Talk:Beatles VI

recording due to record-company pressure
Notice the 2 songs (Bad Boy, Dizzy Miss Lizzie) recorded for the American market. From at least one other source, I see it was indeed for this album, which is seen as a continuation of "Beatles '65", because of shortage of suitable new songs for this album. If you listen to the non-soundtrack songs of the British "Help!" album, the 3 songs which appear there AND on Beatles VI are most like the Beatles' earlier songs. Perhaps the Beatles were already starting to move beyond their earlier songs, and had to take a step back because of the record-company wish.

In early 1967, The Beatles agreed to have Strawberry Fields Forever and Penny Lane released back-to-back on a single due to request for new release. They had done those 2 songs first when they got back together in the studio in late 1966, and as a result of those songs going onto a single, they are not on the Sgt. Pepper album.

And speaking of a step back: Brian Wilson (of the Beach Boys) had already started working on what would become Pet Sounds album and was faced with request for album to be done in time for Christmas shopping in 1965. There wasn't time to finish what would be Pet Sounds by then, and the Beach Boys had already done a Christmas album and a live album, and a greatest-hits album would possibly be interpreted as winding down their career. The Beach Boys ended up doing a "party" album in time for 1965 Christmas shopping, and this too has been called by some a step back because of what we now know about Pet Sounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I am the author of the above. Notice that Beatles VI was released in June 1965, the same month that Yesterday, I've Just Seen a Face, and It's Only Love, all 3 turning up on the British "Help!" album, were recorded, but people in the U.S. didn't know that right then. Carlm0404 (talk) 03:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

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 23:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

A small unclarity
The lead currently contains the sentence "It was the ninth album released into that market in less than one and a half years (Vee-Jay Records and United Artists Records also released one album each during that period)". I am no pundit, but I find it highly unlikely that the way I understand it - which implies that only nine albums were released in the US in a year and a half - is correct. What am I not getting? Does "that market" refer to something more specific than the entire US market? Or are the words "by the Beatles" missing? Or something else? 188.169.229.30 (talk) 06:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Probably missing "by the Beatles". However, notice this includes "The Beatles' Story", which does NOT have complete songs in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)