Talk:Magical Mystery Tour/Archive 1

Old Chat
Uhh, why is there a working and then a nonworking link to Eric Clapton? HereToHelp 22:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I could have sworn this was released as an EP (not LP) in Britain. Johnleemk | Talk 11:30, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It was released in Britain as an EP on 8 December 1967, but when they released all the Beatles albums on CD in the late 80s, it was decided to keep the American version as official because it contained the singles from 1967 as well. Cbing01 15:58, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Then how come that isn't in the article? Johnleemk | Talk 11:53, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * It is now. I was going to add the EP track listing, but it seemed very redundant since it is essentially side one of the LP listing, only on four sides. Cbing01 20:00, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

POV
I removed the following from the article:


 * This album may not have been as historically significant as Sgt. Pepper, as valuable track for track as Revolver, as varied as The Beatles, as romantic as Rubber Soul, or as perfectly scoped as Abbey Road, but it holds up as one of the most important recordings of the psychedelic era.

It's significantly biased. NPOV policy dictates that you can say just about anything you want, as long as it's attributed to somebody else, so quote a reviewer's opinion, but don't present this opinion as Wikipedia's own. Also, I'm uncomfortable with the opening sentence &mdash; wouldn't it be better to present statistics showing that the Beatles churned out more songs during this period than any other band has done over the same length of time? Johnleemk | Talk 11:59, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Also, however, it is often praised by filmakers like Steven Spielberg. Do we have proof of this other than Paul McCartney offhandedly mentioning it on the Anthologies?

Not a Movie
Magical Mystery Tour was never intended as a movie, but as a one-off Television programme. It was screened on 26th December 1967 on the BBC. As the majority of people in Britain used black and white sets, many were left baffled by the programme's content. Many were expecting a seasonal song and dance show, as parodied in the 'Your Mother Should Know' section. Vanky- 1/12/04


 * Huh. There's a nonworking link in The Fool on the Hill to Magical Mystery Tour (film). I don't know that much about the Beatles, I just listen to their songs. HereToHelp 22:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?
"Recorded in 1967, the Magical Mystery Tour album was the Beatles' culmination of an 18 month period unsurpassed as the most creative time for any rock and roll band."

How the heck do you guys know it was the 'most creative time for any rock and roll band'? Citation, plz? (unsigned comment by 128.135.190.148)


 * I agree that this statement is fan POV. I have reworded the opening sentence. regards, High on a tree 13:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Apropos POV: I think Mr. "Citation, plz" is probably not a heavy duty reader. These patrons scan through an article until they can find a flaw, which terminates the disgusting job of actually reading something completely, and judging the real meaning. This article is listed as "important," but it does not address the social milieu of the era. You can't deny that millions of people were focusing on what and how the Beatles did things. So I'm sorry for the ad hominem attack, but it's a self-evident truth, stupidity has to come from somewhere. Mea (talk) 05:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Fake or real stereo?
The article mentions that the U.S. release used some fake stereo rather than wait for the real stereo masters from the UK ... since the standard CD is the U.S. release, I'm curious ... is it real stereo, or fake like the original album? - 211.28.78.104 14:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the 1970's Parlophone release (like the original US album) contained true stereo versions of all the Magical Mystery Tour songs, and Hello Goodbye and Strawberry Fields Forever. The remaining singles were all in 're-processed' mono - ie fake stereo. Don't know if this was carried onto the CD release. - David C Jan 2006

The CD release has every track in true stereo with the tracks originally released in Germany in the 1970s. The only exception is the last half of "I Am The Walrus" which is in mono (or fake stereo) because the radio was inserted during the mono mixdown. Steelbeard1 00:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I think on the CD they used real stereo (like the EP), but on the LP it's fake stereo. The CD has the US track listing, but was remixed so the UK versions of the song were on it (this is someone from the US speaking). Let me explain: for example, on I Am the Walrus, the electric piano intro was two measures longer in the UK than in the US (6 and 4). If you listen to the CD (as closely as I listen to them these days), that part is six measures. I hope you made sense of what I said. ;-) Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The stereo CD releases are simply the 1971 German true stereo version. It would be much more complicated to say it any other way, such as “it is the American version lineup using the British recordings except for the three German true stereo recordings plus the German stereo mix of Strawberry Fields Forever” and yes, all stereo versions of I am the Walrus are fake stereo in the second half of the song, including the American, British, German and all stereo CD releases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.30.62.198 (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Recording Dates
Although some the earliest tracks on the album (Strawberry Fields & Penny Lane) were recorded in late 1966 they were recorded for a single release, the start of the recording for the  Magical Mystery Tour project started with the recording of the title track.

The tracks recorded for the MMT project were those that apeared on the EP. The tracks added to the album were all intended for and used elsewhere first. simonthebold 15:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Was the movie screened in the USA in 1967?
This article contradicts Magical Mystery Tour (film), which claims the movie was shown on NBC in 1967. 217.155.20.163 23:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The edit in question was erroneous and was removed. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Mono vs. Stereo
The mono release for the American version of this album is very rare and significantly more valuable than the stereo since mono was being phased out. This should be mentioned somewhere in the article...Rpgman456 15:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

16 May Revert
John Cardinal 11:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Spelling changes were incorrect; the British spellings should have been retained.
 * Long, uncited entries for songs are out of place. Long quotes, etc., should go in song articles and should be cited.
 * Other, misc. issues like using "John" (informal) vs. "Lennon" (preferred by MoS), etc.

Which alternate cover?
The infobox allows for use of an alternate album cover. But this article has two alternate album covers--one for the double EP and the other for the German LP which was the first version of MMT with every track in true stereo. Which cover, if any, should be used for the alternate cover in the infobox? Steelbeard1 18:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Both. I made this change. --PEJL 19:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MagicalMysteryTourDoubleEPcover.jpg
Image:MagicalMysteryTourDoubleEPcover.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 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 03:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Iamthewalrus.ogg
Image:Iamthewalrus.ogg 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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Main sleeve design in infobox
Because the title of this article is "Magical Mystery Tour (album)", the sleeve design on the infobox should be of the prevalent sleeve design from Capitol Records and used globally for the CD of that album. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mysterytour.ogg
The image Image:Mysterytour.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --01:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Article titles

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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. 

The result of the move request was moved to Magical Mystery Tour; the current Magical Mystery Tour will be moved to Magical Mystery Tour (disambiguation) Aervanath (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Multiple suggestions for dealing with this page's title. &mdash;harej (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we do the following:


 * 1) rename Magical Mystery Tour to Magical Mystery Tour (disambiguation)
 * 2) move (or redirect) Magical Mystery Tour to the album.
 * 3) add a dab comment to the top of the album article.

My thinking: If they get to the album, they can navigate easily to the others and its likely most of the information they are looking for (IMHO) is in this article. Any objections/comments? (John User:Jwy talk) 23:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect that the album is now better-known than the film, after all the latter was a critical disaster and although available, is to me at least of lesser cultural importance than the music it contained. Therefore, I agree with this proposal. -- Rodhull andemu  23:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My main worry is about the song, not the movie/TV programme. (John User:Jwy talk) 23:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The song seems to be the least visited article in relative terms. In October, we had

Somewhat counter-intuitive, perhaps, but we know nothing of the routes taken to get to these articles and there is obviously some overlap. So it might make some sense to have Magical Mystery Tour redirect to the film, with hatnotes to the album, song & tour in that article. -- Rodhull andemu  00:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Song = 1807 hits
 * Film = 200810 6343 hits
 * Album = 31626 hits, and
 * Dab = 11624
 * Wow, wouldn't have guessed it would be skewed by that much to the film. Let's see what the people the other side of the pond have to say when they see this tomorrow morning. . .  (John User:Jwy talk) 02:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The film number is a typo. It refers to Oct 2008 (200810). The link reveals 6343 hits. The album get the most views by far. Station1 (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * With that change, I'd re-assert my suggestion above. If no objections prior to the weekend, I'll do it then.  (John User:Jwy talk) 05:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose There are multiple articles that have a legit claim to the name, so it should stay a disambiguation page.  TJ   Spyke   17:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support The article name Magical Mystery Tour should default here as that is the best known use of the title as the name of the album and double EP. Of course, the top of the article should have a disambig link for other uses of the "Magical Mystery Tour" name such as the song and the TV film. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

NPOV?
Hey, I'm as big of a Beatles fan as there is, but paragraphs like this are a bit much:

"a prime example of music from the psychedelic era, opening with the grandly rollicking title track, followed by McCartney's wistful "The Fool on the Hill"; "Flying", one of only two commercially released Beatles instrumentals up until that time (the first being the very early, and often forgotten Harrison-Lennon composition "Cry for a Shadow"); "Blue Jay Way", an evocative mood piece by George Harrison; and the nostalgic "Your Mother Should Know." (emphasis mine)

The whole article is like this, should this be cleaned up to be more encyclopedic? I can take a spin through it, just wanted to see what others thought first. 70.91.35.27 (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Tim

Actually, shouldn't the whole Side One/Side Two section be deleted? The track listing is already documented, and once you strip out the subjective, uncited fandom that's all these paragraphs boil down to anyway. I'm going to delete them unless anyone has an objection.70.91.35.27 (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Tim

Not an official album until the CD era
This title in album form was only released in the USA and Canada originally and did not become an official Beatle album until the CD era. So the chronology only applies to Beatle albums released in the USA. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The album was released in the USA and Canada, and that's enough to make it an official Beatles album. Clausgroi (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, what a mess. Multiple formats bedevil the writing of a logically-structured encyclopedia! I can see valid arguments for maintaining (although how much that needs to be done is moot) different chronologies for UK and US releases, because of the various Columbia chop-ups that were released in the early years, but trying to keep them in step is an arduous task. Most Beatles albums tend to be listed in order of their UK release (which usually preceded other locations), and that, per WP:ENGVAR, should IMHO be the norm as regards principal chronology. There's no issue with listing colonial releases in the main article, but little to be gained in having separate articles. As regards this one, as far as the UK is concerned, it was a double EP, and I see no problem in describing that initial release as an "album", for simplicity's sake, and all variations should follow from that. However, this article is but an outpost of WP:Beatles and perhaps some wider input would be useful. -- Rodhull andemu  21:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as MMT is concerned, the MMT double EP has the same status as the Long Tall Sally (EP) which is the only other EP release with exclusive content released in the UK. I noticed in the Long Tall Sally article that it is listed in the chronology is between the albums A Hard Day's Night (album) and Beatles for Sale as "Long Tall Sally (EP)".  Would this be a compromise solution for the MMT article? Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an extra level of complexity, and seems to be US-biased. As one who was there at the time (as you might have been), for a few years, mostly 1963 - 1967, UK bands released singles, EPs and albums. The EPs were usually "fillers" between albums, with 4 tracks possibly unavailable elsewhere, while commercial singles were more frequent. Trying to rationalise all these in a linear structure is tricky; however, one possibility is to have an "umbrella" chronology of UK releases, regardless of format, with subsets of singles, EP's and albums, and each article listing non-UK releases; however, in some cases, this could lead to up to three separate chronologies per article, and that's a strain for our readers to follow, even in an infobox. Certainly those familiar only with US releases would find it jarring ("Huh! It wasn't!"). However, we do have The Beatles, which is intended to be a navigational aid. I'll need to think about this, and how best to present it. I need to read Edward Tufte again, because his ways of navigating complex information are illuminating. -- Rodhull andemu  22:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I remember waiting for the CD to come out in 1987. The CD releases up until that point had been the original British albums, and I wondered how Magical Mystery Tour would be handled as a CD. I’ll confess I was kind of hoping for a CD of the original EP set. When I learned that the US album would be the pattern for the CD (however using the German stereo version’s recordings, all true stereo, 6 intro riffs on I am the Walrus and even using the German mix of Strawberry Fields Forever) I realized that from this point on Magical Mystery Tour would count as an official album. Despite this not being the case prior to that point, it has been ever since, so when using the present tense, we have to say that Magical Mystery Tour is an official Beatles album, even though it has not always been. The CD made it an official album, so it is now, so I suppose that is the end of it. 207.30.62.198 (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It was released on the 19th November 1976 in the UK by Parlophone; from that day it was an official album.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  00:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Then explain why it was not included in The Beatles Collection box set which came out in 1978? Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

You are right Mr. Steelbeard 1, the 1976 release by Parlaphone did not make it an official album, at least not in the same sense as one released near the time of the recordings (the same could be said for Hey Jude). Parlaphone released it when they did just so that they wouldn’t have to continue to supply copies of the double EP set, which was out of style by then. However, the release as an album on CD arguably DID make it official, since the CDs were supposed to be the world standard after that point, with no more different releases in different places. I must point out again, however, that despite the American album cover art, the CD was really the German 1971 stereo release, all stereo mixes, German mix of Strawberry Fields Forever, and the six intro riffs at the start of I am the Walrus, though in that last case this was not unique to the German CD, merely different from the US vinyl album which had four riffs like the mono versions of the song. The only truly American version of the album on CD is the one found in the 2009 mono set. 207.30.62.198 (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * They released it in the UK to stem the flow of US imports. It was an official Parlophone Beatles album from that day.
 * No it was not because it was NOT included in The Beatles Collection box set issued in 1978. The first British issue of MMT was beforehand in 1976.  So again, it was NOT an official UK release in the late 1970s because of its non-inclusion in The Beatles Collection which has all the official UK LPs. Steelbeard1 (talk) 04:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Personnel
This section is missing most of the instruments The Beatles played themselves, like John banjo, congas, acoustic piano, Hammond organ and clavioline; Paul double-bass and mellotron; George swaramandal and violin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.40.5.38 (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This is correct, but I changed it to accurate details about the instruments missing.

Hello Goodbye

 * See this article's talk page concerning the comma in the song.--Discographer (talk) 07:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

An interesting bit of trivia
I don't know if anyone can find a source for this anywhere, but I do remember that the reason given by Paul McCartney at the time for the release of MMT in the unusual, or maybe unique, double EP and comic book format in the UK was that they wanted to create a good Christmas present for their fans that would sell for under £1. I probably read it in "The Beatles Monthly" magazine, so if anyone has a copy from around December 1967 it may be worth having a look. As far as I remember LP's sold for around 32/6d (£1 10s 6d) at that time and so the price of the double EP package, at something like 19s 6d, was considerably cheaper. It's amazing the stuff that still lurks in your brain forty odd years later! Richerman (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well,well 19s 6d was a good guess - I've just found this that confirms it. Richerman (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Magical Mystery Tour
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Magical Mystery Tour's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "lewisohn": From The Beatles' breakup: Mark Lewisohn: Beatles Recording Sessions, Gardners Books, 2005 From Hello Goodbye: Lewisohn From Please Please Me:  From The Beatles (album): Lewisohn (1988) 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I Am the Walrus
It is common knowledge that the second half of the true stereo version of "I Am the Walrus" is in mono or "fake stereo" because the radio broadcast heard on the second half of the song was inserted during the mono mixdown. So the recent edit about the stereo version of the song raises a red flag without a verifiable citation. If none surfaces, the new section concerning the song in the 2009 remaster of MMT will be deleted. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Being that the editor who claimed there are citations posted the nowiki claim without actually posting a verifiable citation to back up the edit, the edit in question was removed. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Help! An edit war is developing concerning this subject. Others need to help me enforce the citation request. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems unnecessary to mention it, but for the benefit of newer editors, WP:BURDEN applies here. Rodhull  andemu  19:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't claiming there are citations, I was saying that the claims are DIRECTLY verifiable. Listen to the Anthology DVD "I Am the Walrus". Is it entirely true stereo. Listen to the remastered MMT CD. It is not. (That much, I suppose, is not in question.) It is also common knowledge NOW that the previously unassailable problem of "the radio broadcast heard on the second half of the song being inserted during the mono mixdown" was overcome when a separate copy of that broadcast was found. Or something like that. Some people have posted this radio recording alone on YouTube, also. At any rate, it's useless to keep claiming that an all-true-stereo mix isn't possible when it's been DONE. Not ONLY on the Anthology DVD, but also on the Love CD -- although that one is altered in other ways. The Anthology mix is straightforward stereo remixing, faithful to the original sound of the song, so that "folding" it down would sound essentially the same as the unfiltered mono mix -- with no more variation than exists between ANY mono and stereo mixes of Beatles songs (which may not be saying so much, as some of these do differ rather a lot; but the point should be clear). 70.17.167.149 (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Common knowledge is not applicable here, and describing what you hear when you listen is original research, unverifiable and therefore impermissible here. Surely some audiophile magazine has commented on the different mixes? That would be an acceptable source. Rodhull  andemu  19:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No need to bother with audiophile magazines, really. It's there for ALL to hear. Never minding what I hear, then, does ANYBODY hear the Anthology DVD mix DIFFERENTLY? I mean, this is ridiculous. Does ANYBODY agree on what ANY song mix contains, then? It's simple. Tell me that you KNOW that that mix is NOT all-true-stereo. Like I SAID, it's WASTING TIME to KEEP CLAIMING that such a mix ISN'T POSSIBLE, for the SIMPLEST of reasons......IT - HAS - BEEN - DONE!! 70.17.167.149 (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As already stated above, a verifiable citation such as a link to an online audiophile magazine article about the subject in question, is required because otherwise it is original research which, as already stated above, is NOT, NOT, NOT allowed in Wikipedia. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the joy of highly selective enforcememt! To put it another way: what you, Steelbeard1, yourself call "common knowledge" about "I Am the Walrus" is OUT OF DATE information, and therefore claiming that "the recent edit about the stereo version of the song raises a red flag" is in ERROR. Get the CURRENT FACTS! 70.17.167.149 (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, every song on the Anthology (from "I Want To Hold Your Hand" on was remixed in 5.1 for the DVD. They've remastered the BRITIAN-released albums... which would exclude things like the stereo "This Boy" (which was only available in Germany, I think) as well as the '5 hi-hat intro' version of "All My Loving" and the stereo "Yes It Is" and "Inner Light" (from somewhere or other).  What is even more galling is that the albums "Help" and "Rubber Soul" were REMIXED for CD in 1987, the songs on the Yellow Submarine Soundtrack reissue were all REMIXED, as were tracks on LOVE.  The best takes of the songs on Magical Mystery Tour were used on the original CD.  Yet, they went back to the most horrible versions for the album "1" -- now, this has nothing to do with the argument here, but it's my personal gripe.  Chances are for the "50th Anniversary" in 2014, everything will be REMIXED and we'll buy it all again. Hotcop2 (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Returning, then, to the argument here: 70.17.167.149, please see WP:Verifiability and provide facts with citations. That is all that is being asked of you. PL290 (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's make this easy. The first paragraph in Verifiability says:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.


 * This has been challenged - if you put it back in again without a citation it will be removed - end of story. Richerman (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course I already realized THAT...you MAY have noticed that I haven't changed the article since I began partaking of this-here discussion, so heavy-handed reminders are unnecessary. For my part, I would "challenge" the "challenge" as ill-conceived, but I know what I'm up against. But let me ask you two, anyway, when you LISTEN to the Anthology DVD version of "I Am the Walrus", after the second verse, from the transition to the "bridge" ("Sitting in an English garden...") onward, what do you HEAR (using headphones, which is the reliable way)? Don't evade the question by saying, "It doesn't matter what you/he/I...." -- it matters because I want to KNOW! I'm asking YOU, JUST BETWEEN US, WHAT do you HEAR? (As it happens, Wikipedia is already FULL of articles about such things as TV shows, etc., that are loaded with information gleaned very simply by watching the shows in question. Even J.H. Boob knows to "be impirical -- look!") Anyway, what do you HEAR?? 70.17.167.149 (talk) 03:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Heavy handed reminders? If you don't want to annoy people DON'T FILL YOUR REPLIES WITH UNNECCESSARY CAPITALS - DO YOU THINK WE'RE STUPID AND WE CANT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IF YOU DON'T CAPITALISE THE SALIENT POINTS FOR US? IT'S CALLED "SHOUTING" AND I DON'T LIKE BEING SHOUTED AT. IF YOU NEED TO SHOUT YOU'VE LOST THE ARGUMENT. Peronally I haven't listened to the anthology version DVD version that closely - I just like the music. I've no reason to believe that what you're saying is incorrect, but that's not the point. The fact that there are other articles about crappy little TV programmes that don't follow the rules of wikipedia doesn't interest me the least - I'm not watching those articles as I couldn't give a shit about them. The simple fact is, two wrongs don't make a right. Anyway, I've said my piece and I don't wish to continue this discussion. Richerman (talk) 09:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes....just keep telling yourself that.....Mr. "it's called shouting"... 70.17.167.149 (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Steelbeard1, about this absurd notion that it's "Capitalised-The" Beatles.... 70.17.167.149 (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not absurd when "The Beatles" is a registered trade mark as proven by but you don't like verifiable citations anyway so why should I listen to you? Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly, not providing a citation is not the same thing as not respecting one that is there. 70.17.167.149 (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be having some difficulty understanding our policies here, particularly verifiability and no original research, both of which are strictly non-negotiable. This is before we start on civility and no personal attacks. You've already had advice and opinion from other editors, and not only is policy against you, so is consensus. On the new point you raise, capitalisation, this has been discussed to death in the past, and the current version enjoys consensus. I'd advise you to (a) provide sources (b) be more civil and (c) either accept, or seek to change, existing consensus. As far as I'm concerned, your ration of good faith is close to running out, and I don't rule out sanctions if you persist in edit-warring, here or elsewhere. Rodhull  andemu  15:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mind if I accept the "seek to change existing consensus" option? 70.17.167.149 (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to "The" vs. "the"? If so, I mind. There have been many battles over this issue and blood has been spilt. It's not important except that we ought to be consistent, and most editors have accepted the present situation. Leave it. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * But if you meant you want to propose changes to the WP:Verifiability policy, see WP:Policies_and_guidelines for further information. The talk page of an article such as Magical Mystery Tour is not the place for that. PL290 (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I also think you are wrong about verifiability. There were millions of people in the world witnessing what was happening with the Beatles at that point in time who are alive today (i.e. Baby Boomers). If the information is put down today and is not generally denounced, that itself should be a type of reference. For pop culture information, it's harder to get references because it hasn't been chronicled by historians. Shouldn't I be able to include things for the sake of amassing information that might be lost unless someone reputable decides to take notice in the same way? There are millions of people who know first hand how earth-shakingly important the Beatles were then.  Probably most of them aren't aware that Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys went to bed for two years with drugs after hearing the Sgt. Pepper's album.  But if I try to say that, these rougue youngsters who know nothing come along and want to strike it out because they can't understand any of it because they weren't there.  So put in a note that this needs a reference, but don't erase it automatically.  Pop culture is not the same as physics. So if you want an end to this edit war, state your age, please. Bet you weren't there.69.140.219.249 (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...I was merely heeding point (c) of Rodhullandemu's advice, which happened to come about on this page. (Have to agree that "The" vs. "the" is not so important.) Consensus can be a funny thing, though. 70.17.167.149 (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

UK release dates for EP/LP
There were some recent edits which changed the UK release date back and forth between 1967 (EP date) and 1976 (LP date per Magical_Mystery_Tour). When I checked what was going on, it struck me the article's trying to be two things at once and the confusion results from that. It strikes me it might actually help to make a separate article for the EP. Thoughts? PL290 (talk) 11:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think this needs a separate page, just some accurate Infobox citation from an editor familiar with the subject (John Cardinal? :>). If all three releases (US release, UK EP release, and 1976 UK album release) were in the Infobox, I think the prose of the article should sort the rest out for the average "well-meaning" random editors that keep changing the dates. It is confusing in its present form... Doc9871 (talk) 12:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Eeep. Looks like it's already been done. That's okay, though; gives me more time to practice making balloon animals... Doc9871 (talk) 12:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, someone had the same idea as you and updated the infobox while I was leaving my comment. That may well be all that's needed to prevent the confusion; I still wonder if there's something to be gained by having an EP article (obviously linked with this one to keep awareness). Might be something to play with in a sandbox to see what falls out. PL290 (talk) 13:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You may want to give multiple tongue lashings to User talk:72.78.233.41 as he is the antagonist in this instance. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not going to go against a proposal to add an additional page for the EP.  I'm not sure it's entirely necessary, but if it's well-written, you've got a page to start working on if you want to... Doc9871 (talk) 06:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to split this article into LP and double EP articles
Now that it has been proposed to split this article into separate articles for the 11-track LP and the 6-track double EP, I decided to formalise it and to give my opinion.


 * Oppose  The LP and double EP are intertwined.  The double EP came first, of course.  But the EP format fell out of favour in much of the world including the US which led to Capitol Records releasing Magical Mystery Tour in LP form which eventually became the standard when the CD era arrived. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose I feel there is too much in common between the two formats- that's essentially the difference- to sustain separate articles. The extra tracks on the LP were released as singles in the UK and already have their own articles; differences in the mixes (if any) can effectively be dealt with in one article. Rodhull  andemu  13:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose The two releases have too much in common to bother splitting the articles, and splitting them would introduce redundancy. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Abstain Doc9871 (talk) 07:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Possible support per above discussion&mdash;they are two distinct things, as opposed to, say, two versions of an album, and the EP article could be kept to the minimum and refer to this one, potentially eliminating any redundancy. Were there sufficient support for the idea, it would need further investigation and a sandbox mock-up to demonstrate viability to all parties (this one included) before committing to it. PL290 (talk) 08:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No, no, and also no.  The second came from the first and supplanted the first, and they both have the same title. Vidor (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I am going to remove the notice in the article. Consensus is strong to keep one article rather than split to two. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

US/UK centric?
I think not. The person who inserted the tag is not even considering the German MMT LP which was the first true stereo version of the MMT LP. Should that tag be removed? Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support for the reason already given. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've added the tag but won't argue if you or others want to remove it. I am considering the German MMT LP but I still think most of the article is mainly about the US/UK release and reception with little worldwide perspective. Laurent (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support The article describes the differences between the UK and US releases, and is UK/US centric in that regard, but most of the other information is about the work and not about the UK or US release. Thus, most of the content is not UK or US centric. Regarding the release differences, I am not sure how MMT appeared in other countries in 1967: my sources don't discuss it. Certainly the US version became the preferred version for EMI/Apple and that's how it was released worldwide in 1987 and 2009. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

According to some sources, the LP version was released in 1970 in Australia and New Zealand, with a different cover and the alternate title of Magical Mystery Tour And Other Splendid Hits. Perhaps adding this to the article (with a better source?) would improve its "international" coverage -- Foetusized (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Singles from the album
There seems to be a dispute about singles found on this album. Yes, two singles were issued which were released prior to their inclusion on the album. Other albums (think Cosmo's Factory by Creedence Clearwater Revival as an example) had singles released months before their inclusion in an original album. Should "Penny Lane" and "All You Need is Love" be among the list of singles from this album? I have no opinion either way. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Seven of the eleven songs on the LP are A or B sides of singles. See Yesterday and Today.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  16:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree - It seems that while the singles stood alone first, and weren't on the UK EP, they were singles on the MMT album.  I understand the argument that they were not singles from MMT (meaning first album, then singles from the album), but they were singles, and they were on the album.  Instead of changing it from "Singles from MMT" to "Singles included on MMT", I think it should stand the way it is... Doc9871 (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes - They certainly should be! This matter of a few months' "chronology" is trivial -- be it the Beatles or CCR or "Faith+1"! (And Doc is right about the "semantics"! Singles are ultimately, in the long run, from an album regardless of the order of events, to any except the most minuscule degree of importance.) The album was designed in the U.S. with the idea that this would be the album on which to find all of those 3 singles. The later inclusion of this album into the "core catalog" reflects an "official" adoption of this point of view -- is at the very heart of that decision, unless clear evidence exists otherwise! Without a compelling reason to deny the obvious fact of these singles' presence on this album, the list of singles should simply present the plain facts. Side 2 of the LP was a collection of songs from singles of that year. Three singles make up the set. List them!! (I will agree that for an album like Sgt. Pepper, a single issued over a decade later is a different matter. But even in that case, it's more informative -- what any good encyclopedia should be -- to mention even that single, with some possible notation about how it was "well after the fact". It is vitally unimportant whether any single's association with an album was the band's "original intention". The overriding truth, in the present day, is that they are there! And I think Radiopathy meant six, not seven...?) 108.1.70.45 (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree - While "I Am the Walrus" and "Hello Goodbye" were issued at approximately the same time as MMT and can/should be listed as singles from MMT, "Strawberry Fields Forever", "Penny Lane", "All You Need Is Love" and "Baby You're a Rich Man" were released long before MMT and before MMT was even conceived. They are more akin to "bonus tracks" than they are to singles released from an album. In similar situations for other albums we don't list such singles as being from the album. We could just as easily say that "I Want to Hold Your Hand" is from 1962&mdash;1966. Some singles were released by themselves and not from an album and that's the case with (1) "Strawberry Fields Forever" / "Penny Lane" and (2) "All You Need Is Love" / "Baby You're a Rich Man". Listing them in the infobox for MMT is misleading and inaccurate. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I certainly agree with your last revision of the "Penny Lane" Infobox, as it is not a single from MMT. Listing the single in an Infobox and showing that it was a single on another album; it's complicated enough to ponder while at work today (headscratch) ;>... Doc9871 (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. I didn't understand your previous comment completely, but I think I do now. You were pointing out that the "singles" part of the album infobox doesn't say the singles were "from" the album, whereas the infoboxes for the single articles does use that terminology. I think the placement of the list of singles in the album infobox implies that the singles were from the album. If the single article doesn't say that the single was from the album, it should not be included in the album's infobox as a single. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly disagree with John Cardinal's reasoning -- it is not the same as saying "that "I Want to Hold Your Hand" is from 1962&mdash;1966." -- don't go off on wild tangents! They are not akin to "bonus tracks" -- Magical Mystery Tour is not an album without LP side 2.! It doesn't matter that some singles were released months before the album. You're being far, far overly-specific about what constitutes being "from an album". If you insist on changing the wording to say "Singles 'on' Magical Mystery Tour, that at least is better than pretending they're not on the album -- which would be far more "misleading and inaccurate"! 108.1.70.45 (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Without unnecessary drama, this is a conflict of terminology. Template:Singles and its talk page do not discuss this issue, but there are clearly two cases:
 * Singles which are originally album tracks, later released in their own right- rare in the 1960s
 * Singles which were originally issued as such, and later issued on the album under discussion.

In the absence of clarity with respect to the template structure, this debate seems to be unnecessarily divisive, to the extent to which I ask "how much does it really matter?". In the context of an album, and historically (in the 1960s) that singles were vehicles for selling albums as well as on their own merits, I'd suggest that the balance should be determined by the historical view. Actually, on reflection, I don't think the position has changed that much over the last 40 years- tracks are "leaked" on to websites, and their download profiles determine whether they are released as "singles" and how aggressively they are marketed. This isn't much different from the "DJ demo" discs that we got in the 1960s/70s, and if we played them, they were hits, and if we didn't, they weren't. Nowadays, it's down to viral marketing, and a more "democratic" influence. But then, it wasn't. Rodhull  andemu  01:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The historical accuracy of the single releases is important to the MMT story and corrupting it is something we should care about. The two singles in question were released as non-album singles with no plan to issue them on an album. Long after the release of those singles, The Beatles had a problem that was totally unrelated to those singles: MMT&mdash;a project that had not even been conceived when the singles were released&mdash;was too long for an EP, but too short for an album. For the UK, they chose to issue a double EP, which I believe was pretty unusual. Capitol did not consider a double EP a viable solution for the US market. The decided to pad the double EP to album length by adding previously released singles. "Hello Goodbye" was a natural because it's B-side was used in the movie and the single was released at the same time. The previous two singles were added to that and the double EP was now long enough to be an album. I don't understand the logic of saying that those singles were from MMT, and that's what it means to list the articles in the infobox. Neither of the two singles re-entered the charts as a result of being included on MMT. Adding the singles made it possible to issue the MMT songs on an album, but that's not the same as singles that are released more or less at the same time as an album, always intended for release on the album, etc. Adding the singles essentially added a compilation (side two) to a soundtrack (side one). Listing the two singles in the infobox of MMT is simply not accurate.


 * Using the logic (ahem) that the singles should be included in the MMT infobox, "Hey Jude", "Revolution", "Lady Madonna", and even "Can't Buy Me Love" are singles from the Hey Jude album. Worse still, almost everything on Past Masters should be listed as singles in the infobox. The situation is similar: no one at Apple or EMI wanted to reissue all the vinyl singles as CD singles&mdash;and fans would have hated that&mdash;so they compiled them into two album-length CDs. Does that mean "She Loves You" is a single from Past Masters? Comments above indicate that a few years time difference means a single isn't from the album, but no specific time period is offered and I think that's flawed logic no matter what time period is chosen. Non-album singles are defined by how they were originally released, not by later marketing decisions. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 04:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Damn it, John, why do you have to make so much sense? You're right about what I meant before, and now you've got me questioning the other part of my original opinion.  Obviously, the "Penny Lane" Infobox can't list itself as a single from MMT, and neither can any single from a later compilation list as a "single" from, say, "Past Masters Vol. II" ("Paperback Writer" a "single" from PMII?  Preposterous...)  I see you're erring on the side of caution, and I think I've pretty much changed my mind to agree with your edit.  Sorry, anonymous IP guy; you had a good point, but I'm seeing the larger picture now... Doc9871 (talk) 07:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh thanks a lot, Doc, your new edit just caused me to lose a lengthy rebuttal I had composed. Let me just say that by "stretching" someone's else's arguments in unreasonable ways, as John Cardinal is fond of doing to me, they can easily be made to look bad. He doesn't make so much sense. Actually, the "Penny Lane" Infobox perfectly well can list itself as a single from the MMT album. And how Past Masters is handled is not really relevant, not the "larger picture". MMT is not the same, or hadn't anyone noticed?. Anyway, "Singles" in an album's infobox is really intended to list what singles are on an album. Whether they fit some strict interpretation of "from" is unimportant. How "non-album singles are defined" is not affected by this. If the "from" concept is such a thorny point, then change that word. Bot not listing the three singles that the MMT album contains is certainly erring, for caution or not! Three singles are included in the album. List them. 141.158.64.10 (talk) 08:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC) (Yeah, it's still me; blame my DSL.)
 * You both have excellent points, and I'm not picking sides here; I truly see both points of view. That's why I'm "on the fence" - I think this needs more discussion from other editors.  "Hello?  Is there anybody IN there?"... Doc9871 (talk) 09:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) My thoughts: The development of the album content is sufficiently odd (EPs, previously released singles, etc.) that simply listing the three singles as "equal" hides this fact to the quick viewer. I'd lean toward not listing them - or highlighting their status more. But I guess the question is: what is the singles info box for? Why is it there in the first place? If we have a good answer to that, then it should be easy to figure out what to do here. (John User:Jwy talk) 13:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * To add a neutral opinion, I would lean towards NOT including the singles. Having read both sides of this argument, I TEND towards the Slippery Slope argument of John. I do NOT endorse the sarcastic logic that does this is akin to listing all of the singles on a subsequent "greatest hits" compilation, as MMT does not quite approach that type of record. However, I DO believe that we must not look at the infobox as a separate unit. It is an aid to the article.


 * Yes, it is true that, at least in modern times (I don't now enough about the 60s to tell then), it is completely common for a first single to be released as much as a few months preceding the album it comes from. However, in that case, it is clear that the single is a pre-promotion for the album and IS intended to be from/on the planned album. However, it is ALSO sometimes the case where an artist has a few projects in the works, and a single (perhaps a radio edit, or a live version or a remix) is added to the end of a subsequent album as a bonus track. I really do think it's a fair analogy to this situation. KNOWING as I do, the facts in this case:
 * it was more common for the Beatles' to to release singles STRICTLY with no album inclusion
 * these singles were released before MMT was even concieved
 * they did NOT include this content on the UK album (which, though in MMT's case it isn't true, is GENERALLY considered the Canon decision by the band)
 * the singles were not reissued at the time of MMT


 * One deciding factor for me is, I don't know if they ever used to do this in the 60s, but they do today: A single from an album will contain the text "from the forthcoming album Title, available on Record Label Records". Since these singles were released before MMT was concieved of, that would never even have been possible, and therefore, I would judge it not appropriate to include in the infobox.


 * The final point is my original statement: This infobox is SUPPORT for the article. We are not banishing any mention of the fact that these songs WERE singles and why they ended up included. This info is important and SHOULD be in the lead section so anyone reading about the article will definately notice it. That is the appropriate place for this information, IMO. TheHYPO (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Edit: "Hello, Goodbye"/"I Am the Walrus" being released almost concurrent with the album, and the b-side being ON the album proper is the ONLY one I might even CONSIDER for the infobox. That argument is a far bigger can of worms. TheHYPO (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I was not being sarcastic. I was using an extreme to indicate that the argument for why the singles in question should be included on MMT would also support the addition of other singles to other album infoboxes. I was trying to get the editors with a different opinion to state why the other cases were different. The only difference I could come up with was time, and so that could be used to eliminate the 1962-1966' and Past Masters examples. You indicate that those examples are different because they are "greatest hits" compilations, and I agree about 1962-1966 and Past Masters, but not about Hey Jude. hey Jude was also released much closer to the singles it contains, and in some cases as close (or closer) as the SFF/PL and AYNIL/BYARM singles were to MMT.


 * My opinion on the inclusion/exclusion is driven by the original release of the single. So far, the other editors appear to be driven solely by the inclusion of the single on the album. In my opinion, that's not a compelling argument. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: note that there is now a clear guideline on this matter and, according to the guideline, the 1st 2 singles, as they were not "released as singles during the marketing and promotion of the album", should not be listed in the info box. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 07:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You forgot to note the complication in the last section of the linked guideline which calls for consensus which you seem to be going against. How about the singles which were released long before their inclusion in Cosmo's Factory by Creedence Clearwater Revival? Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't forget anything. Consensus is required only if the situation is complicated.  Of course, before we had a guideline, the situation was complicated (or at least unclear), but now we have a guideline, for the 1st 2 singles on MMT, it seems straightforward: these singles were not "released as singles during the marketing and promotion of the album".  Of course, if you have a RS that suggests otherwise, then yes, it becomes complicated and consensus may be required to resolve the issue.  (I have no opinion on how the guideline should be applied to Cosmo's Factory; I suggest you take that discussion to an appropriate talk page elsewhere.) − Wrapped in Grey (talk) 13:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Cosmo's Factory is relevant to this discussion because it deals with the same situation, two singles with tracks released months before their inclusion in an original album. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Cosmo's Factory is not relevant; making an edit on one page is not dependent on a similar edit having been made to an unrelated page. There is a clear guideline and on the face of it it clearly applies to MMT.  If you are unable to articulate what your objection actually is then there is no discussion that can be had. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The scenario is exactly the same. The issue is exactly the same. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For pity's sake, please tell us what the "issue" is — why do you think that the guide line should not be applied in the case of MMT? — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's see. With MMT, "Strawberry Fields Forever"/"Penny Lane" was issued on February 1967. "All You Need is Love" and "Baby You're A Rich Man" was issued on July 1967.  MMT itself was released in November 1967.  Regarding Creedence, "Travelin' Band"/"Who'll Stop the Rain" was issued on January 1970. "Run Through the Jungle"/"Up Around the Bend" was released on April 1970.  Their Cosmo's Factory album with these tracks was issued on July 1970.  See the simularities? Steelbeard1 (talk)
 * You are unable to state what your objection is to applying the "singles from albums" guide line to MMT; please stop wasting everyones time. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are wasting our time by ignoring the obvious. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Obvious? This is supposed to be a discussion, not a game of riddle-me-ree.  Why won't you say why you think that the guide line should not be applied in this case? — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever the consensus, which never really developed because there were equal arguments on both sides should be. As there were/are no consensus, the present edit should stand. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh??? But we're not talking about the old discussion, we're talking about the new guide line that was introduced after the old discussion to address just this sort of lack of consensus! — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are still ignoring the last section of the guideline and my obvious comparison with a similar album with previously released singles. That's where the discussion comes in. But others have yet to pipe in besides the two here. I should add another Creedence album, Mardi Gras with "Sweet Hitch-Hiker" also released months before inclusion on the album. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) The policy is very straightforward, and supports John Cardinal's argument of a few months ago with regard to Hey Jude and Past Masters. The "complicated clause" doesn't apply here, since the release dates of the singles are so far removed from the original release date of the US album. Consensus now needs to change at WP:ALBUM, not here.  MPFC 1969  23:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Steelbeard1, you seem to have gone rather quiet — can we take it that you are withdrawing your objection to following the guideline? — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The complication is still in place. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The consensus is that the guideline applies (and that it is not a complex situation). Your dogged insistence (despite clear explanations by other editors to the contrary) that the situation is complicated and your refusal to even say why you think this can only be interpreted as deliberate disruptive behavior. Please, put the WP:STICK down. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 07:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What consensus? I don't see one yet.  Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus is required to approve an edit where there is not a clear policy or guideline. Here, we have a clear guideline that clearly applies straightforwardly.  No-one, yourself included, has given any evidence to the contrary. Consensus is not needed; nor is it possible to obtain consensus for a non-existent argument.  Next time you object to an edit, kindly make sure you have a reason that you can articulate first. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 13:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, there is no consensus and a guideline is just a guideline. It's not a requirement.  Get a consensus first.  We do not have one currently. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There can never be a consensus for a non-existent argument; if you had an argument for why the guideline should not be applied then you should have stated it—you were given ample opportunity. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are still missing the "complex release scenario" argument. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, Steelbeard, I think we're all missing exactly what your point is here. You appear to be the only person defending the statement that these singles are from MMT, now even calling other editors who try to change it "rogue editor" and "vandal", and I've been waiting for some time to see what you say to justify your position. I've yet to see that this album should be treated as an exception to the guideline. This was never even a studio album in the first place, so how can you insist that all these singles are "from" it? I would say that singles are "from" studio albums, not compilation albums. MMT was only accepted into the canon decades later; at the time, Capitol simply added the year's single releases to create their latest hybrid/compilation album, MMT. I would be in favour of reducing the number of singles "from" MMT even to zero, to reflect the reality. PL290 (talk) 11:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Since there is no apparent solution to the dispute, I came up with one which is to eliminate the singles section of the album infobox. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good move. That now reflects the true position with regard to what was at the time a compilation album anyway. PL290 (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I also removed the singles in the Please Please Me article's album infobox because they violate Wrapped In Grey's guidelines. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, the guideline is a standard WP guideline — WP:ALBUM (I had no part it creating it). BTW, you might want to leave an embedded comment to reduce the chance of the singles being re-added in future. Wrapped in Grey (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

German LP cover
I notice the German LP cover has come and gone a couple of times. As the context for any discussion that may now ensue, we should remember that our WP:NFCC policy limits the amount of non-free content in our articles. The policy gives a number of specific criteria for including any non-free content at all, one of which is, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I have not considered the matter of the German LP cover deeply, but I imagine that if anyone did so, they would conclude that the sight of it is not essential to the reader's understanding of MMT generally. PL290 (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The German version of the Magical Mystery Tour LP is significant because this is the first release of the album with every track in true stereo and is the basis of the CD releases of the album. Therefore, the German album cover deserves to be in the album infobox as an alternate cover. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I think you've just talked yourself out of it: as you say, it is its stereo tracks that are significant, not its cover. Furthermore, as it is a different label, different country, released at different time, using different masters, there's no way it could be considered an "alternative" cover to the Capitol LP.  If we really must include it (but I don't think so) then create a new infobox for it in the Releases section — just my twopenn'th :> — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. I own this album as it was heavily imported due to the superior sound.  I have the version on the Apple label which was a later issue by EMI Electrola. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Moved it down the page a bit, but as per PL290 argument above, quite happy to see the cover go (article text is sufficient). — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It is mentioned in the text that the New Zealand release of the album had a different title and cover (and the Australian release too IIRC, although it isn't mentioned in the article). See  for a look.  Doesn't the inclusion of the German cover open up the "slippery slope" of using photos of any cover variation, like the NZ one?  The alternate covers are interesting, but I don't know what they add to the article -- Foetusized (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, removed as per WP:NFCC. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Before the CD era, the only way an audiophile could determine if the MMT LP is the true stereo version was to look for the unique sleeve design of the German version of the album. That's why the German sleeve is an essential part of the MMT album article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That "era" has passed, so the utility of having that cover in the article is much reduced -- Foetusized (talk) 11:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the Magical mystery tour EP and LP should be two complearley different pages. the LP would be in the american chronology and the EP would be in the united kingdom chronology, because they're two different release formats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.41.172 (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the German MMT cover is relevant because it is the true cover for the recordings actually found on the CD. I say this not only because the CD contains all true stereo songs, but also because the CD even uses the German mix of Strawberry Fields Forever. The simplest way to describe the CD is to say that it is the German MMT album. That is a lot simpler than saying that it is “The British version of the album except for the three true stereo songs plus the German mix of Strawberry Fields Forever.” 207.30.62.198 (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Dubs and echos
I've got a question. Did this album have the echos and dubs like most other Beatles American albums, or did it not - or did it have echos and dubs that originally appeared but were later removed (for e.g. the 1976, 1987 and 2009 versions).--92.237.84.183 (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I cannot say for sure if the original made by Capitol had reverb, but I can tell you for sure that the current version of the stereo album as released on CD, both in 1987 and 2009 are in fact the German stereo version released in 1971, with true stereo on all the songs and the German mix of Strawberry Fields. 207.30.62.198 (talk) 01:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Charabanc
It might be helpful to relate this to the Mystery_tour link that wanders to Charabanc, where the talk page has several queries about why mystery tour resolves there. I added a possible relationship discussion there that I'd love to hear a Brit over the age of 50 discuss. (I just dragged this down here from where I originally inserted it when I moronically did not inspect timestamp order - sorry) Treethinker (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

the official version
I think that the official version of the record should be the one thats on the front page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.97.38 (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Soundtrack VS Studio Album
Considering that all the songs featured on the US version of Magical Mystery Tour were recored during the same period (1967) I think it should be called a Studio Album instead of a soundtrack —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.97.38 (talk) 08:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The present description as "soundtrack album (compilation)" is accurate as side one is the music from the soundtrack of the TV special. Side two compiles the group's 1967 singles.  The Beatles did not intend the album to be assembled that way, it was put together in the Capitol Tower in Hollywood. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

That may be so, but what about A Hard Days Night & Help ! ?. They were called studio albums —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.97.38 (talk) 01:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Beatles and George Martin put those two albums together, not Capitol Records. They are therefore studio albums, soundtrack music on side one notwithstanding. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)