Only in the delusional world of Beatle fandom could there be an actual, documented release date (May 26) and an "official" or "observed" release date. What the fuck does that even mean? Are banks and post offices closed one June 1? Piriczki (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

God, chill out ... As mentioned, this discussion has become ridiculously antagonistic when in fact the issue's quite straightforward: we just needed a source that commented on the discrepancy (and I never doubted there'd be a few – Robert Rodriguez fills whole books with clarifications such as "Contrary to the perceived wisdom …")

Weiner's text handles it sufficiently, as far as I'm concerned, and could sit in a note beside the first mention of the UK release. Jwy, Orion XXV, TheOnlyOne12, Ianmirwin – do you agree? JG66 (talk) 03:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks you JG66, that would suit me fine. I'm not TOO fussy about the reference as the logic here sounds reasonable - but there should be a reference. And it or cn should be back "soon." --John (User:Jwy/talk) 03:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

However, http://sgtpepper.thebeatles.com says «London – April 5, 2017 – It was 50 years ago this June 1st when The Beatles’ John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr astonished and delighted the world, ushering in the Summer of Love with Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band». The Beatles are notorious for rewriting their history, but I doubt they were not checking the official site. --.mau. ✉ 13:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by .mau. (talk • contribs)

And now, at last, a quote from Lewisohn, with another wrinkle, "The UK release of Sgt Pepper was brought forward from June 1 to May 26 1967, and I know that copies were in some shops in London the day before this, May 25." Seems to be a direct communication from him to The Beatles Story, but I can't see any reason to doubt its authenticity. The blog post also says explicitly, "The intended release date of 1 June has been 'traditionally observed' by fans and academics over the ensuing decades, so it seems we just have two opportunities to celebrate the release of this outstanding record in the UK."--Pfold (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

It's mighty strange to see the phrase "traditionally observed", relating to the 1 June date, appear in that blog a couple of days after it was added here at Wikipedia. JG66 (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I cannot believe that people are being hoodwinked into this completely fallacious early release date of Pepper of May 26. NONE, repeat NONE of the supporting evidence is from an undoctored photo (e.g. NME) or qualified source, even quoting Mark Lewisohn on a secondary unofficial website that doesn't link back to any external source. Let's quote Lewisohn from his own book, page 256 of the Complete Beatles Chronicle ISBN 9781855100213: Thursday June 1: "On this day, perhaps the most celebrated in their career, when Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band was issued in their home country,...". Then we have the fact of Jimi Hendrix performing Pepper's on the Sunday after release, June 4. There was NO rush release. The reason for the slightly early release of the 50th Anniversary edition is to get inside the 50 year to the day copyright ownership lapse. If they waited until June 1, it would have already lapsed. Can somebody with some common sense PLEASE change this article on one of the most iconic album releases of all time back to its correct release date of June 1, 1967? Thank you.DavidBowerAU (talk) 10:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

"The reason for the slightly early release of the 50th Anniversary edition is to get inside the 50 year to the day copyright ownership lapse." - Why would the copyright for the Pepper recordings have expired on May 26? And if they were that desperate to beat the clock, why wasn't anything issued back in February for the 50th anniversary of Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane? And doesn't Lewisohns book also claim that the album was "simultaneously released worldwide", which we all know is BS anyway?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The copyright on unreleased session recordings expired May 31, 2017. Hence the session tapes for SFF and PL being included and referred to as belonging to the same project and sessions, therefore ownership of these previously unreleased tapes are also protected under the same copyright as the unreleased Pepper session tapes. We are seeing the same ploy with previous iTunes Beatles' releases, Beach Boys, Doors, Dylan, Cream, etc., etc. 50th anniversary releases, all in the name of copyright protection. I have referred this to a commercial and litigation lawyer in conversation with editors of allmusic.com and allmusic agreed which is why their release date remains and will remain correct and unaltered. Lewisohn's book does not refer to simultaneous release and even if it did I am unsure as to why it should be considered as "BS"? Please clarify why this would be. DavidBowerAU (talk) 11:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

And exactly which of the documents giving June 1st as the date cite a source for their claim? --Pfold (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Outside of the Beatles, their management, the recordings' engineering and production teams and EMI distribution and manufacturing employees, the only party that had unfettered and indisputable AUTHORISED access to the Beatles' archives and documentation was/is Mark Lewisohn. I have quoted Lewisohn's published record of release date quoting ISBN number and yet this is still thought of as fake news? That's just silly.DavidBowerAU (talk) 11:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

No one has claimed it is fake news. Don't overlook the point I made earlier: June 1st was the release date in most countries of the world, just not in the UK and US. A writer might well decide (without comment) to use that date, even though it's not the earliest release date, which is what WP requires. Lewisohn doesn't, I think, explicitly claim this as the UK release date. Let me draw your attention to a clear case of someone using June 1st even though they know it's wrong: In The Long and Winding Road Stannard (p. 51) gives the release date as June 1st , but then says, "It entered the album charts at No 1 on May 31." --Pfold (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@DavidBowerAU: The suggestion that someone would have doctored this picture is laughable, and so is the notion that a Beatles fanblog would attribute false quotations to Lewisohn. In any case, the "rushed-release" assertion was not magicked up this year, and Allen J. Weiner and Walter Everett should be considered qualified sources on the matter. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." As Pfold has already pointed out, June 1 was the release date in many countries, just not in the UK. The Beatles are a British band, and so the infoboxes will always prefer the information relevant to the UK releases. I don't know where you got the copyright expiration date from, but even if it's correct, it wouldn't change the fact that on May 26, 1967, British record stores were officially authorized to stock Sgt. Pepper's.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

That is correct that it is laughable as I never suggested that picture was doctored, I suggested the NME album chart potentially was as it was a cropped picture and I cannot locate the complete source anywhere.

The picture incorrectly cited says it all, however, so thank you. "The new Beatles' album enters the NME chart at No.26 this week, despite the fact that it was not OFFICIALLY RELEASED UNTIL YESTERDAY (THURSDAY). THIS IS BECAUSE EMI HAS BEEN MAKING AN ADVANCE LIMITED DISTRIBUTION [my CAPS for EMPHASIS], and the disc has been available in some areas for a week." So thank you for proving my case.

For copyright expiration, product has to be released WITHIN 50 years or ownership lapses. May 26 was an arbitrary date chosen in 2017. I own the re-release box set and in the comprehensive book included in the package several authors all quote June 1 and there was no mention of early release apart from to several radio stations to counter stolen copies. If it truly was 50 years on May 26 they would have stated so but did not. Who on earth are Allen J. Weiner and Walter Everett and how on earth are a couple of university boffins more qualified than Lewisohn when they don't have access to the original impeccable sources? Speaking of Lewisohn, produce for us all where he actually says that about the release date, not a fanblog site written by a nobody. You won't see serious respected music industry journalists like at allmusic.com fall for this stuff.

Stop trying to rewrite history based on personal whimsy and fantasy and change the release date back to the correct official date of June 1, 1967 and move on. Or open up all official release dates to account for advance copies! Seriously. Case closed.DavidBowerAU (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Case closed is correct, that is, case closed on this bizarre conspiracy theory. If no one has any additional serious discussion, I think there is a general consensus for May 26. Can we close this discussion? Sundayclose (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The photo, doctored or not, is a primary source and NOT as acceptable as secondary sources. Similarly, the copyright laws and expiration dates require original research to apply here. The key question is how reliable we determine the secondary sources that support May 26 (e.g., Weiner/Everett) are. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 02:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The issue of primary and secondary sources is discussed earlier in this section. Wikipedia has no absolute prohibition on use of primary sources, especially (as in this case) to bolster information provided by secondary sources. Sundayclose (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@DavidBowerAU: The date that an album gets issued for the first time - in any way shape or form - is the release date Wikipedia typically goes with (as far as I understand). A modern parallel would be albums that get released on Bandcamp or iTunes days before they're given so-called "official" worldwide releases. If you have an issue with that policy, I suggest that you bring it up at WP:ALBUMS.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

There is NO general consensus on May 26, are you kidding? However, race to close it off before any more facts get in the way!

The only thing I have an issue with is rewriting history based on disproven fancy and then trying every subversive, distracting conspiracy tactic except actually owning and retracting a proved error. To contradict the most recent justification, here is Wikipedia's entry for the Beatles' Yesterday & Today https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yesterday_and_Today which has an official and correct release date of June 20, 1966, however "advance copies were sent to disc jockeys and record reviewers...". Talk your way out of that one.

Just change Pepper's back to the historically and factually correct release date of June 1, 1967 and we can and will all move on. Thank you.DavidBowerAU (talk) 12:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@DavidBowerAU: Drop the stick. You can consider that a polite request, or if necessary you can consider it a warning. Your refusal to accept the substantial number of editors' comments here who reject your conspiracy theory is disruptive editing that can result in a block from editing. At some point that type of behavior crosses the line between annoyance and policy violation. You have crossed the line. There are numerous blogs and websites that would love to have your thoughts such as these, but this encyclopedia is not one of them. If you can't accept that, then Wikipedia is not the place for you to spend your time. Please move on. To everyone else, the less we feed this disruptive behavior, the sooner this section can be closed. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It's common for reviewers to be given advance copies of records/books/films. It's also common that some establishments may break the street date, allowing some people to obtain a product earlier than they were supposed to. The bottom line, again, is that Pepper was authorized to be sold in record stores before June 1. May 26 might be an arbitrary date, but it's the closest approximation that sources consistently identify.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

It is the Wiki editors who have created the conspiracy theory of May 26 NOT the rest of the planet. My contribution came about due to a discussion with senior editors at Allmusic.com who had sighted the Wiki date change and who quickly reviewed and came to the conclusion of its inaccuracy and have stuck with the OFFICIAL RELEASE DATE of June 1. I never contribute to these blogs for the precise reason that it is typically pointless trying to deal with people who just aren't blessed with reason however decided to do so on this occasion due to the cultural importance of this significant work of art.

I have countered every justification for the edit change with stronger verifiable, unalterable facts whilst civilly pointing out the contradictions of the policy decision. This is "disruptive"? How?

Threatening me is just an admission.

I won't bother anymore. Goodbye and good luck in your own deluded self-importance.

Fools.DavidBowerAU (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Another 26 May source in print: Geoffery Giuliano, Lennon in America: 1971-1980 (Cooper Square Press, 2001), p. 234. Doesn't even mention 1st June. --Pfold (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Tracklist?

I would say the main pieces of info are: 1) the band's name 2) the year of release 3) a tracklist. The last one is missing. Maybe someone could compile a concise list from the few pages of blahblah written under the section "Songs"? GaborPete (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, I have found a template thing at the bottom, but I never look at those gadgets, and probably there are other users like me. GaborPete (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221183737/http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2010/03/clip_job_richar.php to http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2010/03/clip_job_richar.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111214190113/http://www.theofficialcharts.com/archive-chart/_/3/2009-09-19/ to http://www.theofficialcharts.com/archive-chart/_/3/2009-09-19/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 07:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Possibly inflated UK sales figures

Would it be possible to add a disclaimer for UK sales given information in this article:

"As a result, as official as the OCC claim their Sgt Pepper’s sales to be, it is barely an estimation based on old press by their in-house chart expert Alan Jones. The album was first claimed at 2,77 million sales in 1987 before jumping to 4,25 million in 1992. The OCC used those claims to add their own post-1994 figures in order to reach a cumulative tally. Both claims were far from being legitimate yet.

With sales being such a black box in the past, it was easy to claim anything. Easy to factor in as UK sales all units exported to various countries which had yet to develop their local market at the time, easy also to trick on wording by combining sales of distinct packages owning the Sgt Pepper’s track and claiming them to be pure studio album sales.

Although all industry insiders can’t be revealed for obvious reasons, sales of the album are quite well tracked in reality. Its net shipment topped the million mark in pure local sales early in 1973. Moving then more than 50,000 units a year, that number decreased steadily to barely over 10,000 units a year during the 80s with Blue compilation being the primary catalog force. It waited until the 1987 CD release to get relevant anew, shifting 170,000 copies for the year. Adding close to 300,000 more sales from 1988 to mid-1992, its EMI shipments from that date to 2008 are known, amassing an impressive 1,193,000 units. OCC scan system tells us it added over 230,000 copies sold since.

Doing the math, the total is close to 3,3 million with nearly 80% of those units being purely verified tallies, not involving any kind of estimate whatsoever a very little room for error in unknown periods as the album had close to zero chart activity during those years."

Thoughts? --Mαuri^’96 “everything and nothing always haunts me…” 00:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Start of the Album Era?

I don't understand this. Especially since Pet Sounds and Freak Out came out in 66. I'm changing it until someone convinces me otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:155:0:7CD0:C83A:E347:F423:9C81 (talk) 06:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, how about Rubber Soul and Revolver, while you're at it ...? I'll volunteer an answer: because this article makes such a big deal out of Pet Sounds and Freak Out as influences, under "Concept and inspiration", which is completely out of proportion to the extent that the Beatles entered the studio in late '66 intent on developing their own (some would say, considerable) achievements, from Revolver.

Regarding the statement about Sgt. Pepper marking the start of the Album Era: Despite all the earlier candidates, there is truth in that statement – in that Pepper was seen at the time, and through the 1980s, I'd say, in that light. This Slate article touches on the issue of how the release of Pepper marked the first time that the music press was fully prepared for "an Album". (I've read plenty on this, or on the causes behind it, elsewhere, e.g.: Bernard Gendron, Between Montmartre and the Mudd Club; Steve Turner, The Beatles '66; Michael R. Frontani, The Beatles: Image and the Media; Lindberg, Guomundsson, Michelsen & Weisethaunet, Rock Criticism from the Beginning; it's probably in one of the books dedicated to Pepper and sourced in this article, also: Julien, or Moore.)

It has to do with the advent of rock criticism (as opposed to pop reviewers), which, as I understand it, was Richard Goldstein's appointment at The Village Voice in late 1966. In the UK, it was jazz reporters like Chris Welch of Melody Maker who first started recognising and trying to formalise developments in the pop/rock scene (again, towards the end of '66). And even before that time, pop musicians, particularly the Beatles, were gaining respect as artists from musicians and writers in the world of classical music; they just weren't receiving the same recognition from pop commentators – the inference being that pop commentators lacked the sophistication required to spot and analyse the artistry before them. So, by and large, albums such as Rubber Soul, Pet Sounds, Revolver and Freak Out were all met with some degree of confusion by the music press. With Pepper, though, reviewers were primed to actually receive an album as a work to critique.

What I think is noticeable in many recently written books accessible in google or Amazon, and in online music articles, is that modern-day writers, by (correctly) recognising several pre-Pepper LPs as distinct and worthy Albums, end up rewriting history on this point. I think the "start of the Album Era" statement belongs here, for the reasons explained, but I appreciate the article may not adequately support the point. For instance, it's currently attributed to Andy Greene of Rolling Stone (under Legacy), as if it's just his personal opinion. JG66 (talk) 08:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

As it says in the article "Rolling Stone's Andy Greene credits it with marking the beginning of the Album Era". As that has a citation from a reliable source there is no need to convince you - you may disagree with that analysis but the fact is it has been credited with that. Richerman (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Richerman, er, what's your problem? Your comments seem directed more to the user above. I agree the statement's "correct", but the contributor makes a valid point, and the article doesn't set out the case for Pepper marking the start of the Album Era as well as it could and should do. They point to Pet Sounds and Freak Out as precedents – well, there perhaps is the issue I've long talked about, how the article implies that, until the decision to embrace the alter-ego concept, the Beatles' entire approach to making Pepper was to copy the Beach Boys and Zappa. JG66 (talk) 10:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake in indenting, I was addressing the original point made. 2601:155:0:7CD0:C83A:E347:F423:9C81 removed the sentence from the lead which said that Sgt Pepper "was credited with marking the beginning of the Album Era" saying they didn't understand it and were "changing it until someone convinces me otherwise". This statement is made in the main body of the text with a citation so it has been credited with that by at least one person. We can discuss what weight that should be given in the article but you don't just remove something from the lead that's cited in the article before having that discussion. Richerman (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah okay, thanks(!). I agree then, that the issue is one of what weight we give to the statement. JG66 (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Mentioned Rubber Soul and Revolver, but what about A Christmas Gift for You from Phil Spector, A Love Supreme, and Kind of Blue? I still don't get how Sgt. Pepper could be the start when as stated on the actual article A Christmas Gift for you from Phil Spector came out before it, same thing with A Love Supreme and Kind of Blue which came out 8 years before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:155:0:7CD0:7910:18D7:12EC:1D14 (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Have you read anything of what I wrote above? The issue is about when a) albums were first recognised as being major works at the time, versus b) when historians or music journalists have retrospectively decided that certain 1960s LPs deserve to be recognised as the first true album statement(s). Spector's A Christmas Gift for You certainly didn't receive much in the way of recognition in 1963, that didn't come till '72 at the earliest; and Pet Sounds was similarly overlooked in the US, at least. (There's more of a case for Rubber Soul, imo, because the music press in 1965–66 did comment on the unusual aspect (in the US) that it lacked any previous hit singles, and on how, for the first time with an LP, its sales were up at the level usually associated with top-selling singles.) I believe Andy Greene is referring to the start of the album era in the context of a), and I'd say he's correct within that context, because it's a statement that's consistent with so much written on albums throughout the 1970s or even later. JG66 (talk) 07:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Also i'm sorry for removing it without discussion. I will wait a few more days for people to weigh in their opinions before considering editing it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:155:0:7CD0:7910:18D7:12EC:1D14 (talk) 05:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

There is basically no way of understanding what Greene means without a huge chunk of elaboration, so while I don't think the observation should be removed, it should at least be moved somewhere where it won't stick out.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

My main problem is that it's inconsistent with the article on the album era. If the statement is true then the parts about Phil Spector, Pet Sounds, and Freak Out, on the Album Era article need to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:155:0:7CD0:7910:18D7:12EC:1D14 (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you are putting the cart before the horse and need to look at the Album era article first as that is a start class article which is lacking citations for some of the claims made. The sentence that says A Christmas Gift for You from Phil Spector is a concept album has one citation from Sgt. Pepper and the Beatles: It Was Forty Years Ago Today and , although I don't have a copy of that book to check, I can't believe that you will find anything in there to say that Spector's album was a concept album, because that's laughable. It's a collection of Christmas songs and I'm sure there had been dozens of albums like that before. There had also been lots of compilation albums by artists before that too - one I remember that we had at home is The Buddy Holly Story which was released after his death as a collection of his hits in the order they were released. There is a big difference between a collection of songs with a common theme and a concept album and I don't think you will find a citation from a reliable source to support calling Spector's album a concept album. Richerman (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

If we are talking "concept albums" only then what about In the Wee Small Hours from 55? On rolling stones top 500 albums list in 2012 they call it the "prototypical concept album" and as do other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:155:0:7CD0:C83A:E347:F423:9C81 (talk) 03:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say we're just talking about concept albums. I'm merely using the point about Spector's album being included as a concept album to illustrate that if you find discrepancies between this article and the Album era article then the start class Album era article is probably the one that you need to be looking at first. BTW, if your going to talk about other albums or other articles on wikipedia it helps if you link them so we know what you're talking about - I didn't know that there was a an article called the Album era until you linked it and I had to look up In the Wee Small Hours, which I assumed was recorded by a band called 55 :-). Richerman (talk) 10:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah sorry. Here is the link to the rolling stone page https://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/500-greatest-albums-of-all-time-20120531/frank-sinatra-in-the-wee-small-hours-20120524. Is this enough reason to change the section about the album era or at least move it so it doesn't stick at like a sore thumb? And if it's not what is enough merit to change it? Sorry i'm new to editing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:155:0:7CD0:C83A:E347:F423:9C81 (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Richerman that the problem lies more at the Album era article than here at Sgt. Pepper, although, as mentioned, I do see some issues with how the "start of the album era" statement is presented here. At Album era, what needs clarifying is that the subject concerns pop/rock. Sinatra certainly made what are acknowledged to be concept albums, just as many modern jazz, classical, original soundtrack, and experimental LPs from the 1950s and early '60s were concept or formally themed works, almost by definition. Also, it's somewhat confusing that the message there seems to be that the album era is defined by the arrival of the concept album. The two are obviously related but many LPs that typify the album era – the Rolling Stones' Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed or Sticky Fingers, most of Led Zeppelin's work, countless others before and after – are not concept albums at all.

Besides that, though, the text at Album era – "The dominance of the single as the primary medium of music sales changed with the release of several iconic concept albums in the 1960s, such as A Christmas Gift for You from Phil Spector (1963), the Beach Boys' Pet Sounds (1966), the Mothers of Invention's Freak Out! (1966), and the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967)" – contains what I consider to be a highly dubious claim. The Christmas 1963 release of A Christmas Gift for You in no way challenged or changed "the dominance of the single as the primary medium of music sales", and nor did Pet Sounds three years later. I haven't looked at how the source actually makes the point, so it could be a case of poor paraphrasing, I don't know. But, once again – and I know this from doing quite a bit of work on the article – it's Rubber Soul that would seem to have the best claim to marking the start of the album era in the context of that statement "The dominance of the single as the primary medium of music sales changed with the release of …" For instance, see points made in Rubber Soul#Release about UK and US sales, particularly the contemporary mention in Billboard, and in Rubber Soul#Development of popular music regarding the album's influence on the music industry. JG66 (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Rubber Soul would make sense but should the start of the album era really be an honor place upon just one album alone?

There were various albums from around the same time period that challenged the single as the dominant format. Such as The Beach Boys "Today!" album which was released and recorded months before Rubber Soul and is described on the article as "having a suite like structure as an early example of the rock album format being used to make a cohesive artistic statement" which in turn turned the Beach Boys from "singles artists" to "album artists". I believe this is from Moskowitz 2015, p. 43, and author Scott Schinder. There were also more albums (mostly jazz) (that weren't concept albums) before that challenged the singled format in a cult sense and not mainstream sense, which should still be taken into consideration. Albums such as In The Wee Small Hours, Elvis Presley, This Is Fats, The Chirping Crickets, Brilliant Corners, Palo Congo, Birth of the Cool, Here's Little Richard, Kind of Blue, Date With The Everly Brothers, Etc. I could go on but I won't because it will make my point less clear. I hope you understand what i'm trying to say with all of this and take my reasoning into consideration. I just don't think one album deserves the role of having started the album era. 2601:155:0:7CD0:C83A:E347:F423:9C81 (talk) 06:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Might I suggest you take this to Talk:Album era? Better still: find some decent sources on the subject and expand that article. Just seems to me that you're unwilling to engage on the point I first made here, and then tried to direct you to again – a point that imo merits the inclusion of the "start of the album era" statement here at Pepper.

There are no end of possible precedents before and including the Beach Boys' Today, and it's down to what reliable sources have to say on the subject. Because, yes, we could all go on and on about it. JG66 (talk) 07:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay I understand, but still are you basically saying that the sources on the Today! article are wrong? Or would they be applicable to the album era page? And if I were to change it on the album era page then would it merit changing it here as well? 2601:155:0:7CD0:C83A:E347:F423:9C81 (talk) 07:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Ideally, as I understand it, any article should make a point of using sources related to the subject of the article. Which isn't to say that sources about, say, individual acts or albums/songs should be excluded per se. But it's noticeable that Album era doesn't have much in the way of books or other sources that focus on the subject of the album era or albums generally, and it's those books/sources that should represent the foundation of the article.

I think that Moskowitz book is lousy, personally, and far from authoritative. Next stop, Talk:Album era, right? JG66 (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160306054326/http://deconstructingpopculture.com/2009/04/how-many-records-did-the-beatles-actually-sell/ to http://deconstructingpopculture.com/2009/04/how-many-records-did-the-beatles-actually-sell

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 07:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)