Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Citation needed?

would a citation be needed here in the overview section?

"Studio and recording technology had already reached a high degree of development and was poised for even greater innovation. The old rules of pop songwriting were being abandoned, as complex lyrical themes were explored for the first time in popular music..."

it just states that as fact without anything to back it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.36.6 (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Conjecture

This article is overripe with conjecture. It's obviously written by a Beatles fan with too much fantasy and imagination. Well know facts documented in various sources and especially in Lewisohn are ignored and contradicted. Looking at the section below ('Changes') it becomes obvious the author, while a fan, is not a learned historian in the matter (and probably not a professional musician either).

Reading even further into these topics it also becomes obvious most people here have not taken the time to read existing reliable sources and to an alarming extent don't know WTF they're talking about.

Discussing whether the songs have a common theme is just silly.

Enough for now. Back to the books, crew!

PS. Here's another example. And there might be HUNDREDS. Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields were not 'dropped' from Sgt Pepper. Read your sources! The first item on the agenda, dating back to the initial plan drawn up by Epstein and Martin, was to release a single. And that plan precluded use of single releases on albums. Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields were never a part of the Sgt Pepper project even though they were part of the same recording sessions because they were the single for early 1967.

A word to the author(s) here: keep to the facts and don't 'ad lib' so much. Ad libbing in music is great; in history it's an ABOMINATION.

Seriously: as things stand right now this article is TERRIBLE. And now I'm outta here. I can't tolerate this travesty any longer.

---

Ummm, why don't you check YOUR facts? SFF and Penny Lane WERE meant for the album, they were 2 of the first 3 songs recorded (along with When I'm 64). A request was made for a pair of songs to be used for a new single in advance of the album, and George Martin chose SFF and PL for the single (a decision he has later stated as regreting). It might not be totally accurate to say that they were 'dropped' from the album (which usually implies they were deemed not worthy), but they certainly WERE NOT recorded with the intention of them being the next single-that decision came later. 65.120.75.6 18:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Tim

Changes

A couple of comments here about the changes I have made:

1) The "Yellow Submarine" movie came out in 1968, a year after the Sergeant Pepper album, and could not possibly have inspired the idea of the Sergeant Pepper album.

2) Sergeant Pepper is not a true concept album, since the songs are unrelated.

IIRC Lennon said something to the effect of "Sgt. Pepper's was a concept album because we said it was." --KQ

That's the first I've heard of that quote, but I still would argue that throwing together a group of unrelated songs and calling it a concept album doesn't make it so. In any case, there certainly is no overriding theme that surrounds it. And, as I recall, Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields were also recorded at the Sgt. Pepper sessions and didn't even make it into that album.

But, the songs do have a theme, or at least an underlying connection: all of them concern either loss of love, loneliness, being with someone, or living without them. A sort of 'Lonely Hearts' experience. Probably why Penny Lane and Strawberry fields weren't included. Personally, I think it is a concept album, but I'm sure much is up to interpretation.

"Penny Lane" and "Strawberry Fields" were both recorded and intended for the Sgt Pepper's release. However, Capitol records in the USA was pushing hard for new singles to release and Martin let these two go in order to satisfy them. They were later included on the MMT album of course. I don't really "get" why they didn't put them on Pepper's anyway, despite the early releases, but guess they saw something problematic about releasing the album with anything less than "all new" material. Wyss 17:51, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe this page should be moved to Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts' Club Band. I'll do it unless anyone objects -- Tarquin 07:14 Aug 19, 2002 (PDT)

Promoting all these was on my agenda for Sometime in the Near Future. So of course I have no objections. :-) --KQ

My copy of the album is titled "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band", with "Sgt." abbreviated on both the album title and the track titles, so that's where I moved it. --LDC

User:AntonioMartin mistakenly made an article for this album at Sgt. Pepper Lonely's Hearts Club Band by following a misspelled link at heavy metal (now fixed). I've merged most of his stuff into this article, but haven't moved in a sentence in the first paragraph that read "many fans say that it marked the beginning of the Heavy Metal music genre", because I don't believe it. I also left out the following paragraph:

Cover image

It was John Lennon who pictured the image of The Beatles at a cemetary, which would signal the end of one Beatle era and the beginning of another one, and Peter Blake who thought of the idea of having many people attend the funeral. Blake then asked all of the Beatles to come up with lists of people that they wanted in the funeral. Every Beatle came up with a list of people, except Ringo Starr.

because I just don't have enough knowledge to weave it in. I have added, however, a complete list of celebrities and items on the front cover. People who know more about the subject than I might want to have a look at what's changed, see if the above can be integrated, and so on. --Camembert

A cover image large enough to actually recognize the people on it would be great here. Mkweise

Why? So we can have a bigger copyright violation than we already do?

I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that as it stands it almost certainly isn't a copyright violation because it falls under fair use. However, the bigger the image, the close to trouble we get, and anything large enough to be able to recognise faces might be pushing it. --Camembert

A Day in the Life

This article says that the "had a smoke" line is a "clear reference to Marijuana", but the A Day in the Life article says that it isn't. Shouldn't they be saying the same thing? --ShawnVW

The "had a smoke" line is why the BBC banned the song. They thought it was marijuana, but it was really just a cigarette. The "I want to turn you on" line actually was a drug reference. -- anonymous

"I'd Love to Turn You On" means "I'd love to turn you on to the truth" according to Lennon, I believe.

Lucy in the sky with Diamonds

The article says that Ringo claims to have seen Julian's drawing that inspired "Lucy in the Sky.." I distinctly remember seeing it at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland USA. Am I crazy/hallucinating?

The article states that 'during a newspaper interview in 2004, McCartney was quoted as saying, "...Lucy In The Sky, that's pretty obvious. ...but the writing was too important for us to mess it up by getting off our heads all the time."' and cites the quote. However, the website linked for the citation has no mention of a newspaper interview and only mentions Lucy in the Sky with once with respect to it being banned. Web.archive.org has a stored copy of the site just 12 days or so before it was listed retrieved in 2004, and there is no mention of the quote in the archive either. I think this information may be completely fabricated -- does anybody know anything about it?

The "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds" picture by Julian can be seen here: http://www.snopes.com/music/hidden/lucysky.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.112.76 (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The Hendersons

Hi SDGonBen, you removed the first mentioning of "the Hendersons" in the article. No doubt you had a reason for that, but now the second mentioning (starring ... The Bee Gees as the Hendersons) is inintelligible. Could you fix this please? regards, High on a tree 23:34, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

People on cover

Do we really need two breakdowns of which celebrities appear on the cover? mat_x 20:54, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rip-Offs

Sorry if I'm not following protocol here (I'm a newb), but what the hell is thefreedictionary.com doing ripping off Wikipedia articles wholesale, including CSS? You guys should cease and desist them regarding that. Unless you're OK with it. Like I said, I don't know.

Link: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Sgt%20Peppers

The page has a disclaimer at the bottom that the page is taken from Wikipedia. I suppose it's a sort of mirror. ("This article is copied from an article on Wikipedia.org - the free encyclopedia created and edited by online user community. The text was not checked or edited by anyone on our staff. Although the vast majority of the wikipedia encyclopedia articles provide accurate and timely information please do not assume the accuracy of any particular article. This article is distributed under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License.", right at the end of the article.) 65.94.93.236 00:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Page length

This article is getting long. I suggest cutting the "drugs" section. Nothing new there. also the "Critical reception" section could be cut shorter. - Drhaggis 23:18, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In general, the article is a bit verbose and could be trimmed, but it is only 31k, and is thus not in desperate need. Tuf-Kat 00:40, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Lucy is about LSD....

Paul even admited it....http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5121163Habsfannova 18:41, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

According to John Lennon, who wrote the song, the title is from the drawing and the rest is based on the writings of Lewis Carroll.

Whatever... even if Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds makes LSD, the name of the song comes from a drawing Julian (John's son) did.

It wasn't Muhomm

The claim in this article that the boxer in the front row is Muhammad Ali conflicts with the opinion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_images_on_the_cover_of_Sgt._Pepper%27s_Lonely_Hearts_Club_Band That article claims it is Sonny Liston.

I, and most of the net, agree that it is Sonny Liston. The Bear was really known for that scowl - although many biographers seem to agree that it was due to shyness rather then meanness. Unless he was in the ring, of course.

Chad Matsalla

• Agreed; the List of images on the cover of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band has cited Liston at least since it was broken off from the main article, and, I suspect, long before that. I seem to recall that that list was based upon an "official" guide published with a particular edition of the album, also. Since the list of names that appears in the main article is just a sampler, I'm going to remove Ali which should do no harm in any case and keep us consistent between articles. Jgm 21:00, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Loop

The CD version of Sgt. Pepper, in its sleeve jacket, says thus:

"After the last droplets of the crashing piano chord of 'A Day in the Life' have evaporated, come a few seconds of 15 kilocycle tone, put there - especially to annoy your dog - at the request of John Lennon. Then, as the coup de grâce, there is a few seconds of nonsense Beatle chatter, taped, cut into several pieces and stuck back together at random so that, as George Martin says, purchasers of the vinyl album who did not have an auto return on their record player would say "What the hell's that?" and find the curious noise going on and on ad infinitum in the concentric run-out groove."

So now we have the information. I just don't know how to use this in a Wiki-style way or on such a big entry. Feel free to do so yourselves. MToolen 00:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Innacuracy

The article says, "The New York Times described the album as "like Beethoven coming to the supermarket"." But this website contradicts that claim. They credit someone else. Anyone got any other info?

[1]

Peregrine981 14:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Probably a really old spelling question...

...but it seems worth addressing. Standard referenece books by Billboard Press and Rolling Stone Press give the album title, as does Wiki, with an possessive apostrophe, as Sgt. Pepper's ..., whereas the album sleeve famously spells it Sgt. Peppers ..., no apostrophe. I imagine, but don't, that the record label itself has an apostrophe. In any event, this discrepancy ought to be noted; there's probably some famous anecdote about it, and before I go searching, I thought some Beatles musiscologist would know the answer off the top of his/her head. Cheerio! - Tenebrae 21:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It's "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band", after all, throughout the intro and outro tracks, named likewise, they talk about Sgt. Peppers being the head of the band, thusly, it's his band. The apostrophe, therefore, is rightly so. The reason for the discrepancy is, at least to myself, unknown.

That doesn't settle it, since if his name were Peppers, then the possessive must be Peppers', whereas the band of Sgt. Pepper would be Pepper's.

But on another spelling note, how long is the word kazoo going to remain misspelled? I would have just fixed it but can't find an Edit button.

The Loop (Reprise)

according to wiki, the vocals featured in the closing loop is a sped-up voice (possibly Paul McCartney's) reciting the phrase "never to be any other way". however, it is quite obvious that it is she "never kissed me any other way"

JRH

• I'm sorry, but does no one listen? It sounds like many things because it is nothing. As it says, right there in the sleeve (if you need proof, look for yourself), it's just randomized chatter that was probably recorded unimportantly and just messed around with until it achieved something funny. Looking into it any more (or any less) is missing the point. I'm sorry that I'm breaking AGF in this, but something just had to be said before this got out of hand any further. MToolen 04:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Pet Sounds

Shouldn't the influence of The Beach Boy's album be noted here? After all, hasn't Paul said that the goal of Sgt. Pepper's was to equal Pet Sounds?

I think there should be a brief statement here about this. Nothing more. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Song infobox needed

It would be really cool if someone could at least create the infoboxes on all the songs - just creating it would be alot , then others will fill them up. Thanks MrGater 09:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Michael Cooper

The Michael Cooper referred as photographer of the cover is a former NBA player. That seems (to me) not correct. Who knows it better and can help?
de:[hd] 84.142.27.76 14:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Release date

Wasn't this album actually released one or two weeks before 1 June? Please look into this.

No, it had three different release dates during the first week of June, depending on the market:UK June 1, Canada June 3, etc.Abebenjoe 15:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Can someone then explain why, as stated in the article, the album debuted at #8 in the UK album charts before it was released on 1 June? I thought the charts in those days were based on actual sales and not on ordered copies. --Arpa 23:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 01:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Later critical reception

In the years since the album's release some have criticized the album for the trends that it started, such as supposed "over-indulgence" on the part of artists, spending a great deal of time and money producing high minded concept albums, and the beginning of supposed decadence in rock and roll. Many critics have also become more negative about the album's music, many claiming that other albums such as Revolver are superior.

Some sourcing would be much appreciated I think. Ascribing positions to "some" or "many" is not the same as pointing to actual individual statements.

GA Review

This article is up for GA review. LuciferMorgan 12:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for GA Delisting

In a 3 to 0 decision, this article's GA status has been revoked because it fails criterion 2. b. of 'What is a Good Article?', which states;

(b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required (this criterion is disputed by editors on Physics and Mathematics pages who have proposed a subject-specific guideline on citation, as well as some other editors — see talk page).

LuciferMorgan 21:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Lyrics Links

The following discussion was posted on Wikipedia's main Beatles discussion page, and appears to also be relevant here:

Are links to lyrics sites appropriate? I have noticed them in some music articles, and I believe they do add value to the listings. I added one at the bottom of the external links section. In the interest of full disclosure, it is a website I maintain. If the interest is positive, I would likely add lyrics links to other musical articles where appropriate. Shadar 19:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that lyrics sites reprint lyrics in violation of copyright, and that's why we're not supposed to link to them. The relevant guideline to check would be Wikipedia:External links, but that page doesn't directly address this question. I'm going to post a question to the discussion page there, and perhaps someone can tell us whether my idea is correct or mistaken. In the latter case, I'd be happy to restore the link myself. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I posted my question Wikipedia talk:External links#Lyrics sites here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

If the decision is made that lyrics sites are inappropriate due to the copyright violation issue, I would like to delete the links I found. As a newbie, it would give me good practice in editting. Is that an appropriate action for a new user, and is there a FAQ on deletion etiquette? Shadar 19:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, we received an answer, and it refers us to item #2 at Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking. It comes down to whether the lyrics are actually under copyright or in the public domain, and whether or not the site in question has the copyright holder's permission to publish the lyrics. If you'd like to remove links to lyrics sites that are in violation of our copyright policy, then you're welcome to do so. The best way to avoid offense is probably to mention the External links policy (or WP:EL, as we like to call it) in your edit summary. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I can certainly understand that decision. It turns out I violated the self interest clause anyways, since I posted my own site. I should have recommended the change in talk, and then if someone agreed they could make the change. Thanks for the help with this, GTBacchus. Shadar 17:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I notice that there are also links to lyric pages on each of the Wikipedia Beatles album pages. I should have time to fix those tonight. I'll follow the above advice of GTBacchus in mentioning the WP:EL, and refer to this discussion on each album discussion page. InnerRevolution7 02:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I have made the above-stated change. InnerRevolution7 04:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

" influenced nearly every album that came after it"

I'm deleting this bit. It's way too ambiguous. It says influencED, past tense, as if to say it is no longer influencing albums. "NEARLY every album that came after". Nearly? Which ones did and didn't it influence? The entire sentence is meaningless. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.62.140.50 (talk) 04:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

"one of the first 'gatefold' album covers"

'The package was also one of the first 'gatefold' album covers, that is, the album could be opened up like a book'

This needs to be deleted, because it's completely wrong. It wasn't even the first Beatles gatefold album (Beatles "Songs, Pictures and Stories" #VJ-1092 is a gatefold album, "The Beatles Story" Capitol TBO-2222 is gatefold, The Help! Soundtrack MAS-2386 (1965) is also gatefold .. i think. "Beatles for Sale" OP 7179 is gatefold). But these aren't close to being the 'first' ones either. Gatefold releases were not new or rare. Elvis had a gatefold album "Elvis is Back" RD-27171 from 1960. Bobby Darin's "For Teenagers Only" Atco Sp-1001 is another gatefold from 1960. "The Fabulous Fabian" #CHLX-5005 is a gatefold album from 1960. Most broadway releases were gatefolds, as were soundtracks - "Funny Girl" Capitol LP VAS 2059 (1964) "Hello Dolly" RCA Stereo LSOD-1087 (1964) "Golden Boy" CAPITOL VAS-2124 (1964) "Bye Bye Birdie" KOL 5510 (1960) "Bajour" KOS 2700 (1964) "Mary Poppins" RCA Victor CSO 1111 "Fade out fade in" ABC-Paramount ABC-OC-3 (1964) "I Had a Ball" Mercury OCS 6210 (1964) "Ben Franklin in Paris" Capitol VAS-2191 (1964) "What Makes Sammy Run" Columbia KOL6040 (1964) "The Boys from Syracuse" CAPITOL LP #STAO1933 (1963) "Mr President" Columbia KOS-2270 (1962) "Stop the World I Want To Get Off" AMS-88001 (1962) "Oklahoma!" CAPITOL SAO-595 (1955) "The Music Man" Capitol WAO-990 (1957) "THE UMBRELLAS OF CHERBOURG" Philips PCC-616 (1965) "It's a Mad, Mad World" UAS 5110 (1963) "Doctor Zhivago" MGM Records # S1E-6ST (1965) "Taras Bulba" UAL 4100 (1962). Then there's Beach Boys "Concert" Capitol STAO 2198 (1964) Dusty Springfield "Everything's Coming up Dusty" Philips RBL 1002 (1965) Johnny Cash "Sings the Ballads of the True West" C2L38 (1965) Art Blakey "'s Make It" LS 86001 (1965) plus Blonde on Blonde and Freak Out and Velvet Underground & Nico. Just about every Disney lp was a gatefold. I'd say there were literally hundreds, if not thousands, of gatefold albums released before Sgt Pepper. Most of the ones i have listed were found simply because they're currently on sale at ebay. Festivalimport 06:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Festivalimport 01:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've done some more checking and i think it's pretty safe to say that there were thousands of gatefolds before sgt pepper, rather than hundreds Festivalimport 05:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

So, would anyone object to that sentence being changed or removed? It seems to me that some of the false claims made about this album have become the 'truth' simply because they have been repeated so often and never questioned. Since this is the album profile that everyone is going to be parroting for years to come, we should try to get it right.Festivalimport 08:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

But if they've been repeated, then they're verifiable, and the list above is original research. Remember, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. -PinkEllie 13:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The gatefold cover statement in the article is not supported by citations, and until it is, it's not verifiable. I agree that the list above is OR, but it's not in the article. The gatefold cover claim should be removed unless a citation is added, and if so, it should be countered/balanced by evidence that refutes the claim, also supported by a citation. John Cardinal 14:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

My research can be verified by finding the albums and looking at them. They are gatefolds that can be 'opened up like a book'. I've included the catalog numbers for quite a few of them. What's a more reliable source than the company who prints the item and the item itself? They are listed in various collectors guides and discographies for anyone to see. Often they'll be listed as "g/f" or "gatefold" in the descriptions. It's not a "personal theory" of mine that these albums exist. Festivalimport 10:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I made the appropriate changes and then decided to change them back. I want to see if the misinformation presented in the article will appear in other sources during the upcoming 40th anniversary celebrations. The anarchist in me is warming to wikipedia's stance against truth, research and basic fact-checking. Festivalimport 02:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I like your attitude. :) There are at least three myths in the article as of the time I write this: The "first gatefold" myth, the "first with no singles" myth, and the "first printed lyrics" myth. All can easily be debunked. Just because some know-nothing idiot made these claims and either posted them on a web site or wrote a book with them, doesn't mean they need to be perpetuated! Cheemo 17:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The 40th anniversary commentaries are starting to appear. Some of them repeat the same inaccuracies. Some even invent new ones. Festivalimport 02:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"First printed lyrics?"

"the lyrics were printed on the back cover, the first time this had been done on a pop LP"

This isn't true. I've noticed that most other profiles claim it was the first album with printed lyrics, full stop. Others claim it was the first with full song lyrics. This is one of the few profiles that specifies first "pop" lp with printed lyrics, but even this isn't true. I think the liner notes even include the mistake.

Here's an earlier one

Here's some kids album with full lyrics, 1961.

Here's another one, 1965

"The sounds of the Silly Surfers" SR 60977/MG 20977 (1964)

"The Sounds of the Weird-ohs" SR 60976/MG 20976 (1964) both seen here

Partial printed lyrics aren't difficult to find. Full printed lyrics are more difficult to find. I think the reason that no one knew any earlier examples is because no one bothered to look, or no one knew it was supposed to be important. Printed lyrics were a trivial issue when they appeared on other albums. Festivalimport 01:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Lots of albums had printed lyrics before Pepper. Indeed, there was a whole series of late 1950s-early 1960s albums called variations of Sing Along with Mitch (as in Miller), and they came with detachable lyric sheets so that the buyer could, of course, sing along. Cheemo 17:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Aside from the printed lyrics, it also looks as though most of those albums are gatefolds! The plot thickens. Now Columbia Records are part of this conspiracy theory of mine. Festivalimport 04:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

My comment that full lyrics were harder to find was referring to full lyrics printed on the back cover rather than on lyric sheets and inserts. I remember seeing a pre-sgt pepper beatles album that included a lyric insert. Festivalimport 04:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler was NOT turned down for cover pic!

It was recently revealed by the cover's artist Peter Blake that Hitler's likeness was used but is hidden behind the fab four.

http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/sgt%20pepper%20photographer%20hitler%20is%20on%20album%20cover_1021047

Smiloid 06:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

So was Lennon a Hitler fan? This isn't addressed anywhere. The people on the cover are not just 'celebrities' but people the Beatles admire (gurus, Dylan etc).--Jack Upland 06:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Mischevious is more likely; being asked who he wanted on the photo saying "Jesus and Hitler" sounds like its entirely in character.

Apepper (talk) 09:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Personnel

Would it be too much to ask for some corroboration for everyone and his dog who may have been walking down Abbey Road during the recording sessions? -- Ian Dalziel 23:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

" a decision Martin maintains he regrets to this day"

George Martin says this on the South Bank Show special on the 25th Anniversary of Sgt. Pepper's release, I think. His regret is fair, as the release of Strawberry Fields and Penny Lane on Sgt. Pepper would have given them a more truthful context than their position on the US version (and all subsequent CD versions) of Magical Mystery Tour. However, the original intention was for Strawberry Fields and Penny Lane to initiate an album based on the Beatles' youths; and I believe the single of these songs was released before sessions for Sgt. Pepper really properly took off. Had they not been released, and the Beatles had continued their original intention to create an album around these songs based on themes from their childhoods, we would have been looking at a different album. Not just the Sgt. Pepper we know with Strawberry Fields and Penny Lane incorporated.

I know the reference you mean. However I think this article is wrong when it suggests that George Martin's regret in releasing Strawberry Fields / Penny Lane as a single stemmed from their omission from Sgt Pepper. In my mind, he was saying that he regretted releasing those songs as a single because they were the first Beatles effort for ages that didn't make number one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.144.203.92 (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

...and the reason the single didn't make it to number 1, was basically the same reason that neither Susan Sarandon nor Geena Davies ended up winning the Oscar for best female performance in 'Thelma and Louise'. I'm sure a majority of the Academy found that the best female performances that year(1991) was for that movie, but in practical terms it meant that about half of the members of the academy who liked 'Thelma and Louise' voted for Sarandon, and the other half voted for Davies, which led to both of them losing against Jodie Foster(who incidentally did a brilliant performance also).

The trouble with the Beatles' single, was that it had no B-side. This was something the Beatles had already tried -- having two songs of equal stature on the same single -- but it had not led to them losing out to any opposition -- until now(February 1967). About half of the Beatles record buyers went into the record store to buy 'Strawberry Fields...', the other half to buy 'Penny Lane'. I'm not sure, but I think I've read that 'Strawberry Fields...' made it to number 2 in Britain, while 'Penny Lane' made it to number 4; which is of course ridiculous, because it's the SAME PIECE OF PLASTIC! Combined, the two songs FAR outsold 'Release Me'(by Engelbert Humperdinck), but unfortunately they were counted SEPARATELY; meaning both songs were effectively sabotaging the success the other. That is at least George Martin's view.('Summer of Love' 1993) In retrospect he regretted that he didn't release either one of the two as the A-side, backed with 'When I'm 64', which was the third song the Beatles finished before 1966 turned into 1967.

In that case, 'Penny Lane' would almost definitely have ended up on the album, since giving Paul both the A- AND the B-side of a single would be rather unthinkable. --84.208.240.143 06:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I found GMs claim rather unbelievable - I'm pretty sure that singles would be uniquely identifiable; in the 1960s particularly, there was occasionally two versions of the same song released so there had to be a way to distinguish them. A little smurfing of [2] shows that Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane sold around 500,000 copies - Release Me sold over a million copies so counting them separately or together wouldn't have made much difference. Apepper (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Billy Shears

Is there any reference that Billy Shears was Ringo Starr's alias? I knew it was the name of the fictitious leader of Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and generally attributed to Paul McCartney in the Paul is dead conspiracy theory--ElfQrin 09:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the comment means any more than that Ringo is introduced as such in the song. "Billy Shears" is the singer of "with a little help". The fictitious leader of Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is, astoundingly enough, Sergeant Pepper! -- Ian Dalziel 10:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Re-worded it. That any better? -- Ian Dalziel 10:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you can read too much into this kind of stuff, but on the I'm the Greatest track on Ringo's solo album he sings "My name is Billy Shears, it has been for so many years.". But as Paul recently said on a Steve Wright interview, usually there isn't anything behind the names - they just made them up.

Apepper 04:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No Singles Released (until 1978)

I keep looking at the article and I do not see anything that metions that no singles were released from the album until 1978, eleven years after the albums first issue. The 45 single has been mostly phased out thanks to CDs, however, back in 1967, for an album not to have an singles released as a deliberate intent of the recording artists, (and not because of it was a dud), was historical and probably the first time it happened. Before "Sgt. Pepper", albums had been a collections of songs to be released sooner or later on 45, after "Sgt. Pepper" the whole album became important. I think the article should metion it somewhere. 204.80.61.110 19:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Actually, this was far from the first time that no single was issued from an American album at the time of its release. One need only go back to the American version of Rubber Soul to find an album with no single releases. Bob Dylan's debut album from 1962 also had no singles taken from it. If one expands beyond rock and into pop, all but two of Frank Sinatra's "concept" albums of the 1950s -- A Jolly Christmas and Nice 'n' Easy -- had no singles released from them. So to say Sgt. Pepper was the first is simply incorrect. You can say that it was rare, but it wasn't unprecedented. Cheemo 17:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper coincided with Dylan's 1965 innovations?

How does sgt pepper coincide with what Dylan was doing on highway 61 revisited? That paragraph (and the definition of the word "coincide") makes it sound as though both things were happening at the same time, when they weren't. By such a loose definition, Sgt Pepper also "coincided" with Woodstock and Led Zeppelin's second album. I suggest a rewording Festivalimport 11:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

crossref

Sgt. Floyd Pepper?

shorten?

Doesn't the length of this article conflict with the encyclopedic nature of the site? It seems like it's not summarized but summarized in detail. 71.175.61.78 06:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

DI

DI is short for Direct injection, not 'input', and Paul McCartney certainly wasn't the inventor. The engineers at Abbey Road build this transformer in order to seperate the bass from the rest of the band in the main room.

• You're right about the Abbey Road engineers, but DI does mean Direct Input. Direct Injection is an engine term. See DI in Wikipedia (for example). Rien Post 13:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

- both 'input' and 'injection' are used in music, so both are right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.250.239.109 (talk) 03:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

My Chemical Romance?

The album had a large influence on many artists, including My Chemical Romance's 2007 album "The Black Parade". In the video to the title song, the band wear military coats similar to those worn by The Beatles on the cover of Sgt. Pepper's but in black.

It's arguable that Sgt. Pepper has had an influence on a wide range of artists over the last 40 years. To single out My Chemical Romance and The Black Parade seems superfluous. Even if I'm wrong and the edit is reverted, it could stand to be worded better.

Bob & Tom parody

I posted the entry for Bob & Tom's album "With a Little Help from Our Friends" or "Bob & Tom's Almost All-Star Band." I read the sidebar box under the Bob & Tom heading but I'm not sure I understand the point being made. I regret not having a scanner so I could send an image of the "album" (on audiocassette) to Wikipedia. Dougie monty 07:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention

"By Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention on the cover art of their album We're Only in It for the Money (although McCartney initially refused permission for the Mothers parody cover to be released, he later relented)." - mccartney claims in he biography many years from now that he originaly gave permission but was turned down by EMI - bexleysl1(must get a wiki account setup).

mono version on CD

I read on the Radio 2 forum that Russell Brand had said on his radio show that he'd received a letter from EMI asking for permission to release his version of When I'm 64. Apparently the letter said that when they'd received the permissions EMI would be releasing a CD of the recordings. They also said that they were planning to release the mono version of Pepper on CD. If someone has a better citation, this would be good to add - I would guess it would be a Christmas release.

Apepper 15:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

people on album cover

I re-formatted the "people on the album cover" section to make it take up less space on the page (it was a very long and uninteresting looking list) and put some photos of people from the list. I tried to get a diverse selection of people that had interesting portraits that were non-fair use. These four seem to match those criteria. Hope you like the change. Witty Lama 12:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Abandoning the concept...

...after only having recorded the title track (with its reprise) as well as 'With a little help from my friends', sounds alright when you look at their placing on the album, but the fact that both songs(all three songs) were recorded LATE in the project -- 'With a little help from my friends' actually being the last song recorded for 'Pepper' -- makes the statement VERY questionable.--84.208.240.143 06:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree - although I think the idea originally came from the Anthology when Ringo said they'd recorded Sgt Pepper and Billy Shears (sic) and then went back to doing tracks.

Probably the sequence of events was starting to record an LP about the Beatles childhood, the first two tracks were whipped away for a single, so they started again - when Paul wrote Sgt Pepper, he thought of the alter ego band idea - but the idea was really applied retrospectively in the assembly of the tracks; some had already been recorded after all, but did inspire the Reprise and the way Little Help was segued into Sgt Pepper - probably George Martin bought into the idea more than the other Beatles. But as Lennon said, "it worked because we said it worked."

I'll try and tie down the references and, if no-one else wants to do it, modify the introduction - its not the first "odd" claim by Ringo.

Apepper (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it wasn't abandoned so much as it was never fully adopted. A few of the songs work together, and certainly the album graphics, the title song, its reprise, and "With a Little Help from my Friends" support the concept. There is no evidence that the other songs were written or altered to fit the concept, although the end of "Good Morning, Good Morning" was designed to meld into the reprise. Lennon's quote seems accurate to me; the primary reason it was a concept album was because they said it was. John Cardinal (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Not *the* Brian Jones?

In the personal section, Brian Jones is listed playing on several tracks. The name links to the deceased Rolling Stone - I'm pretty certain it wasn't that Brian Jones.

Apepper (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The person who added him thought it was *the* Brian Jones, and he was a friend of The Beatles. As far as I know (I just checked various sources), no Brian Jones (RS member or not) performed on the songs listed and I am going to remove him. In fact, I'm going to remove most of the details there because the personnel sections in the song articles cover the same ground and usually include reliable evidence. John Cardinal (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Mark Lewishan researched the performers on the Beatle tracks with great care and only I Know Your Name had Brian Jones playing on it.

Apepper (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Brian Jones did appear on "You Know My Name (Look up the Number)", but he also performed on "Yellow Submarine". Jones may have been present for other sessions; Lewisohn (and Ian MacDonald) documented who played what, but they can only go by session notes and by snippets of conversations recorded on the tapes themselves. There may be other material (Did Jones keep a diary? Is there a good biography of him?), but in any case, Jones should only appear on tracks where his participation is documented by reliable evidence. — John Cardinal (talk) 12:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lucyinthesky.JPG

Image:Lucyinthesky.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rutles1.jpg

Image:Rutles1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Semi Protection

For about a week now, an anon IP user has been gong through Beatles' albums removing the Scaruffi reviews from the infoboxes without leaving an edit summary explaining why. I have asked for an explanation but since it's a floating IP, don't really expect to get one. This is unacceptable and I have now had to semi-protect this article for a week in the hope that whoever it is gets the message that these edits are unacceptable. If you want to alter the article in this time and can't, please leave suggestions below. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 14:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Pink Floyd - The Piper at the Gates of Dawn

I think the fact that Pink Floyd's debut, another landmark album is psychedelic music, was recorded next door, should be mentioned. Sgt. Pepper is mentioned on the Piper wiki, and while I know Piper isn't considered as important an album as Sgt. Pepper, it is still a fantastic, revered and important album, and therefore it should be mentioned here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.60.165 (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the "Piper" article. Since Floyd admired the Beatles, not the other way round, this is the way it should be. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Why can't it be mentioned in both? Also, on the Piper article, it says "Paul McCartney... rated the album highly."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.141.44 (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The admiration (and influence) certainly did go both ways- the Beatles watched PF's work and vice versa (for evidence of this, see Lennon's outtake "What's the New Mary Jane"). I'm not certain PF had a mentionable influence on Pepper though.

Since admiration went both ways, I also think that PF should be mentioned as well. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 06:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

One of the posted reviews

http://www.scaruffi.com/vol1/beatles.html

That whole article is hardly fit for a review, especially on this Beatles album. All it is, is a man whining about how the Beatles were a fraud, so I deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vash0010 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't, without discussing it. Remember we have to have a neutral point of view here, and that means including criticism along with praise. Scaruffi's work is used in several places throughout Wikipedia and just deleting it will not be tolerated. Removing balancing opinions will be regarded as vandalism and dealt with accordingly. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

this is not balancing reviews, we gotta to put at least more than fifteen 10/10 professional reviews, for one 7/10 be balancing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.180.180.195 (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC) That guy doesnt have a dang idea of what he's talking about and clearly is NOT objective in his Beatle reviews. To say that the Beatles had nothing to say is arguably the lamest reviewer quote ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.57.210.118 (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Again, there is a problem with neutral point of view here. It's not a case of finding reviews so that the "numbers" work out, nor is it a case of dismissing a negative review simply because of that fact. Scaruffi's views can be countered by using other reliable sources. So, much as as I love the Beatles, removing his review to as to bias the article the way you want is not acceptable, in fact it's a breach of policy. Why don't you add some positive reviews? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, my apologies for overreacting. I have nothing against poorer reviews; however I believe the review is not well written. If I find another negative review I will add it. --70.55.109.251 (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

How is it not well-written? You do know that Scaruffi's Italian? For Scaruffi, a 7/10 is actually very high. He works by a much different scoring system than most would expect, try and find it on his site. I must add that he finds in favour of the album. 92.3.179.130 (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

7/10 is more than the album deserves! People are too used to seeing full marks for this album. 59.167.148.170 (talk) 09:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of whether the review is positive or negative, or even well-written, but whether it carries any authority. Having a website does not automatically make one a citable critic. Scaruffi's an interesting guy but has no real authority as a music critic. Jgm (talk) 00:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If he has no real authority as a music critic, then how do the guys at pitchfork have authority? scaruffi probably has more experience than their entire staff (who are mostly very young) combined. some of the AllMusic "critics" are journalists who write occasional music reviews. scaruffi has decades more experience than those sorts of people 59.167.148.170 (talk) 09:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Then why does he have an article here (Piero Scaruffi), at least three published works on modern popular music, and 27,600 Google hits? Of course it makes him citable. You may disagree with him, but that's all part of WP:NPOV. His standards may be different from those of other, more commercially leaning, critics, but that does not mean his opinions should be ignored. I've read him, and although I don't always agree with his views, at least he gives reasons for them. That's more than I've seen from some musical hagiographers. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the policy I cited? Self-published books are no more citable than a website, nor do they imply any more credibility or authority. The fact that he has an article here may make him notable by some standard -- mostly in terms of web history, I'd say -- but does not mean that everything he says (regardless of whether he has any actual background in the field or whether anyone is willing to pay him to write it) carries authority. Jgm (talk) 00:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, but I was already familiar with it. I'd just be interested to have some reasons why he's considered less authoritative than, say Christgau or any staff reviewer who happens to be published in a music journal. Music is essentially a subjective experience, so in a sense criticism is irrelevant, as there are no particular qualifications for the job. What's the difference, for example, between 4 1/2 and 5 stars in a Rolling Stone review? Largely meaningless. I maintain there is no reason to dismiss his views simply because they are mostly self-published, just that they should be given appropriate weight, and in this context any intelligent reader should be able to assign that weight for themselves. That's the whole point of WP:NPOV. We do NOT edit out (or in) things we agree or disagree with, we put information before our readers and let them make up their own minds. In that sense, that's why- and how- we are an encyclopedia and we should not patronise our readers by making their minds up for them. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Additional: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums considers Scaruffi citable here. I suggest if we can't achieve consensus here, this Project needs to be involved, failing which a Request for Comment will need to be raised. I'm sorry to be Wikilawyering, but I spend quite some time replacing these citations from numerous articles, mostly deleted by anon IP editors who care not for edit summaries, and I would wish to stop wasting my time one way or another. There are more pernicious POV pushers who require attention elsewhere. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've already opened the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums, so perhaps this little flap will have a positive effect on the project. Jgm (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

W.C. Fields?

W.C. Fields was recently removed from the list of celebrities on the cover, but the name still appears in the text. It seems generally accepted that the image is of W.C. Fields. I'm adding him back to the list.Cstaffa (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)