Talk:Revolver (Beatles album)/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 13:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there are any rules against somebody reviewing the same article for GA twice, and I don't appear to have contributed much to it, so I'm having this one. I know a lot of work was done on the first review, and from a quick glance the article looks in excellent shape, and I can't see any reason why this won't pass in due course.

Specific comments will follow. In particular, I'd like to check the content suggestions in the first review were carried out (or hear explanations why they shouldn't be) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie. Thanks for taking this one on. JG66 (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

A few non-reviewer comments: Riley 1988 is invoked but not defined (should be Riley 2002, most likely). Additionally, several sources have some minor Category:CS1 maintenance issues. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks – fixed the Riley citation. JG66 (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Lead

• "marked the group's arrival as studio innovators" This sounds a bit whimsical, could we tone it down a bit to something like "marked the group's increased use of studio technology" (or something shorter)

• I've gone for "marked the group's most overt use of studio technology up to that time", which underplays the situation, I think it's fair to say, but I take your point. JG66 (talk) 08:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• "With no thoughts of reproducing their new material in concert" - technically, Paperback Writer was new material and played in concert on the final tours, but I think this is splitting hairs.

• I was tempted to change to "With no thoughts of reproducing their new sounds in concert" – because they definitely recorded Writer with their minds fully focused on the song as a studio creation, knowing they could never capture any of its sounds in concert. But I believe the statement stands: yes, one of the tracks made it into their live set, but their approach to the Revolver sessions was as recording artists, and only that in that role – sort of: "touring-and-live-performance-be-damned". JG66 (talk) 08:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• "With the restoration of the three omitted tracks for its international CD release in 1987, many music critics recognise Revolver as the Beatles' best album" - I don't think these two things are related, critical reception just happened anyway as a matter of course

• It did to a large extent – I've read plenty of contemporary reviews for Magical Mystery Tour and later Beatles albums, and 1970s/80s-era biographies and reference books, all saying that Revolver was way better than Pepper. But as a reflection of what we say in the article, the full 14-song CD release appears to have made it official. That's how Sheffield presents it in The Rolling Stone Album Guide, which is in line with comments cited to Rodriguez, Medsker and Kot as far as chronology goes with regard to the album's standing. (Although I've not included anything from Tim Riley on this, he does make the point that Revolver was a complete song cycle and so Capitol's culling presented North American listeners with a lesser work in more way than one; he calls it the Beatles' "most artistically compromised" US release. The UK LP had long been available in the US on import, of course, but it was the 1987 CD that put it beyond doubt that this is Revolver.) Aside from summarising the point in the lead, though, it allows us to state up-front that since 1987, the standardised album internationally has followed the original Parlophone release. JG66 (talk) 08:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I still feel that's really only the case in the US, and only historically - for those of us over this side of "the pond", Revolver has always been in the same track selection since first release, and rearranging it so it didn't start with a slowed down "one two three four" and end with a sped up tack piano, it would just sound, well wrong. So while I think you can say that retrospective reviewers have put it ahead of Sgt Pepper, and you can say that it was the straw that broke the camel's back in US record companies tinkering with UK albums, I don't think you can put the two together. Perhaps change "many music critics" to "US music critics"? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Background

• "The layoff was the longest period" - nitpicking a bit, but for British readers, "layoff" is normally associated with losing your job; how about "the break"?

• I've rephrased to "this" – which I thought was very creative of me(!) OK? JG66 (talk) 08:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• "McCartney drew his inspiration from the intellectual stimulation he experienced among London's thriving artistic community" - it might be worth dropping in that at this point in their career, Lennon was domesticated in Weybridge with Cynthia and Julian, while Paul was out and about in Swinging London.

• It was a situation that was in place since early '65, of course, so it's really a continuation of a situation that had existed for a while. I will take a look at this point, though (it's probably more relevant in the next para, discussing Cleave's interviews) – but I'm mindful that Lennon and fellow-Surrey-ites Harrison and (to a lesser extent) Starr were there at most of the London shows and other events mentioned under Recording history. JG66 (talk) 08:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Production techniques

• Shouldn't we drop in the well-used phrase "recording studio as instrument" that appears in numerous sources?

• I think we can live without it. The message is certainly implied throughout this section, and then, right at the end of "Development of popular music and 1960s counterculture", there's the comment from Howard: "the recording studio was now its own instrument …" JG66 (talk) 10:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• "The group's willingness to experiment was also evident in their dedication to finding or inventing sounds that captured the heightened senses inspired by their hallucinogenic experiences" - this sentence could be toned down, "heightened senses" sounds especially flowery

• I'm surprised you think that. The statement sits amid a wealth of dry description of the ways in which they manipulated or created sounds during the Revolver sessions. This more poetic phrasing offers something human behind the headlong dive into studio technology: the heightened senses achieved through the hallucinogenic experience are what informed their sonic choices and experimentation in the studio. Anyway, I've reworded to mention "heightened perception", but it really is the transformation of the senses they were looking to convey. JG66 (talk) 10:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• "Importantly for the group's sound, Emerick and Townsend recorded McCartney's bass guitar amplifier via a loudspeaker, instead of a standard microphone" - the next sentence though, says recording the bass this way was only done on two tracks. These two sentences seem to contradict each other.

• Clarified, I hope. JG66 (talk) 10:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Yup, that works for me. IIRC, MacDonald said the group's bottom-end sound increasingly improved from 1966 onwards, though that was in context for Abbey Road. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Songs

• "this influence is evident in the limited chord changes in many of the songs" - I think this needs another source to back it up. "Tomorrow Never Knows" is mostly one chord, as is "Love To You", but I wouldn't class any of the others, particularly McCartney's songs as fitting this description.

• Toned it down to "some", but are you really saying none of the songs bar TNK and "Love You To" could be described as having "limited chord changes"? I've seen this point in quite a few sources discussing individual songs, about how the Beatles' songwriting over the Revolver period uses few chords and limited harmonic movement. (Rodriguez is used here to make the general point, MacDonald provides some details; Everett's another who could be used, Alan Pollack's articles also.) Obviously, the Indian characteristic is strongest in Lennon's and Harrison's writing, as is any sort of explicit psychedelic influence. But MacDonald and others highlight the limited chords in McCartney's "Got to Get You Into My Life" as a possible Indian affectation. (They appear to be focusing on the song as a composition, and/or in its "Haight-Ashbury", Anthology 2 form, as Rodriguez calls it, i.e. regardless of the pop/Motown arrangement it eventually received.) And "Eleanor Rigby" – McCartney said he wrote it on piano with an Indian rhythm in mind, and that song's hardly harmonically busy. (Ever since I read McCartney's comments on its "Oriental or Indian rhythms", I've pictured the song with drone and a "Paint It Black"-like arrangement.) "Here, There and Everywhere" and "For No One": yes, absolutely – they're highly melodic (and stick out like a sore thumb for that reason). But with "Good Day Sunshine" even, I've read comments on an Indian quality in the cross rhythms of the closing a-cappella chorus, the cascading voices, etc. I'd say, as generalisations go, it's pretty accurate. JG66 (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's more my personal experience of trying to play along to some of the songs than anything else, but toning it down to "some" works for me, so let's go with that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• "a contrivance that Riley credits with establishing" - what do you mean by "contrivance" in this case?

• Changed to "device". JG66 (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• The footnote over why McCartney walked out of the "She Said She Said" sessions would probably fit better next to the specific sentence, as we've already mentioned LSD in the article so the reader will understand the context.

• I've moved it, but I thought it made much more sense to place it after mention of the LSD trip that inspired the song, given the alleged reason for McCartney's walkout. From memory, that's how Gilmore approaches the issue – highlighting the link between McCartney's non-participation in the LA experience with the Byrds and Fonda, and his apparent marginalisation when the band came to record for the track a year later. JG66 (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• A brief explanation of who Alan Civil was (ie: principal horn in the Royal Philharmonic and BBC Symphony Orchestras) would be useful

• Done. JG66 (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• I seem to recall that one pressing of the album has got a second or two longer on the fade-out piano in "Tomorrow Never Knows" - does this sound right?

• No idea! With Beatles song and album articles, I've become so used to removing OR titbits on rare Spanish or Canadian pressings, stereo vs mono anomalies, what is or is not in a Love remix … I confess I'm rather numb on the issue. JG66 (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Packaging

I'm not sure File:Revolver 1966 back cover (outtake).jpg is suitable as a non-free image. Although you say "nor could a free-content alternative" be created, we've got File:Beatles and George Martin in studio 1966.JPG which covers a similar angle. Additionally, the image makes the text sandwiched between it and File:Skämtbilden och dess historia i konsten (1910) (14764641832).jpg, which in turn would benefit being widened so the caption text takes up less lines.

I'm sorry but I completely disagree. If there's one image on the whole page (other than the album cover) that's really about Revolver and complements the article, it's this one. You say the black-and-white free image of the three Beatles and Martin covers a similar angle. Does it cover the angle(s) relating to: the group's new look for 1966, and how that band image is in keeping with their approach to music-making, their career, and, as some would have it, revolutionising the scope of pop music? their adoption of fashions from the latest Chelsea boutiques at a time when London's fashion scene was being lauded around the world – a "Swinging London" context that inspires the album as much as it's inspired by this "soundtrack of summer 1966" album? how even the individuals' choice of clothing and sunglasses invites interpretation from commentators, relating to the point about the four band members functioning as individuals within the group, rather than having their identities submerged within it as before? No, on all fronts. That b&w image is from early '65, at the very latest – it doesn't convey anything about the 1966-spec Beatles and Revolver. The requirement is that there's critical commentary on each non-free image, and that this commentary reflects the significance of the image in relation to the subject of the article. That requirement has been met, no?

The problem is more that there are editors who like to come down like a ton of bricks on any non-free image, so the rationales have to be absolutely watertight to survive (particularly for FA even more than GA). Let me bring in BU Rob13, who is more experienced on image copyrights, and see what he thinks. If he agrees the image is okay, great, we'll keep it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: "No free equivalent" refers to no free equivalent that serves the same encyclopedic purpose. The thing I'd normally question in a non-free image among this many other free images is WP:NFCC#8. With other free and non-free images already in use, it definitely isn't for identification, so we'd need a strong case that this image (and this image alone) is necessary to convey significant information related to the text. In this case, I'm confident the criteria is met. This specific image (the back cover) was the subject of extensive commentary (9 sources) and a large portion of the text of our article. No other image would convey the information of that specific paragraph, as it refers wholly to this exact image. I appreciate the skepticism, but in this case, I believe the image fits nicely within our policy. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Well I can't argue with that, so we have consensus that it's staying! Cheers. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: As a funny aside, when I looked at my notifications and saw "The problem is more that there are editors who like to come down like a ton of bricks...", I thought I was navigating to a very different discussion. "What did I do now?!?" ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the LH Yellow Book image as an issue, I've since cut the caption slightly, and any sandwiching is very minor. There are two decent-size paragraphs of text before the second image appears. On my iPad, the only sandwiching effect I get is that the first two lines of para 3 are indented, not by the LH image box but by the white space below it. JG66 (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Influence and legacy

• In the recollection of Barry Miles, one of Britain's key countercultural figures - "one of Britain's key countercultural figures" sounds POV, can we tone it down a bit?

• I just changed it to "author". We could go for "one of Britain's principal countercultural figures" if "key" is the problem. JG66 (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Track listing

• What source did you use for the track times?

• Aha – I confess they've been there forever, and I have an innate respect for that … I've never had this issue come up before, but I dare say I could find them/check they're accurate. (Where did you get the times for the White Album and Abbey Road, btw?) JG66 (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I can't remember, it was either the CD or AllMusic. (If I now find the times for both those albums is contracted in those sources, I will go and stand in the corner for being a pot calling the kettle black...) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Charts

• I don't understand how the Swedish chart source is supposed to verify the #1 position

• The publication lists singles and albums together, albums being marked by "(LP)". So as at, say, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band#Weekly charts (where it's number 1 but the PDF gives a peak of number 5), it's a case of removing the non-LP entries to find Kvällstoppen's number 1 album.

Understood Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• The chart box for the 2009 reissue seems to be using a source for the 1987 one

• That looks fine to me – 2009 reissue, 2009 chart peak. Are you sure you got the right link? JG66 (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

No, I was just looking in the wrong place - sometimes it's tricky to see where something is on a page to verify it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

General

• Shouldn't the quote boxes have all the quotes around quotation marks?

• Definitely not, in my opinion. I've seen documentation for some of the various quote templates stipulating that it's wrong to add quote marks, for other quote templates there's no mention – so there's a lack of consistency, last time I checked. I think they're unnecessary, because there's nothing to clarify: as with a block quote (which I believe the MoS does say not to include quotation marks around), the design treatment is itself a signpost to readers to say that the text is someone else's words. JG66 (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Summary

• This is great work, only minor issues. On hold. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, Ritchie. Sorry if I've come across as grumpy above. Love this album but, boy, did it do my head in trying to pull everything together, over a period of years, for a GA nom. Revolver is one complicated, multi-tentacled beast. Beautiful, though. Anyway, who am I trying to kid? I'm often grumpy in GA reviews … JG66 (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you've come across as grumpy at all - you have strong opinions on the sources and information to include, as do I, and we have worked together long enough to respect each others views and sort things out. Anyway, I need to go back and reply to some of the things upthread; we'll sort this out soon enough. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@JG66: - I think it's just the query on the last point on the "Lead" section above, then we are all done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I was just hunting around for a ref for something else … I think that Lead issue's sorted – I reworded the sentence to just say: "Many music critics recognise it as the Beatles' best album, surpassing Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band." And mention of the standardised international CD now appears at the end of the 3rd para. JG66 (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, that all looks good to me, so I'm passing the review now. Well done, and well deserved - it's about time we got this to GA. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Ah great, thanks so much. The green icon's a very welcome sight there on the talk page – although User:Legobot's just informed me that the nomination failed! Oh well, GA3 it is, then … Cheers! JG66 (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it's because of the uncollapsed failed template (from GA1) immediately below it that made it hiccup. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you could be right. I'll look at Talk:Pepper or Talk:Macca (other articles that, from memory, had a failed GA nom or FAC at one stage) and try to work out how to hide the 2015 result. (I bloody told Blofers it was nowhere near ready for nomination back then!) JG66 (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)