Talk:Rock 'n' Roll (John Lennon album)

message: Is there no room for an annotated Lennon disography in any existing entry? Will each Lennon album get a mini-entry like this? Wetman
:This is a lumping-versus-splitting thing. Perhaps there should be an annotated discography on the John Lennon page, instead of separate pages. -- Cabalamat 04:57, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: 2003

message: The album's closing track has taken on monumental significance since Lennon's 1980 Playboy interview, where he states that he was "subconsciously saying goodbye" to the music industry.  Back in 1974, however, it was simply the closing track for an album that Lennon envisioned as an "oldies hours" on the radio, and was mimicking D.J.'s from that era closing their show.
Phil Spector suggested this song to Lennon, he'd never heard it, or couldn't remember hearing it.  Which is why, at the beginning, Lennon says, "I must've been 13 when I first heard this.  Or was it 14?.  Or was it 22?  I could've been 12 actually."
The ending dialogue is also quite humorous as the song's leading lady turns out to be a transvestite of sorts "When I discovered you were wearing man's clothes, not that I'm prejudiced..." 
When Lennon says, "This is Dr. Winston O'Boogie saying goodnight from Record Plant East New York, everyone here says 'hi'" -- all the studio personal say "hi" on the recording.
It continues on, as now heard in the re-mixed release, with fond messages to Paul, George and Ringo (and Lennon also plugs Starr's new album for good measure).
Lennon sequenced the tracks very carefully, opening with Be Bop A Lula, the song that he was playing with The Quarrymen when he first met Paul McCartney.  Lennon also joked that McCartney would be making more money from this album than he would, because McCartney owned the publishing to "Peggy Sue."
Hotcop2 15:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Just Because"

message: Wouldn't it be a good idea to mention the fact that this album was officially reissued under license on CD under the title "Rip It Up" (with alternate artwork) in New South Wales in 1988 on the J&B record label catalogue number JB 626?  Boothferry (talk) 08:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rip It Up

message: I don't know who Calkin is, but what happened to the list of session players on the album, particularly the Los Angeles sessions?  The album was famous for "everyone and their mother" dropping in on the sessions -- Calkin reduced it it to nothing which is factually incorrect. Hotcop2 (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely, someone played bass on the L.A. sessions.  Actually, according to Lennon himself while singing "Just Because," he says, "There's two basses in this" but no one is credited for even one.  We need to fix the personnel session. Hotcop2 (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Personnel

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Rock 'n' Roll (John Lennon album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/john-lennon/albumguide
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: External links modified

message: The outcome of the suit in 1973 brought by Chuck Berry's publisher (and claimed by Morris Levy) over "You Can't Catch Me," recorded in the article Music plagiarism, differs from this article's account. Was Lennon bound to include three songs on his 'next' album, which turned out to be Walls and Bridges, or did this album (in 1975) satisfy the conditions of the settlement? Dano67 (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Chuck Berry/Morris Levy lawsuit

message: Does anyone have a reference or two for the personnel section? I can add a Beatles Bible reference but that site has a slightly different personnel than the one listed here. Does the album itself have a booklet that contains the exact personnel, because that would work much better. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Personnel references

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Rock 'n' Roll (John Lennon album). 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090214025956/http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/19344/John_Lennon_Acoustic_Rock_n_Roll to http://pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/19344/John_Lennon_Acoustic_Rock_n_Roll
*Added  tag to http://www7a.biglobe.ne.jp/~yamag/album2012/al_beatles.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120519050548/http://chartheaven.9.forumer.com/a/complete-uk-yearend-album-charts_post21.html to http://chartheaven.9.forumer.com/a/complete-uk-yearend-album-charts_post21.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: External links modified

message: Shouldn't Rock 'n' Roll be listed as a compilation album instead? If it is just a collection of covers and not original songs, doesn't that make it more of a compilation album instead of being a studio album? 24.127.236.115 (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the way album classifications are determined. Studio album means that most of the songs on the album were recorded during the same time period. And that most of the album's tracks were previously unreleased. Rock 'n' Roll is made entirely of new material, even if it doesn't contain any original material, therefore it is a studio album. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 04:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: As a compilation album

message: The introduction was confusing when I looked up this album last month and I had to read the main article and some external citations to make sense of it. So out of the kindness of my heart, I put the introduction into a more logical order and explained a few things better, like why the album was delayed so long and why John was recording an album of oldies in the first place. Why the hell did I bother? My version is clearer and more complete than what you keep putting back. The introduction is all that most people read when they look up something on Wikipedia so it should be the best part. Right now it sucks again.
:It was clear and concise (and followed lead-paragraph format) before you added all the info that was already in the article making it redundant.  Can't put everything in the lead, now can we?  By the way, it was a GOOD ARTICLE before your kind heart made these changes. Hotcop2 (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The "good article" recommendation on this page says the lead should be "at least two paragraphs." It's barely two now and the first one is hot mess that doesn't include basic information that people look for. It didn't even mention what month the album was released until somebody noticed it in my version and added it today. Why didn't you erase that if the introduction was already perfect? I'm going to put my version back one more time to give anybody a chance to work with it. If it gets taken down again I'm done here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.204.0.56 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's already clear and concise then there's little need for it to be changed. Also not everything necessarily needs to be put in a logical order. Lastly, introductions are supposed to be brief. They aren't supposed to contain huge chunks of information. That's what the bodies of each article are for. The bodies of articles usually contain the best information. If people don't bother to read the bodies of articles then that's on them and not on the articles. The people that don't bother to read the body of the articles are the minority. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 04:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: introduction