Talk:Abbey Road/Archive 3

Orchestral pop
I added "orchestral pop" based on this source:


 * "Ballet For A Rainy Day", "1000 Umbrellas" and "Season Cycle" distil the flawless orch-pop of Smile and Abbey Road into a handy three-song suite."

About a quarter of this album consists of pop tunes with an orchestral ensemble, so I think the genre is justified and noncontroversial.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Does it? You've got a bit on Something, part of the Golden Slumbers / Carry That Weight / The End medley, and that's it. MacDonald even questions the orchestra's presence as it must have been taped at "great expense" given how little time is given to it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't forget "Here Comes the Sun" and "You Never Give Me Your Money". These songs make up about 13 minutes of the album's 47 (28% of the album's runtime).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The songs might but the actual time the orchestra is audible on the LP isn't. You can get the multi-tracks of both of these from The Beatles: Rock Band (if you know what you're doing); the only instrumentation on "You Never Give Me Your Money" is piano, drum kit, two guitars live plus overdubbed bass, vocals and sound effects. Also, we can do better than an issue of Uncut for a source, I think. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I just checked and it does still say beside the genre field, "Please get consensus on talk before adding other genres" – so there's no reason to keep it until that happens. I don't have a problem with Uncut as a source for genres; after all, we regularly use Rolling Stone and (far worse) AllMusic. But – and this is aside from the fact that I don't think it's orchestral pop either – I don't see that the quote is necessarily saying that the album is orchestral pop, just that it contains some. JG66 (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Imagery
There are also some more people -- it appears to be 3 or possibly more persons -- standing on the sidewalk in the left side of the photo down beside the second car on the left side, past the Volkswagen. Have they ever been identified? Were model releases obtained from all of these people, including Paul Cole, before they were put on millions of copies of one of the most famous album covers of all time?Starhistory22 (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Sales figures
Can anyone give me a decent source for the current sales figures. For example, the article currently says "over 31 million as of 2011". This New Yorker source quotes an expert researcher Guillaume Vieira, who says in January 2013 that it had sold 28 million. Any other ideas? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Other than EMI or Apple, there are no sources that would have this information. Many worldwide sales figures reported by the media are just estimates using a simple formula: US sales (per RIAA) times two, since US record sales traditionally accounted for half of all worldwide record sales. Since Abbey Road hasn't been certified in 16 years, a current estimate would be a guess until EMI or Apple disclose some sales figures. Piriczki (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Cover's importance in Paul Is Dead rumours
, regarding this addition, I'm surprised at your rationale for reverting. The fact that the info can be found elsewhere on Wikipedia is not necessarily a reason for avoiding all mention here. More importantly, there is no reference at all in this article to the Paul is dead rumour, so readers aren't able to access the info from here anyway.

Conspiracy theorists had been working for a few years already on the idea that McCartney had died in 1966, but it was late 1969 when the rumour escalated into a full-on phenomenon. And that period coincided with Abbey Road's long run at the top of the charts – which seems to me to underline the relevance between the album (in terms of the context of its release) and PiD. The album cover's arguably just as notable for the clues it offers in support of the theory as it is for the legacy point about how widely imitated and iconic the zebra crossing image has become. (We can do far better for quality sources, but here are a few:, and  – p. 76 there, if you're able to access it: "Of all the Beatles' album covers, none has created such a stir as Abbey Road …")

The way I see it, mention of PiD could be made as early as in the text discussing McCartney taking "a hiatus from the group after his daughter Mary was born" and Lennon privately announcing he was leaving the Beatles – because Mac's apparent disappearance (i.e. seclusion in Scotland) did end up adding further impetus to the rumour. Album cover/imagery could then list the various clues. I can't believe we ignore this at Abbey Road when Sgt. Pepper (rightly, imo) makes mention of that cover's "clues" [in the pic caption at Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, including end note text]. JG66 (talk) 07:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I considered reverting that edit based its poor quality but I agree there should be something in the article regarding the album cover's significant part in the "Paul is dead" rumor. I would put it in the album cover section. McCartney was still in London when the rumor broke. Piriczki (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, I understand reverting it on the grounds of poor quality, not to mention lack of a source. I've got 12 October '69 for when PiD "arrived", on WKNR-FM in Detroit. Was McCartney not in Scotland at that time? JG66 (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The rumor was well underway by the time Russ Gibb at WKNR heard of it, though he did manage to insert himself into the story and accept credit for starting the rumor. McCartney was still in London as late as October 13 because he attended a concert by Mary Hopkin at the Savoy on that date. The first denials of the rumor stated he was in London but when the media coverage of the rumor reached its peak about a week later he was in Scotland and was interviewed there by a BBC reporter on October 24. That he was not immediately available to personally deny the rumor didn't help to squelch it but it was not integral to the rumor itself. Piriczki (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's right about the 13th for Hopkin's show. I've always had the impression that he returned to London for that event, then went back to Scotland very soon after. Just read in John Winn's That Magic Feeling that, following Gibb breaking the rumour on WKNR, The Michigan Daily's review for Abbey Road (on 14 October) incorporated clues and other items of intrigue, which furthered momentum behind the hoax. JG66 (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I agree with Piriczki that something should be in this article and that there were serious quality issues with the reverted addition. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   05:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I thought the information was already in the article elsewhere :-/ It's certainly in multiple book sources, I just thought the fine detail should go in Paul is Dead, though I see no issue mentioning it in brief here. Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes
Why does this article have pending-changes protection? JG66 (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * According to the logs "17:42, 17 February 2019 Samsara talk contribs block configured pending changes settings for Abbey Road [Auto-accept: require "autoconfirmed" permission] (recurrent deletion vandalism, sometimes in bouts)" <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Doom Metal
While a source was provided, I don't think the album can really be credited as an inspiration for doom metal, especially when compared with, say, Master of Reality. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The single, specifically, was stated as a considered progenitor. Isaacsorry (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * For that reason though, does it really need to be in the album's article? It's already mentioned in the song's article, at I Want You (She's So Heavy) § Reception and legacy with a similar source. I'm not personally averse to a brief mention as suggested, but there's a limit as to how much fairly niche info on each song we want in the album's article. ~ mazca  talk 16:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a minor detail that belongs in the song's article, but not here. Sundayclose (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree it's relatively minor. But it might work as a note following description of the song (in "Side one"), particularly as we include a paragraph of 21C detail about "Here Comes the Sun" that seems oddly out of context, imo – all to do with that song's ongoing popularity, yet the reader hasn't even arrived at the album's release. I'd say that mention of "Come Together" being the subject of a lawsuit should be moved to notes also and handled as an aside.
 * Tempted to go on (as always) ... This has given me a few more ideas, but I'll post them in a separate discussion. JG66 (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Eight-track recording
The article says "Abbey Road was recorded on eight-track reel to reel tape machines[10] rather than the four-track machines that were used for earlier Beatles albums such as Sgt Pepper, and ..." The White Album was started on four-track recorders, but the eight-track recorder became available and the four-track tapes that had been recorded before then were generally transferred to eight-track tape. Let it Be also used eight-track recording. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What is your source of information? There should be something in Lewisohn about using Trident for the White Album because it had 8 track while Abbey Road was still on 4, but it's not in that article. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * EMI got an 8-track recorder during the White Album. It might be in Lewisohn's book, or several others, or in the booklet with the 50-anniversary release.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 12:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Here is one source. Go to the paragraph that starts "From a technological standpoint... ".  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 12:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Studio Two got an 8-track machine in September 1968 and nine songs on the White Album were recorded with it. Ohnothimagain (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * And some initially recorded on four tracks were transferred to eight tracks for additional recording. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 13:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

The article also says "After the tense and unpleasant recording sessions for the proposed Get Back album, Paul McCartney suggested to music producer George Martin that the group get together and make an album 'the way we used to do it'" which wrongly gives the impression that this happened shortly after the 'Get Back' sessions when it actually occurred later, probably around June. Ohnothimagain (talk) 12:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. It's only in the next section that mention is made of (what ends up being) the first session for the album having taken place in February, which is long before McCartney and Martin had this "way we used to do it" conversation. In the interim, the Beatles had largely been working with Chris Thomas and Glyn Johns and/or self-producing their sessions. Aside from the chronological aspect, Background also gives the misleading impression that McCartney was calling all the shots, when he wasn't. In large part, he was reacting to events dictated by the other Beatles and trying to arrest the slide. JG66 (talk) 04:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Some suggestions for Release and Legacy sections
On the subject of the album's (or individual songs') influence and legacy – further to the "I Want You"/Doom metal discussion above this – I think there are a few points missing, and also that the second paragraph under Legacy/Abbey Road crossing belongs up at Release. From memory, it wasn't so long ago we had nothing, or next to nothing, in the article about Paul is dead, yet the latter is very much part of the album's contemporary impact. The PiD theory emerged in print through a review of Abbey Road in a university newspaper; Lennon said at the time that it was good, free publicity; it was cited as having helped the album achieve unexpectedly large sales in the US (even by the Beatles' standards); and per writers like Nicholas Schaffner, there was a feeling among many fans that the Beatles had somehow orchestrated the whole episode – not for sales and financial gain, but as some sort of cosmic, mass happening. So I think PiD should be introduced as a release-related phenomenon, with a statement added in its place under Legacy/Abbey Road crossing that the album cover has continued to be associated with the theory/hoax.

Among other points that deserve some coverage, imo, is its standing as effectively the Beatles' final album. There's a memorable description by Alan Clayson that I've seen quoted or paraphrased in a few books – he says Abbey Road "was, as Debussy said of Wagner's Das Rheingold, 'a glorious sunset mistaken for a dawn'". Clayson's referring to how beloved the album was among fans, and how it was then inconceivable that the band could be splitting up when they were capable of coming together and producing a work that appeared to convey such unity (Mark Hertsgaard makes a similar point). In terms of the break-up also, I think it's Simon Philo who links American youth's profound sorrow at the Beatles' "passing" with the album continuing to sell well into 1970 and becoming the third-highest-selling LP for that year. On that last point, and seeing as we mention the Stones' Nov–Dec '69 US tour under Critical reception, it has to be said that the album's commercial performance was extraordinary. The Stones were getting rave reviews for their shows (like the Beatles, they hadn't played in the US since 1966) and the press depicted them as more relevant and powerful than the Beatles; but even then, Let It Bleed only deposed Abbey Road from the top for one week. I know this fact is stated under Release, but not how significant it was. Similarly that a September LP release would still be number 1 in the UK over Christmas.

The use of Moog on the album, while far from the first example in mainstream rock/pop, is cited by Thom Holmes in his book Electronic and Experimental Music as one of the first instances of the Moog being effectively incorporated into a band's sound. (I've got a note that Mark Brend says something similar in The Sound of Tomorrow, but I'll have to check.) Beside that could come the mention of "I Want You" as precursor to doom metal.

I also think Release or Critical reception needs to mention that the album ensured that Harrison came to be recognised as a songwriter on par with Lennon and McCartney. It's not just that "Something" and "Here Comes the Sun" were/are "considered among the best songs George Harrison wrote for the group", as the lead states (and which I'm not sure is fully supported in the main body). They were considered by some critics to be up at the level of Lennon–McCartney's best work; some said they were the best on the album; and they were the most widely syndicated and covered songs on the album (which had been McCartney's domain since 1965). Relevant to Legacy, Harrison's ascendancy adds to the feeling among listeners that the Beatles were continuing to improve and grow as a band, and the bewilderment that they could break up when, on the strength of Abbey Road, their artistry appeared limitless. (All the above is a combination of points made by Hertsgaard, Clayson and Schaffner, btw.)

Last thing is the end-of-the'60s aspect that's interpreted in the closing line to "The End". Highlighting the same lyric, Steven D. Stark comments that some critics came to see the album as a parting gift to their audience – which is easy to say in hindsight, of course, but it's still part of its legacy. The same decade-ending quality informs Paul is dead and is reflected in the 1969 Manson murders, per Kevin Courrier and others; Abbey Road-wise, the "1-2-3-4-5-6-7" refrain from "You Never Give Me Your Money" was found painted on the door of the Manson Family's ranch in November '69.

I imagine there's probably more, but those are the things that immediately come to mind. Thoughts, anyone? JG66 (talk) 13:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

"Song fragments edited together to form a single piece".
The article's lead currently includes the sentence "Side two contains a medley of song fragments edited together to form a single piece.". I believe "edited" is a misnomer when referring to the medley as a whole - many of the pieces were indeed edited together but not all.

As per The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions, the basic track for "Polythene Pam" and "She Came In Through the Bathroom Window" was recorded as a whole piece on 25 July 1969. This is noted, with Lewisohn's book as a source, in the Wikipedia articles for both songs. Similarly, "Golden Slumbers"/"Carry That Weight" was recorded as one piece, beginning with a main session on 1 July. So that's four tracks, and if the Abbey Road medley begins with "You Never Give Me Your Money" and ends with "The End", then half of the songs in the medley were recorded with the track before or after them in the tracklist.

I propose the sentence instead read "side two contains a medley of song fragments arranged together to form a single piece", or wording similar. Let me know what you think. Humbledaisy (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's a consensus for this. "Edited" is more accurate, in that somebody went through and glued bits of tape together; that a couple of tracks were recorded en suite is irrelevant. "Arranging" is what George Martin did when he scored out string and orchestra parts. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

What is irrelevant about it? "You Never Give Me Your Money" into "Sun King", "Sun King" into "Mean Mr. Mustard", "Mean Mr. Mustard" into "Polythene Pam" and "Carry That Weight" into "The End" are all edits. "Polythene Pam" into "She Came In Through the Bathroom Window" and "Golden Slumbers" into "Carry That Weight" are not. There's six segues, four are edits and two are not. "Edited" gives the impression that the medley was entirely constructed via gluing bits of tapes together and that is not the case. The edits outnumber the non-edits, sure, but I think it is best if we use a word accurate to the medley as a whole. The word wouldn't have to be "arranged" - perhaps sequenced would work better - but surely you know that "arrange" has more than one definition. Humbledaisy (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * <Edit Conflict>I think "arranged" is far better. We're talking about its use in the lead, not in sections discussing recording or individual songs, so the idea of arranging is not so tied to a musical arrangement and therefore likely to confuse readers. The word's still not the ideal term, but "edited" (in whatever context it appears) suggests manipulation of the source material, which is quite wrong in the case of pieces that were performed together, even if other recordings were edited together. This is something that two of the Beatles, at least, were quite proud of – that they played some pieces as a genuine (mini) medley. And the ensemble playing was praised in some of the contemporary reviews. I think it's wrong to imply upfront that the whole Long Medley was a matter of editing performances together, and I don't think it's supported by the majority of sources either. JG66 (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, here "arranged" (more suggestive of the creative process that occurred) is a far better description than "edited together". Remember that even lyrics were changed in order to improve cohesion in the medley.—Aquegg (talk) 07:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Why don't we just go for "Side two contains a [time] medley of shorter songs". Shorter, to the point, and if the reader doesn't know what a medley is, they can click on the link. Incidentally, that article uses the term "composed". <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  07:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure, that would be fine. Humbledaisy (talk) 10:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

There are two different medleys. The first one starts with Sun King and ends with She Came In Through The Bathroom Window and the second one starts with Golden Slumbers and ends with The End. Why this is not clear to everyone? A reference is not needed, just listen to the music.

CD Release confusion
Under 2019 Anniversary Editions bonus tracks there are three sub-headings: This is confusing. Either the first one should be "Disk 1 of 3" or, maybe this was just one disk, but was also disk 1 of 3 in the Blu-ray Super Deluxe Edition. Or, maybe some other permutation. In any event, this needs to be clarified. Also, I have a 1987 digitally remastered CD with 17 tracks (EMI Music Canada), which is not included in this page. This shows 17 tracks, which appears to be identical to Disc 2 of 2-CD Deluxe Edition: Sessions, except that it has 17 tracks, vice 16 — apparently because what is listed as track 14 on the 2019 edition (Golden Slumbers/Carry That Weight) is presented as two tracks (Golden Slumbers & Carry That Weight), as it was in the original edition. Enquire (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Disc 2 of 2 -CD Deluxe Edition: Sessions
 * Disc 2 of 3-CD + Blu-ray Super Deluxe Edition: Sessions
 * Disc 3 of 3-CD + Blu-ray Super Deluxe Edition: Sessions
 * www.discogs.com/The-Beatles-Abbey-Road/release/585776

Continued Sales and Reissues
This section doesn't read well to me. It seems like just a bunch of random facts, and there are other facts which could be included. For example, it mentions Abbey Road was the best selling album on vinyl in the U.S. in 2011. This was also true for 2009, 2010, and 2019, so shouldn't that be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djk74 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Final song where all four Beatles recorded together
In this article, it mentions “The End” as the final song in which all four Beatles recorded together. I thought it was “I Want You (She’s So Heavy)”? Can someone confirm? Havanaheatwave (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This information comes from an authoritative source by Ian MacDonald. To challenge it we would need an equally reliable source. Sundayclose (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Anvil is played by Mal Evans
The source that says it is Ringo playing is from the 80s, but we now have Paul saying it was Mal on McCartney 321 (Episode 4, 5:18) and this is supported by the fact Mal plays it in the Let It Be sessions.

Let’s give Mal the full credit he deserves! Truly the fifth Beatle. 82.82.218.45 (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Sources disagree over whether Ringo or Mal played the anvil. Refer to the personnel section of "Maxwell's Silver Hammer".  Tkbrett  (✉) 16:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Ono clashing with the band
"Lennon's wife, Yoko Ono, had become a permanent presence at Beatles' recordings and clashed with other members." How about we give Yoko Ono a break and remove this? The factual nature of the source cited for this information - Revolution in the Head - has been disputed by McCartney as far back as 2007 and Peter Jackson's "Get Back" has proven she was a benign presence. 2001:569:7EE8:DE00:11F0:8181:EEF7:AA6 (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The statement is well supported by existing secondary sources, which Get Back is not. Besides, if you go listen to the actual Nagra bootlegs, you'll hear the other bandmates complain about her presence quite a bit, even if all these conversations are conspicuously absent from the final documentary. We're not in the business of directly citing primary sources though, since that would be original research.  Tkbrett  (✉) 11:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Er….who made the cover?
I don’t think it was Ian McDonald! So perhaps the cover photo caption should not say "cover by Ian McDonald." 😉 Boscaswell   talk  01:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The caption has nothing about Ian MacDonald. At one time the caption was "cover by Iain Macmillan", who in fact, did take the photo used on the album cover. Sundayclose (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Lead
Are there any objections to this version of the lead? 2601:192:8802:6FA0:1028:59A5:ED1:E3FD (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's not an improvement. It removes important information; especially problematic is removal of the details about the quality of Harrison's songs. The previous version is the WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Beatles article have a lot of eyes on them. Get a new WP:CONSENSUS to change it. Sundayclose (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Is that not what I'm doing by consulting this talk page?
 * The quality of Harrison's songs is noted. What other "important information" do you feel must be included? I strongly feel that the fact that the album emphasizes tom drums and Leslie speaker, for example, is a crucial distinguishing feature, a detail which a lot of people must've not had a problem with, since it had been noted in the lead for years. Also the origin of the album title, the non-album single, the 2019 expanded reissue, the fact that "The End" was the last song they recorded collectively ... 2601:192:8802:6FA0:1028:59A5:ED1:E3FD (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's what you're doing now, but you didn't wait for consensus before making the change. Any change in an article must occur after the consensus is reached, not before any discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's patently false – bold edits are encouraged and the bold-revert-discuss cycle is traditional practice on Wikipedia. If your only objection is that there are one or two things that you feel need to be covered in the revised lead, then the proper response is to add those one or two things, not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
 * This is only my humble opinion, but the current lead looks disappointingly thin, especially when one compares it to Revolver, Rubber Soul, The White Album, or even some of the newer expanded articles for Bowie, like Low and Heroes. Why has Abbey Road gotten the short end of the stick?
 * Besides everything else I named, I wish that the lead covered details like it being one of the best-selling albums ever, the fact that it was their only album that was recorded exclusively on a solid-state transistor desk, and the "Paul is dead" controversy that surrounded its release. 2601:192:8802:6FA0:31A4:8DC5:BEF3:A7D2 (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Genres: rock. Just rock? It's so much more diverse than that
People will fill one album with various genres and just describe this as "rock?" It says rock, pop and blues in the 2nd paragraph. It should at least be labeled appropriately according to this because rock, pop and blues all fit the album description perfectly. Although there are hints of psychedelia and art rock they don't have to be added, but it's confusing to me how something like Piper at the Gates of Dawn has maybe 2 songs that could fall under space rock but that will also be included under the genres. BrianVL (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's unclear what your point is. Are you suggesting an edit? If so, it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sundayclose (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I say in the 2nd paragraph that it's described as rock, pop and blues, so yeah I think these should be under the genres. Although it's all rock technically, it's more diverse than that and is the only Beatles album listed with a term this vague. Even let it be has blues under the genres at least. I'm not really sure how my point or changes desired to be made are unclear, to categorize it as it's described: rock, pop and blues. BrianVL (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, unclear. Where do you want the changes? Again, describe the specific changes in a "change X to Y". If reliable sources for the changes are not already in the article, please provide them. Sundayclose (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Unclear?! Yeah... I'm done lol. Not that big a deal at the end of the day but I'm mind boggled that you'd find anything I say unclear BrianVL (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Brian. I think he wanted you to say you want to add different genres in the infobox; I'm not sure why Sunny decided to not be clear on that. If we have reliable sources that state the album has different genres than just rock I'm totally fine with adding more genres. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 13:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The infobox should tell the reader the overall album genre(s) as described by WP:Reliable sources. The album has some blues in the song "I Want You" but this is not an overall album genre. I doubt there are any sources describing the entire album as blues. On the other hand, I bet we can find several publications saying it is a pop album, so I wouldn't stop anyone from adding pop to the infobox.
 * Infobox genres for albums should not be a catch-all listing of song genres, so that every song genre is represented. Instead, it should represent to the reader what observers are saying about the album as a whole. All of those song genres can be described in the body of the article. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Pop at the very least should be added as a genre, but it all depends on finding a reliable source that says so. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)