Talk:Back in the U.S.S.R.

Lyrics
I can't find anything in the lyrics for most of those references... Anthony DiPierro 05:12, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Mike Love
Mike Love is hinted to cowrite this song-especially the "Well the Ukraine Girls" part. How come there is no mention of him, even if he didn't?J. M. 13:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Because that would seem to be an unsubstantiated rumor...nothing I've ever read on the song says that anyone but McCartney had a hand in the composition. Compare "Helter Skelter" on the same album: a Who-like song with no Who involvement. --Stlemur 18:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually nearly every Beach Boys documentary I've seen has Mike Love re-telling the story that he had a conversation with Paul in India and suggested to him that he sing about the girls in different regions. He doesn't claim to be a co-writer, just that he made a suggestion which influenced the song.  I was surprised not to see any mention of this. 74.65.6.62 03:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

probably this clears it up a bit: Mike Love from the Beach Boys was sitting in a hotel lobby when Paul McCartney came down for breakfast. The two of them chatted for awhile, and Love suggested that The Beatles incorporate a little bit of a Beach Boy sound in a song, "Like we did in California Girls." McCartney was impressed with the idea and used some Beach Boys' elements in this song: Instead of "California Girls" is was "Moscow Girls." Plus, the definitive Beach Boy "Oooeeeeoooo" in the background harmonies. (Thanks to Ron Foster. More from Ron at —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.173.174.232 (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

McCartney never performed the song live until he headlined at Glastonbury 2004?
I mentioned this to some friends of mine & most of them seem to remember Paul playing this at a gig in Red Square, years before Glastonbury 2004.. Can anyone confirm? Vanky 16:22, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can at least say that he performed it in 2002 during his "Back in the US" tour. That can be verified by the live album from the show. The Glastonbury thing seems slightly dubious to me.


 * I went to one of his concerts in 2002 too, and I remember him performing it there. Andrea Parton 16:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of anagram line
I took the liberty of removing the line that dealt with an anagram of the title being "sick sunbather". This is rather arbitrary as there are literally thousands of anagrams that can be drawn from these letters. For instance: "rehab sick nuts". I refered to the Internet Anagram Server for this.

i've got blisters on my fingers
according to the article on Helter_Skelter, this was said after the 18th take of that song, nothing to do with Back in the USSR.. that one is referanced, this one isn't, so i'm removing it. atleast have some consistancy please wikipedia! feel free to revert if some more compelling reasoning is found..


 * Please sign your posts on talk pages per Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks! Hyacinth 06:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Superior beauty of Soviet women
Why does this article uses the line "the "superior" beauty of Soviet women" and not ""the superior beauty of Soviet women"? Where they only joking when they wrote it (?), cause Ukraine actualy has some really good looking woman (Yulia Tymoshenko, Ruslana and my friend Lyudmyla). If nobody comes up with proof Paul McCartney meant it as a parody I will remeove the ""'s. Cause I find it a bit insulting and arrogant otherwise...that's not what Wikipedia is about! Mariah-Yulia 00:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. My initial thought when I read that was that it was sarcastic, as if either the song used it sarcastically or the editors of this article disagreed with the notion that Soviet women could be superior (which wouldn't matter as this isn't their opinion for which we're looking, but rather the song's message). UnKnown X 03:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say considering it's basically a surf rock song singing about the Soviet Union, it probably is a joke. But even if it is, the joke isn't implying that "Moscow girls are ugly" or whatever. The parody is in the fact that in the context of this style of music, you'd be expecting them to be singing about beach girls or California girls, as opposed to girls in Soviet Russia. Think of it as if the song was called "Back in Nazi Germany" and singing about "the Aryan girls" and such. --Foot Dragoon 06:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

George And John On Drums? No
John And George Didn't Play Drums. Paul Was The Only One Who Replaced Ringo While He Left For A Short Period Of Time. Fix It!

'Georgia on My Mind' refers to the US state?
In this article it is stated that 'Georgia on My Mind' refers to the US state, but on the Georgia on My Mind article I find the following:


 * While the song's namesake is popularly mistaken as the State of Georgia, it was actually written for Hoagy's sister Georgia Carmichael.

This seems somewhat inconsistent. Dash 06:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Allright, so Im unsure of how reliable of a source this is, but if you've ever seen the movie "Ray" about Ray Charles life, they make it apparent that "Georgia on My Mind" is a response to Georgia's banning him from playing in there state because of his refusal to play at racially segregated venues. I assume it to be a reliable source, in which case the song would deffinately be about Georgia the U.S. state.

RickO5 03:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a pun, and a great one. Paul is referring to the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic, but is calling out the song "Georgia on My Mind". Truly genius. This song is fantastic lyrically. Very clever and funny. Kingturtle (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ray Charles may have covered the song for that reason, but he didn't write it, Hoagy Carmichael did. 206.21.141.61 (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Soviet Invasion to Czechoslovakia at 1968
I've heard that the song was created as a reaction against Soviet Occupation of Czechoslovakia at 1968 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Spring#Occupation). It was recorded only seven days after the Invasion of five armies of Warsaw Pact - it's quite interesting, isn't it?

Please, if you have got a chance, can't you look the background of this song up? For example, Bill Harry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Harry#Books_written_or_co-written_by_Bill_Harry) has written some Beatles encyclopedias...

Thank you very much

--- Concerning this text: "Released six months after the Warsaw Pact's invasion of Czechoslovakia..." Infobox says: Released	22 November 1968

OK, but then the song was released only 3 months after Russian invasion that happened on August, 21st 1968. It should be fixed. --Martin M. Mrskoš (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Helter Skelter connection
If Ringo was absent from the sessions for recording this song, which no one disputes, how can Ringo's "I've got blisters on my fingers" at the end of Helter Skelter possibly have any connection with the recording sessions for "Back in the U.S.S.R," as asserted on the page? MicroProf 19:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Drums, bass and lead guitar parts
Lewishon said the drums were performed by John, Paul and George, and probably the final drum track is a composite part. Just Paul is most likely, but not confirmed. The same goes for the bass part (George played the 4-string bass and John the 6-string bass for sure) but is not confimed that Pual played bass, but he played lead guitar along with George. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.40.0.34 (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Paul and George play9ng lead is plausible. but personnel section says John and George. Paul and George - or just George - makes the most sense and is consistent with other songs. Do we know for sure?--Daveler16 (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Does anybody here understand irony?
As McCartney says, this isn't a 'tribute' to the songs it imitates. It is a parody or a pastiche, and at that a rather acerbic one, particularly the ludicrous, screeching falsetto of the middle eight "California Girls" section. People still take the lyrics at face value too easily in the same way that the braindead McCarthyites who tried to ban it did. McCartney wasn't so stupid as to eulogize the Soviet Union. Only a few months before this song was cut Soviet tanks invaded Czechoslovakia. Gunstar hero (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed the entire thing is so obviously a parody and the accusations of communist sympathies levelled at the multimillionaires who bemoaned their opression by the Taxman were (and still are) pretty hilarious. Especially when one considers that in the Soviet Union itself Beatles fans could only hear their music from black market recordings or Foreign Radio stations and emulating western fashions (such as long hair) likely exposed one to harassment from employers/teachers and the police.86.171.134.97 (talk) 12:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you a closet "McCartneyite"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Surf rock?
How come the song is considered surf rock? just because the Beach Boys-influenced chorus? Does it means that any artist ever influenced by the Beach Boys is a surf rocker? and that Pet Sounds is a surf rock album? True, it is a parody of the Beach Boys, but it's also a parody of Chuck Berry's song Back in the U.S.A., and both songs that were parodied are actually rock and roll songs. The Beatles only parodied the Beach Boys by emulating their harmony-style in the chorus, other than that the song has nothing to do with the Beach Boys (or surf rock, for that matter). Rain has Beach Boys-esque harmonies, does that mere influence makes it a surf rocker? I seriuosly doubt it. --~Magnolia Fen (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Back in the U.S.S.R. is not merely influenced by the Beach Boys, Back in the U.S.S.R. is a shout out to and a tribute to the Beach Boys. This song half-mocks half-pays-homage to the Beach Boys' surf sound. Kingturtle (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like California Girls needs to be edited then, since it lists it as a pop song. Hyacinth (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"the Beach Boys were influential on the surf-style 'Back in the U.S.S.R.'" - Lange, Larry (2001). The Beatles Way: Fab Wisdom for Everyday Life, p.110. ISBN 1582700613. Hyacinth (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think citing sources is important here. Our opinions are just original research really. Can you add that citation to the article? Kingturtle (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Beatles did do "a surf tune" called "Spiritual Regeneration", a "near-perfect pastiche of the Beach Boys' 'Surfin' U.S.A.'" in honor of Mike Love's b-day sometime near early 1968 - Quantick, David (2002). Revolution: The Making of The Beatles' White Album, p.71. ISBN 1556524706. Hyacinth (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have loads of beatle books, but they are all in boxes in the attic, and it's too hot up there to poke around for an extended period of time. Do you have Revolution in the Head? That might have something. Kingturtle (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * @Hyacinth, It may contain some surf rock elements (like I said before, the harmony in the chorus), but the fact that the song was influenced by surf rock or contain some surf rock elements doesn't make it a surf rocker (or you might as well say that Led Zeppelin are a funk band, because they employed a lot of funk-oriented techniques). --~Magnolia Fen (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Paul's singing is described as, "patented forceful hard rock vocals" - All Music Guide review. Which is more specific than "rock and roll". AllMusic calls it a "Beach Boys send-up" Hyacinth (talk) 00:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Despite all the references the song is described as "Hard-edged Rock-n-Roll Music, just the same" though later described as "bluesy" more than once - Alan W. Pollack's Notes On... Hyacinth (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011
Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the Allmusic template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links: --CactusBot (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=33:kuoibkj9ka1z

Beatles "The/the" Issue Mediation Input Request
Please note that request for input by email was made on the talk page, *not* on the page mentioned above. Email must be submitted to be considered as your input to this matter. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Back in the U.S.S.R.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060406113102/http://www.allmusic.com:80/cg/amg.dll?p=amg to http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=33:kuoibkj9ka1z

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Three infoboxes?
I suggest merking the three infoboxes into one, like it was before. It just looks messy with three different infoboxes for one single recording. Yes, they contain somewhat different information, but that is limited only to release dates, label and chronologies of the respective countries in which they were released. These could easily be merged into the same infobox. --Te og kaker (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest that the change that I made which was reverted should be used instead of three infoboxes. --Te og kaker (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Sundayclose, it would be helpful if you participated in this discussion. Thank you. --Te og kaker (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

More genre wars
I see someone has been messing with the genres again. I was going to change it back, but looking at the online one here there is no genre given. There is a vague reference to some saying that satire has no place in rock music, but that is a comment about rock music in general rather than this track specifically. The reference to Campbell is then used twice, once to say it's rock and once to say it's rock. So can someone with the Campbell book please tell us what it actually says, other than the fact that it's called Rock and roll, an introduction? Richerman   (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Readding the information from the removed Variations section
I feel that the information that was added with this edit here should be readded, provided that a valid source is found. Because without that information, users will have no way of knowing precisely what those variations are, unless they listen to the song on both albums. But not every user has the observation to pick up on these variations accurately. Similar information exists regarding the variations of A Day in the Life. So I fail to see why the same shouldn't be done for Back in the U.S.S.R. The information was removed with this edit here, likely because it was unsourced. But it would be great if a valid source could be found, or the information could be rewritten in order to be readded to the article.

With regards to Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band [Reprise], the song wasn't included on 1967–1970 and yet there is still information about it being separated from A Day in the Life on the CD release of 1967–1970. Without the similar information regarding Back in the U.S.S.R. fading out before the crossfade from Dear Prudence starts, rather than fading out at the same time as its album counterpart, but cleanly, readers aren't going to be educated of the differences between Back in the U.S.S.R.'s appearance on The Beatles and 1967–1970. I myself wasn't fully educated about it until the very start of 2011. Because I never really paid attention, and assumed that it was probably a clean edition, much like A Day in the Life on the CD issue of 1967–1970.

However, that isn't the case because unlike The Beatles where Back in the U.S.S.R. fades out through the crossfade from Dear Prudence, the song fades out before the crossfade from Dear Prudence would have started. So therefore it doesn't count as a clean edition, as they didn't separate the part with the crossfade. They just made it fade out before the crossfade, and thus taking the easy way out. I don't believe a clean edition of Back in the USSR has ever been released. Since it either fades out through the crossfade, or it fades out before the crossfade would have started. But without the said information remaining in the article, how are readers going to be educated about the differences between the song's appearance on The Beatles and the song's appearance on 1967–1970? ― C.Syde  ( talk  |  contribs ) 10:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Use of parody to describe the song and its influences.
The ongoing discussion here is that the song is a parody. It is not, even though some critics refer to it as such. According to all citable dictionaries (MW, OED), parody implies mockery. The song is not a mockery; it is a pastiche. A pastiche is a combination of styles/influences that go into the creation of a piece of art. Suggest using the word "inspired" in order to avoid starting the article with the tone of the song being a mockery. Citing other critics' use of the term parody does not make it so. Trying to avoid edit wars here. Andreldritch (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The song is a mockery. A Russia Beyond article, titled "The Beatles’ ‘Back in the U.S.S.R.’: The parody that became a peace offering" goes into more detail. As mentioned in this revert, other sources refer to it as, variously, a spoof, a send-up, and a parody. It more than meets the description(s) of parody given in Wikipedia's article, where those same alternative terms appear. If sources say it's a parody rather than a pastiche, then it's a parody. Contrary to what you've suggested, Tim Riley is a highly respected music critic and educator; his musicological and literary analyses of songs and lyrics are staggeringly well-informed, and there's no reason to think he doesn't know the difference between parody and pastiche, nor the other writers cited here.
 * It seems that you've decided that "Back in the U.S.S.R." is a pastiche and only that. As mentioned in my comments, as I've been expanding the article, the commentary (and the Russia Beyond piece is another example) supports the idea that the song is more of a parody. This song consists of "a combination of styles/influences that go into the creation of a piece of art", yes, but that's only half of it. The song parodies ideas of American patriotism, for a start (as Riley says: "Berry's focus on commercialism is 'relocated and mocked' such that 'the joyous return to the Soviet homeland is sarcastic camp.'") Another source I've yet to add describes the song as "a parody of Chuck Berry's 'Back in the USA' with a bridge that parodies the Beach Boys 'California Girls'". The author is Doyle Greene, who's written books on the 1960s counterculture, political satire in American television comedies, and labour politics in American film, among others; he's published by McFarland, a company that "specializes in academic and reference works" – can he not be trusted to use the word "parody" correctly?
 * Also, have you actually read the article recently, or is your position based purely on how you perceive "Back in the U.S.S.R."? JG66 (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It most certainly is a parody as that's how McCartney described it himself. According to the Oxford English Dictionary a parody is "an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect". That describes the song perfectly. Richerman  (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Of course, I have read the article. As I stated from the beginning, the article should not open with a statement that it is intended as a parody, because the song is not. The article can go into why it might be considered a parody--but "Back In The USSR" is not first and foremost a parody. I doubt anyone thinks that the song was written for "comic effect." There is nothing comedic about it in the way that parodies like Weird Al creates parodies--actual comedic knockoffs of tunes that mock or poke fun at the style/content of the original. Is "Back In The USSR" a parody in the same way that "Yoda" is a parody of "Lola?" And while McCartney has referred to it as a parody, he is mistaken in that he is combining styles to create a song, not creating a comic song. And citing a critic's use of the term does not alter the definition of the term "parody." Merriam Webster defines parody as "a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule." Critics are paid to exaggerate: do you consider Lester Bangs' comments to have the weight of academia? Even respected critics are hardly grammarians. The article can say it is inspired or influenced by Chuck Berry et al instead of pastiche, which is the most accurate description--even more than parody, since it involves combining of styles and influences, while parody specifically points to comedy. The point being, in toto, that parody is something used to produced comedy, and "Back In The USSR" is not a comic song. Andreldritch (talk) 04:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, you're in the minority here so far. And once again, this is all your opinion – no citing of sources to say it is not a parody, and no response to the points I've made about Riley's academic credentials or Greene's credibility. It's as if you think that none of these writers, who clearly make a living from the English language, could possibly own or use a dictionary. If they don't, their manuscripts would be edited by people who do.
 * And what have examples by Weird Al got to do with anything – apart from the fact that in your opinion they're perfect examples of musical parody? In the opinion of several sources here, "Back in the U.S.S.R." is a good example of a musical parody.
 * So the song lacks the sledgehammer comedic aspect that are found in other parodies. In his book on the White Album, David Quantick, who's somewhat renowned for his command of English (and "specialises in music and comedy", so his Wikipedia article states), writes: "'Back in the U.S.S.R.' could have been a rotten comedy song, a weak parody tune, but McCartney – cocky, confident, and able to do almost anything musically – made it into something amazing." He talks about the "hilarious" Beach Boy-style backing vocals. The Russia Beyond article says "From start to finish, everything about 'Back in the U.S.S.R.' is tongue in cheek" and makes mention of in-jokes, spoof, poking fun, light mockery. Riley also appears to view the song as intentionally comical – "the wit is tart", "mockery" of the Berry song, "comic double takes on 'back in the U.S.' before the second chorus", the message of the song is "sarcastic camp". He even says the song's "offered as a hoot and delivered as such". In the face of everything I've brought to this discussion, Richerman's point about the OED definition, and what appears in the article, I don't see you've got a leg to stand on. JG66 (talk) 05:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Relying on critics' opinions is still not a reason to use parody. That is "their opinion," and to base a word definition on a group of music critics fails the purpose of this page. (There are plenty of sources that use the word influence, but not parody). One critic thinks the vocals are hilarious, so that makes them universally interpreted as hilarious? No. "Riley also appears to view" is not a definition nor is it anything other than an opinion. Wikipedia is designed to be accurate; it does not rely solely on the opinions of pop culture critics for its articles. Legs to stand on? You cite Richerman: how is this song--as per OED--"deliberate exaggeration for comic effect?" Where is the comic effect? Is the song designed to be humorous or evoke comedy? No legs there. The reality boils down to this: Which is a more accurate description of the song? Pastiche or parody? Parody in the OED and MW is indicative of comic effect or of ridicule--neither of which is evident in the song. Pastiche, according to the OED is "An artistic work in a style that imitates that of another work, artist, or period." That is what the song does: imitates the Beach Boys and Chuck Berry. Do you disagree with that in any way, shape, or form? It does not try to be comic about or ridicule their styles or their influences. If we want to precise, the word choice here is pastiche. If you want to cite critics later in the piece and state that, in their words and opinions, the song is a parody, please do.


 * I've gone some way to state that Doyle Greene's and David Quantick's expertise is a fair way beyond music criticism ("a group of music critics"). In fact, Greene is not a music critic at all. Again, their work speaks for itself.
 * And once more, it doesn't matter what you or I think. But you keep bringing it back into that realm ("Do you disagree with that in any way ...?), as if what you or I believe trumps what reliable sources – expert sources, in the case of Quantick and Greene – have to say. It does indeed "try to be comic about or ridicule their styles or their influences". It ridicules Berry's pro-American stance and American commercialism. That's what I think (since you asked), and what sources such as Tim Riley, Michael Gray in The Independent, Tommy O'Callaghan of Russia Beyond all say. And one of Riley's comments is him reporting on how the song is commonly viewed – which can't possibly be questioned (he adds his opinion to the statement afterwards): "'Back in the USSR' is often referred to as a Beach Boys parody, the kind of fun-in-the-sun song the California surf kings did so well – it's a send-up of 'California Girls' and 'Surfin' USA'." That description, "often referred to as a Beach Boys parody", is not one critic's opinion, it's a fact.
 * Add to that McCartney's 1984 comment that it's a "kind of Beach Boys parody". His 1997 comment that it's a "spoof" on how Americans travel to foreign countries but automatically compare them unfavourably with "back home" and miss their material possessions. Also included in the article is his 2003 comment that the song was "a pisstake on Chuck Berry's 'Back in the USA'". So, according to the composer, the song was intended to be, in your description, "comic about or ridicule their styles or their influences". And according to reliable sources, the song achieves that. JG66 (talk) 07:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "I doubt anyone thinks that the song was written for "comic effect"" - that's quite unbelievable. I'm guessing you must be American, as when the song first came out everybody I know who heard it realised it in was a gentle piss-take aimed at American pop music. Although I'd never heard Back in the USA It was obviously poking a bit of gentle fun at songs about "hey it's great to be in the US" and the "bom, bom, bom. bom ooh-ee-ooh" motif was obviously a parody of the Beach Boys surf rock sound. Anyway, you've provided absolutely no evidence that it is a pastiche, other than your own opinion, and there are lots of references to say that it is a parody. so I'm afraid you don't have a case. If you want to argue that it is both a parody and a pastiche, for which there is a reference, then you may have a case, but any song that is a parody would also fit the definition of pastiche, so that would be rather stating the obvious. However, pastiche on its own is an an incomplete definition and the lead is supposed to be a summary of what is said in the article. Richerman  (talk) 10:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If "any song that is a parody would also fit the definition of pastiche", then surely any evidence if it being a parody will also support it being a pastiche? "Pastiche" might be a weaker or less complete claim, but it cannot be "wrong"? You seem to have contradicted yourself. I have no strong view over the use of either word. It might be best avoid using either in the lead section? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I never said it was wrong, I said that the complainant had not given any evidence for their assertion. I also said "If you want to argue that it is both a parody and a pastiche, for which there is a reference, then you may have a case" so I did not contradict myself. Richerman  (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, critics are putting forth their opinions, regardless of how well-published they are. A dictionary definition is not an opinion. The song always fits the definition of pastiche. You cite McCartney's words as "kind of a" parody; perhaps we should start the intro summary with it's a "kind of a parody." I'm inclined to intro the entire article with a different set of words (influenced by, send up, etc.), and leave the parody issue to the later comments in the article by critics whose opinion is that it's a parody.Andreldritch (talk) 11:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * You're just being awkward, zeroing in on specifics as and when it suits. Right now, you're focusing on "a kind of parody" but ignoring McCartney's description of it as a "spoof" (which is an alternative term for parody) and a "pisstake", which is a very English term for mocking, teasing or ridiculing. All of McCartney's comments suggest the song was designed to be "a work created to imitate, make fun of, or comment on an original work – its subject, author, style, or some other target – by means of satiric or ironic imitation". And several reliable sources support that in practice it was and is a parody. I've said that at least twice already, and every time I come here I present another source or two to support the point. Your personal reservations – which is all this is about – are of no concern or relevance.
 * Whereas before, part of your argument was "I doubt anyone thinks that the song was written for 'comic effect'." I've answered that, with McCartney's various comments, and those of Riley (eg, the song is "offered as a hoot and delivered as such") and O'Callaghan (the band set out to mock the "new Western narrative" presented by both McCarthyism and the New Left rhetoric). Mike Love, too, is quoted in the article as having said "the song was the Beatles' 'take' [ take-off? ] on the Beach Boys, but a gesture he considered 'light-hearted and humorous'." Your comment "It does not try to be comic about or ridicule their styles or their influences" – I've answered that one too. You basically shoot down anything that's been offered, using a rationale that amounts to nothing more than "Yes, but I don't think it is a parody." Which, until you become a recognised reliable source on the subject, is about as pertinent as me deciding that Weird Al Yankovic's songs cannot possibly be works of parody because I personally don't find him funny.
 * With regard to "pastiche" as a label (Martin also), we're right back to where we started. As I said above, it's much more than "a combination of styles/influences that go into the creation of a piece of art". Another portion of Doyle Greene's book, which I'm trying to work into the text, discusses how the White Album is a work of "parody rather than pastiche" – a view (which Greene supports) cited to Kenneth Womack, who is quoted discussing the Cold War context of "Back in the USSR" as being central to "the irony, converting the message of Chuck Berry's song as a celebration of the American Way into a satire of rock ideology's tenets of freedom and individuality where listening to rock music and living in a liberal democracy are synonymous". Green's discussion goes on; a couple of pages later he gets on to comparisons with Frank Zappa's work and quotes David Brackett (author of the entry on "pastiche" in The Continuum Encyclopedia of Popular Music [and possibly the proud owner of a dictionary] ) as saying: "A clearer example of pastiche is [the Beatles' White Album] ... Some were straightforward parody, such as 'Back in the U.S.S.R.,' but many other tracks lacked an obvious satirical impulse." So, even an authority who favours "pastiche" as a description of the Beatles' songs from this period still identifies "Back ..." as parody. JG66 (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've often found Frank to be positively dripping with parody, sometimes sneeringly so. Not like those nice polite lads from Liverpool. As I said, I have no strong view here. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And still the you rely on critics, who write subjective opinions for a living (others use the term influence, some use inspire, not all call it a parody). That it is a pastiche is not an opinion, it is an accurate definition. The OED and MW are reliable sources. So if we're back where we started--the definition--then perhaps it's time to look at a different introductory term or set of terms. Andreldritch (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

In a nutshell ... From all the above, this issue hinges on whether user:Andreldritch's idea of what constitutes a musical parody overrides that of the following writers, whose relevant expertise I'll mention again.
 * Doyle Greene – a cultural historian and author; his books are published by the academic publishing house MacFarland and include a study of political satire in American television comedies
 * David Quantick – author, screenwriter and critic specialising in music and comedy
 * Tim Riley – a music critic and academic
 * Kenneth Womack – his entry on this encyclopedia describes him as "Dean of the Wayne D. McMurray School of Humanities and Social Sciences at Monmouth University, where he also serves as Professor of English. He is the author of three novels, as well as the author and editor of numerous volumes of literary and cultural criticism."
 * David Brackett – musicologist and academic, quoted from his entry on "pastiche" in The Continuum Encyclopedia of Popular Music.
 * Tommy O'Callaghan – Irish-born journalist at the news and culture website Russia Beyond, in his article dedicated to this Russia-themed song and its cultural significance to Cold War and post-Cold War Russia.

Not to mention the song's writer, Paul McCartney, who has repeatedly described the song using variations of the term "parody".

Jonathan Gould, author of Can't Buy Me Love, a book that's been critically lauded for its combined musicological analysis and cultural study of the Beatles' work, also identifies "Back in the U.S.S.R." as an example of a White Album parody song (along with "Happiness Is a Warm Gun"). JG66 (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I think we generally try to reflect what subject matter experts have published. I'm pretty sure we do not need to avoid using the word "parody" for copyright reasons. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks Martinevans123 for being a voice of reason. As much as I oppose employing the dubious genre of pop music music criticism over the centuries-old value of Merriam Webster and the OED, I will conclude commenting and allow it. Andreldritch (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hard rock as genre
, what the hell ...?! Since when does anybody need consensus for adding a new genre? If the addition is contentious and/or if there are way too many genres listed, then okay, it may well need to be discussed. But what on earth is wrong with hard rock per the Geoffrey Cannon piece? JG66 (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for starting this thread. Genres are a touchy area. A consensus discussion is always best so the editors who regularly watch the page have a chance to discuss the change and more importantly comment on the source(s)/reference(s). A lot of sources for genres are from one person and when dealing with genres, a source from one person can be considered an opinion and opinions are not a good source for genres. -  FlightTime Phone  ( open channel ) 03:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I've been writing/editing song and album articles here for eight years or something and have never come across this idea that a consensus discussion is required. In cases (mainly albums) where sources have gone wild with their subjective ideas of a work's genre, creating perhaps a dozen recognised subgenres for each album, that's different, and there'd be a tag in the infobox directing editors to the talk page because of past discussions.
 * But what is the problem here? I can't help wondering whether it's just that you don't like the idea of "Back in the USSR" being described as hard rock. Earlier songs by the Beatles are identified as hard rock, and I'd agree that those examples might be slightly questionable. But in the text here there's mention of all the drum, electric and bass parts combining to form a "thunderous wall of sound". And the source for hard rock is Geoffrey Cannon, who I can't see there'd be any issue with. JG66 (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * My concern is are we going to add this genre because of one persons opinion. -  FlightTime Phone  ( open channel ) 03:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have another source ? Say AllMusic, Rollingstone ? -  FlightTime Phone  ( open channel ) 03:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Well, yes – as we so often do. My point about (Ian MacDonald's) "thunderous wall of sound" description is that hard rock wouldn't seem too far-fetched at all.
 * 2) No – but why do I need one? Do you have sources that demonstrate that hard rock is not an accurate description? JG66 (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's far fetched either, I just want to give watching editors a chance to chime in. Your source, your change are opinions, that's why we use consensus. -  FlightTime Phone  ( open channel ) 04:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but this all seems unnecessary, some sort of bureaucratic intervention for the sake of it. Do you object to including the new genre? If so, I can understand the need for a discussion here. But your (or anyone's) concerns need to be accompanied by something concrete – eg, sources claiming the song is soft rock, or that hard rock is a term misunderstood by most music journalists and incorrectly applied to songs like this one. JG66 (talk) 04:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to search for sources to conterdict your source, I'm not the one making the change. I'm just looking for consensus for your sources opinion. -  FlightTime Phone  ( open channel ) 04:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course we go by reliable sources for all of our facts including genre. I don't remember many observers calling this song hard rock as opposed to 1950s style rock 'n roll or just plain rock. Udiscovermusic says it's rock n' roll, Russia Beyond called it a parody of classic rock, Doyle Green calls it 1950s rock in the book Rock, Counterculture and the Avant-Garde, 1966-1970, James Curtis says it evokes the 1950s style in his book Rock Eras: Interpretations of Music and Society, 1954-1984, and Joe Stuessy says the song "is a straight-ahead mainstream Beatles rock song" in his book Rock and Roll: Its History and Stylistic Development, page 133.
 * So to me it looks like hard rock is an outlier. I'm sure we can tell the reader about this outlier in the article body, but I wouldn't put anything but the most widely seen genres in the infobox. Binksternet (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree it's an outlier – the 2:1 (rock and roll vs hard rock) ratio in the article currently states as much. But outside of examples such as Pet Sounds and Sgt. Pepper, where so many writers have offered diverse styles and we're left with way, way too many genres, this is the first I've seen of a sourced genre being excluded on some sort of outlier principle. (I mean, it's only the second genre; it's not as if the infobox is swamped.)
 * From my experience here, there are no end of articles where additional genres appear to require this sort of due process. Editors have added these genres, and the only issue that sees them removed is when they're either unsourced or not explicitly stated in the source. Nothing, in other words, to do with whether more than one source supports the description, nor whether the first genre is overwhelmingly supported in comparison (that would merely dictate the order the genres appear in, and rightly so). And I see that approach to applying genres as the one that's become the norm. JG66 (talk) 05:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that the song's infobox genre would be first rock 'n roll and second rock music, but not hard rock because hardly anybody calls it that. It looks like enough sources exist to add the rock music genre to the infobox. I don't want a limit placed on what we describe in the article body, where the 1969 Aquarius magazine hard rock assessment can be summarized. Binksternet (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's certainly more "rock" than "roll". I'm not out to push or win the point about "hard rock" (in fact, a "win" from my point of view would be to see the genre parameter removed entirely from song and album infoboxes – genres aren't incontestable facts, as we know). But as mentioned, this type of exclusion of a sourced genre is not in keeping with the approach applied to other song articles, particularly Beatles articles, from everything I've seen. JG66 (talk) 06:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * For quite a few songs a genre might be named in only one reference out of a dozen, which makes it quite difficult to classify the song with any assurance that the listed genre is representative. Beatles songs are so widely known and influential that many observers may be found talking about the song's style and genre, allowing for some objectivity about which source is an outlier. Binksternet (talk) 06:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Aircraft sounds that appear on the track
In the recording section of this post it states that the aircraft sounds used in this track were from a Vickers Viscount. I have always believed and still do that the aircraft sounds used were made by a Vickers Vanguard in the approach phase of flight. The two aircraft types were in service at the same time but had different engines. The Viscount had Rolls Royce Dart turboprop engines while the Vanguard had Rolls Royce Tyne turboprop engines. This meant that the sound the aircraft made in the approach phase of flight was quite different between the two aircraft types. Only the Vanguard made the charactistic whistly whiny sound as heard on this track. A bit like the sound from a dry bearing. By contrast the Viscount had a constant higher pitched whistling sound without the dry bearing element. In the era of the Viscount and Vanguard, I spent far too many days aircraft spotting at Heathrow and Gatwick at the end of the runways watching all types of aircraft come and go. I can still vividly remember the charactistic sound of the Vanguard on its approach to the runway. I could tell them apart in the dark and low visibility. Although the sounds were sourced from EMI recordings it is not impossible that the tagging of the sound clip was incorrectly labeled as a Viscount instead of a Vanguard. 78.146.51.177 (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Interesting point. I'm afraid the sources overwhelmingly support the idea that it's a Vickers Viscount, simply because it was identified as such in EMI's sound archive at Abbey Road. All we could do is include a note to say that it's possibly/probably a Vanguard – but only if a reliable source discusses this. Although there's no end of commentary and analysis out there on all things Beatles, I can't say I've ever come across a source that questions the Viscount description. If you do find one (and I stress, a reliable source), then obviously it would be nice to include the point. JG66 (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, John Winn (2009) makes his claim on page 205, here, if you can see it. Mark Lewisohn (2005) says: "It's a Viscount aeroplane filed in the library as 'Volume 17: Jet and Piston Engine Aeroplane": . And Kenneth Womack (2014) here also just says "Viscount jet sounds". Martinevans123 (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC) p.s. but here's a Vickers Vanguard spooling up


 * Respectfully, from personal experience of many years watching these aircraft (and many others), my suggestion is that the sound clip has been misidentified from the outset.
 * Mark Lewisohn (2005) says: "It's a Viscount aeroplane filed in the library as 'Volume 17: Jet and Piston Engine Aeroplane".
 * Neither aircraft type is either a jet or piston engine aeroplane. The correct classification for both aircraft is a turboprop.
 * They are neither jet or piston engined planes. This suggests the filing as such was made by someone who was unaware of the difference.
 * Kenneth Womack (2014) here also just says "Viscount jet sounds".
 * Again the wording at the end says "Viscount jet sounds". This statement is clearly incorrect as a Viscount is not a jet aeroplane.
 * You only have to look at the pictures of a Viscount to see it is not a jet.
 * This also suggests the writer was unaware of the subject (aeroplanes) they were putting into print.
 * 78.146.51.177 (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thankyou IP78, I tend to agree with you. It looks like all three authors have just taken whatever was written the sound lips in EMI's sound archives at face value. (Although I'm not sure which one(s) may have had access to that primary material anyway). As they are seen as "subject matter experts" on the Beatles, and their books seen as reliable sources, it's unlikely we can do much about this. They are not subject matter experts on the audio profile of aircraft engines, as it seems you may be. As JG66 says above, to even add a footnote we'd need a new RS which questions the Viscount identity description. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, yes – as I intimated without really saying outright: it's a case of writers (those three, but several more I can think of who aren't sourced on this particular point) just repeating an incorrect description. Those writers are authoritative sources on the subject of this article, but not on aircraft, nor any type of sound effects. If no reliable source supports a point, we can't add it – I think the Wikipedia policies/guidelines are WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR. (There are no end of examples where my experience tells me that a certain musical instrument or sound appears on a recording, despite the fact that almost all music journalists don't notice it or misidentify it [because they're not musicians, nor at all musical]. Still, I can't add what I think or know to be right unless I finally find a source that backs it up.) It's maddening, I know.
 * All the sources seem to be consistent about the Viscount. I don't even think a single one calls the engine sound a turboprop – ie, calls a Viscount a turboprop. So we can't even use the correct generic term and avoid the Viscount/Vanguard confusion. Well, unless we just say "aircraft sounds" and leave mention of the EMI archive tape (via Lewisohn) for a footnote. JG66 (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Having looked into this further, the BBC sounds effects online have several sound clips for both Viscounts and Vanguards mostly titled as "Short/medium-range airliner, four piston engines" which is intrinsically wrong. The Wikipedia pages for Vickers Viscount and Vanguard describe both as turboprops. Compare the BBC sound file of a Viscount landing to the Beatles track and there is a subtle difference as I described before. As a starter can we correct the references to "jets" to "turboprops" within the current entry? I don't claim to be able to identify all aircraft by the sounds they make at various phases of flight. However there are some that have a sound signature that is unique. Since lockdown the RAF have operated a lot of flights on A400M aircraft. I can identify them passing overhead at 30,000 feet without seeing them. (Verified on flight radar 24.) A Vickers VC10 thundering down the runway makes a unique crackling sound that none of its contemporary aircraft made. When I first heard "Back in the USSR" (back in my youth) my first impression was that it was a Vanguard. I still stand by this. I thank you for your indulgence. RogerHall123 (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, as I said above, given what all the sources offer, "we can't even use the correct generic term and avoid the Viscount/Vanguard confusion ... unless we just say 'aircraft sounds'." And again (to repeat), it's not just Lewisohn, Winn and Womack. That opening sentence under Composition, for instance – mentioning "the sound of a jet aircraft landing on a runway" – is sourced to Tim Riley. His text actually reads: "A searing jet touches down as the album begins ..." Ian MacDonald, another author cited in the article, writes that the three Beatles "constructed a thunderous wall of sound sprayed with jet-engine effects and falsetto backing vocals"; Mark Hertsgaard: "the jet engine sounds that had introduced 'Back in the USSR' reappeared at the end of the song ..."; Bruce Spizer refers to "the sound of the landing jet" returning before the next track. JG66 (talk) 09:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)