Talk:McCartney (album)

October 2014

The references to "13 original tracks" is confusing when there are 14 tracks listed. The original album lists "Hot as Sun/Glasses" as track 5 but this page lists "Hot as Sun" as track 5 and "Glasses" as track 6, resulting in 14 tracks. Either the track listing should be revised to combine "Hot as Sun" as track 5 and "Glasses" as shown on the album or the references to 13 original tracks should be changed to 14. I prefer the former, but I don't want to make the change without understanding the reasons the page was prepared this way to begin with.NDC3 (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"Hot As Sun/Glasses" is listed as one track (track 5) on the LP and subsequent CD releases. Piriczki (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the medley version (Hot As Sun/Glasses) is the correct form. With this change, I was simply reacting to changes made earlier by Chatbox and then an IP user – eg, this one. JG66 (talk) 01:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Track listing

Hi Piriczki. Just a thought following your rationale for changing times/length of songs for the album. There are reliable sources from the 1970s that give times for the LP – I'm thinking, for instance, of a book I've come to regard as something of a bible: [http://www.amazon.com/All-Together-Now-discography-1961-1975/dp/B009MDJZD4/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1413707658&sr=1-1 Harry Castleman & Walter J. Podrazik, All Together Now: The First Complete Beatles Discography 1961–1975, Ballantine Books (New York, NY, 1976; ISBN 0-345-25680-8)]. Reason I mention it is that, following your changes here, there's potential for widespread changes throughout Wikipedia's album and song articles, because it was quite common to not provide track-lengths before the advent of CDs. What do you think? JG66 (talk) 08:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The Columbia LP release from the early 1980s has the track times on the label, perhaps that could be used. Piriczki (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess. Just checked the CD times against those in Castleman & Podrazik and there are a number of discrepancies. "That Would Be Something" 2:32; "Every Night" 2:27; "Junk" 1:50; "… Lonely" 2:50; "Momma Miss America" 3:58 – those are just a few differences (in fact, not one single track length tallies). On the other hand, C & P list a 2:02 medley on side one that includes (by title) the 8-second "Suicide" – which rather shoots down the book's credibility perhaps, because I don't believe "Suicide" was ever listed with "Hot as Sun/Glasses"(!). Anyway, don't know what to suggest. An early '80s track list can't be bad, of course. JG66 (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

"Paul is [not] dead"

Piriczki I sort of got what you meant with this change – in that, the conspiracy theory dated back to way before late 1969. Aside from that, though, the point is relevant and correct per the timeline (so I was a bit surprised you chopped the whole thing out), because the months after Abbey Road is when the rumours reached their height. (Hence the Life crew came calling.) I think it's an important point to make because it adds to the picture of McCartney being completely off the map during this period – which supports the discussion about the secrecy behind the album, and also that, once back in London also, he completely absented himself from business decisions such as the Let It Be album and film. I've just reworded, per the Schaffner and Sounes. You okay with it now? JG66 (talk) 11:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The statement "reports of McCartney's disappearance led to the 'Paul is dead' hoax in America" is patently untrue and had to go, and without it the rest of the passage had no context and didn't make much sense so I removed that too. The rumor, even the widespread version of it in the fall of 1969, was underway prior to McCartney going to High Park Farm and there were no "reports of McCartney's disappearance" in any case. The current language is fine except I would change "hoax" to "rumor" as that's a more accurate characterization. Piriczki (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Photo of the TEAC recorder

The photo of the TEAC recorder is my photo (and my recorder), but I wonder how appropriate it is to this article. It is nothing like the recorder Paul used. It would be better to have a photo of a Studer w/o a mixing desk. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, firstly, congratulations and thank you for sharing the image! – it's a beauty. I added the pic a year or two back (and I've still not got around to finishing the article for a GA nom) because it seemed enough to at least have an image of a reel-to-reel recorder and the model's not too far off date-wise. But yes, you've got a point, and I'd go for an alternative if a more appropriate free image exists. Would this one be close to the Studer that McCartney used, do you think? JG66 (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It does illustrate that Paul's Studer had no mixer or VU meters, but otherwise it doesn't seem relevant. (I was doing four-track multracks with it in 1973.) The one in the picture you link to must be a two-track - four-tracks used wider tape. Otherwise it is like that. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on McCartney (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/paul-mccartney/albumguide

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on McCartney (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 http://web.archive.org/web/20101228034713/http://infodisc.fr/Album_M.php to http://infodisc.fr/Album_M.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on McCartney (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/20120209201208/http://www.infodisc.fr/B-CD_1970.php to http://www.infodisc.fr/B-CD_1970.php

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 09:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on McCartney (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/20140404154744/http://www.wmmr.com/music/news/story.aspx?ID=1938551 to http://www.wmmr.com/music/news/story.aspx?ID=1938551

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 23:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Why ...

Why is notable that Paul McCartney shouts the former name of a piece of music that was subsumed into another piece of music?

And why is it essential to use the overused word "announce" for that?

Which reads more natural?

"He also edited two separate instrumental pieces into one for "Momma Miss America"; the first portion's original title, "Rock 'n' Roll Springtime", can still be heard on the recording."
which informs the reader of that title as well as it explains what's the shouting on the record is about. And you can easily understand it in one go.

or

"He also edited two separate instrumental pieces into one for "Momma Miss America", the first portion's original title, as he announces on the recording, having the title "Rock 'n' Roll Springtime" originally."
with its stilted vocabulary and awkward (even incorrect) grammar. Where does the main clause end, where does the subclause begin and how are the two linked grammatically? You have to either know what it means already, as JG66 does, or read it a couple of times, like I had to.

Str1977 ^(talk) 17:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you not even find the bottom of the page ...? JG66 (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the rationale for your choice of phrasing (the first example above): your words "which informs the reader of that title as well as it explains what's the shouting on the record is about" betray a failure to appreciate what the text is meant to impart if it's to refer to this – you're assuming that the reader knows McCartney shouts out something at the start of the track.

Because you're so obsessed with removing the word "announce", the article currently turns up just one result for the word – this mention regarding "Momma Miss America". Hardly overused here, in other words.

Because much of McCartney was improvised rather than a collection of formal songs, we have a section on "Content and recording", whereas more standard albums might have dedicated Songs and Recording sections. The combined section here describes the album's music; we mention "the sound of McCartney giggling at the end of ['The Lovely Linda']". So what on earth is the problem in saying that he announces the title "Rock 'n' Roll Springtime"? Not only is it descriptive, but its inclusion reflects the informal, homemade quality that defines the album. JG66 (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Your (equally stilted) comment still do not explain why we have this information at all. But if we have to include it, we should do so in an easily readable manner.

Readers either have listened to the album before or they haven't. They former might wonder why he shouts "Rock 'n' Roll Springtime" at the beginning of a differently titled track. I was referring to them.

Your lecture on the improvised nature of the album is beside the point. Or did I suggest changing the format of this article?

What's the problem you ask? Then I am asking you: what's the problem with simply stating that the original title can be heard on the record. (If it must be, we can always drop the "still" - if you do not get why I put it there to begin with.

If left to you, the article would be drowning announcements left right and center. BTW, do you have a written, reliable source that tell you that Paul is announcing and not merely yelling?

Finally, stop your constant personal attacks. Especially in edit summaries they are frowned upon. I am not your punching bag! Str1977 ^(talk) 17:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Where does the list of instruments in the Personnel section come from?

I was going to add the following to Multi-instrumentalist in the Examples section:

Another famous multi-instrumentalist is Paul McCartney; on his album McCartney, for example, he is credited with vocals, acoustic guitar, electric guitar, bass guitar, drums, piano, organ, percussion, wineglasses, mellotron, and xylophone; the only other credited performer is his wife Linda who provided harmony vocals.

...and then discovered to my horror that there is no citation in the Personnel section here, nor could I find anything more specific than "Instruments" on sleeve and label scans at discogs. Do we have a source for then instruments played by Paul on this album? --kingboyk (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I have a feeling sources such as Madinger & Easter's Eight Arms to Hold You or that Luca Perasi book would all support the list. Even better, Bruce Spizer's The Beatles Solo on Apple Records, which is also used throughout the article. Can you access Perasi or Spizer in online previews, perhaps? JG66 (talk) 06:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, I've now added Spizer as a source. There's much more detail about percussion in the book (bongos, maracas, etc) but I haven't transferred that over to the list of contribs. JG66 (talk) 07:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, that will do nicely. Now watch as my addition to Multi-instrumentalist gets reverted :) [But never mind if it does, as we now have an additional citation here, so progress has been made!] --kingboyk (talk) 07:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Timeline of EMI sessions

The section indicating the dates of Paul's EMI sessions for the album presents a question. It states he first worked there on 21st of February recording and mixing several songs in 4 days. Later in that same section, however, it states that he recorded "Maybe I'm Amazed" at EMI on 15th February. So did the EMI sessions start earlier, or is the February 15th date incorrect? 2600:4808:53F5:E200:88C:638:39E8:A33 (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)