Talk:Walls and Bridges/Archive 1

Walls and Bridges in retrospect
I think this is a good example of an album that needs to be critically reevaluated. Too often fine albums are written off due to some bad reviews, which get repeated over and over and seem to eventually hijack the overall perception of it's quality. Pink Floyd's The Final Cut is another. I would like to see a day when Walls is included with POB and Imagine, not just because I like it, but because it is just as good, it is after all, the only #1 Lennon album during his lifetime. GabeMc (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. I even think is probably his best album (so does Elton John). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.122.146.28 (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Untitled
I also think this could be his best overall solo work. "Double Fantasy," however, I do like as a collaborative album (even Yoko's tracks as well), but "Walls and Bridges" was so much more adventurous, and not bogged down by the baggage of other things he was going through at the time that colored either the songs or the performances. It was lively, fresh, innovative ... contemplative when necessary, but a more solid body of work, at least as good (if not better in some parts) than "Imagine," and that's saying something. BTW ... I really like "The Final Cut" as well! A great record too often dismissed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.30.85 (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Request help with references
Could someone please get the proper authors/titles/page numbers for the Billboard references #55 & #60? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 10:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Carr, Taylor citation
I'm not seeing "mixed reception" in this preview. Is there a particular quote from this book? All I could find through GoogleBooks is a line that doesn't indicate when (contemporary critics, retrospective reviews?) the reception in question occurred: "The album is generally lacklustre, though it has sold well and has been greeted by more sympathetic reviews than any Lennon product since 'Imagine'." Nothing here about the "sympathetic" comparison to Imagine, although a comparison by one author would be more appropriate if quoted. Also, the observation that an album is noted list by the Pazz & Jop does not establish such research as notable; this idea needs to have been published, with some author or writer having said "It did not make the Pazz..." Otherwise, it's OR. Dan56 (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I found a better source for the aforementioned assertion, which doesn't require going beyond what the source says: 100 Things Beatles Fans Should Know and Do Before They Die (p. 35). Dan56 (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Another snippet. Please tell me where in page 112 does it say it garnered Lennon "his most sympathetic reviews since Imagine", or viewed "by some as evidence that Lennon might be getting back on track"? Seriously, stick to the source. Even more inappropriate is the connection you're trying to make to the critics' poll; we would need a source to make the connection in relation to the subject of this article. It's a clear case of synthesis. Dan56 (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * (ec) I agree that Carr/Tyler doesn't say "mixed" directly, but I was using it to counteract the "poor" you put in with this edit a couple of months ago, which I don't think is sustainable. I'm okay with the Garr book to support "mixed" for this album (although I think she gives it a superficial treatment and the right term for "Sometime in NYC" would be "scathing"). So I've instead put in a close rewording of Carr/Tyler's 'most sympathetic reviews since Imagine ' text. I've also restored their assessment of what it meant for Lennon getting back on track; their text is "Perhaps ... this LP represents a further water-treading period for Lennon, and shortly he'll re-emerge in full flower to re-establish himself among the upper echelons once more. Opinions differ." I think my text is a fair summarization of what they were saying.


 * It's still unclear and doesn't equate to "viewed by some as evidence that Lennon might be getting back on track". Whose opinions? The author of the book is the one asserting that the "LP represents..." that; "viewed by some" is misleading readers, when it appears after "received mixed reviews from critics." And "perhaps" makes it even vaguer, so quoting the author's opinion directly would be appropriate, not interpreting it as a factual claim about how critics generally felt about the album. Dan56 (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * As for Pazz & Jop, I'm afraid I have to completely disagree with your OR interpretation of it. We have hundreds and hundreds of articles, including ones that are GA or FA, that make reference to critic/review aggregation sites - every recent movie article gives its Rotten Tomatoes rating and many recent music articles given the relevant MetaCritic rating. In no case do we have to have a third-party author say its Rotten Tomatoes or MetaCritic rating is significant; we just use it. Well, Pazz & Jop was the Rotten Tomatoes of its day, and as such is a very valuable resource. If you look at the list of who was in the 1974 poll (Christgau, Jim Wolcott, Frank Rose, Stephen Holden, David Marsh, Ed Ward, John Rockwell, Ellen Willis, Vince Aletti, Robert Hilburn, Chet Flippo, Geoffrey Stokes, Vernon Gibbs, Paul Nelson, Janet Maslin, Greil Marcus, Ben Gerson, Jim Miller, Ken Emerson, Wayne Robins, Lester Bangs, John Morthland, Jaan Uhelszki, Bud Scoppa, Kit Rachlis, Ira Mayer) that's like a who's who of American rock critics of the day (maybe some Brits too, I don't know some of the names). If you look at the 1971 poll, Imagine finished 5th. Many of the albums that did place in the 1974 poll are staples of classic rock and "best of" lists today, so the absence of Walls and Bridges is significant. (And yes, we're allowed to say things are missing from lists - we have many articles that say "the single failed to reach the Billboard Hot 100" or "the album was so-and-so's first to not achieve gold record status" and so forth.) And finally, using review aggregation sites improves article quality, not diminishes it, because it counteracts the ability of editors to cherry-pick individual reviews to skew the portrayal. I've restored this in the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, you're relying on your opinion of the Pazz & Jop; the poll is irrelevant here if a source doesn't connect it to the topic of the article themselves. Other things existing does not justify your addition. That "the album was not ranked in a critics' poll" needs to gauge the attention of a reliable source (WP:Notability), not yours or mine. It's not my interpretation; WP:NOR says "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources ... To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article". We're not allowed to say things are missing from lists unless a source explicitly says it. If they don't say it, it is an original idea. This concerns both notability and OR guidelines. Dan56 (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Your interpretation of OR and synth is too extreme to be workable. When you made this edit here a couple of months ago, you picked three reviews - Rolling Stone, Village Voice, and Billboard.  What reliable source says these are the three most important reviews?  Or even significant reviews?  (In fact, the first two are, but Billboard reviews had very little visibility or impact at the time - artists and the public cared about their charts, not their opinions.)  What about Creem or Crawdaddy?  What about New Musical Express or other British publications?   By your logic you were doing "synthesis" in deciding these three would represent all contemporary reviews.  Your retrospective reviews were even more unbalanced - you added three, two of which were Allmusic.  Now in fact, you were doing a good-faith effort to find whatever was available to you.  As am I.  And I am telling you, the collective result of a review aggregator (whether positive or negative) is always a useful addition to an article.  If you go to any FA or GA movie article and delete the Rotten Tomatoes rating, you'll get reverted so fast your head will spin.  Do you really think you have a better handle on OR and synth than all those FA and GA reviewers?  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your comparison of review aggregate sites (which if cited would need to mention the topic, i.e. the album) to the Pazz & Jop, and I don't understand why you keep calling it "your interpretation". What part of needing to "cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article" don't you understand? Find a source that puts the Pazz & Jop in the context of this album. Otherwise, it's OR ("To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented"). I don't see any mention of Walls and Bridges here. If you can find reviews of this album from NME or Creem, feel free to add them. And this is textbook synthesis, using the word "but" to connect two ideas that aren't explicitly supported by one source. See this FAC, where I made the same mistake, but acquiesced and learned from it. Dan56 (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The "but" is not synthesis, it's just to provide transition in the prose. The juxtaposition of statements still connects them in the reader's mind and is still there, regardless of whether it is one or two sentences.  By your logic, every time we use sentences next to each other from different sources it's "synthesis", because neither of the sources wrote what they did expecting it would be put next to something else.  Look at the first three sentences in the "Background" section of this article.  They come from five different sources and tell an interesting narrative, full of cause and effect, about the Lost Weekend.  Why aren't you deleting that as synthesis?  And what about ordering of sentences?  What source told you to put the favorable Billboard review third in that paragraph?  Why not first, which might change readers' perceptions?  And you know what the biggest "synthesis" of all is?  What to include in an article and what to leave out.  There have been hundreds of books written about the Beatles and about Lennon and here we are, summarizing and reducing and synthesizing all that knowledge and all that criticism down into articles of a few thousand words.  Taking something from source A and following it with something from source B and deciding something from source C isn't important enough and then finishing with something from source D to give a coherent explanation of an event that happened.  That's what we do here.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The "but" is synthesis, as pointed out in a previous FAC (Featured article candidates/Song of Innocence/archive1) and in the example at WP:SYNTH. You used one source that says something different about the album's reception than the source you appended to make one sentence that you couldn't support with a source: "...received mixed reviews, but garnered..." (citation needed). Per WP:SYNTH, "'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." (If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research.) Ask anybody at Wikipedia talk:No original research and they'll tell you it's synthesis. I have no interest in how you pieced the other parts of this article together, though I'm sure three sentences cited by five different sources would be an issue if you chose to nominate it for FA, as would your "but" synthesis. Good articles have lower standards, however. As far as ordering review prose, if the album's reception was "mixed", placing the one positive review ahead of the two mixed reviews would undermine the opening statement, confuse readers, and not be neutral in form, giving precedent/undue weight to the one positive review. It would also be awkwardly phrased, like your synthesized "but" statement. Dan56 (talk) 02:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Choice A: "Walls and Bridges received mixed reviews from contemporary music critics,[44] but did garner Lennon his most favorable reviews since his 1971 album Imagine.[45]" Choice B: "Walls and Bridges received mixed reviews from contemporary music critics.[44]  It garnered Lennon his most favorable reviews since his 1971 album Imagine.[45]"  In both cases we are saying exactly the same thing:  People had mixed feelings about the album, while also thinking it was better than his previous two albums.  The contextual juxtaposition and contrast is there regardless of whether "but" is present!  The only difference is B is clunky.  Would you be okay with Choice C?: "Walls and Bridges received mixed reviews from contemporary music critics,[44] while garnering Lennon his most favorable reviews since his 1971 album Imagine.[45]"  As for the reviews, the Christgau one as quoted is negative.  If you think it's mixed, maybe you should revisit the quotes you pulled (synthesis anyone?).  And I think you further confused things by using it as a contemporaneous review but putting his retrospective grade in the review box.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Attribute it as a quote: no source says "People had mixed feelings about the album, while also thinking it was better than his previous two albums" (that's your own impression). A comparison of this album's reviews with those of Imagine isn't elaborated on any further and adds nothing to the rest of the section's prose, if not just a unique comparison, not shared by any other source. You still aren't clear on what synthesis means: what quotes would you have pulled? "Aren't very good" and Christgau's grade/key for a "C" don't seem all that negative, although why bring it up if the Rolling Stone review is the first mentioned? "B–" grade issue? So why didn't you change it to the original if it's an actual issue? Dan56 (talk) 04:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Uhh, if an editor says in an edit summary that he's giving a rationale on the Talk page, it would be nice to wait until that rationale appears before reverting! Jeez ... Wasted Time R (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "see talk page for rationales" suggests the rationales have already been placed there before the edit summary is made. Dan56 (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The exact Carr/Tyler text is "The album is generally lacklustre, though it has sold well and has been greeted by more sympathetic reviews than any Lennon product since Imagine. My text that you reverted is "... but it did garner Lennon his most sympathetic reviews since his 1971 album Imagine."  What gives?   Wasted Time R (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "Sympathetic" suggests sympathy; "favor" or "approval" would be better replacements if we're not quoting the author. Dan56 (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

"Walls and Bridges received mixed reviews from contemporary music critics, but did garner Lennon his most favorable reviews since his 1971 album Imagine."
 * Dan asked me to comment here. I do see a problem with the "but" here:

and I am also not sure why we would use the US English spelling "favorable" on an article on a British musician. --John (talk) 07:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * John didn't engage my argument at all, just saw the magic word "but" and pronounced it bad. But in the interests of getting past this, I've changed it to two separate sentences.  I also added the Christgau retrospective grade raise (based on his practices, the original "C" is pretty negative).  I've also reworded the Gerson three stars bit, because I think that was added on later to the website; Rolling Stone reviews in the 1970s didn't get stars when they were originally published.  I fixed the spelling.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussions?
Does anyone know where previous discussions about this article have gone to? Either I'm going mad or the archive for this talk page has just vanished … JG66 (talk) 04:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you go JG. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 11:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Walls and Bridges. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/john-lennon/albumguide

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 08:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 16:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Walls and Bridges. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=8287602&style=music&fulldesc=T
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120214060626/http://www7a.biglobe.ne.jp/~yamag/album/al_beatles.html to http://www7a.biglobe.ne.jp/~yamag/album/al_beatles.html

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) 16:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Elton J on "Surprise, Surprise"
, re your comment & change here, Elton John does sing on this track. He was credited as such, and the vocal overdubbing session is described in May Pang's book, from memory. JG66 (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * He's not credited on the album because he didn't make the cut. He was supposed to be on it; he tried singing the harmony but couldn't match Lennon's phrasing.  Both Lennon and John have said this in interviews. Hotcop2 (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, he is credited on the album. But he's not on the final track. I'll find a reference and post it here. Hotcop2 (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I put it back in. I'll find the the interviews eventually.  Even Pang's recollection is a little ambiguous. "Elton had to match John's phrasing exactly" but couldn't, after two hours John said "It's ok and he appreciated the effort" and "Elton turned and abruptly left."  It could be interpreted either way. Hotcop2 (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I remember reading Elton saying, much later, that he had major problems trying to mirror Lennon's intonation and phrasing, which is what Pang recalls obviously. He is credited, though, so perhaps part of his contribution was kept ... Seems to me we should leave it that he did, but add a note giving any relevant comments that suggest it may not in fact be his harmony vocal on the track, despite the credit. JG66 (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)