Talk:Beatles for Sale

GAR
This article is currently up for Good Article Review. LuciferMorgan 03:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for GA Delisting
In a 2 to 0 decision, this article's GA status has been revoked because it fails criterion 2. b. of 'What is a Good Article?', which states;


 * (b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required (this criterion is disputed by editors on Physics and Mathematics pages who have proposed a subject-specific guideline on citation, as well as some other editors &mdash; see talk page).

LuciferMorgan 21:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Lyrics Links
The following discussion was posted on Wikipedia's main Beatles discussion page, and appears to also be relevant here:

Are links to lyrics sites appropriate? I have noticed them in some music articles, and I believe they do add value to the listings. I added one at the bottom of the external links section. In the interest of full disclosure, it is a website I maintain. If the interest is positive, I would likely add lyrics links to other musical articles where appropriate. Shadar 19:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that lyrics sites reprint lyrics in violation of copyright, and that's why we're not supposed to link to them. The relevant guideline to check would be External links, but that page doesn't directly address this question.  I'm going to post a question to the discussion page there, and perhaps someone can tell us whether my idea is correct or mistaken.  In the latter case, I'd be happy to restore the link myself. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I posted my question Wikipedia talk:External links. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If the decision is made that lyrics sites are inappropriate due to the copyright violation issue, I would like to delete the links I found. As a newbie, it would give me good practice in editting. Is that an appropriate action for a new user, and is there a FAQ on deletion etiquette? Shadar 19:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, we received an answer, and it refers us to item #2 at External links. It comes down to whether the lyrics are actually under copyright or in the public domain, and whether or not the site in question has the copyright holder's permission to publish the lyrics.  If you'd like to remove links to lyrics sites that are in violation of our copyright policy, then you're welcome to do so.  The best way to avoid offense is probably to mention the External links policy (or WP:EL, as we like to call it) in your edit summary. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I can certainly understand that decision. It turns out I violated the self interest clause anyways, since I posted my own site. I should have recommended the change in talk, and then if someone agreed they could make the change. Thanks for the help with this, GTBacchus. Shadar 17:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I notice that there are also links to lyric pages on each of the Wikipedia Beatles album pages. I should have time to fix those tonight. I'll follow the above advice of GTBacchus in mentioning the WP:EL, and refer to this discussion on each album discussion page. InnerRevolution7 02:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have made the above-stated change. InnerRevolution7 03:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Baby's In Black
...as described by some as mainly Lennon's work... By whom?

Both Lennon and McCartney have referred to this song as completely co-written.

I think their accounts carry slightly more weight than those of some unnamed someone's. --84.208.224.234 (talk) 05:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Australian Release
The second sentence doesn't make sense.

The reason for this was due to a union rule stating that either new had to be made for overseas albums or the original cover was to be photographed

Is it saying that a new cover was needed? Myrvin (talk) 08:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Resurrecting this (non-) discussion after six (!) years: The article now states, "EMI Australia changed the cover art because of a union rule stating that either new artwork had to be made for overseas albums, or the original cover was to be photographed." Despite being grammatical now, I still don't understand what the last part of this sentence is trying to say. I can think of 3 interpretations, all unsatisfactory to varying degrees:
 * it should say: "…or the original cover was to be rephotographed" (wouldn't this count as "new artwork", and thus be redundant?)
 * the "either… or" construction is trying to imply that new artwork is required except in the case where the original cover was a photograph (but since it was, that would mean no new artwork was required, so that can't be it)
 * the claim is that a union person needs to come in and literally just take a picture of the original album cover so it can be used in place of the original photograph (just plain silly—and besides, they presumably could have easily done that)
 * I'm guessing #1 is actually the intended meaning. Does anyone know for sure (preferably with a citation, including page number [which many of the current citations frustratingly lack])? - dcljr (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Lennon Trilogy?
The article states the first three tracks "are sometimes referred to as the "Lennon Trilogy," I have never once heard this before. Who sometimes refers to them as this? Is there a citation needed? Thanks! Airproofing (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2009 (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) 09:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=Adq63tr29kl4x

"I Don't Want to Spoil the Party"
I'm wondering why the original song "I Don't Want to Spoil the Party" does not have its own subsection. The previous edit includes a passage which does not belong in the overview section and is more appropriate for the song's subsection if there is one. Can someone put it in? Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Beatles for Sale → Beatles For Sale – According to The Beatles' official site, not to mention the album cover itself, this is the correct spelling. Article was moved from correct spelling in 2003 without explanation.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  20:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support nothing much more to say. Ridernyc (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per standard naming conventions for capitalization (and also WikiProject Albums). "for" is a preposition, and so should not be capitalized, irrespective of what capitalization is used elsewhere. 109.155.174.230 (talk) 11:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose; this has nothing to do with spelling. Capitalization is purely a stylistic issue, and on that we have our own rules.  Powers T 20:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - none of the guidelines address the issue of how the artist actually titled his work. We can't use the MoS to create our own reality. We need to defer to The Beatles' judgement here.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  00:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree as far as I can there is nothing in any of the cited guidelines that cover this. I'm pretty sure MoS gets thrown out the window in a case like this. Ridernyc (talk) 04:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the guidelines cover precisely this. If we always followed the artist's capitalization, we wouldn't need the guidelines at all. 81.142.107.230 (talk) 08:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * please link to exactly where and quote the guideline that covers this, because I do not see anything like this covered anywhere. Ridernyc (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's the guideline from WikiProject:Albums (shortcut: WP:ALBUMCAPS) -
 * "In titles of songs, albums, and band names in the English language, the Wikipedia standard is to capitalize: 1. The first word and last word in the title. 2. All other words except for: * Coordinating conjunctions - and, but, or, nor. * Prepositions shorter than five characters - Not okay: of, to, in, for, on, over, with, than; Okay: Through, About, During, Until * Articles - an, a, the. * The word to in infinitives." Dohn joe (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nowhere dose that say it overrides the actual title the artist uses. . In this case it is very clear the artist wants it capitalized.  Ridernyc (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it's so obviously implied. Otherwise the guideline would just say 'follow how the artist capitalised it'. Jenks24 (talk) 10:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. --Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 16:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As Powers says, this is simply a stylistic issue and is clearly covered by WP:ALBUMCAPS. If we are to abandon this for one article, then we should do it for all the other thousands of albums that follow this guideline. Jenks24 (talk) 10:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Whatever the outcome here, this article and Beatles For Sale (EP) should follow the same formatting. I posted a note on that talkpage noticing this discussion. Dohn joe (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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 22:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Start date - significant error
As of Aug 11, 2014, the section "Overview begins as follows:

"The Beatles began their first studio session for Beatles for Sale on 8 June 1964, only seven days after their last session for A Hard Day's Night."

I have no idea where this date and assertion comes from. Almost all sources I have seen place the Beatles on a world tour starting on June 4th and not returning until June 30th.

Furthermore, Ian McDonald, Mark Lewisohn, and "Recording the Beatles" all list the first recording session for this album (Baby's in Black) taking place on August 11, 1964. Additionally this same Wikipedia article supports the Aug. 11 date in a later section (Writing and recording -- Background)

I do not feel fluent enough in adding accuracy tags to articles to do so, but I feel at best the article ought to be corrected by a better Beatles scholar than myself, and at the least a "disputed" tag ought to be inserted at this sentence -- wish I had the confidence to do so myself.

UPDATE: I've taught myself how to use the "dubious" tag and applied it -- hope I've done it all correctly.

UPDATE 2: Versions of this article prior to Sept 2, 2008 would appear to describe a timeframe that is roughly correct (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beatles_for_Sale&oldid=234558898). On Sept 2, the article was updated with a claim of "six days" by an unregistered user without any explanatory comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beatles_for_Sale&oldid=235734113)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.179.142 (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, could someone please fix this? The article itself now says: "The Beatles began their first studio session for Beatles for Sale on 8 June 1964, only seven days after their last session for A Hard Day's Night..." While in the Writing and Recording section is says: "Recording for the album began on 11 August, just one month after the release of A Hard Day's Night..." Neither of which is sourced. Please correct! 70.91.35.27 (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Tim


 * Done. Piriczki (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The medley "Kansas City / Hey, Hey, Hey, Hey!" was never performed nor by Little Richard, neither by The Beatles
The title announcing this non-existent medley did appear only on a later pressings of this album, due to an intervention of Venice Music, being an interested party (see Notes here). But actually nor Little Richard, neither The Beatles did never perform this so-called medley, them did perform "Kansas City".

There is the chronology of recordings by Little Richard and their releases:

September 13, 1955: "Kansas City", at least two takes. This first version was very close to the original song by Leiber & Stoller, but was first released only in 1971 (take 2 of this version, which runs 2:16).

November 29, 1955: "Kansas City", at least eight takes. This second version, very different from the first one (in particular, including a refrain starting by the words "Hey, Hey, Hey, Hey") was first released in March 1959 (it runs 2:37).

May 9, 1956: "Hey-Hey-Hey-Hey", at least eight takes. This song, having not to do with "Kansas City" (except a title and verse similar to the refrain of "Kansas City" 2nd version) was released in January 1958.

So none of versions of "Kansas City", both recorded by Little Richard in autumn 1955, can be a medley with "Hey-Hey-Hey-Hey", recorded a half of year later.

January 1958: Single Specialty 624 "Good Golly Miss Molly" backed by "Hey-Hey-Hey-Hey" is released.

March 1959: Album "The Fabulous Little Richard" (Specialty LP-2104) including "Kansas City" (2nd version) is released.

April 1959: Single Specialty 664 "Kansas City" (same 2nd version) is released.

No "Hey-Hey-Hey-Hey" on title of song, no "medley", the title is simply "Kansas City".

However, as "Hey-Hey-Hey-Hey" was released more than a year before "Kansas City", it was considered as preceding "Kansas City". That "inverse chronology", together with a similarity of the word "Hey" repeated four times in both songs, created a mistake.

This obvious mistake, being created accidentally or intentionally, should be fixed.

RocknRollArchivist (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Beatles for Sale. 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/20110514003907/http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=Adq63tr29kl4x to http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=Adq63tr29kl4x

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 17:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 09:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

New genre: country music
In Tim Riley's Tell Me Why (p. 118), he writes: "If Magical Mystery Tour demonstrates the limits of rock psychedelia, the country excursion of Beatles for Sale says something about how the Beatles view rock's antecedents." Ian MacDonald, in Revolution in the Head (2005 edn, p. 129), says of "I Don't Want to Spoil the Party": "this is the group's most overt exercise in country-and-western on an album dominated by the idiom." I'm thinking that these statements are sufficient to have country music added to the genre field – anyone disagree? JG66 (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Beatles for Sale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109225255/http://www.richieunterberger.com/turnover.html to http://www.richieunterberger.com/turnover.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.avclub.com/articles/chuck-klosterman-repeats-the-beatles%2C32560/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.music-story.com/the-beatles

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Personnel
Ian MacDonald claimed in his book that Paul McCartney played acoustic guitar on "I'll Follow the Sun", but he didn't always get his line-ups right, and even Paul himself has questioned the accuracy of Revolution in the Head.

According to this page, Paul bought his Epiphone Texan acoustic guitar in December 1964 and this coincided with the purchase of his Epiphone Casino, so I don't have any proof that he actually played guitar on any of the first four albums - as in six-string guitar, not bass guitar.

I've also read that in the talk page for the article on "I'll Follow the Sun" on Beatles Bible that there was actually no acoustic lead guitar at all. 203.219.44.252 (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right that Ian MacDonald gets things wrong – frequently, I find, the more I work on Beatles articles and read what other authors have to say (but so does "even Paul", you know). Walter Everett also credits McCartney on acoustic guitar, on p. 268; Jean-Michel Guesdon and Philippe Margotin seem undecided, saying it's either Lennon or McCartney. (Not sure why you're thinking "acoustic lead guitar" has any relevance – it seem to be a rhythm part that these authors are referring to.)


 * Beatles Bible is not a reliable source, but MacDonald, Everett and Guesdon & Margotin are. If there's a reliable source out there that sees things your way regarding "I'll Follow the Sun", then that would be something, but it's still outweighed by the number of authors that credit McCartney for the acoustic part. I'd like to get it right, but the "right" version is dependent on recognition from authoritative sources. JG66 (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)