Talk:Piggies

George Orwell

this song makes me think of Animal Farm! What's up Dr. Strangelove 01:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Other

The pigs in the starched white shirts are the press. They are stirring up the dirt around them, but always remain clean themselves.

Or perhaps some backhanded reference to animal farm. original research so dont include

It is said that Piggies is alot like "Eveline" by Django Reinhardt and Stephane Grappelli

Since this comment the comparison with Orwell has been sourced and included, but it doesn't work in my opinion - there are "little piggies" and cannibalistic "bigger piggies", in other words the piggies represent all human society, not just a ruling elite 81.101.197.228 (talk) 12:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Change from low to mid importance

works for me. ++Lar: t/c 12:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Genre

Is the genre really rock? It is mentioned baroque and blues. Helpsloose 00:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The White Album.jpg

Image:The White Album.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

"Baroque" style?

Seems like a rather bold claim to make, and a highly opinionated one at that. Is there any reputable source to support this? Attys (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Antonin Dvorak. Theme & Variations in A-flat major, Op.36 - Variation VIII. I happened to catch a short section that compares to a short section in Piggies. --Xparasite9 (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Piggies/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

There is little to this page other than some info, it's not justifiably A class but it is more than a start, so B. As a single that is not one of the defining songs by The Beatles, it's probably Low importance. Could stand review by someone more knowledgable though. ++Lar: t/c 05:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC) I've changed it to Mid importance. AFAIK, Low importance is for cruft and garbage, and very peripheral things. This is an original Harrison song on a very succesful album. OTOH, not all songs need articles and this isn't one of their most famous efforts so it's certainly no more than Mid. --kingboyk 09:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC) I've changed to Start class, as it's a bit sparse compared to articles I've been assessing as B. --kingboyk 16:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC) piggies with pigs for dice ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.7.69.21 (talk) 08:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 09:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 03:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Piggies/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cartoon network freak (talk · contribs) 20:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

A new review going to arrive here this night or until this weekend. Sorry for the delay, Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Lead

• song by the English rock group -> song recorded by English rock group
• from their -> for their

• But doesn't the version you're suggesting – "Piggies" is a song recorded by the English rock group the Beatles for their 1968 album The Beatles (also known as "the White Album"). – introduce an element of vagueness/ambiguity, in that it's not clear whether the song actually appeared on the album? Per WP:LEADSENTENCE, redundancy should be kept to a minimum, which is why I've followed unambiguous wording (which was recommended by a reviewer in the past, btw) along the lines of "[Song title]" is a song by [name of artist] from their album [Title of album]. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• contributed the -> contributed to the

• Sorry, but that would be incorrect. Thomas contributed to the recording, yes, but he contributed the harpsichord part (to/on the recording). An alternative would be to say: "… who also played the harpsichord part." JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Since its release -> Upon its release

• But the point that's being made is that the song has received a generally mixed response not just on release but in the decades since then. I'm trying to reflect content in the "Retrospective assessment and legacy" section also. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• a mixed response -> mixed responses

• Done, but I can't help thinking there's something wrong in changing to "mixed responses" there. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

• Do you know where the song was recorded?

• Yes, we give the location along with the dates. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Background and inspiration

• Unlink the Beatles here

• WP:REPEATLINK states that "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated … at the first occurrence after the lead." This song article has three paragraphs in the Lead, so I would have thought it's useful to repeat links for any term in the main body of the article. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• for inclusion -> for its inclusion

• Done but, as with "mixed responses" this doesn't read right to me. ("its" seems redundant.) JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• as evidence -> as an evidence

• I'm sorry but that's just bad English. "Evidence" is too general a noun to receive an indefinite article; one might say "as an item of evidence" but not in this context. Alternatively, we could reword to "cites these words as evidence of Harrison's main inspiration for the song having been Orwell's work", but I think that would be unnecessarily verbose. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Why is White Album not italicized here and in the lead

• Well, the title is just a nickname really and most sources do not italicise it, even a book that favours the alt title, such as Quantick's Revolution: The Making of the Beatles' White Album. This issue actually appears as an example in our Music MoS at WP:THECAPS. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• in concert -> live in concert

• But it's redundant, surely, after we've had "performing"? JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Composition

• Unlink baroque pop the second time

• Further to above, I would have thought it would be especially useful to readers to link the term again in the more specific discussion under Composition, no?

• motif, and -> Remove comma

• Done, although I think the comma was helpful in that instance because of the long phrase that follows. (And the latter is a good reason for using a comma where it wouldn't otherwise be needed.)

• eight, before -> Remove coma

• No, the comma there is for the parenthetical phrase "which first appears at the end of the passage leading into the middle eight" – i.e. the text that follows ("before the melody drops down …") relates to the first part of the sentence. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• subject to a -> subject of a

• It should probably be "subjected to", but I've reworded to "is partly shifted to", removing all mention of "subject". JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• After the instrumental -> Following the instrumental

• Done. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Inglis writes -> Who is Inglis?

• He's been introduced up at Background/inspiration. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Ray Davies of the Kinks, and the Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band -> Remove comma

• I'm afraid that would just introduce confusion. The comma's there because otherwise we'd be saying that Ray Davies was also in the Bonzos. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Production

• Image: instrument long -> instrument widely

• Done. Thank you. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• as producer -> as a producer

• Done. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Why isn't White Album italicised

• Please see above. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• bass, and -> Remove comma

• Done. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• lead vocal -> lead vocals

• But it's a single lead vocal part. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• middle", and -> Remove comma

• Done. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• added, to -> added in order to

• Reworded "to mark" to "marking". I know "in order to" is a phrase we're told to avoid here. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Release and reception

• flawless

Charles Manson interpretation

• Box: Harrison, in -> Remove comma

• Done. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Place the image more above to look better with the text

• Well, I don't agree – and in fact the image is there to work with a point made in the paragraph below it, regarding Manson's appearance ("the long-haired hippie type"). Not only that but I know I've read somewhere (although I'm afraid I can't find it now) that images and quote boxes should not appear on either side of a paragraph, which is what would happen if the Manson pic was moved up. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Image: Manson, taken -> Manson taken

• Done. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Personnel

• Rename section into "Credits and personnel"

• But why? All we're doing is naming the personnel on the recording, and they didn't get credited as such. Not that we have a Songs style guide, but MOS:ALBUM gives "Personnel" as a suggested section title. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• According to Ian MacDonald: -> Credits adapted from Ian MacDonald's Revolution in the Head: The Beatles' Records and the Sixties (1998).

• Again, I can't see that it's necessary; plus, they're not adapted from MacDonald's book. The approach I've followed is consistent with other articles where the line-up and specific contributions have come from a biographer such as MacDonald – e.g. Sgt Pepper FA. JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Outcome

• On-hold for 7 days. Apart from less word and comma issues, this article is professionally written and I think after I'll pass this you should even try it with FA status. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• That's very kind of you, Cartoon network freak, thank you. I'm sorry that in reply I've probably come across as being super-precious about my work – I don't think I am, and I enjoy the review process, having a fresh pair of eyes on the text, etc. But I'm confused about many of the changes you're suggesting; I just don't see them as an improvement. Regards, JG66 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• @JG66: Many of the points were not intended to raise up false content, but to improve it. However, you're a more experienced user than me; thus, if you say they're not needed, it is OK, as well. Great work and passing. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Piggies. 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.pasadenastarnews.com/weekend/ci_22091693/steve-smith-wyman-and-taylor-join-rolling-stones
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160219124807/http://bostonphoenix.com/archive/music/97/12/04/CHUMBAWAMBA.html to http://www.bostonphoenix.com/archive/music/97/12/04/CHUMBAWAMBA.html

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) 17:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Length

I haven't recently checked out every article on Beatles songs, but I have looked at quite a few. It seems to me this is one of the longest. Does "Piggies" really warrant this much analysis? I think, for instance, the Manson section could be, maybe, two sentences. Wondering what others thing. --Daveler16 (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

"Helter Skelter theory"

The article states that this theory was Manson's, when in fact it is a hypothesis put forward by Vincent Bugliosi, as evidenced by the Wikipedia article on the subject: Helter_Skelter_(Manson_scenario).Xelkman (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Xelkman: Well, it's not "evidenced" as such by what currently appears in the lead at Helter Skelter (scenario) – it just happens that an editor has worded the lead there to say as much. That's not to say I don't take your point to some extent: the related statements in this song article do need some qualification. But, Manson did interpret "Piggies" and other White Album songs as the Beatles foretelling of an apocalyptic race/class war and he believed the Beatles were communicating with him personally. This is according to some of his followers and associates, eg per a recent Ruling Stone article. He kept trying to contact the Beatles, apparently – that's referred to early on in a 1970 article (a mammoth piece, again in Rolling Stone), when David Dalton writes: "Why haven’t they gotten in touch? A simple phone call would do it. Surely they’ve received the telegrams, the letters. Surely they realize that he knows, he understands their glorious revelation; that he understands the whole fucking double album. Everywhere there’s lots of piggies / Living piggy lives ..."

In that same 1970 article, about halfway down the page, Manson says when asked about his interpretation of the Book of Revelations, chapter 9: "It’s the battle of Armageddon. It’s the end of the world. It was the Beatles’ “Revolution 9” that turned me on to it. It predicts the overthrow of the Establishment. The pit will be opened, and that’s when it will all come down. A third of all mankind will die ..."

He's then asked "Can you explain the prophecies you found in the Beatles’ double album?" When prompted with four song titles, Manson draws a diagram of some sort and says, "This bottom part is the subconscious. At the end of each song there is a little tag piece on it, a couple of notes. Or like in “Piggies” there’s “oink, oink, oink.” Just these couple of sounds. And all these sounds are repeated in “Revolution 9.” Like in “Revolution 9,” all these pieces are fitted together and they predict the violent overthrow of the white man. Like you’ll hear “oink, oink,” and then right after that, machine gun fire. [He sprays the room with imaginary slugs.] AK-AK-AK-AK-AK-AK!"

When asked if the Beatles intended the songs in that way, he says, "I think it’s a subconscious thing. I don’t know whether they did or not. But it’s there. It’s an association in the subconscious. This music is bringing on the revolution, the unorganized overthrow of the Establishment. The Beatles know in the sense that the subconscious knows."

I don't pretend to have any expertise on this, and would welcome input from someone who does. But it's clearly not true that Manson's theory about the Beatles' White Album relating to the overthrow of the Establishment was just a scenario invented by Vincent Bugliosi. What is accurate is that Bugliosi, supported by testimony from some of Manson's associates, tied together a scenario whereby Manson's Beatles/White Album obsession and his hold over the Family led to the murders in August 1969. JG66 (talk) 05:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)