Talk:The Beatles discography/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Inconsistent criteria for inclusion

I'm confused by some of the releases included here, in light of those that don't appear. For instance, we list "All Together Now" as a 1972 single (in, as a note states, a limited number of territories), yet we don't mention EPs and many other singles that were also issued internationally in the years following the band's break-up. For instance, there was an 1971 EP titled Here Comes the Sun. With that release, I had figured that, because UK, US and Australia are the only countries considered in the EP section, the rationale must be to omit such Europe-only releases (and there were many of them: Mexico had a whole series of themed EPs in 1971, sequenced by Lennon) because they couldn't have charted in countries where they weren't officially issued. But if that is the criteria, then we shouldn't have the likes of Los Beatles and Por Siempre Beatles under Compilation albums, because their releases were confined to Spain and Argentina, neither of which appear in the chart-nation columns. Same for The Beatles in Italy.

I think the answer is to ditch all mention of "All Together Now", Los Beatles, Por Siempre Beatles, etc. The alternative is to add Here Comes the Sun and no end of other EPs and singles – "Don't Pass Me By" was a big hit in Denmark, for example – but that approach would be impossible to manage. Any thoughts? (Maybe I'm missing something …?) JG66 (talk) 08:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not that the criteria is inconsistent, there is no criteria at all. The problem with throwing all these releases in together is that the result is a jumbled mess. I can sort it out because I'm already familiar with these records, but for someone coming to this article to learn about the Beatles' catalog in the first place, they would have no idea what all these titles are and the article does nothing to explain it to the reader. I have mentioned this numerous times but I'll say it again, every published discography of the Beatles have separate UK and US discographies and often have a select international discography and so should this one. Certain releases such as Por Siempre Beatles, while only released in Spain and Argentina, were significant internationally and not including it only makes the discography incomplete. Whether or not there is chart information available for a record shouldn't have any bearing on its inclusion in a discography and this article is probably the primary link to the article for that album. Some of the international chart information is highly suspect anyway. I have yet to find anyone that can say exactly where some of that data comes from, i.e., what was the actual title of the chart or what magazine was it published in? Piriczki (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
The whole thing needs to be organized. For instance, the Anthologies, Love, and LiB..N are listed as compilations, right along with the Red and Blue albums, 1, Reel Music, ect. In what sense are these compilations? My Bonnie is also listed as a compilation, when its a Tony Sheridan studio album (on which the Beatles only play on two tracks). That's not to mention the studio albums section, which lists UK and US (and Canadian and...French?) releases as equal, even equating UK/US albums with the same titles that feature wildly different content. The whole discography needs a reorganization/revamp. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
<edit conflict>
Ah, I knew you'd be commenting here, Piriczki – by that I mean I was hoping you would! I hear you on a lot of the above. I did some work on Por Siempre not so long ago, and it certainly gets some attention from Nicholas Schaffner and others. So, I'm just raising that album's inclusion as an example of the confusing criteria that's applied here. As mentioned, there's no end of apparent omissions if certain single and EP releases appear but not others.
I suggest you rework this discography, if you're willing. I agree that the Beatles' catalogue is clearly defined into UK and US releases, with international markets offering some notable alternatives. That's obvious from a section at the end of Schaffner's 1977 book, and it's consistent with how, like it or not, a British or American band and their record company viewed the world commercially in the 1960s. Perhaps it might be an idea if you outlined the plan here (before or after restructuring the discog, doesn't matter). I'm just thinking of ensuring there's something on record to refer to in the future, because I appreciate how much work might be involved and how much effort it might then take to protect the more authoritative version. And I'm only going on the time it took to try to get those UK double A-side chart peaks centred rather than assigned to the first listed side … JG66 (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
PS. Not directly related to the Beatles, but I'm well aware that I sound entirely stupid when I imply, in my first post, that Mexico is in Europe. (It's okay, I can live with that.) Turn left at Greenland, etc. JG66 (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
You're probably confusing the Berlin Wall with the Trump Wall. I could have a go at reworking the discography, maybe in a sandbox first to gather comments from others. And just as a measure of relevance of some of the international releases, I could walk to the local record store (in Ohio) right now and pick up Por Siempre Beatles, The Beatles Beat or several other of the records listed by Shaffner. My wallet would be much lighter unfortunately. Piriczki (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I did some experimenting with a different format (see User:Piriczki/sandbox/The Beatles discography). A complete UK/US separation of the entire discography seemed impractical because most of the post-breakup catalog is unified, and since the major differences were during the group's active years, I came up with pre- post-breakup sections. And since they had so few compilations and live albums during their active years, and most everything post-breakup is some sort of compilation or otherwise difficult to categorize, I did away with studio/live/compilation distinctions. It's incomplete and there's some leftover copy/paste text to be removed but hopefully it's clear where I'm going with it. Comments/suggestions are welcome. Piriczki (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I think it looks great - it really rectifies the organization issues with the discography as it now stands. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Move American album releases out of main Albums section

Anyone that listens to the Beatles knows that the UK catalog is the canon. Why is this at the mercy of a bunch Aspergy wikipedia editors? It's absolutely ridiculous. The Beatles decide what their canon is, not wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.233.23 (talk) 00:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The American album releases should not be included in the main Albums section, but rather in a subsection below it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiHenning (talk • contribs) 16:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree I think the UK releases are regarded as "Canon" warpozio (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
A discography is simply a list of every record released by an artist. There should be no user-defined categories such as "main" or "canon". If anything, the list should be separated by UK and US releases, then by albums and singles which is how practically every published discography of the Beatles is arranged. Piriczki (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
True, but what was formerly known as the UK discography is now the worldwide discography. The other versions are no longer manufactured. If you buy (for example) the A Hard Day's Night album you will get the UK release everywhere in the world. I know there was an American version with some film instrumentals but it is no longer sold. I agree with WikiHenning that the out-of print albums could go to a separate list (like the discography template does)warpozio (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree. The Beatles released 13 albums considered "official" or "canonical": from Please Please Me (1963) to Let It Be (1970). The US version of Magical Mystery Tour was a later addition to the band's canon and is today considered the "official" version of the record, replacing the UK EP version. Clausgroi (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment: I have no problem with the US and UK albums being in separate sections as long as they are all included on the page somewhere. But, the allegation that the US versions are no longer manufactured or that they are the only ones for sale is completely false. The US versions were released in box sets in both stereo and mono a few years back and these box sets are still widely available in the US. More recently, all the US versions were released together in a box set and as individual discs. Kinston eagle (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
See The U.S. Albums. Kinston eagle (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Piriczki is quite correct that a discography is a list of every record released by an artist regardless of what categories someone arbitrarily creates. Two things are irrelevant: canon (which is very much subject to debate and an arbitrary category) and whether versions of albums are currently manufactured (look around Wikipedia; many albums are no longer manufactured but are included in discographies). There is no need for any sections other than those currently in the article. Sundayclose (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

People like Mark Lewisohn (the man who I think Paul referred to as the person who knows more about the Beatles than I do) make a very distinct separation in their discographys between UK releases and US releases. I refer to The complete BEATLES recordin sessions and The complete BEATLES chronicle. warpozio (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
As does this Wikipedia article. The country of release is included with every album. There's no need for separate tables of UK and US releases. Like almost every discography table on Wikipedia, the tables list releases chronologically, not by country. Sundayclose (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
If someone who is regarded as one of the world's leading authorities on The Beatles splits them in UK releases and other releases. Who are we to do it in a different way? warpozio (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Who are we? We are editors on Wikipedia, where such matters are decided by consensus. The issue is not what others do in books or websites that are not based on how things are usually done on Wikipedia, but whether it is best for this article to keep five tables as chronological listings of releases or divide into about 15-20 tables according to country of release. Sundayclose (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Whether it's Lewisohn or any other author, most published discographies of the Beatles are separated into UK and US discographies, although that was not what was originally proposed here. I would support separate UK and US discographies, possibly separate articles, as long as they are identified as UK and US, and not characterized as "main," "official" or "canon." There may be objections to that based on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Anglo-American focus. Piriczki (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

If I counted correctly there are eight countries which are identified with separate releases. If we have a table for each country, that would be 15-20 tables if we separate studio, live, and compilation albums as well as singles. That is unwieldy. If we decide to lump together all countries except UK, or all countries except USA, that is as much of a NPOV problem as "canon" or "main" or "official" because it implicitly says UK albums (or USA albums) are more important or more official or main or canon, or whatever other term is suggested. Occam's razor applies here; keep it simple. Leave the tables (which includes country of release) as they are, which is chronlogical. Sundayclose (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I think separating them into two tables – UK and other – is by far the most sensible way of doing it. It is not a POV to say the UK albums are the official canon; that's just the way it is. At the moment, it comes across as biased because the US albums are in with the studio albums as if they're more important than the countless other foreign release just because America is important. We should have two sections: Studio Albums and International Albums. "Studio Albums" are the albums the Beatles originally released as studio albums, the music as it was intended to be packaged. Then all the foreign exports that the Beatles had no say over (and hated) should be lumped together, because no one country other than the country origin is more important than any other. The current table is confusing to anyone without deep knowledge of their catalogue; it comes across as if they made loads of albums. The international releases are not studio albums; they're re-packagings of studio material. McLerristarr | Mclay1 14:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Move American album releases out of main Albums section

Anyone that listens to the Beatles knows that the UK catalog is the canon. Why is this at the mercy of a bunch Aspergy wikipedia editors? It's absolutely ridiculous. The Beatles decide what their canon is, not wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.233.23 (talk) 00:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The American album releases should not be included in the main Albums section, but rather in a subsection below it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiHenning (talk • contribs) 16:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree I think the UK releases are regarded as "Canon" warpozio (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
A discography is simply a list of every record released by an artist. There should be no user-defined categories such as "main" or "canon". If anything, the list should be separated by UK and US releases, then by albums and singles which is how practically every published discography of the Beatles is arranged. Piriczki (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
True, but what was formerly known as the UK discography is now the worldwide discography. The other versions are no longer manufactured. If you buy (for example) the A Hard Day's Night album you will get the UK release everywhere in the world. I know there was an American version with some film instrumentals but it is no longer sold. I agree with WikiHenning that the out-of print albums could go to a separate list (like the discography template does)warpozio (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree. The Beatles released 13 albums considered "official" or "canonical": from Please Please Me (1963) to Let It Be (1970). The US version of Magical Mystery Tour was a later addition to the band's canon and is today considered the "official" version of the record, replacing the UK EP version. Clausgroi (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment: I have no problem with the US and UK albums being in separate sections as long as they are all included on the page somewhere. But, the allegation that the US versions are no longer manufactured or that they are the only ones for sale is completely false. The US versions were released in box sets in both stereo and mono a few years back and these box sets are still widely available in the US. More recently, all the US versions were released together in a box set and as individual discs. Kinston eagle (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
See The U.S. Albums. Kinston eagle (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Piriczki is quite correct that a discography is a list of every record released by an artist regardless of what categories someone arbitrarily creates. Two things are irrelevant: canon (which is very much subject to debate and an arbitrary category) and whether versions of albums are currently manufactured (look around Wikipedia; many albums are no longer manufactured but are included in discographies). There is no need for any sections other than those currently in the article. Sundayclose (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

People like Mark Lewisohn (the man who I think Paul referred to as the person who knows more about the Beatles than I do) make a very distinct separation in their discographys between UK releases and US releases. I refer to The complete BEATLES recordin sessions and The complete BEATLES chronicle. warpozio (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
As does this Wikipedia article. The country of release is included with every album. There's no need for separate tables of UK and US releases. Like almost every discography table on Wikipedia, the tables list releases chronologically, not by country. Sundayclose (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
If someone who is regarded as one of the world's leading authorities on The Beatles splits them in UK releases and other releases. Who are we to do it in a different way? warpozio (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Who are we? We are editors on Wikipedia, where such matters are decided by consensus. The issue is not what others do in books or websites that are not based on how things are usually done on Wikipedia, but whether it is best for this article to keep five tables as chronological listings of releases or divide into about 15-20 tables according to country of release. Sundayclose (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Whether it's Lewisohn or any other author, most published discographies of the Beatles are separated into UK and US discographies, although that was not what was originally proposed here. I would support separate UK and US discographies, possibly separate articles, as long as they are identified as UK and US, and not characterized as "main," "official" or "canon." There may be objections to that based on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Anglo-American focus. Piriczki (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

If I counted correctly there are eight countries which are identified with separate releases. If we have a table for each country, that would be 15-20 tables if we separate studio, live, and compilation albums as well as singles. That is unwieldy. If we decide to lump together all countries except UK, or all countries except USA, that is as much of a NPOV problem as "canon" or "main" or "official" because it implicitly says UK albums (or USA albums) are more important or more official or main or canon, or whatever other term is suggested. Occam's razor applies here; keep it simple. Leave the tables (which includes country of release) as they are, which is chronlogical. Sundayclose (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I think separating them into two tables – UK and other – is by far the most sensible way of doing it. It is not a POV to say the UK albums are the official canon; that's just the way it is. At the moment, it comes across as biased because the US albums are in with the studio albums as if they're more important than the countless other foreign release just because America is important. We should have two sections: Studio Albums and International Albums. "Studio Albums" are the albums the Beatles originally released as studio albums, the music as it was intended to be packaged. Then all the foreign exports that the Beatles had no say over (and hated) should be lumped together, because no one country other than the country origin is more important than any other. The current table is confusing to anyone without deep knowledge of their catalogue; it comes across as if they made loads of albums. The international releases are not studio albums; they're re-packagings of studio material. McLerristarr | Mclay1 14:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Album Sales

Could someone try and add in a column for total sales of each studio album. Alot of older artists have them and even if the certifications are not available, most of the albums have plenty of reliable sources asserting their total sales and it would make the column easier to read and get a feel for how much the band sold.--EnderAtreides117 (talk) 07:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

It is unlikely that up to date or truly reliable sources can be found for individual album sales. The RIAA certifications for their original albums are 15 to 19 years old and any reported worldwide sales are just guesstimates. Piriczki (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Beatlemania / with the beatles - the same album?

The link that goes from "Beatlemania! with the beatles" and the link from "With the beatles" go to the same page "With the Beatles". When I looked for "Beatlemania" in YouTube or other music sources I couldn't find it. I think this is the same Album and there is a mistake. I want to be sure that is correct, and if so - it has to be fixed. The reason it is so important is that I'm trying to collect all of the beatles Albums and I want to be sure there is nothing missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VB4231 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

When a title redirects to another article, it generally means the redirect is either another name for the title or that all the information about the redirect is in that article. The article on With the Beatles answers your question in the introduction. They are the same album. McLerristarr | Mclay1 21:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

In the U.S., Let It Be is a United Artists Record, not an Apple record

As Spizer correctly notes on p. 196 of his "The Beatles on Apples on Apple Records," in the U.S. this record was released by United Artists. The Beatles owed UA another album after "A Hard Day's Night." Quit reverting my edit or take it up with the Spizer.

But does Spizer actually say that it was "released by United Artists"? I can't access that particular page; what little I get is a mention that the album was "distributed through United Artists Records as Apple AR 34001". So that's US distribution (UA instead of Capitol Records) which has got nothing to do with the label – which is what you've just changed here in the discography. Castleman & Podrazik (p. 89) also gives the Apple Records catalogue number with the release info, and add a line to say "US Distribution through United Artists Records". The same authors include Let It Be in a separate list of Apple Records albums (p. 294). JG66 (talk) 06:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
In the United States, Let It Be was on Apple Records. It was manufactured by Capitol Records and the distribution rights were granted to United Artists. The name "United Artists" does not appear anywhere on the record or jacket. If you change Apple to United Artists you would need to change every other Apple release to Capitol since it is basically the same arrangement. Piriczki (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Discogs doesn't mention United Artists at all. warpozio (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The label is Apple. Some of us have actually seen the first release of the vinyl album in the USA which has the usual apple on it. There can be a difference between the label, the manufacturer, and the distributor. Sundayclose (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

My Bonnie and Les Beatles

Please discuss things before reverting again. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

My Bonnie is not a beatles album and shouldn't be in the studio albums section. Maybe a featured artist or appears on section but not studio section. And Les Beatles is the French import of With The Beatles if that's included why not Beatlemania! With the Beatles (Canadian version), Con Los Beatles ‎(Chille version) or Favolosi Beatles ‎(Italian version) where do we draw the line here?! Lukejordan02 (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

This has already been discussed extensively, see above as well as all of the archived discussions. Piriczki (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Where? Show evidence. Lukejordan02 (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
My Bonnie is a studio album that was partly credited to the Beatles (albeit under a different name). It has since been re-released multiple times under numerous titles and credits. Just because it features another artist besides the Beatles and is not part of the core catalogue does not mean it does belong in the section. As for Les Beatles, the section is incomplete; it should contain all the foreign albums as they are all just as valid as the US albums. However, if two albums contain identical track listings, I think they should be counted as the same album and we should only list the first release. It's highly likely that, in cases like that, the English-language album came first, so it shouldn't cause any problems. M.Clay1 (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

EP titles

The labels on the records show the titles as "4 - BY THE BEATLES" or "4-BY THE BEATLES" depending on the pressing and "BEATLES FOR SALE (No. 2)". Piriczki (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay but the cover of the second one has no parenthesis around No. 2, and I've seen decisions made here based on how a title's rendered on the front cover, not on the labels.
That 4-by EP's an odd one as far as the title goes. I understand that Capitol planned a series for its artists titled "4-by" (or "4-By", as Bruce Spizer writes it). But to see the artist name appear straight after that in the title of a release looks bizarre: 4-by the Beatles. i.e., it begs the inclusion of a colon or something, to give 4-by: The Beatles; if not that, then the removal of the hyphen: 4 by the Beatles. The latter is how many sources give the title, as mentioned at Talk:4 by the Beatles#Change to article title – hence the change I made. I can't access Spizer's book, admittedly, but given his apparent preference for "4-By" as the series name, I can't help thinking he might give the title as 4-By The Beatles, not 4-by …. Anyway, that EP's such a weird one – I don't mind moving it back, although I think it looks infinitely better with the current title and doesn't throw the reader.
With Beatles for Sale No. 2, I would just like to get some clarification first, say, at the MOS:ALBUM talk page. Seems to me we should be consistent over this issue (cover vs label), which is not the case now. I've got Spizer's book on Apple Records' releases and he frequently makes the point that details given on a label were incorrect. JG66 (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Piriczki: I took this cover vs label issue up at Talk:MOS Album. All that's come up is a suggestion that WP:COMMONNAME could be applicable. I think there's a pretty strong argument for 4 by the Beatles per WP:COMMONNAME, as outlined in the "Change to article title" section linked to above, and for No. 2, as I wrote when renaming the article. I'm not interested in pushing it, though – I only happened to come across the EP articles while working on Beatles for Sale. All I would say is that, having changed all mention of the two titles in other EP chronologies and at template:Beatles EPs and template:Beatles for Sale, as well as this discography, I'm kinda reluctant to change them all back unless we're really sure about this, you know? JG66 (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
We could just drop the hyphens and parenthesis as a matter of style just as we don't use all caps when that's how it often appears on the records. Piriczki (talk) 12:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on The Beatles discography. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Discography reorganization

I think the article is in need of some reorganization. My big problem is especially with the studio albums section - it's a mess. It has the UK albums, the US albums, the unique Canadian albums, a French album, and My Bonnie all mushed together into one list, which doesn't seem very logical. A discography should be easy to navigate and provide information to a reader not necessarily familiar to the artist or their history. I don't think it does this as it stands now. The rest of the list suffers from similar issues (the compilations section in particular, looking at it now), but the studio section is especially egregious - it even lists the US and UK albums that have the same title as one entry (AHDN, Help, RS, Revolver). I think we should split the studio albums into separate lists. Here are a few different ways we can do that:

  • UK albums / "Selected international releases" (US albums 64-66 & MMT and oddballs we have listed like France, Canada)
  • UK albums / US albums (64-66 and MMT) / "Selected releases in other countries" (France, Canada)
  • UK albums 63-66 / US albums (64-66 and MMT) / "Unified/International" albums 1967-1970 (UK albums 67-70) / "Selected releases in other countries" (This is the format that Template:The Rolling Stones albums takes, without the "Other countries" bit)
  • UK albums 63-70 / US albums 64-70 / "Selected releases in other countries"

I personally prefer the second option. It preserves the primacy of the UK discography while also acknowledging the special place the US albums have in the discography, whereas the first lumps the US in with the other non-UK countries. The other two would put the US discography on equal footing with the UK albums, which I personally don't think is desirable (although the last one would make 2 complete lists, where you could see all the albums released in the US in one list - from Introducing... to Let It Be (although this is already at The Beatles' North American releases)). However we decide to move forward, I don't think the article as it stands now is really a useful tool for a reader to learn about the Beatles' discography - it's a dumping ground of info about releases in various countries, with no clear guide for the uninitiated. The lead isn't even very helpful in that regard. IMO the whole article needs work, but let's start on this one section. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

No one has thoughts? No one lists the Beatles discography like this - all the books I've ever read separate US/UK. The way we have it now just seems like a mess. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 23:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I like this version User:Piriczki/sandbox/The Beatles discography, but what do I know. Piriczki (talk) 00:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@Piriczki:, I had forgotten about your reorganization from last year! It's certainly a viable option, better than we currently have. It's definitely a different approach (separating by era, that is), but I think it works for a catalogue as unique as the Beatles. It has the all-important separation of US and UK discographies, and fixes some of the problems I had with the other sections as well, especially compilations. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
A little background on the thought process that went into this. First was to separate UK and US discographies which works well for the 1960s but since the post-breakup releases were fairly similar and would result in a lot of repetition in the UK and US sections, I separated it by eras too: 1962–1970 (UK/US) and 1971–present (combined). As far as the Tony Sheridan and Vee-Jay material that was issued in various forms, I decided that if it was the first release of any of the songs or there was chart information or certifications associated with the release it would be included. I didn't include Savage Young Beatles because it didn't have any Beatles recordings that weren't already released on ...Tony Sheridan and their Guests and Ain't She Sweet. From what I can tell Savage Young Beatles was released in late 1965 at the same time as Best of the Beatles. I found an November 1965 article in the local paper about Pete Best that said he was in town "drumbeating for his new albums" Savage Young Beatles and Best of the Beatles. Kinda makes me wonder about the legality of that record too. The international section is more subjective but generally there's some measure of notability for including those. Chart information is limited to countries where the actual chart can be identified and have reliable sources. Also, the RIAA certs still need to be verified because some are remnants of cut + paste jobs. Piriczki (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
For some reason User:Sphilbrick deleted the draft article of the re-organized discography. Piriczki (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
@Piriczki: It was deleted as a G7 which means the author requested the deletion. You may not recall explicitly requesting the deletion, but on 29 June you blanked the page. Convention is that if an author blanks the page it is an implicit request for deletion so I deleted the blank page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: can it be retrieved so we can see it, if Piriczki is OK with that? Sundayclose (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 Done @Piriczki: I am guessing, based upon your comment, that you did not intend to delete the sandbox, so I have restored it. Let me know if I misinterpreted. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I like the organization in Piriczki's draft. Some tweaking may be necessary, but it's an excellent basis from which to rebuild the article. Sundayclose (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Re-organize the studio albums

The studio albums section is a mess. The Beatles had 12 to 13 albums and the inclusion of My Bonnie or the Les Beatles is just confusing. There's got to be a way to eliminate the confusion and re-organize the albums in a way that separates the 12/13 albums from the others, i.e. American editions. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

*Cough cough* any thoughts? -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
AlexanderHovanec, I agree 100%. Both the albums and singles should be further divided into more sub-sections. The UK releases are sui generis and constitute their official "cannon" in a way that no other countries do and should not be "mish-mashed" with the other countries. In Lewisohn's 1988 book he clearly identifies their recording activity as centered around the UK releases, which were always banded and chosen by the Beatles and George Martin. For albums, I think we could have "UK studio albums" and then "Studio albums elsewhere". For the "elsewhere" albums, they could be sub-divided into US, CN, FRA, GER, NOR, etc. the way it is currently. We could do the same for the singles, i.e. "UK singles" and "Singles elsewhere". We could also add sections such as "Albums with other artists" and "Singles with other artists" (i.e. w/ Sheridan). I'd be interested to hear what other editors such as JG66 have to say. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
The idea of a further division under Studio albums might work, although I thought the note upfront ("Denotes the studio albums in the 'core catalogue'") made it pretty clear. I've got no super-strong feelings about this, only that we avoid mirroring the post-1987 tendency to view and even refer to some of the Capitol releases as "compilation albums". (For example, with Yesterday and Today.) But I do agree that seeing My Bonnie listed as the Beatles' debut studio album is a weird one!
The stumbling block for me each time, with regard to adhering to the "core catalogue"/official canon, is Magical Mystery Tour: the Beatles never viewed it as an LP and reluctantly ceded to Capitol over the format. Yet, separating the 13 canonical albums would mean we head into similar, revisionist territory as in the post-1987 Yesterday and Today issue, surely. JG66 (talk) 05:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
The core catalog would definitely pertain to the UK releases. However, we could still continue to include the albums released in other countries, but in the proposed separate sub-section. I'll admit that the albums from the other countries, though not of "canonical" status, are nonetheless notable because they reflect the way people outside the UK experienced the Beatles for many years. Here in the states, for instance, that's how we did—up until 1987 when the CDs arrived. I definitely agree that the Capitol LPs are studio albums not compilations and should be presented as such, but in a separate section along with the non-UK countries. You made a good point about Magical Mystery Tour, JG66. Though originally intended and released as an EP (in the UK), Parlophone ended up releasing MMT as an LP (identical to the US version) in 1976 (PCTC 255). Later, when the Beatles issued their first CDs in 1977 (and more recently when they did the second-generation re-masters a few years ago), they standardized all CDs to conform with the UK, except MMT, which was issued on CD along with the UK albums—all of the other US studio albums were discontinued. So, that puts MMT in a different position than the other US albums. We could perhaps mention MMT in both album sections. For the US section we could list it for November 1967 and for the UK we could list it for December 1976 as a posthumous album release. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Twelve or Thirteen

So which is it? The lead says twelve UK LPs, but the table shows thirteen. Is one not counted for some reason?

1 Please Please Me,
2 With the Beatles,
3 A Hard Day’s Night,
4 Beatles For Sale,
5 Help,
6 Rubber Soul,
7 Revolver,
8 Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band,
9 Magical Mystery Tour,
10 The Beatles,
11 Yellow Submarine,
12 Abbey Road and
13 Let it Be
Rojomoke (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Likely the categorization of Magical Mystery Tour is the difference: It was not originally a UK LP but EP, but the list of 13 is the "canonical" list of albums that came out on CD. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 03:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Mistake regarding I Want To Hold Your Hand U.S. chart position(s)

The singles chart seems to indicates 1) I Want To Hold Your Hand / This Boy, as well as 2) I Want To Hold Your Hand / I Saw Her Standing There, hit No. 1 in the United States. I'm not aware that the single with This Boy ever was released in the U.S., but even if it was, it definitely didn't hit No. 1. (I realize IWTHYH was No. 1, and I assume tbat's why it is listed as No. 1 both places, but I think that's misleading.) Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.113.180 (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Singles table: needs reformat

Currently the "Album" column is an indiscriminate mess of Parlophone, Capitol, VeeJay and even the odd Polydor release, all of which pre-Pepper had completely different track lists. It is also not at all helpful to the modern buyer, since the US Capitol albums have been obsolete for 30 years except for one special box set, and the UK albums have become canonical,.. If there is to be only one Album column, let it be exclusively the "official" Parlophone-Apple albums. Propose modifying to have separate UK (EMI-Parlophone-Apple) and US (Capitol-Veejay) columns. --Solicitr (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Continue on then. Best, --Discographer (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood the column. It wasn't indiscriminate nor was it messy. The album matched the country (UK or US) the single was released in. US-only singles don't need to specify the UK album. For singles released in both countries, I went with the "canonical" UK release. I think it looked much better and simpler before. M.Clay1 (talk) 08:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

release date for singles

It would be nice to have the release date for singles (not just the year). Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Only 13 official studio albums

For once and for all I'm going to change the numnber of studio albums to the ones that are OFICIALLY REGARDED AS OFFICIAL STUDIO ALBUMS by The Beatles which would only include the UK albums. I ask for everyone to stop reverting as this is the most accurate solution. In the future there could be a US albums chart or something like that because we could add literally hundreds of albums that werent released in the Uk. Hernaeri025 (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Per JG66, we should not “rewrite history to a post-'87 view”. Furthermore, the US albums are still considered important: relatively recently re-released, box-sets, etc.—Aquegg (talk) 09:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Studio albums in first sentence

The first sentence says the Beatles released 11 studio albums, before acknowledging the more complicated picture worldwide, especially in N. America. But with regard to the UK studio albums, shouldn't that be 12 (i.e. including Yellow Submarine but excluding Magical Mystery Tour)? MFlet1 (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, should be 12, Magical Mystery Tour was originally double EP in the UK, therefore doesn't count. It was 12 for a long time but someone changed it without reason. Hzh (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

This long-term slow-motion edit war about number of albums and number of platinum, double platinum, etc. needs to be resolved or someone is going to get blocked. Violating 3RR is not the only criterion for edit warring. Pinging regular editors: @JG66 and Zmbro: Sundayclose (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Not quite sure if there is some confusion about the edits. The person who has been changing the number of platinum in the certification is someone who has been doing this for for a number of other artists, and him and his numerous socks have been blocked, see his history here - Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Nikita (not all the socks are listed there). If you see someone changing the RIAA certification, it is likely to be the same person. Just check the source and revert if wrong. It is vandalism and has no relation to the current discussion about the number of studio albums. Hzh (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't have a horse in this race. I don't know who is right or wrong or who is a vandal. But edit warring isn't determined by who is right or wrong, and a content dispute isn't necessarily vandalism. Let's see what others have to say. In the mean time, I suggest that everyone stop reverting for a while until it's settled. Sundayclose (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
It is easy to check who is a vandal and who is not, just check the sources to see if someone is deliberately adding false information. You just need to note that those edits on certification are vandalism and not content dispute. It is not part of this discussion, and other people reverting vandalism cannot be stopped (and you might get into trouble demanding that other people not to stop vandalism). By all means discuss the number of albums, to support the case for 12 here is one article - [1]. Hzh (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
@Hzh: Please watch your accusations. I didn't "demand" anything. I suggested that people be careful about reverting to avoid getting blocked. Sundayclose (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
"Suggested" isn't any better when you are saying that "someone is going to get blocked". That's what happens when you don't differentiate between reverting vandalism and edit-warring. Hzh (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
@Hzh: Are you saying that someone can't get blocked for edit warring? I didn't name you or any specific person. Again, watch your accusations. If you have a problem with something I've said, take it up on my talk page or WP:ANI. This is not the appropriate venue. Sundayclose (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
There is no edit-warring. I was just correcting your misapprehension about the edits on certifications. Hzh (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
@Hzh: You accused me of "demanding that other people not stop vandalism". Now please. Move on. This is not the place for your personal issues with me. Sundayclose (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
According to Apple Corps, there are 13, including Magical Mystery Tour. How much more official do you want? The fact that MMT was admitted to the canon post-facto does not mean it hasn't been admitted. Solicitr (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
The way as it is worded in the lead, it is 12. The person who originally complained about the number is about the 23 albums given the info box, which is a separate discussion. Perhaps it should be separated from this discussion. Hzh (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I've separated the discussion to avoid confusion. Hzh (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I think it's the usual problem: trying to force-squeeze history into the model favoured by Wikipedia. Same with contemporary sales charts: the chart templates reflect a world of national industry associations that simply didn't exist until the 1970s at the earliest, in some cases the 90s. Officially, the band/Apple recognise 13 official albums and the two Past Masters compilations. Wikipedia thinks in terms of studio albums but that term, funnily enough, only came about as the result of the Beatles' achievements in getting an LP record recognised as an artistic statement, rather than just a commercial release containing a few big hits and any old filler material.
A couple of years back, there was a similar issue of sorts at Yesterday and Today, an article I've been doing a fair bit of work on recently. There was an RfC to determine whether Y&T should be considered a compilation album, because some present-day sources describe it as such. But if you go back and read pre-1987 articles and books, eg. the Beatles' entry in the 1979 and 1983 Rolling Stone Record Guide, Y&T is accepted as a standard US album release, in that there was always an element of Capitol "compiling" all the band's US LPs. Not only that, but no truly authoritative source on the Beatles' career (the sort of source we should favour, surely) would call Y&T a "compilation album". Problem is, no one calls it a "studio album" either – it's just the "new Capitol album", just as Rubber Soul was before it, and Revolver was soon afterwards.
In terms of this discography page, the trick is to present the information in as straightforward a manner as possible. There are 13 albums, two of which (imo – MMT and Yellow Submarine) have an identity bordering on "compilation album". Personally, I'd go with 13 in the opening sentence, but follow the figure immediately with mention of that number being per the recognised core albums after the international standardisation of the Beatles' catalogue in 1987. Graeme Ross's 12 studio albums might be one way to look at it – "During their lifetime, The Beatles released a dozen studio albums – I don’t include 1967’s Magical Mystery Tour as it was originally only released as a double EP in the UK, and was only bulked up for subsequent re-releases ..." But just because he doesn't want to include MMT, doesn't mean Wikipedia can't or should not.
I've done a lot of work also at Magical Mystery Tour. The lead there is something of a strange beast because the double EP became superseded by the Capitol LP, as we all know. I'm going to bring forward mention there that, since 1987, the full album has become the international "official" version. I mention the MMT article because it would be confusing/unhelpful/potentially chaotic to introduce that album as the Beatles' "ninth studio album"; it's only in retrospect that it's considered anything but yet another "new Capitol album". (I suppose the issue continues all the way through to Let It Be: it's described there as the twelfth studio album, yet since 1987 it's the thirteenth official Beatles album [or whatever you want to call it].) JG66 (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I think the way it is written in the opening sentence - "In their native United Kingdom, between 1962 and 1970", meaning that 12 rather than 13 is the correct number for studio albums, is fine with me. You can rewrite the opening sentence of course, but may be it's better to explain it in the last paragraph. Hzh (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
When writing their song article, I found the core catalogue consists of all the main UK albums and the US MMT, along with Past Masters for a total of 14 (I'm obviously counting PM Vol 1 & 2 as one because it's stupid to count them as two). But in terms of studio albums, the opening sentence would be correct in stating 12 and 13 worldwide. – zmbro (talk) 03:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Singles table

Why do the majority of entries have 2 lines, the bottom of which is usually just a set of dashes? If there is a reason, then an explanation should be added. Spike 'em (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The A and B sides. To me it's obvious. Each single had two songs. Sundayclose (talk) 01:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
But the B-sides weren't sold separately, so there is no need for the dash. Why do some entries not have a dash (in the UK column at least)? I find the table confusing. Do other discographies do the same thing? Spike 'em (talk) 05:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

In some singles charts - the Billboard Hot 100, for example - it was possible for B-sides to be listed separately even in the era of physical singles, due to an element of radio airplay being included. This doesn't apply to the UK singles chart which has always been purely about sales (and more recently streaming) without airplay being taken into account. MFlet1 (talk) 06:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

So the extra dashes aren't needed for UK (and probably multiple other countries). I checked Elvis, ABBA and Rolling Stones and none of them have separate chart positions for B-sides. Spike 'em (talk) 06:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
From what I can tell, double A sides have a single line in the UK chart column, but those with a recognised A and B side have 2 lines. If the chart was based purely on the sales of the given physical records then it makes no sense to have 2 lines for some entries and 1 for others. Spike 'em (talk) 09:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
It looks to me like the discogs for Elvis and Rolling Stones have a separate line for each song, not the same line for A and B sides. Consistency across articles would be nice, but that's asking a lot on Wikipedia. To complicate this further, some of the links in the citations don't work; others are hard to figure out. Sundayclose (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Christmas albums?

The Christmas records were flexi discs, none of which were longer than eight minutes. Surely these can't be classed as albums? MFlet1 (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The Beatles (White Album) singles

I'd like to note that all of the Beatles singles credited to the White Album are actually redirected to the Beatles band, can someone or did someone change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.175.26.221 (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Done! Surprised nobody fixed this beforehand.--NoTribbleAtAll (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Once again, let's have the talk

There should be 13 or fewer albums in the top section. Conversations about this have derailed in the past when someone uses the word "canon" and then someone else says "arbitrary". This isn't about arbitrary canons, it's about the fact that LPs released outside the US are compilations by their nature. I'm not suggesting we necessarily delete these albums, I'm just saying we should a) move them to their own table, b) recategorize them as compilation albums, which regardless of how they marketed is what they are, or c) delete them, which I think no one wants. But the point is that there is no difference between Yesterday and Today and A Collection of Beatles Oldies, except for marketing, which isn't the deciding factor. SweetTaylorJames (talk) 06:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

You could well be right that the information could be better presented – throughout the page, perhaps. But your comment that albums like Yesterday and Today are compilations suggests a limited understanding of how US record companies went about issuing albums in the 1960s, particularly those by so-called British Invasion acts. Yesterday and Today – along with Something New, Beatles VI, etc – was in keeping with Capitol's policy of a) releasing shorter LPs, meaning they always had a surplus with each "proper" album, and b) ensuring that all single and (UK) EP tracks had an album release. It doesn't make them compilations at all – that's just the way we (and some less than fully informed writers) might view those '60s Capitol albums now, because the canonical albums are so well established.
If you look at contemporary reviews for, say, Y&T or even the pre-CD Rolling Stone Record Guide from 1979 and 1982, that and all the other albums are viewed as bona fide "new" LPs; no one's talking about a compilation album, because this is how Americans viewed the band's catalogue. Nicholas Schaffner, who was a Beatles biographer but also wrote books about the British Invasion more generally, wrote in 1977:

If you are an American Beatlemaniac, it is possible that you rate albums such as Beatles '65, Beatles VI, and Yesterday and Today among your favorites. Mention this to a British fan, however, and, unless he is a seasoned collector, he might have little or no idea what you're talking about ... He, in turn, may cite such unfamiliar titles (to Americans) as With the Beatles or Beatles for Sale; even should you agree on the respective excellence of, say, the Hard Day's Night or Revolver albums, you'll actually be talking about quite different compilations ... You would both be right, for until 1967 and Sgt. Pepper ... no British rock album could reasonably hope to survive the voyage across the Atlantic intact.

I think that sums it up quite well. Yes, he uses the word "compilations", as there was always an element of Capitol "compiling" each LP for the North American market, based on the policy points mentioned above. But then they similarly "compiled" their versions of Beatles for Sale (as Beatles '65) and Rubber Soul. JG66 (talk) 08:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
None of this contradicts the fact they are compilations. I'm well aware of what the US record companies did, but it has no bearing. When the Beatles would release records as a piece, that is the original presentation, and to take non-album songs and previously released album songs and put them out as a new collection is a compilation, irrespective of US audiences' understandings. What they were listening to were compilations of pieces of different pre-released Beatles projects mashed together as one (compilation) or they were listening to an alternate version of a UK Beatles album. But that's just marketing. If a US distributor cut up scenes from multiple films of a filmmaker and mixed it in with some short films, we wouldn't call it a new film just because that's how US audiences first saw it. It's objectively a compilation. But vote how you wish. SweetTaylorJames (talk) 09:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
You are opening a whole can of worms here. Introducing... The Beatles is (at least initially) essentially the same album as Please Please Me minus two songs. It's not a "compilation album" by our understanding of what a "compilation album" is, i.e. a collection of songs from different sources. Also most people would understand "different sources" as those previously released, as well as possibly a few unreleased ones, in their own territory (this needs to be stressed here). I'm not averse to separating UK "core" releases and international releases (although reorganising them could get messy), but I wouldn't start by arguing that those non-UK releases were compilations. Hzh (talk) 10:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
SweetTaylorJames I agree with Hzh here, you are creating lots of unnecessary drama. Y&T is not the same as ACoBO. All of the US albums, even though they're all obsolete now, were and still are considered actual studio albums. I don't like that they're included in the main table either, but completely forgetting about their existence is just not acceptable in this situation. – zmbro (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The US Albums are "compilations" by a dictionary meaning of the word, but in context of "compilation albums," I would say they are not. A "compilation album" is usually a greatest hits collection and or a "lost tracks" kind of thing. The US Albums are fairly slight variants of the original intended to handle real or imagined differences in the target market. They are a different animal than the canonical ones, but I wouldn't group them with "compilations" --John (User:Jwy/talk) 17:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
A few things. First of all, there are a few misunderstandings. I'm not saying they are all compilations, there are albums like Introducing where they are companion albums to their UK reciprocals, and I'm just saying that they should either be a) grouped together in the same row as the UK album, like is done with albums like Revolver, or b) mentioned as a subsection on the UK album's page. Obviously there is nuance here. Secondly, and I'm sorry to be blunt, but the idea that a studio album means material unreleased in a given territory is just wrong. And lastly I'm not saying to forget about their existence, as stated before. I'm just saying that they shouldn't be treated as original pieces, which is what a studio album is. SweetTaylorJames (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
You can be as blunt as you like, but no one actually said that "studio album means material unreleased in a given territory". Your suggestions don't make sense either, I don't know how you can group them together or mention the album as a subsection on a UK album, what for example do you group The Beatles' Second Album with? Any such grouping would be original research, and you are making things far too complicated to contemplate. Hzh (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I was just addressing "Also most people would understand "different sources" as those previously released, as well as possibly a few unreleased ones, in their own territory (this needs to be stressed here)." "Different sources" refers to the original context of release. Regarding the Second Album, this is what I was referring to as a compilation, this is where the nuance comes in. It's not an original studio album like Please Please Me, it's not a reciprocal album like Introducing, it's a compilation of pre-released songs, as their release in the UK defines them as released period. I'm not trying to make this complicated or dramatic, and I agree with what you mentioned earlier about separating them. To use a musical analogy, all I'm saying is that if a composer like Beethoven or Mozart had movements from different symphonies and concertos combined together for a different countries market, we wouldn't put those new symphonies alongside the original composed symphonies. If we were uncomfortable with the term compilation, we would at the very least give them a different table. SweetTaylorJames (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
So you managed to infer from something written about compilation album into something about studio album? I won't bother going into your logical fallacy, but you should know no one has any interest in your argument against something that no one has said. Studio album just means an album with content recorded in a studio as opposed to something recorded live. Studio album does not mean an album of original content, even though a studio album normally contains content not given in other studio albums. Content in a studio album are usually newly recorded tracks, but may also include previously released singles as well as those already released in EPs, as well as unreleased older material or older material that has been reworked. Notionally, there is nothing to stop people putting a few same songs from a previous album into a new album, but few would want to do that because people simply don't want to buy old material (you can however see circumstances where an artist might put old tracks in new albums, for example, if they want to introduce old songs that were from unsuccessful early albums to new audience). The situation changes when it comes to another country where no album from an artist has been released before, so they can release an album that contains a significant number of tracks from an older album, it is still a new album as far as that particular country is concerned. If the album is identical or near-identical (say, a track or two changed) but with a different title, we can put them down as the same album (you see this often with older albums released in different territories with different names). But when there are significant differences and they have different names, then we can consider them separate albums. Hzh (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
No fallacy on my part so far. Read it again. The important point to understand is that it does not matter if no material has been released in that country before, "as far as that country is concerned" is a non-argument with no bearing on what we're talking about. As far as the definition of a studio album, it's much more than live vs. studio, otherwise all compilations would be studio albums. Studio albums are new, unified projects, which may contain past released singles, or re-recordings of past songs, but it is not, absolutely not, made up primarily of previously released album tracks. That part is not a debate, that is a fact. The only question is how we're going to handle this. SweetTaylorJames (talk) 01:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Oh, get lost. Hzh (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Good grief I have never seen so much drama in a talk page before. Everyone here needs to chill. That aside, I say keep the US albums in studio albums, since they weren't released or marketed as compilations. They're already stated not to be part of the "official Beatles canon" anyway (except for Magical Mystery Tour), so I don't really see a problem here. --InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion You should check out Talk:Stanley Kubrick. Oh boy... – zmbro (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
I stand corrected. I saw that talk page and the whole "infobox" controversy after I watched The Shining. And after seeing it again, this pales in comparison. --InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Can the four album anniversary box sets be included in the "Box sets" section?

I don't see the four album anniversary box sets (Sgt. Pepper, White Album, Abbey Road and Let It Be) included in the "Box sets" section of this article. I think they should be includes as all four are notable as Beatles releases. --InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I find it odd that they wouldn't be... – zmbro (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Why is this erroneous discography here?

The years prior to 1964 show multiple singles reaching number 1 on US chart. Needs major fix. Looks like a Millennial posted something she heard from a seventeen-year-old. Nooksz (talk) 05:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not wrong, the reason is already given right above you. Hzh (talk) 12:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

early Beatles #1's

I was an avid top 40 radio listener in the early 60's and am certain that I remember hearing The Beatle's for the first time AFTER the JFK assassination in November 1963. Wikipedia's discography has them scoring a US #1 with Love Me Do a year before that in 1962. I don't know how I could have missed that! The discography chart also indicates that I Want to Hold Your Hand was not a #1 song. I remember it as their very first one in the US. Unless my memory is totally warped, please correct this discography chart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8081:4E01:B00:E4CC:BC17:E23D:A003 (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

"Love Me Do" was released in the UK in 1962, but in the US, it was released in 1964 (and reached No. 1 there in 1964). So you are correct, but the single chart table is also correct, it simply did not clarify that UK and US had different chart date. "I Want to Hold Your Hand" did reach No. 1, but the US release is given a separate entry in the table (it's given lower down), which may have confused you. I don't know if the way the singles are listed is the best way of doing it here, but others may have other suggestions on how to do it. Hzh (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I was momentarily confused in the same way--but only momentarily. There may be a better way to list these, but whether there is or not, historical circumstances make the matter inherently complicated. TheScotch (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Gaining consensus

I have not heard any reasons so far as to what qualifies the American releases as studio albums (Wikipedia guidelines consider compilations to consist of released songs, meaning songs released anywhere in the world, not just in the country of the released album), so if anyone wants to offer a reason to include as non-compilations that is not original research, I'm open. In the meantime we can have a vote to see where things stand. My vote is clear, it's support. Editing this post because ironically it was unclear - my vote is to support the removing of these records from the main section "studio albums". SweetTaylorJames (talk) 06:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The US releases are studio albums in the same way the UK ones are, it's only in retrospect that a "canon" has been established to make things easier for the CD- and now streaming-age. Here in the post-Pepper era, it can be hard to wrap your head around the idea of a record label altering an album's track listing against the artist's wishes, but the fact that this practice has fallen out of favor is very much a product of the Beatles as artists. I'd quote Schaffner, but I see JG already did that above. To call Y&T similar to ACoBO is to entirely misunderstand what a compilation album is. Tkbrett (✉) 00:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm not pushing for consensus anymore, it's not happening this time around and I accept it. But I certainly wouldn't say Y&T is similar to ACoBO, the latter is a very specific kind of compilation, the greatest hits variation if I'm not mistaken, sorry if it ever came across like I was saying that was the dominant kind of comp. But Wikipedia is a community project, so if we want the projects/alternates/remixes in the same category, I have no problem, it was always just a suggestion. There may even be a few records missing, if I'm not mistaken. SweetTaylorJames (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Per Tkbrett, "the fact that this practice has fallen out of favor is very much a product of the Beatles as artists" – that's bang on. And it's what contributed to the attention Rubber Soul received in the US, for instance, because Americans were in the unfamiliar position of having a new album by a major pop act without any hit singles on it at all. Whereas, in the UK, it was almost expected. That's an example of how the Beatles and other so-called British Invasion acts changed the US music industry and elevated albums as "works". The whole idea of us using the term "studio albums", as opposed to just albums or new albums, is reflective of that also. In the case of this discography page, the problem is it seems to be expected that we should squeeze a very well covered artists' catalogue, and one that's entirely logical as long as you accept US industry practice of the time, into a model that's applicable to a present-day, Wikipedia way of thinking – ie, the idea of studio albums.
I think we should be faithful to this artists' discography as it came about during their years of operation, rather than letting the retrospectively applied canon dictate. So, we list in the first section the albums as the Beatles created and issued them. (How we title the section, I'm not sure. I'm always reluctant to refer to their "UK albums" because, as I understand it, the whole world for the most part released the Parlophone configurations except the North American record companies – Vee-Jay, Tollie, United Artists and, finally when they woke up to the band's commercial value, Capitol.) Besides, this approach is in keeping with the way countless authoritative sources handle the Beatles' discography: Schaffner's The Beatles Forever, Castleman & Podrazik's All Together Now: The First Complete Beatles Discography, Ian MacDonald's Revolution in the Head, Steve Turner's In Their Own Write, the Kenneth Womack-edited Cambridge Companion to the Beatles, etc. It's how Mark Lewisohn lays it out at the end of his Complete Recording Sessions book in 1988, even as he's listing the international standardisation that had just been established with the first CD releases.
This means listing all the canonical LPs except for Magical Mystery Tour, because it was created as a double EP (and appears under the section covering EPs). The next section then lists all the North American "new" albums, meaning the likes of A Hard Day's Night, Help!, Rubber Soul and Revolver appear there also. The lead can refer to the post-1987, 13-album canon, but the latter needn't dictate how we present the discography for releases that took place in 1962–1970. JG66 (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree with JG66 here. In my opinion, the lead section (which is entirely unsourced btw), should not mention anything their song list page mentions, meaning total songs, half of the entire third paragraph, literally all of the fourth paragraph, among others. It would be helpful to list the industry practice of no singles on UK albums vs the opposite on US albums at the time as that would help clear a few things up (I mentioned that on the song page but that very much applies here). In reality, it's a complicated situation because unlike the Stones', whose US albums are all still relevant, all Beatles US albums except MMT are irrelevant (although one could make a case for Meet the Beatles!, which Rolling Stone included on the 500 Greatest Albums of All Time list. The point is we can't act like they didn't exist because they did, and it seems like we're on the right track with how to handle them. – zmbro (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This debate is laughable. The US albums are compilations - compiled in America by an American label for the American market. Compiled from the British discography - so compilations by definition. I have no doubt at all that everyone arguing for the US albums being called studio albums is an American. No-one else would cling to such a silly idea. You just have to face facts - the Beatles were a British band recording in a British studio with British producer. They recorded albums in sets of sessions, so you have the Rubber Soul sessions, the Revolver sessions and so on. What some businessmen in some other country decided to do to package product for their domestic market is utterly meaningless. The UK albums are the studio albums, everything else just commerical marketing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7E:3923:C700:39B6:1B19:A0F2:F059 (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

And, conversely, is everyone arguing that the American versions ARE compilations British? Do you reflexively assume the British perspective superior just because you happen to be British? If so, you are grotesquely deceiving yourself. In any case, the Beatles were British only in the sense that the individual members were British; by far their largest market was the American market. Yes, the Anerican record company packaged the recordings as it saw fit, but then so did the British record company. The Beatles recorded "Penny Lane" and "Strawberry Fields" for Sgt. Pepper, for example, yet these songs did not appear on the British (or any) Sgt. Pepper. Except for the first album, British and American versions were released at approximately the same time. Neither were compilations except in the sense that all albums at the time tended to be compilations (as has been pointed out at length above--do you read only your own posts and no one else's?). You may be too young to have any memory of this (and dismissive of anything you do not yourself personally remember) or you may simply be too myopic to see beyond your blindingly manifest British chauvinism. TheScotch (talk) 03:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

One thing I want to add to this discussion is that there were two albums released exclusively in Canada: Twist and Shout and The Beatles' Long Tall Sally. I would argue that the American and Canadian albums are of equal relevance, so if we're going to include the US releases, we ought to include the Canadian ones too. I propose that all the albums containing newly-released music for any market, international or North American, be considered equally and presented in one table with each album's market and label clearly denoted. We can use asterisks to indicate core catalogue releases (which would also include Past Masters). How to handle albums with different track listings but the same name (i.e. A Hard Day's Night, Help!, Rubber Soul and Revolver) is still up for debate. RubeusIgnis (talk) 09:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Beatles_discography/Archive_4&oldid=1217119656"