Jump to content

Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 00:05, 9 April 2014 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Beatles RfC

You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning the name of this band in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

attempt to perform some songs from "Revolver"?

Notice this item in "Background" section regarding this album:

>McCartney commented: "We did try performing some songs off [Revolver], but there were so many complicated overdubs we can't do them justice. Now we can record anything we want, and it won't matter. And what we want is to raise the bar a notch, to make our best album ever."

Did anyone go over details about what songs were involved (attempted performance of any songs from "Revolver")? It is noted in their touring, which ended in 1966, that they did no live performance of those songs, to the disappointment of some people. The newest song ever done by the Beatles on tour was Paperback Writer, which along with Rain was the SINGLE recorded at the time the Revolver LP was also recorded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Sgt Pepper - Etlinger reference

I am adding this to the Sgt. Pepper talk page, as Piriczki decided to take it off his/her personal page - it may prove to be useful in possible future conflicts concerning this page and others, particularly the obvious contempt for cultural theory and its concepts (cf. Piriczki's last edit). Best, Zamuse (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, please explain how the addition of the Sarah Etlinger ref. is a "spam". The article can be accessed here: http://www.cairn.info/revue-volume-2011-1-page-253.htm Best, 08:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zamuse (talk • contribs)

For one thing, you did not link to the above mentioned web site in the Sgt. Pepper article, you linked to "volume.revues.org/1305" and Volume!, for which it has been shown you have a conflict of interest (see Conflict of interest noticeboard) and have been blocked for spamming (see Special:Contributions/Vvolume).
Per Wikipedia:Spam, Wikipedia is not a space for the promotion of products, services or web sites. Contribute cited text, not bare links. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. If you have a source to contribute, first contribute some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source. Do not simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts. The References section is for references. A reference directs the reader to a work that the writer(s) referred to while writing the article. The References section of a Wikipedia article is not just a list of related works; it is specifically the list of works used as sources. Therefore, it can never be correct to add a link or reference to References sections if nobody editing the text of the article has actually referred to it.
The so-called "reference" you added does not verify any of the text preceding it and doesn't follow Wikipedia policy on references (see Wikipedia:Citing sources). It also violates the Wikipedia policies Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming, Wikipedia:Spam#Bookspam, Wikipedia:Spam#Citation spam, Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided (4. Links mainly intended to promote a website), Wikipedia:ELNO#Advertising and conflicts of interest and Wikipedia:ELNO#Non-English-language content.
Your claim that this is a "serious academic article" is irrelavent because it doesn't appear to verify any content in the Sgt. Pepper article and it is debatable as to whether the reference is useful, necessary or appropriate. It certainly doesn't appear that the author of this research paper has any qualifications related to the Beatles, music or art history, let alone a recognized authority on any of these subjects. Besides, the paper itself references authors Bill Harry, Ian Inglis, Kenneth Womack and Todd F. Davis, who are considered authoritive sources and are already cited as sources in the Sgt. Pepper article, rendering this research paper redundant as a source. Piriczki (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
The link is to the same article : the revues.org version is the permanent link, to the same article. If you read the whole COI, the account hadn't been blocked for spamming, but because of the name. Please, next time, read more carefully before making any such false statements. Zamuse (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I didn't intend to make it a space for the promotion of a product - I added a reference that could seem useful, as the (peer-reviewed) article deals specifically with Sgt Pepper's cover art. But I will improve the contribution, shortly. Zamuse (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
There are dozens of links in the article - you still have a lot of work to do! The "so-called reference", as you write, is once again a peer-reviewed article (actually reviewed by some names quoted on this same page!), published in an academic journal. Better than quite a few refs already present in the Sgt. Pepper wikipedia article… You might want to adopt a less arrogant tone, when commenting papers you haven't read, on topics you may not be expert of?Zamuse (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Not redundant, as it focuses on a specific aspect of the album, the links between the cover, photomontage, Pop Art and so forth. But how would you know? You decided it wasn't meant to be there, before even reading it. Anyway, no big deal,
Best, Zamuse (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I read most of it, but admit I started skimming after "these movements fundamentally engage with problematizing representation and the status quo through the appropriation of mass-mediated images." Piriczki (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Which explains why you prefer and leave Billboard links on the Sgt. Pepper page… good thing you're the watchdog! someone committed to encyclopedic knowledge! Zamuse (talk) 11:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
PS: this section should remain on the page, for use in any further "conflict" around the Sgt. Pepper page. It shows a certain contempt for cultural theory, its "jargon" and so forth. Could prove useful, later on. Thank you for not removing it. One could consider you suppressing it as a form of "self censorship", Best, Zamuse (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Baroque pop genre addition

Why isn't baroque pop included in the genre listing? I understand that the album has many different influences (notably raga rock, psychedelic pop, music hall, and classical) but sophisticated baroque instrumentation seems to be what many critics identify with the record when discussing its legacy. Harpsichords, strings, harps, full orchestras (Western and Indian), organs, and in general a very precise production. If an album like the Byrd's The Notorious Byrd Brothers can be tagged as "baroque pop" by Wikipedia, why can't the album that made the genre a staple of 60s pop (along with Pet Sounds) also bear the title? Furthermore, an innumerable amount of sources, such as ALLMUSIC, describe the album as "Baroque pop."(http://www.allmusic.com/album/sgt-peppers-lonely-hearts-club-band-mw0000649874). "Baroque pop," should surely be included in order to ensure the album is presented as accurately as possible on this website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbrito162 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Reiterating my comments from before: the source you used is a bit questionable. Editors in the past have pointed out that Allmusic's sidebar is often incongruous with the reviewer's prose (possibly not the reviewer's choice), including at WP:ALBUMS and RSN. A perfect example is Rhythm Killers and its entry at Allmusic; the sidebar lists it as "reggae", but the reviewer observes "no reggae in sight really". If this is the only source available for a certain article, then it's fine, but more explicit, authored sources are preferred, i.e. reviewer/writer A calls album B genre C, or "Sgt. Pepper's is a [genre] album". Dan56 (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I note that the sidebar, which has separate "chronology" links for the UK vs US releases, lists the White Album as the next LP in the UK canon, but Magical Mystery Tour for the US. While I understand that this is technically correct (the UK version of Mystery Tour was only an EP), since 1987 the US LP of Mystery Tour has been accepted as the canonical LP version, falling between Sgt Pepper and The Beatles. In short, the "official canon" of Beatles LPs was amended in 1987 (and maintained in 2009).

Would it be possible to list both Mystery Tour and The Beatles as the "next" album in the Sgt Pepper chronology, perhaps with a subnote that Mystery Tour only fits because of the 1987 revision? I have seen such "alternate" previous/next chronology entries used in other articles, so it might be useful here.

To understand where I'm coming from here, I'm a moderately knowledgeable fan, and I'm currently using my library's collection, in chronological order, to refresh my Beatles familiarity. I've been using the UK chronology as a guideline to do this, and I noticed that Mystery Tour (which I knew was roughly in the Sgt Pepper timeframe) was left out. A newbie fan might not know to make such a course correction. - EJSawyer (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Mr Kite poster

I see the image of the Mr Kite poster has been changed for one that the uploader says is of better quality. This also happened with the poster image in the Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite! article some time ago. I have a couple of problems with this. First of all the image is not public domain and is tagged as having no fair use rationale. Secondly, looking at the uploader's contributions (which all concern the poster) they claim to be the creator of the poster and then the original source is given as a website which gives a lot of information about how it was created and invites you to buy a limited edition copy for just under £300 here. It seems to me that, If the uploader is the creator, wikipedia is being used here as a marketing tool to promote the sale of the limited edition prints for the benefit of the uploader. That would be a WP:COI violation and also linking to a website who's main purpose is to sell a product (see WP:SPAM). Personally, I don't think that most of our readers would notice the difference between the new image and the one that was replaced anyway. What do others think? Richerman (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring by Dan56

Dan56, once again you are edit warring with me and once again its about stuffing the articles about music that you don't like with ridiculous negative reviews from low-quality sources. I know what you are up to, and you will be topic banned for WP:POV pushing if you continue. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Ritchie333, JG66, your fellow collaborator is being quite hostile towards me, with silly accusations and evasive edit summaries. He removed revscores from The A.V. Club and Paste, calling the sources "garbage". When I [ politely asked why, twice ([1], [2]) and brought up the fact that both are listed as recommended sources at WP:ALBUMS/SOURCE, he resorted to the rash response above and this inadequate edit summary. If he actually believes The A.V. Club and Paste are poor quality sources, then he should argue this at the talk page for WP:ALBUMS/SOURCE. I'm going to revert him again, since I don't feel like being bullied out of any article he edits because he's unable to have faith in my edits. Dan56 (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Laser brain, this attack is once again completely unprovoked and at an article where I am the leading contributor with intentions of taking this page, with con-noms, to FAC. Dan has been consistently disruptive with me at articles I edit going back three months now. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, 3family6, STATicVapor? In a past discussion at Led Zeppelin IV, to support a point of view he was arguing, GabeMc cited a review by Chuck Klosterman in Spin magazine (in this comment). Now, he has removed a review by Chuck Klosterman, viewing his "B+" grade as "negative". Dan56 (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Dan, I said that Paste was a weak source, not Klosterman, but FTR I didn't actualy add the Klosterman quote to an article, did I? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
GabeMc see WP:OWN, we have to all work collaboratively, even if you are the leading contributor, you do not control all changes in the slightest. The A.V. Club and Paste are definitely not lacking or weak, they are undoubtedly reliable, professional reviewers, which is backed by their use by Metacritic. I also do not get any reason why the Spin review was removed, the template is only at 8 entries when the max is 10. Do you have guideline backed reasons for these removals? WP:ALBUM/SOURCES supports their use. STATic message me! 03:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:BOLD I do not need a guideline to exercise my editorial discretion. In the next two months I'll build-up the material from scholarly sources and this will all make sense. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
"Instead of getting upset, read WP:Assume good faith and WP:Civility, and be bold again, but after a reversion of a bold edit, you might want to be bold in an edit on the talk pages so as not to start an edit war." Dan56 (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
John, is this edit summary and this by Gabe an attack? He seems to think I made an attack (02:31, 6 March 2014), but I don't recall saying anything like "you are a resource drain that wastes time", or "you need an intervention". I also don't recall doing anything here but ask why review sources widely accepted in album articles (WP:ALBUMS/SOURCE) were removed--they're neither "low-quality" or "ridiculous negative reviews" as Gabe described above, although I could guess it's because the scores were not in keeping with the other five-star ratings that he removed them. BTW, The A.V. Club review was written by Chuck Klosterman and Paste by Mark Kemp, whose prose he also removed from this article ([3]). All of which seems like aggressive undoing of anything remotely negative of the article's topic (WP:BULLY). Dan56 (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Great point, STATicVapor, they are included by Metacritic. But not only that, they are written by Chuck Klosterman (for The A.V. CLub's review) and Mark Kemp (for Paste magazine's review), two music critics more notable than Crawdaddy!'s David Gendelman or Pitchfork Media's Scott Plagenhoef, whose perfect scores Gabe did not remove, whose reviews are not at all quoted in the section's prose. Dan56 (talk) 03:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Dan, do you even realize that this is two album articles in a row that you've presented some significant disruption to exactly at the moment where I began improving it in earnest? You are a disruptive editor, IMO. Please leave me alone. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Again, Gabe does not address my point about the notability of the actual critics over the ones he did not remove. Dan56 (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This is out of hand, GabeMc. Both of those sources are perfectly acceptable. This debate over "is this an attack?" is silly and a waste of time. Please, let's keep things to a discussion of the sources. GabeMc, what is it about The A.V. Club and Paste that you find unreliable?--¿3family6 contribs 03:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say that they were unreliable sources, but per WP:IINFO, we don't include everything that suits our purposes as Dan does. If pushed I'll make a case that Dan is pushing negative reviews only on articles about music that he does not like, which violates WP:POVPUSH to the point of justifying a topic ban. This is the 6th content dispute that he has been involved in in the last 30 days. Talk:News of the World (album)#Rock, Talk:Led Zeppelin IV#Rock and roll / blues, Talk:The Game (Queen album)#IMMEDIATE REMOVAL OF "POMP ROCK", Talk:Babel (album)#Genre, and Talk:All Things Must Pass#To soul or not to soul. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." Dan56 (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment on the content at hand, not the contributors involved. Any points on how these reviewers are not professional? Even when they are noted, even having Wikipedia articles. The article must apply due weight to all professional critical reviews and to be honest it seriously looks incredibly bias only having perfect scores. STATic message me! 04:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
GabeMc, Dan56 is not obligated to bow out of any article that you decide to start working on intensively. Rather, you are advised to work with the interested editors that appear. Collaboration is slower than working alone but it makes for a stronger article, more resistant to change. Binksternet (talk) 05:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Bink, I never said that Dan had to stop editing articles that I choose to improve, but he's not really an editor here so much as a pusher of low-quality criticism, which he is currently doing at five other articles related to classic rock: Talk:News of the World (album)#Rock, Talk:Led Zeppelin IV#Rock and roll / blues, Talk:The Game (Queen album)#IMMEDIATE REMOVAL OF "POMP ROCK", Talk:Babel (album)#Genre, and Talk:All Things Must Pass#To soul or not to soul. Dan is the most disruptive editor that I've ever seen who wasn't an outright vandal, and I have strong suspicions that he is sabotaging articles about music that he does not like. After all, he has dozens of GAs to his credit, but only one of them are in the classic rock or metal genres, which are the only genres that he is constantly pushing negative reviews on. Вик Ретлхед, Rvd4life, and Y2kcrazyjoker4 might be willing to confirm my suspicions. Binksternet, take a look at an article or two that Dan wrote and tell me if he adds the same level of criticism there: Aaliyah (album)#Critical reception, The Way I See It#Critical reception, and Sons of Soul#Critical reception, for example have only passing negative comments as though Aaliyah has received a generally more positive critical reception than Sgt. Pepper. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The difference between Aaliyah and Sgt Pepper is that people who are capable of critical thought listened to Sgt Pepper. <grin> Hey, put down the torches, people, it was just a joke.
Seriously, Aaliyah's bar is a lot lower than the Beatles'. Taking the breathlessly idolatrous review from Rolling Stone as the baseline shows that the album Aaliyah is not misrepresented by those who brought the album's article to FA class. Binksternet (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment. Ten reviewer ratings are permitted per album (in fact, twenty are allowed for extremely notable releases, I notice), so there's room for more. We don't have anything from Mojo, Q, NME, Uncut, all of which are far more notable than Paste or AV Club. I'd be very surprised if they weren't all perfect five-star scores, in which case, by their sheer volume, they'd trump any remotely negative scores out there – but we need to find them first, of course. In the interest of reflecting the range and variation, if ten is the maximum number of ratings in the box, I'd imagine that a single non-perfect score (not both AV's B+ rating and Paste's 89/100) would be a fair reflection. This is an album that often tops critics' best-ever polls, after all – consistently in the top five, anyway. Again though, it's all hypothetical until we can add anything from Mojo, Q, etc.
The problem as I see it is whether editors then want to include comments from these less-than-stellar reviews in the main text. From past experience, they do. This approach bulks out the content of what might already be a substantial section on an album's critical reception, and if Mojo, Q et al. then come to the party in Pepper, the section bulks out even more. Which means that any attempt at a streamlined discussion under Reception will become a litany of reviewers' opinions, with an almost tit-for-tat narrative thread. I really think this needs to be avoided for an album as revolutionary for Western consciousness as Sgt. Pepper.
[I've been concerned about that same approach becoming an issue at All Things Must Pass; Dark Horse also, to a lesser extent, where the addition of a pretty nonsensical comment from Christgau seems gratuitous, in my opinion, because the overall picture regarding that album being much-maligned upon release has been well-established in the section's opening paragraph. (eg, "Dark Horse received some of the most negative reviews of any release by a Beatle up to that point ... it was "open season" on Harrison ... another biographer, Elliot Huntley, has written of the "tsunami of bile" unleashed on the ex-Beatle in late 1974." After which we have some detailed opinion from Rolling Stone and NME, which is hardly sparing in its negativity, but most importantly, it offers the reader something in the way of rational criticism, unlike the Christgau quote.)]
In the interest of providing some balance in Pepper, perhaps Carr & Tyler's point from the mid/late 1970s (in The Beatles: An Illustrated Record) might be useful: about how Pepper became an anachronism, an embarrassment, in the UK anyway. (I'd done the same thing at All Things Must Pass, with a comment from Bob Woffinden on ATMP being viewed as "faddish" by the late '70s, together with Carr & Tyler's unfavourable verdict.) Perhaps also a comment from a less-than-glowing recent review of Pepper – just as long as we don't resort to a kind of he said/she said narrative.
Oh and no, Dan56 and anyone else is not obligated to quit contributing to this or any other article. But at the same time, a user's motives for arriving at an article can come across as very suspicious – in that there can appear to be an agenda that raises questions of bias, just as much as when an editor who's committed to expanding the article for FAC is resistant to the addition of less-than-perfect reviewer ratings. As Gabe's said, there's a fair amount of history in this regard. While everyone's so quick to justify their actions with a WP: link, it seems to me it's just an excuse to avoid thinking intelligently about where they tread and what they contribute. Of course, if there were a page named WP:FOR_CHRIST'S_SAKE_DON'T_FORGET_TO_ACT_LIKE_A_HUMAN_BEING,_NOT_A_****_ROBOT, it might be different. Right now – once again – progress on an extremely important album article is focused on an unproductive discussion on its talk page. (Hardly any wonder that these articles languish with a B or C rating for so long, is it?) JG66 (talk) 09:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • There are currently four paragraphs in the Reception section and at least half of the material is negative stuff that Dan added. That's after I removed some poor-quality comments per WP:UNDUE. The problem with Dan is that he does not add this level of criticism at articles about music that he likes; just look at a few of his GAs or FAs if you think that I am wrong. This is about editorial discretion, which Dan seems to think is irrelevant when it comes to material that he has added. Dan is POV pushing negative reviews from low-quality sources on articles about music that he does not like, which he should be blocked for, not defended. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The A.V. Club

Does this wesite even exist anymore? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay I see that it does, but I still say that its not a high enough quality source to judge Pepper. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Crawdaddy?

I'm confused, why has the Crawdaddy rating been removed when it's "republished as a blog on Paste"? That's republished – meaning it existed as a separate review from Paste's? JG66 (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

"relaunches as a blog on Paste...", but my edit summary first read "rm deadlink review" (the link to the review has been dead for quite some time). BTW, the title in the citation to the Crawdaddy review read "Blogs :: Crawdaddy :: Paste", but I'm sure one of you would have noticed that had the rating been not-so perfect. Both of you have yet to address how the actual reviewers from those two sources--Chuck Klosterman (THe A.V. Club) and Mark Kemp (Paste)--are less reputed than those cited in this article from Pitchfork, Sputnikmusic, or Crawdaddy, or MusicHound. All I've heard are far-reaching arguments in an effort to keep the reception section puffed up. BTW, JG66, I'm not new to this article--I cleaned up the reception section back in December by finding notable reviewers. I'm not expecting any faith from Gabe at this point, but I'd like some from you. Dan56 (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
"but I'm sure one of you would have noticed that had the rating been not-so perfect" doesn't exactly smack of good faith. I'm talking about arriving on the scene as soon as there's talk of expanding the article. If you want to work with Ritchie and Gabe, then take my place – but for God's sake, co-operate.
I don't want to see the reception section puffed up per se; I want to see a reception section that's reflective of the acclaim the album's received. It's viewed (not by me, pls note) as one of the greatest albums of all time, if not the greatest. Of course, there are some reviewers who don't see it in that light. But given that we have ten ratings, I would've thought that a one-in-ten not-so-perfect score is a pretty accurate reflection. I mean, I've never once seen a review giving anything less than 5 out of 5 for Pepper. (Okay, you or someone else've found two – are you sure you haven't got any 5/5s to hand also?) Given its standing among critics, I would say Pepper's one rock album that would merit a wall of stars in the ratings box, other rare examples being Exile on Main St. and Blonde on Blonde. I'm surprised this has become an issue. Sgt. Pepper just is – revolutionary, acclaimed, the pinnacle of the Beatles' career. As I've said, I'm no big fan. If two or three 5/5s come to light, are people still going to be arguing for both AV Club and Paste's inclusion? JG66 (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Dan, please read WP:PACT. I tried my best, but I don't trust your judgment; see below. I've also talked to you about the issue of relating what the preponderance of sources say and I affirm here that you shouldn't seek-out negative stuff about these albums from lower-quality sources just because they say what you want to say. I concur with JG66 about your timing. This is the third article where someone other than me has expressed that concern. Unless I'm mistaken, that's almost exactly what Вик Ретлхед accused you of doing at AJFA, which does fit with someone sabotaging articles. You seem to show up and exhaust people right at the moment when they are expanding, so they waste their time and get frustrated and the article is not improved. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

For the record

Before I started copyediting yesterday, the Critical Reception section looked like this:

Upon its release on 1 June 1967,[68] Sgt. Pepper received critical acclaim.[69] It was greeted with "...paeans citing it as a bridge between pop and art."[70] Various reviews appearing in the mainstream press and trade publications throughout June 1967, immediately after the album's release, were generally positive. In The Times, prominent critic Kenneth Tynan described Sgt. Pepper as "a decisive moment in the history of Western civilisation".[71] Richard Poirier wrote "listening to the Sgt. Pepper album one thinks not simply of the history of popular music but the history of this century."[72]

In a negative review, Richard Goldstein of The New York Times found the album "spoiled" and felt that it "reek[ed]" of "special effects, dazzling but ultimately fraudulent".[73] After he was criticised for his review,[74] Goldstein published a response a month later, in which he said that he was worried "as a critic" that the album was not on-par with the best of the Beatles' previous work, despite being "better than 80 per cent of the music around today". He called it an "in-between experience, a chic", and felt that when the novelty of its production tricks wears off, "and the compositions are stripped to their musical and lyrical essentials, Sergeant Pepper will be Beatles baroque—an elaboration without improvement".[75] Robert Christgau of The Village Voice wrote in an article at the time that the album is "a consolidation, more intricate than Revolver but not more substantial. Part of Goldstein's mistake, I think, has been to allow all the filters and reverbs and orchestral effects and overdubs to deafen him to the stuff underneath, which was pretty nice, and to fall victim to overanticipation."[74] He called the album "a dozen good songs and true" in a 1977 retrospective review, and stated, "Perhaps they're too precisely performed, but I'm not going to complain."[60] Peter Herbst followed the same tack. In the 1979 Rolling Stone Record Guide he described the album as "...a thickly detailed, somewhat stiff collection of generally less-than-great Beatles tunes vaguely molded into a whole."[70]

In his Encyclopedia of Popular Music, Colin Larkin wrote that the album "turned out to be no mere pop album but a cultural icon embracing the constituent elements of the 60s' youth culture: pop art, garish fashion, drugs, instant mysticism and freedom from parental control."[63] In a 1987 review for Q, Charles Shaar Murray commented that the album "remains a central pillar of the mythology and iconography of the late '60s."[76] Anthony DeCurtis of Rolling Stone argued that it "revolutionized rock & roll" and that its "immensely pleasurable trip has earned Sgt. Pepper its place as the best record of the past twenty years." DeCurtis found it to be "not only the Beatles' most artistically ambitious album but their funniest" and cited its "fun-loving experimentalism" as the album's "best legacy for our time."[77] By contrast, Christgau said that, "although Sgt. Pepper is thought of as the most influential of all rock masterpieces, it is really only the most famous. In retrospect it seems peculiarly apollonian—precise, controlled, even stiff—and it is clearly peripheral to the rock mainstream", and asserted that "the 'concept album' idea was embodied more fruitfully—and earlier in Rubber Soul."[78] Mark Kemp of Paste wrote similarly, "for all its sonic richness, Sgt. Pepper remains one of rock's most overrated albums—its songwriting isn’t nearly as consistent as Revolver's, and its storyline is abandoned after the first two tracks and artificially reprised near the end."[64]

If you separate the positive prose from the negative you find:

Positve: 221 words

Upon its release on 1 June 1967,[68] Sgt. Pepper received critical acclaim.[69] It was greeted with "...paeans citing it as a bridge between pop and art."[70] Various reviews appearing in the mainstream press and trade publications throughout June 1967, immediately after the album's release, were generally positive. In The Times, prominent critic Kenneth Tynan described Sgt. Pepper as "a decisive moment in the history of Western civilisation".[71] Richard Poirier wrote "listening to the Sgt. Pepper album one thinks not simply of the history of popular music but the history of this century."[72]

In his Encyclopedia of Popular Music, Colin Larkin wrote that the album "turned out to be no mere pop album but a cultural icon embracing the constituent elements of the 60s' youth culture: pop art, garish fashion, drugs, instant mysticism and freedom from parental control."[63] In a 1987 review for Q, Charles Shaar Murray commented that the album "remains a central pillar of the mythology and iconography of the late '60s."[76] Anthony DeCurtis of Rolling Stone argued that it "revolutionized rock & roll" and that its "immensely pleasurable trip has earned Sgt. Pepper its place as the best record of the past twenty years." DeCurtis found it to be "not only the Beatles' most artistically ambitious album but their funniest" and cited its "fun-loving experimentalism" as the album's "best legacy for our time."[77]

Negative: 349 words

In a negative review, Richard Goldstein of The New York Times found the album "spoiled" and felt that it "reek[ed]" of "special effects, dazzling but ultimately fraudulent".[73] After he was criticised for his review,[74] Goldstein published a response a month later, in which he said that he was worried "as a critic" that the album was not on-par with the best of the Beatles' previous work, despite being "better than 80 per cent of the music around today". He called it an "in-between experience, a chic", and felt that when the novelty of its production tricks wears off, "and the compositions are stripped to their musical and lyrical essentials, Sergeant Pepper will be Beatles baroque—an elaboration without improvement".[75] Robert Christgau of The Village Voice wrote in an article at the time that the album is "a consolidation, more intricate than Revolver but not more substantial. Part of Goldstein's mistake, I think, has been to allow all the filters and reverbs and orchestral effects and overdubs to deafen him to the stuff underneath, which was pretty nice, and to fall victim to overanticipation."[74] He called the album "a dozen good songs and true" in a 1977 retrospective review, and stated, "Perhaps they're too precisely performed, but I'm not going to complain."[60] Peter Herbst followed the same tack. In the 1979 Rolling Stone Record Guide he described the album as "...a thickly detailed, somewhat stiff collection of generally less-than-great Beatles tunes vaguely molded into a whole."[70]

By contrast, Christgau said that, "although Sgt. Pepper is thought of as the most influential of all rock masterpieces, it is really only the most famous. In retrospect it seems peculiarly apollonian—precise, controlled, even stiff—and it is clearly peripheral to the rock mainstream", and asserted that "the 'concept album' idea was embodied more fruitfully—and earlier in Rubber Soul."[78] Mark Kemp of Paste wrote similarly, "for all its sonic richness, Sgt. Pepper remains one of rock's most overrated albums—its songwriting isn’t nearly as consistent as Revolver's, and its storyline is abandoned after the first two tracks and artificially reprised near the end."[64]

  • Need I say more? Dan jumped on me when I balanced the comments, which were way out of line with the preponderance of sources. Of the 570 words in the section, 61.2% were devoted to negative comments, which is certainly WP:UNDUE when writing about one of the most universally appreciated albums in the history of rock music. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The positive info could be expanded, perhaps? Instead of arguing over whether something should be cut out or not, why not just expand the info gleaned from positive reviews? As you said, it's one of the most acclaimed albums in history - so the reception section could certainly be expanded.--¿3family6 contribs 18:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Right, that's what I would be doing now if Dan wasn't wasting my time. I always copyedit a section before I expand it, but isn't it possible that enough positive stuff had already been said, and the task at hand was more appropriately to balance the sections per WP:UNDUE? Are you saying that the proper remedy for UNDUE is to beef-up the praise? That's not a good approach to writing, IMO. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand

On the other hand, if you look at one of Dan's FAs, Aaliyah (album), you'll find quite a different balance that includes no outright negative commentary at all and a nearly 3 to 1 margin of positive to mixed.

Positive: 280 words; 72.5%

Upon its release in July 2001,[53] Aaliyah received highly positive reviews from critics.[1] At Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the album received an average score of 76, indicating "generally favorable reviews", based on 14 reviews.[54] Michael Odell of The Guardian felt that it is "as much a brochure for the current state of R&B production facilities" as it is about Aaliyah's singing. He found the music's textures "scintillating" and felt that its distinguishing characteristic is "a playful and confident reworking of the [R&B] canon."[48] Brad Cawn of the Chicago Tribune viewed that Aaliyah demonstrates Sade's grace and Missy Elliott's daring, and called its music "cool and glittery neo-soul ... equal parts attitude and harmony, and all urban music perfection."[55] In his review for The Independent, Simon Price cited the album as "further evidence that black pop is the avant garde."[56]

Nathan Rabin of The A.V. Club asserted that the album establishes Aaliyah as a significant artist unobscured by her collaborators.[34] Ernest Hardy of Rolling Stone called it "a near-flawless declaration of strength and independence", and commended her for exploring her "fantasies and strengths."[28] Craig Seymour of Entertainment Weekly praised its melodrama and opined that, apart from a few songs that stray from her musical strengths, Aaliyah "skillfully portrays love as part woozy thrill, part pulse-racing terror."[27] Slant Magazine's Sal Cinquemani found her personality highlighted on every song and compared her to Janet Jackson, but with better and more arousing metaphors.[36] Joshua Clover of Spin viewed it as her most profound work and wrote that she makes "art" out of Timbaland and Static's "formal finesse" by "investing sound schemes with urgency and emotional intricacy".[24]

Mixed: 106; 27.5%

In a mixed review, Connie Johnson of the Los Angeles Times found the album musically safe and felt that its lyrics lack the depth and "personal revelation that gives music some immediacy."[57] John Mulvey of NME found it "graceful" and "satisfying rather than extraordinary" and viewed that it is redeemed by Static's consistent songwriting.[33] Robert Christgau of The Village Voice gave it a three-star honorable mention,[51] indicating "an enjoyable effort consumers attuned to its overriding aesthetic or individual vision may well treasure."[58] He cited "We Need a Resolution" and "U Got Nerve" as highlights and called Aaliyah "a slave to her beats, but a proud slave".[59]

  • I'm not going to bother investigating this matter. You are comparing apples to oranges here; the effort is useless with regard to improving the Sgt Pepper article. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Its not useless if we are talking about material that was added in an attempt to disrupt the article, but no worries; I should have know better then to ask for your opinion. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Gabe, you should have known better than to remove those scores as well. Dan56 (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Back to this article...

The only negative review that was ever mentioned in this article was Goldstein's, which was in the article before I started editing in December ([4]). A "B+" or an "89/100" are not negative, they're clearly positive. Dan56 (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, you argue about a "preponderance of sources", but why should we take your word for it? A quick search on GoogleBooks shows the point of view that this album was overrated (Greg Kot [5], Tim Riley, [6], Mark Kemp [7], The Guardian [8]. Dan56 (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
So, are you admitting here that you do not like Sgt Pepper (not that its required of course), because that matches the pattern at all the others where you are currently being disruptive. This is the 7th article where you've started this kind of dispute this YEAR! See also: Talk:News of the World (album)#Rock, Talk:Led Zeppelin IV#Rock and roll / blues, Talk:The Game (Queen album)#IMMEDIATE REMOVAL OF "POMP ROCK", Talk:Babel (album)#Genre, and Talk:All Things Must Pass#To soul or not to soul. Anyway, JG put the AV Club back in the chart, so what exactly are you arguing about now? What is it that you want? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
No I didn't ... did I?! JG66 (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry; my bad. Dan put it back for the fifth time in two days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I think he was referring to me, JG66. Honestly, I would love to see him prove "the pattern", since this entire thread seems dedicated to huffing and puffing about how I'm a biased editor close to a "topic ban". Dan56 (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

John, could you advise Gabe to actually address my points instead of resorting to this harassment. Dan56 (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Dan, can you please clarify what you are arguing about? The AV Club is back, okay? What else are you disputing? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I challenge any admin to look at the five talk pages I linked above and not come to a similar conclusion. You are a disruptive editor, Dan. You push a few minority opinions on popular topics and exhaust people daily. In fact you are maybe the most disruptive editor I have ever encountered, and that's saying a lot. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The scores, which you wrongly removed, were restored. Your bold edit was reverted, so basically you forcing the issue at the talk page was pointless, because as STATicVapor, ¿3family6, and Binksternet agreed, it was ridiculous to remove them. There's no reason to continue antagonizing me. Dan56 (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • This is getting off-track. I removed some negative prose because it was out of balance and it should stay removed, but the honest truth is I removed The AV Club and Paste as low-quality sources. It had nothing to do with their rating of Pepper, which as Dan pointed out was actually very favourable. I won't remove either again, so hopefully this content dispute is over, but FTR, Paste rates Past Masters higher than Pepper which is kind-of silly. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
You originally wrote "ridiculous negative reviews from low-quality sources" Mark Kemp (writing for Paste) rated it higher. What do you find "silly" about it btw? Dan56 (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I find it silly that he ranked a collection of singles higher than an album. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • This can always be a thorny issue, when we try to summarise critical commentary while keeping the proper weight in the article. I sometimes recommend using one of the recognised aggregator sites to do this, though there can be problems too with this approach. I enjoin you to continue to discuss the matter while trying if possible to allow each other to comment without becoming unnecessarily personal. If you need or want further input, please don't hesitate to ping me again. --John (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think you're supposed to agree with what critics say, Gabe. If it's a notable enough critic, his or her point of view warrants inclusion even if you find it ridiculous. Edit summaries like this suggests you're treating these statements of opinion as facts ("he clearly does not know what he's talking about here"? "Know"?). It's a belief he shares. It's not anything either one of us can know or prove as fact. Christgau believes Rubber Soul was better as a concept album, he's a reputed critic, so we note his opinion and deal with it even if we strongly feel otherwise, not remove it and say he doesn't know what he's talking about--it's not a matter of fact, it's an aesthetic opinion, which are "diverse and subjective—we might not all agree about who the world's greatest soprano is. However, it is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts and the general public." You may not like or share his views, but he more than qualifies as a prominent expert in his field--popular music criticism--as do these: Greg Kot [9], Tim Riley, [10], Mark Kemp [11], The Guardian [12]. Since you're the major contributor here, do with them as you please. Dan56 (talk) 06:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Dan, we don't regurgitate nonsense just because it came from a reliable source. This goes back to our dispute at AYE, where you wanted to add several factual errors to the article because you found sources that supported the errors, which is absolutely terrible editorial judgment on your part. Do any other sources call Rubber Soul a concept album, because we need more than one source to agree when we add something that's contentious, and indeed I'm contending the ridiculous statement. In a nutshell, Christgau is a horrible source on classic rock and metal, but I suppose that's exactly why you push him at classic rock and metal articles, right? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
You're having trouble discerning fact and opinion. There's a reason it's a quote attributed to a critic and not stated as fact. It's not a fact that this is a concept album, as indicated by the last two sentences in the #Concept section: "the band effectively abandoned the concept ... 'Every other song could have been on any other album'". It's an opinion, a subjective interpretation, by critics ("widely heralded as..."), and their opinion is duly noted. BTW, Christgau has been given more credit than you'd like to yourself ("eminent rock critic", "preeminent rock critic", "the rock critic's rock critic", "Along with presenting reviews of music from all genres, Christgau insightfully and tersely analyzes the cultural or aesthetic significance of many hard-rock and heavy metal recordings." He may not offer the mealy-mouthed raves of succes d'estimes you'd prefer, but perhaps you could put to rest your dislike of him since he's clearly a prominent expert in his field--rock criticism? Dan56 (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Dan, we do not repeat things that are minority opinions when they are obviously wrong just because Bob Christgau said it was true. Rubber Soul is not a concept album, and the fact that you don't realize that confirms my suspicions regarding your knowledge of the things that you lord over. An editor has to exercise discretion; we don't only regurgitate what "reliable sources" have said, because sometimes reliable sources are wrong. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • So you see, Binksternet, Dan has once again swooped-in just as an article was being expanded and shut-down editing there with arguments about including nonsensical material like how Rubber Soul is a concept album because Christgau said that it was. This is the stuff that drives good editors away, and I think Dan knows that. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
It's a matter of opinion, not right or wrong--you can prove it to be right or "obviously wrong" as much as you can prove Sgt. Pepper's being a concept album right or wrong. And to be exact, he didn't call Rubber Soul a concept album but made a comparison--"...the 'concept album' idea was embodied more fruitfully—and earlier in Rubber Soul." This sentiment about Rubber Soul having a 'concept album' idea is echoed in The Song Cycle by Laura Tunbridge. And if it's not too much to ask, could you make your tone more civil than condescending and dismissive? I know that drive good editors away. Dan56 (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Dan, what if I produced a source that said that Misterioso was really a concept album because all the songs were recorded live? Would you include the claim even though its a minority opinion that misses the whole point of what it means to be a concept album? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Go for it. Dan56 (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Why is it that 90% of this prose is just Dan and Gabe repeating what they've already said? Can we just let it go and move on?--¿3family6 contribs 16:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Problem solving 101; don't resolve the issue, just stop discussing it! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what the issue is anymore. All I see is a massive wall of next with you and Dan arguing the same points over and over again and mentioning edits that have been done on other articles. How about you and Dan let it rest and let some other editors weigh in? Neither you nor Dan is saying anything new at this point. Nothing is even moving toward getting resolved right now.--¿3family6 contribs 19:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

On the substance of the matter, I don't know what the overall critical picture looks like now, but in the mid-to-late 1970s there really was a critical reaction against Sgt Peppers, at least compared to other Beatles albums. The 1975 Roy Carr-Tony Tyler The Beatles: An Illustrated Record book (a best-seller in the US) said it had many good features, but that "hindsight reveals many of the contrivances" and "its imperfections have aged badly". They think Revolver was better. The 1976 Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock & Roll Beatles entry by Greil Marcus goes on at length about the pop cultural moment around the release of Sgt Pepper, but says the music itself "for the most part has not survived its time". The 1979 Rolling Stone Record Guide entry by Peter Herbst is already quoted above, but note also that it gives Sgt Peppers only four stars, while 12 other Beatles albums get five stars. In the introduction to Greil Marcus's 1979 Stranded: Rock and Roll for a Desert Island, he says he ran a poll among the twenty contributors to the volume for best album ever, and Sgt Peppers was not named much, while Rubber Soul was in the top ten finishers. And in the long annotated discography of essential records at the end of Stranded, Marcus includes many Beatles works but leaves off Sgt Pepper, saying it was "a Day-Glo tombstone for its time" and that it "strangled on its own conceits". So there you have it. Disclaimers: I think these critics were all wet; I absolutely love Sgt Peppers and think it is a timeless depiction of everyday life through a variety of lenses and prisms. I also have no dog in the GabeMc-Dan56 fight. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Wasted Time R, I never denied that some critics don't like the album or implied that its reception was universally positive. This dispute is about WP:WEIGHT; before I started copyediting the critical reception section it was 60/40 negative to positive, which is inappropriate and unbalanced and the result of Dan's POV pushing. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
FTR, when I began cleaning up the reception section in January 2013, I trimmed the paragraph dealing with Goldstein's negative review (which had been given an overlong quotefarm before I had written anything) and added a paragraph of retrospective raves (1 January 2013) The next month, I quoted more acclamatory critics and trimmed another negative bit from Goldstein (3 February 2013), ditto later (25 February 2013), all the while defending biased, inappropriate edits like the addition of Piero Scaruffi to the article (1 January 2014). Please get your facts straight before dismissing my edits as "POV pushing". Just like Bbb23 felt your report on STATicVapor was self-serving, your comments above drawing the focus from the article to me just seemed like a lame attempt to swing editors your way. What I wrote was dead on after you forced the issue. Dan56 (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Dan, what exactly are you still arguing? Is the balance about right, or do you think that we need more negative stuff? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sgt._Pepper%27s_Lonely_Hearts_Club_Band/Archive_4&oldid=603378017"