Jump to content

Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
SineBot (talk | contribs)
m Signing comment by 2601:155:0:7CD0:7910:18D7:12EC:1D14 - ""
Line 133: Line 133:
:::::Ah okay, thanks(!). I agree then, that the issue is one of what weight we give to the statement. [[User:JG66|JG66]] ([[User talk:JG66|talk]]) 01:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
:::::Ah okay, thanks(!). I agree then, that the issue is one of what weight we give to the statement. [[User:JG66|JG66]] ([[User talk: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. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2601:155:0:7CD0:7910:18D7:12EC:1D14|2601:155:0:7CD0:7910:18D7:12EC:1D14]] ([[User talk:2601:155:0:7CD0:7910:18D7:12EC:1D14#top|talk]]) 05:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::: 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. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2601:155:0:7CD0:7910:18D7:12EC:1D14|2601:155:0:7CD0:7910:18D7:12EC:1D14]] ([[User talk:2601:155:0:7CD0:7910:18D7:12EC:1D14#top|talk]]) 05:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::: 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.
:::: 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. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2601:155:0:7CD0:7910:18D7:12EC:1D14|2601:155:0:7CD0:7910:18D7:12EC:1D14]] ([[User talk:2601:155:0:7CD0:7910:18D7:12EC:1D14#top|talk]]) 05:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Revision as of 05:09, 13 January 2018

Template:Vital article

Featured articleSgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 21, 2014.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 2, 2006Good article nomineeListed
April 4, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
November 10, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
June 15, 2008Peer reviewNot reviewed
April 23, 2014Good article nomineeListed
May 15, 2014Peer reviewReviewed
May 23, 2014Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 29, 2014.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band's title track was once described as a "revolutionary moment in the creative life" of the Beatles?
Current status: Featured article

Template:Find sources notice

Changing psychedelic rock to psychedelia

The words "psychedelic rock" never appear in the article. I count:

  1. Wagner felt the album's music reconciles the "diametrically opposed aesthetic ideals" of classical and psychedelia, achieving a "psycheclassical synthesis" of the two forms
  2. Womack credits the track's "driving rock sound" with distinguishing it from the album's overtly psychedelic material
  3. Julien considers the latter a "masterpiece of British psychedelia".

Shouldn't the infobox instead link to Psychedelia?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:40, 24 July 2016‎ (UTC)

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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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)[reply]

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’96everything and nothing always haunts me…00:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]