Talk:Yellow Submarine (album)

message: Although Yellow Submarine was recorded in 66 it was recorded for Revolver, the start of the recording for the Yellow Submarine project started with the recording of All Together Now. The tracks were nearly released as an EP and eventually made the album with the film score.
It could further be argued that as Magical Mystery Tour was also recorded in the post "Sgt. Pepper" period along with the 'Baby your a rich man' and 'All you need is love',  that the track selection wasn't determined until spring 68.
I think the point I'm trying to make is that the project was not recorded as "an album" but the album came from the need to supply some songs for the film project.  Therefore the Yellow Submarine album's recording start date could only be taken from the earlist of the songs recorded for and eventually chosen for the project.
simonthebold 23:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recording Dates

message: The following discussion was posted on Wikipedia's main Beatles discussion page, and appears to also be relevant here:
Are links to lyrics sites appropriate? I have noticed them in some music articles, and I believe they do add value to the listings. I added one at the bottom of the external links section. In the interest of full disclosure, it is a website I maintain. If the interest is positive, I would likely add lyrics links to other musical articles where appropriate. Shadar 19:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that lyrics sites reprint lyrics in violation of copyright, and that's why we're not supposed to link to them.  The relevant guideline to check would be Wikipedia:External links, but that page doesn't directly address this question.  I'm going to post a question to the discussion page there, and perhaps someone can tell us whether my idea is correct or mistaken.  In the latter case, I'd be happy to restore the link myself. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I posted my question Wikipedia talk:External links#Lyrics sites here. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the decision is made that lyrics sites are inappropriate due to the copyright violation issue, I would like to delete the links I found. As a newbie, it would give me good practice in editting. Is that an appropriate action for a new user, and is there a FAQ on deletion etiquette? Shadar 19:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we received an answer, and it refers us to item #2 at Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking.  It comes down to whether the lyrics are actually under copyright or in the public domain, and whether or not the site in question has the copyright holder's permission to publish the lyrics.  If you'd like to remove links to lyrics sites that are in violation of our copyright policy, then you're welcome to do so.  The best way to avoid offense is probably to mention the External links policy (or WP:EL, as we like to call it) in your edit summary. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can certainly understand that decision. It turns out I violated the self interest clause anyways, since I posted my own site. I should have recommended the change in talk, and then if someone agreed they could make the change. Thanks for the help with this, GTBacchus. Shadar 17:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I notice that there are also links to lyric pages on each of the Wikipedia Beatles album pages. I should have time to fix those tonight. I'll follow the above advice of GTBacchus in mentioning the WP:EL, and refer to this discussion on each album discussion page. InnerRevolution7 02:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have made the above-stated change. InnerRevolution7 04:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lyrics Links 

message: The image :Image:Beatles allyouneedislove.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
*:File:Beatles allyouneedislove.ogg
*:      Image:Beatles yellowsubmarine.ogg
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Beatles allyouneedislove.ogg

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

message: I recently purchased a CD recording of the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra performing, "La Mer," by Claude Debussy, and noted a significant similarity between this composition and George Martin's score for the Beatles' movie, "Yellow Submarine."  Does anyone agree with this notion?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.153.160.238 (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:OR. — John Cardinal (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

text: "Unquestionably, the music I’ve written for films, Yellow Submarine for example, has been inspired by composers like Debussy and other great composers. You draw on sources like this." - George Martin, here. Not sure whether it can be worked into the article, but you're not imagining the similarity... -- Bobyllib (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Martin's Score influenced by Claude Debussy's, "La Mer?" 

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

message: Thought it might be helpful to clarify a couple of things after making this and other recent changes. As mentioned a week or more back, it didn't appear that the Lead reflected what's given in the article under Reception. From all I've read on Yellow Submarine, after working on a couple of the album's "new" songs, and looking in briefly at the film article, no reviewer gave this album a "mixed reception" in 1969, and no latter-day commentator has said as much. Surprisingly, there are no reviews for the Yellow Submarine album at Rock's Backpages nor in the two Beatles NME Originals I have – all sources I normally rely on. And I can't see that Rolling Stone reviewed it at all. (The Beat Instrumental and International Times album reviews I added a while back came from a Mojo Beatles special edition.)
The impression I get is that no critic had a harsh word to say about Yellow Submarine; one could say it wasn't taken seriously enough for such scrutiny. The LP was the overdue soundtrack to a film that was universally praised, and it snuck in on the coat-tails of the White Album. So it seemed to me the article's Lead was referring to the opinions held by biographers long after the event, together with retrospective critical opinion, yet we were presenting them as the situation on-release. (Not unrelated, the first sentence under Reception also appeared to synthesise the perspectives: on-release and retrospective.) Back to that change in the Lead, I couldn't see that Martin's work was necessarily "generally praised" either – certainly no more than Harrison's song "It's All Too Much" was and is.
I know I'm beginning to sound like an old record on the subject, but I think we need to ensure that the views of Ian MacDonald and other Beatles historians aren't presented as fact. They're opinions, nothing more. JG66 (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's in Lewisohn's Recording Sessions where he mentions some criticism that the album wasn't a good value for the money with only four new Beatles songs on it and that in response an EP version with the four new tracks plus "Across the Universe" was prepared but never released. Piriczki (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that's already in the article but perhaps it could be clarified that the issue was value for the money as opposed to a mixed response to the music itself. I agree that being a minor release it probably didn't merit close scrutiny artistically. Piriczki (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

text: In that IT review, Miles comments on the upcoming EP – which never happened of course. But again, by "the issue", you mean something that Lewisohn contends, not necessarily what the consensus of critical opinion was? I'm not holding a torch for Yellow Sub, by any means, but I have been very surprised at how Beatles biographers' traditionally low opinion of late-1967 Beatles recordings fails to tally with critical opinion at the time and (admittedly, for Magical Mystery Tour, but not this album) the tone of more recent reviews. So, as long as a) it's clear what was and what is; and b) what's fact vs someone's opinion, then fine. JG66 (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The "mixed reviews" sounds like my doing, and I suspect it got in from something like Lewisohn p. 164, which says "The Beatles were mildly criticized at the time of this LP release for giving less than their usually excellent value-for-money". It's not a bad album, yeah "It's All Too Much" is a great track to jam on, and while we might be sick of "All You Need Is Love" it was seminal for its time, then there's the pleasant orchestral stuff on side 2. But when it's released back to back with The White Album and Abbey Road, anything less than the greatest album of all time is going to be noticed and marked down. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've just added something under Reception, which gets across the point you're both making. I think it's good now: through Lewisohn, we give the message about mild disapproval, which is then followed up by Unterberger's more recent perspective. I might add something I found at PopMatters, where the reviewer focuses on the music as a film soundtrack (i.e. commenting on how well it served the animated film) rather than viewing it purely as an album release. I think that's a useful perspective. JG66 (talk) 04:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Hope I've not gone to town with this addition, quoting PopMatters, and the Consequence of Sound review that was already included in the ratings box … Compared to what I said above about including PopMatters, I can see I'd somehow merged in my mind a Nov 2009 album review with their film review. It's the album review I've just added quotes from, in fact. JG66 (talk) 07:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The Consequence of Sound quotation was a bit too close to excessive paraphrasing, which can land you in trouble as being a potential copyvio. I've trimmed it down and paraphrased the key point that they felt Martin's score brought things down a bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent changes to Lead and Reception section 

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

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

message: It says in Pete Doggett's book that John Lennon accused Brian Epstein of allowing George Martin to participate in the project, but that's impossible, because George Martin's orchestral score was recorded in October 1968, almost 14 months after Brian had died, and Brian wasn't around to defend himself.
Does anybody have a source to that interview made at a time when John made many angry statements, most of which he recanted?
202.92.121.165 (talk) 00:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Lennon's claims 

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