Talk:Yellow Submarine (album)

= COTM discussion =

= Normal discussion =

Recording Dates
Although Yellow Submarine was recorded in 66 it was recorded for Revolver, the start of the recording for the Yellow Submarine project started with the recording of All Together Now. The tracks were nearly released as an EP and eventually made the album with the film score.

It could further be argued that as Magical Mystery Tour was also recorded in the post "Sgt. Pepper" period along with the 'Baby your a rich man' and 'All you need is love', that the track selection wasn't determined until spring 68.

I think the point I'm trying to make is that the project was not recorded as "an album" but the album came from the need to supply some songs for the film project. Therefore the Yellow Submarine album's recording start date could only be taken from the earlist of the songs recorded for and eventually chosen for the project. simonthebold 23:03, 28 June 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 04:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Sea of Monsters Redirect
The search term "Sea of Monsters" redirects to this page. This needs to be fixed as this is a very popular children's book.

Why is this listed as an official Beatles album?
Every Beatles album - with the possible exception of Please Please Me which was produced at George Martin's behest as a contractual obligation and simply took a cross-section of the band's (then) live act - was a deliberately conceived project. The band planned and conceived each album, becoming more and more ambitious, and assuming more and more autonomous control, as their career progressed. In that sense then, British releases should always take precedence over American releases, which often included tracks added by Capitol for commercial rather than artistic reasons. Yellow Submarine is not a Beatles project, not in any way - it has no more right to be featured in the canon than A Collection Of Beatles Oldies, even though it contains tracks unreleased elsewhere. To define it as a Beatles album makes a mockery of that appellation; it is a soundtrack album in the same way as Quadrophenia (from 1979) is a soundtrack album even though most of it features The Who. I would move for this to be removed from the list of official Beatles albums. 88.105.186.79 (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I completley agree. In fact, I am going to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.40.63.122 (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree &mdash; The Beatles participated in this album in that they recorded songs for it, helped decide what would be on it, etc. In addition, several band-related sources list it as an official release. It is a soundtrack, but that should not disqualify it as an official release: both A Hard Day's Night and Help! are soundtracks and both are considered official releases. The comparison to A Collection Of Beatles Oldies is troubling; I don't consider that an official release because as far as I recall it was re-releases only. (I could be wrong about that; some material might have been released in the USA but not the UK, etc.) In any case, I think Yellow Submarine is much closer to a real release than it is to something like Love Songs or other compilations that were purely record company projects. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A Hard Days Night and Help! are not purely (as Yellow Submarine is) soundtrack albums. Their US counterparts are, but the origanal UK Hard Days Night and Help! are purely studio albums. As in, both these albums contain songs that where written for thier movies, but always ment to be used on the upcoming albums. Yellow Submarine on the other hand, contains songs that they recorded strickly for the film, and the soundtrack they later apeared on was never ment to be (and truely isn't)a true studio album. Plain and simple, the Beatles themseleves do not consider this to be one of thier studio albums, so therefore it should not ever be known as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.40.63.122 (talk) 02:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If it's "plain and simple" as you say, then can you provide a reliable source that says the Beatles did not consider Yellow Submarine an official release? &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's very straightforward - you only need the reliable document of the UK charts (source, e.g. The Guinness Book Of British Hit Albums), wherein you can see that "Yellow Submarine" was released only a few weeks after "The Beatles" (aka The White Album). Although the soundtrack itself may be an official release, of its contents, only the George Martin compositions on it can be so considered. All Together Now and It's All Too Much were recorded in May / June 1967, Hey Bulldog in February 1968, and Only A Northern Song as far back as February 1967. (Source : Revolution In The Head, Ian MacDonald, Fourth Estate 1994, ISBN 0-7126-6208-1). If The Beatles had considered these songs worth persisting with as official releases, they would surely have been included on "The White Album", released only a few weeks earlier. But they didn't even make the cut. So in fact, what we have is a so-called Beatles album that contains no tracks specially recorded for its release, simply a sprinkling of re-issues and throwaways. (Having said that, I can never understand why Hey Bulldog was thrown away so lightly - it's an awesomely good track.) 88.105.253.43 (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Making inferences from what songs were included, when it was released, etc., is all just original research. Are there quotes from any of the Beatles that say it's not an official release? I don't think so. What we do have is an official discography (in Lewisohn) that includes Yellow Submarine. I understand that Yellow Submarine is not the same as Revolver, etc., but it was released by them when they were a group, with their consent, with previously unreleased material, and it's listed in their official discography. It was included in the initial CD releases in the 1980s with the 11 other UK releases and with the US-version of Magical Mystery Tour. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I cannot for the life of me understand why some people are so rude about "original research". I have a degree from a UK University and the value of original research was drummed home to us repeatedly, as it is also in all the sciences, where "original research" is actually required to be recognised. And what I wrote above hardly fits that description anyway - I was quoting from a published and authoritative reference (MacDonald is highly regarded - maybe not so authoritative as Lewisohn, but a reliable source). The inference to be drawn from the recording dates of the previously unpublished tracks on Yellow Submarine is little more than commonsense : the mere fact that the soundtrack appeared only a few weeks after The White Album shows it was a different type of project altogether. And of course it is not denied to be an official release - it remains the source of royalties for Apple and the remaining Beatles. The point many here are making, is that it really has no place in a list of Beatles' studio albums - their "crown jewels", if you like. It would be like including "Quadraphenia (1979" in the list of official Who albums - technically this might be so, but no real fan would acknowledge it as such. 88.105.202.183 (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you read WP:NOR? It doesn't say that original research has no value; it says that WP is not the place for it. If you disagree with that, you'll have to argue it with the WP powers-that-be. Regarding MacDonald, I do think he's credible, and I have cited him many times on WP, possibly more than anyone else. (Check out Personnel sections where MacDonald is cited to see who made the edit.) But... I've read both editions of Revolution in the Head and I don't think he takes a stand on whether or not Yellow Submarine was an official album in the sense we're discussing.


 * Regarding the "crown jewels" argument, who are we to decide? Should we drop Let It Be from the list because The Beatles thought it was basically crap? (They all said so at one point or another.) It was released a long time after it was recorded, George Martin didn't produce it, The Beatles didn't participate in many of the overdubs, they left important production decisions to Phil Spector, in short, it doesn't fit the mold of a classic Beatle studio album. How about Beatles for Sale? They were clearly war-weary, and there's a lot of covers.

They're are no more covers on BEATLES FOR SALE than there are on any otehr early beatles labum (exept A HARD DAYS NIGHT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.87.59 (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect we won't agree, and your last argument makes it clear why. I don't know if Quadrophenia (soundtrack) was an official release by The Who ("technically"), but if it was, then it ought to be in the list no matter what fans say. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site.


 * Regarding your perception that I was rude, I wasn't intending to be. I was stating my opinion, and defending it. No offense intended. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 02:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It contains songs that were already released before hand (Yellow Submarine and All You Need is Love) and the other half of the album are not even beatles songs. Does that sound like a studio album? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.40.63.122 (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not evidence from a reliable source; that's original research. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 23:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Still, use common sense.--NewChampion (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, both Only a Northern Song and All Too Much had already been written, as they had been intended for use on Sgt. Pepper and Magical Mystery Tour, respectively. All Together Now was written in 1967, and Hey Bulldog in 1968 along with Lady Madonna. All of the new songs penned by the band were written long before the movie was dreamed up.71.225.128.152 (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well guys, all us REAL Beatles fans KNOW that Yellow Submarine is not a studio album. We don't need THEM to agree.--NewChampion (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree - Since the original question was should this be considered an official Beatles album I say yes. Doesn't make any difference when the tunes were written. When I'm 64 was written a long, long time before it was recorded and used on Pepper by McCartney's own reckoning. It had "new to buyers" tunes not appearing anywhere else at the time. For me it was not much different from the US releases of AHDN and Help!. When I bought the album on release I certainly considered it an official Beatles album as did my friends who were into the group. I would also agree with John's points in this section. Just my thoughts. Side note: it would be nice for commenters to sign up and then use their four tildes when posting. Posting anonymously lacks cred for me. Not trying to be mean, it's a WP convention that I find useful. THX1136 (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Neoclassical?
The infobox on the right lists "classical" under Genre. While this is true, perhaps "Neoclassical" would be better, as it's more specific to the style of Martin's orchestral score than simply "classical". Any objections?

Image copyright problem with Image:Beatles allyouneedislove.ogg
The image Image:Beatles allyouneedislove.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.

The following images also have this problem:


 * File:Beatles allyouneedislove.ogg
 * Image:Beatles yellowsubmarine.ogg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --09:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Different Versions?
When I listened to the album this past Saturday, Yellow Submarine and All You Need is Love seemed to be played faster than they were on Revolver and Magical Mystery Tour, respectively. When I asked my dad what he thought, he agreed with me. Are these different versions than the originals, or were we just imagining things?71.225.128.152 (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Yellow Submarine soundtrack version of "All You Need is Love" is the true stereo version recorded during a dress rehearsal of the performance. The version originally released on the Magical Mystery Tour album in the US is the live mono (or rechanneled stereo) version recorded during the "Our World" global broadcast. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely false. "All You Need Is Love" is the identical version on Magical Mystery Tour and the Yellow Submarine soundtrack.  Likewise, "Yellow Submarine" is the identical version on Revolver and the Yellow Submarine soundtrack. 74.102.78.224 (talk) 02:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

George Martin's Score influenced by Claude Debussy's, "La Mer?"
I recently purchased a CD recording of the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra performing, "La Mer," by Claude Debussy, and noted a significant similarity between this composition and George Martin's score for the Beatles' movie, "Yellow Submarine." Does anyone agree with this notion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.153.160.238 (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:OR. — John Cardinal (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Unquestionably, the music I’ve written for films, Yellow Submarine for example, has been inspired by composers like Debussy and other great composers. You draw on sources like this." - George Martin, here. Not sure whether it can be worked into the article, but you're not imagining the similarity... -- Bobyllib (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Beatles RfC
You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning the name of this band in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc  (talk 22:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

recent changes to Lead and Reception section
Thought it might be helpful to clarify a couple of things after making this and other recent changes. As mentioned a week or more back, it didn't appear that the Lead reflected what's given in the article under Reception. From all I've read on Yellow Submarine, after working on a couple of the album's "new" songs, and looking in briefly at the film article, no reviewer gave this album a "mixed reception" in 1969, and no latter-day commentator has said as much. Surprisingly, there are no reviews for the Yellow Submarine album at Rock's Backpages nor in the two Beatles NME Originals I have – all sources I normally rely on. And I can't see that Rolling Stone reviewed it at all. (The Beat Instrumental and International Times album reviews I added a while back came from a Mojo Beatles special edition.)

The impression I get is that no critic had a harsh word to say about Yellow Submarine; one could say it wasn't taken seriously enough for such scrutiny. The LP was the overdue soundtrack to a film that was universally praised, and it snuck in on the coat-tails of the White Album. So it seemed to me the article's Lead was referring to the opinions held by biographers long after the event, together with retrospective critical opinion, yet we were presenting them as the situation on-release. (Not unrelated, the first sentence under Reception also appeared to synthesise the perspectives: on-release and retrospective.) Back to that change in the Lead, I couldn't see that Martin's work was necessarily "generally praised" either – certainly no more than Harrison's song "It's All Too Much" was and is.

I know I'm beginning to sound like an old record on the subject, but I think we need to ensure that the views of Ian MacDonald and other Beatles historians aren't presented as fact. They're opinions, nothing more. JG66 (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it's in Lewisohn's Recording Sessions where he mentions some criticism that the album wasn't a good value for the money with only four new Beatles songs on it and that in response an EP version with the four new tracks plus "Across the Universe" was prepared but never released. Piriczki (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I see that's already in the article but perhaps it could be clarified that the issue was value for the money as opposed to a mixed response to the music itself. I agree that being a minor release it probably didn't merit close scrutiny artistically. Piriczki (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * In that IT review, Miles comments on the upcoming EP – which never happened of course. But again, by "the issue", you mean something that Lewisohn contends, not necessarily what the consensus of critical opinion was? I'm not holding a torch for Yellow Sub, by any means, but I have been very surprised at how Beatles biographers' traditionally low opinion of late-1967 Beatles recordings fails to tally with critical opinion at the time and (admittedly, for Magical Mystery Tour, but not this album) the tone of more recent reviews. So, as long as a) it's clear what was and what is; and b) what's fact vs someone's opinion, then fine. JG66 (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The "mixed reviews" sounds like my doing, and I suspect it got in from something like Lewisohn p. 164, which says "The Beatles were mildly criticized at the time of this LP release for giving less than their usually excellent value-for-money". It's not a bad album, yeah "It's All Too Much" is a great track to jam on, and while we might be sick of "All You Need Is Love" it was seminal for its time, then there's the pleasant orchestral stuff on side 2. But when it's released back to back with The White Album and Abbey Road, anything less than the greatest album of all time is going to be noticed and marked down. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  20:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've just added something under Reception, which gets across the point you're both making. I think it's good now: through Lewisohn, we give the message about mild disapproval, which is then followed up by Unterberger's more recent perspective. I might add something I found at PopMatters, where the reviewer focuses on the music as a film soundtrack (i.e. commenting on how well it served the animated film) rather than viewing it purely as an album release. I think that's a useful perspective. JG66 (talk) 04:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hope I've not gone to town with this addition, quoting PopMatters, and the Consequence of Sound review that was already included in the ratings box … Compared to what I said above about including PopMatters, I can see I'd somehow merged in my mind a Nov 2009 album review with their film review. It's the album review I've just added quotes from, in fact. JG66 (talk) 07:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The Consequence of Sound quotation was a bit too close to excessive paraphrasing, which can land you in trouble as being a potential copyvio. I've trimmed it down and paraphrased the key point that they felt Martin's score brought things down a bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  19:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

George
"Only A Northern Song" & "It's All too Much" were written by George, the other 4 songs were Lennon & McCartney. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.60.230 (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 11:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

John Lennon's claims
It says in Pete Doggett's book that John Lennon accused Brian Epstein of allowing George Martin to participate in the project, but that's impossible, because George Martin's orchestral score was recorded in October 1968, almost 14 months after Brian had died, and Brian wasn't around to defend himself.

Does anybody have a source to that interview made at a time when John made many angry statements, most of which he recanted? 202.92.121.165 (talk) 00:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Yellow Submarine in Pepperland
there isn't an article for the song "Yellow Submarine in Pepperland", can someone teach me how to make a Wikipedia article or can someone else make it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minemaster1337 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)