Talk:Revolver (Beatles album)

Lead

I don't believe this lead is very good (its waffling has annoyed me for a while) so I'm just going to list why I made these changes and maybe we can find some compromise

• First paragraph, per MOS:BEGIN, should introduce and summarize the most important points of an album's notability. This means a brief explanation of critical/commercial reaction and historical significance. Revolver is not notable simply for having "diverse sounds" and for those three arbitrarily-chosen tracks. I also don't understand how it's never mentioned in the lead that Revolver is one of the most acclaimed works in popular music.

Second paragraph

• Removed "and the increasing sophistication of the Beatles' lyrics to address themes including" simply because it's a jumbled phrase, and we don't need to repeatedly state "the Beatles are improving as artists" anyway.
• Added a mention of Emerick and Martin as part of the album's key production staff since the album's production and engineering is integral to its historical significance.
• Removed "particularly ADT" because I couldn't find a source in the article that states ADT is more prevalent than close audio miking. Not only is it a questionable claim anyway, it's not much of a valuable point to measure the ubiquity of these practices against each other, they're obviously all very common techniques now.
• Changed "varispeeding" to "varispeed" because I'm not sure "varispeeding" is a real word.

Third paragraph'

• Revised "Together with the children's novelty song "Yellow Submarine", "Eleanor Rigby" became an international hit when issued as a double A-side single." because the syntax is just poor.
• Considering the lead is already pushing its length, I don't believe it's crucial to note that the album was the last Beatles album to have a modified track listing in the US. It's enough to simply state that it was modified; the only point that matters is that American and British audiences initially got different versions of the album. Likewise, it's doubtful that the 1987 CD issue was as earth-shattering to listeners as suggested by a handful of critics. It's not like Americans were hearing those three tracks for the first time.

Fourth paragraph

• Swapped out "compositional form" with "production techniques" because there is no discussion of Revolver's innovations in compositional form.
• Removed "surpassing Sgt. Pepper's" because it's redundant; we just finished saying that critics recognize Revolver as the best Beatles album, yes, of course that includes Sgt. Pepper.
• Condensed the details about certifications because why does it matter that BPI certified the album platinum in 2013, and really, why does this part of the lead need to be almost 40 words long when it's easily summarized in 14?

ilil (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, I hope you apply the same level of discernment regarding points being overstated and concerns over length to lead sections such as Pet Sounds.

If anything's overstated or repetitious, of course it should be fixed. Leads are very tricky, and part of the problem relates to that first issue – how the opening paragraph should introduce and summarise the most important points of an album's notability. Personally, I don't agree that giving UK and US chart peaks there is a must. It's something I'd expect to read about after an overview of the album's content and recording.

To dismiss the significance of the international standardisation with an assumption that Americans knew the tracks anyway completely misses the point that for over twenty years, American listeners viewed them in the context of Yesterday and Today. As no end of sources state, each Beatles album was a key event in listeners' lives; in their minds, each song was welded to the tracks around it. The 1987 CDs demanded a recalibration in the way the band's contemporary US audience heard albums like Revolver. That point was underplayed in the main text, admittedly, and I've since added more from Riley and Everett. But, you know, if you're going to work on what you consider "doubtful", it would help if you had some knowledge in depth. I rarely find you do when it comes to non-Beach Boys music articles, so the more you push your understanding of a subject, the more it reveals a basic lack of competence. JG66 (talk) 05:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Re: Here, There, and Everywhere

As a musician, I don't buy the claim that the opening of this song changes time signatures from 9/8, 7/8, to 4/4. The phrase is clearly just a free time musical introduction. It's silly to try to count this out in the manner the author presents. In fact, I can find nothing, anywhere, to corroborate this piece of misinformation.

Jaco66 (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The "9/8 to 7/8 to common time" changes are supported by the source (Kenneth Womack), but then the rest of the sentence is sourced to Walter Everett, who's eminently more qualified and refers to the opening portion as a "tonally mysterious and tempo-free introduction", with no mention of time signatures. (As far as I'm concerned, it's only the brief landing on 7/8 that in any way registers.) I'll check in a couple of others sources, but if no one else identifies the 9/8 bit, particularly, I guess we can remove and go with the free-time description. JG66 (talk) 12:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Background Section: Paul McCartney and LSD.

Paul's own statement in his semi-autobiography Many Years From Now, that he first took LSD in 1966 with Tara Browne, and George's Anthology statement that the others had been trying to make Paul take it for about eighteen months, seem to support the idea that Paul was the only Beatles member not having taken the drug during the recording of Revolver.

The BeatlesBible's History entry for 13 December 1965 tells a different story, however, with people present at the Browne residence, such as wife Nicky and Viv Prince as sources: <<Paul McCartney later stated a belief that he first tried LSD in 1966. Viv Prince, however, confirmed to Beatles biographer Steve Turner that the event took place the night after the Beatles’ final UK tour date.>>

If Paul first took LSD eighteen months after John and George, it would have been weeks or just days before Tara Browne's death[18 December 1966], which itself would have been noteworthy. And Paul doesn't go into much detail about his feelings towards Tara's death, which at least suggests they didn't spend much time together during Tara's last few months. Paul's moped accident in Liverpool on 26 December 1965 was also in the company of Tara.

It took a further 15 months before Paul took LSD with any of the other Beatles, nearly two years after John and George were spiked by their dentist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.22.129 (talk) 11:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Back in 2016 when I was working the article up for its GA nomination, I was intrigued about this issue. Steve Turner's Beatles '66 came out towards the end of that process (from memory), and his statements about the date of McCartney's first LSD experience were contrary to every other reliable source I'd come across discussing, variously, Revolver, the Beatles' drug use and other sources of inspiration, and their career and private lives generally over this period. So it was difficult to know what to do. I mean, within this sea of literature – dozens of sources, easily, perhaps a hundred – Turner's contention barely registers as a blip with regard to WP:DUE.

As Turner acknowledges, his conversation with Viv Prince contradicts what McCartney himself said to Barry Miles for the authorised biography/McCartney autobiography Many Years from Now. But it goes wider than that – it contradicts everything McCartney has ever said about succumbing to peer pressure and first trying LSD, and it contradicts Miles' writings elsewhere, when recalling a period in which he seems to have been a near-constant companion to McCartney. In the 2006 Mojo piece used as a source in this article, for instance ("Revolver: The Tripping Point"), Miles describes the London underground scene and McCartney/the Beatles' interaction with it; not only does Miles again give late '66 but he makes a point of saying that social activities would typically descend into "the two Johns" (Lennon and Dunbar) going off and taking acid, and he and McCartney leaving them to it and finding some cultural event or happening to attend. Miles comments on McCartney's continued aversion to trying LSD. Elsewhere, I've seen September or October 1966 – post US tour, and when Lennon and Harrison are abroad pursuing individuals interests – as the date. This would make it three months or so before Browne's death on 18 December.

Beatles Bible is not a reliable source, and it has to be said that the author there has woven descriptions and quotes together to support the December date. By that I mean, Nicky Browne doesn't offer a date (I think her entire input/presence is actually via McCartney's recollection of the party, not her own?), the only person who does is Prince, and the date he offers comes via interviews with Turner, seemingly decades after the event.

I think the best we can do is add a footnote that gives Turner's point but also makes it clear that it's very much WP:FRINGE territory. JG66 (talk) 07:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

"Less so in the US"

I have read the critical reception of the US publications in the article, and they all seem to be very positive. I don't think that the "less so in the US" is accurate. Isaacsorry (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The context is set up under Release that "In the US, the album's release was a secondary event to the controversy surrounding the recent publication there of Cleave's interview with Lennon ..."

Then, in Contemporary reviews, the article states:

• "Due to the controversies surrounding the Beatles during their tour, critical reaction in the US was muted relative to the band's previous releases."
• "KRLA Beat's reviewer described Revolver as 'a musical creation of exceptional excellence' while lamenting that, amid the continued acclaim for Rubber Soul, 'it is receiving only a fraction of the attention and respect due.'"
• "According to Turner, the album's combination of novel sounds and unusual subject matter 'challenged all the conventions of pop' and it was [only] the upcoming generation of writers who 'got it immediately'."

Then, under Ascendancy over Sgt. Pepper:

• "Sheffield cites the album's 1987 CD release, with the full complement of Lennon compositions, as marking the start of a process whereby Revolver 'steadily climbed in public estimation' to become recognised as the Beatles' finest work. Everett also attributes the 'problem' regarding the album's standing in the US to the 'inferior track listing' available to Americans until the CD release."

So I'd say that the lead's point that "Critical reaction was highly favourable in the UK, but less so in the US" is quite accurate and supported in the article. JG66 (talk) 09:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Leslie "live" vocal effect versus pre-recorded

@JG66: (Response to this revert) I do understand your point, and it'd be correct to state that TNK may have been the first track recorded with a "live" Leslie vocal, however, Babiuk isn't making the distinction that you're suggesting here.

"The Revolver sessions saw a variety of new recording techniques created for and first used by The Beatles. One of Emerick's ideas for a new vocal sound was to run a microphone through a Leslie rotating-speaker cabinet. He devised a way to do this where the Leslie was miked-up and fed back to tape."

The description of Emerick's technique ends there. Nothing about these steps in the process would've changed had Lennon pre-recorded his vocal. If he had, Emerick still would've needed to route a dry signal to be played out of a Leslie's rotating speaker and then captured with a microphone. The distinction between a live performance and a pre-recorded track is clearly not factored in Babiuk's analysis – and really, why would it? Does anyone care about the first times that bands used an effect like flanging live-to-tape versus pre-recorded? No, that's just pedantry... The only argument he's trying to make is that TNK was the first recorded use of Leslie'd vocal sounds, and we know he's wrong! ili (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

He is making the distinction – "One of Emerick's ideas for a new vocal sound was to run a microphone through a Leslie rotating-speaker cabinet". The Lambert source you linked to for the 1964 recording (that I've seen fully in an Amazon.com preview) merely talks about sound treatment. I suspect (but no more than that) that Emerick's account cuts short because he doesn't know, and it was actually another Abbey Road engineer who did the work. (Which is in keeping with the me-me-me aspect for which Emerick's autobiography has received some criticism, and the reality that Ken Townsend was EMI's resident problem solver/gadget guru/tech manipulator.)

But this goes back to where we were years ago on this talk page. You don't feel it's significant that the recording of TNK, the first song taped for Revolver, saw Lennon's vocal signal being routed directly into/through a Leslie speaker. A reliable source dedicated to the Beatles' recording career does. The point is mentioned in the section discussing the album's innovative studio techniques, and the text begins with a reference to the band using the studio as a musical instrument. In your view, there's no difference between the Leslie's use in TNK and the 1964 Lou Adler production; I'd say it's the epitome of the studio being "played" as an instrument in 1966 – it's not (just) treatment, it's studio trickery set to tape.

Sorry, but I seem to need to remind you of this at every WP The Beatles page: This article's about the Beatles' Revolver and seeks to reflect what authoritative sources say about the album. The article is not stating that "Tomorrow Never Knows" was the first example of a Leslie rotary effect being used for vocals in rock/pop, but you're choosing to take it that way. It's stating that one of the "new recording techniques created for and first used by The Beatles" was to "run a microphone through a Leslie rotating-speaker cabinet". Again, that's a not-insignificant aspect of the album's recording, and part of the band's desire to break established rules. JG66 (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I see now. It's even more nuanced than I thought. I know it's not explicitly stating that TNK has the first Leslie vocals, but virtually every layperson will get the impression that it is saying that. I'm not sure you appreciate how utterly specific this detail is. "Authoritative sources?" Is there really more than one source that credits the band for being the first to connect a microphone into a Leslie rather than simply stating they were the first to adopt a Leslie vocal effect? ili (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Love You To

I find "Made with only minimal contributions from Starr and McCartney, ". So, what contribution did Lennon make? Carlm0404 (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Carlm0404: Ian MacDonald doesn't list him among the personnel at all, while John C. Winn writes this: "John doesn't seem to have participated in the song at any point, unless he played the fuzz guitar." Everett meanwhile says the fuzz was played by George (which is already cited here), so I've added a mention that John likely did not participate in the recording. Tkbrett (✉) 12:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Crediting Harrison in Track listing section

Hi there! In the "Track listing" section, edits from various IP addresses have been reformatting the way Harrison is credited as a songwriter, and I've been reverting them. I don't want to be edit warring, so I'm coming here to try to gain consensus for how the section should be formatted. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi 'Bat. When the article made GA in 2017, Track listing handled this issue in the way the recent IP(s) want to see it done. So, strictly speaking, consensus still favours the asterisk approach. When I nominated the article, I think I saw the sense in this approach, because Harrison writing 3 songs is actually quite substantial when one considers that the remaining 11 tracks are written by two writers (meaning, halve that and it's 5.5 to Lennon and 5.5 to McCartney). I'm not overly bothered, myself, and perhaps that's not the way to look at it anyway. JG66 (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I've looked through the article history and in fact the asterisked approach was in place from early 2017, at least, until December last year. An IP user changed it on 1 December. JG66 (talk) 12:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

For consistency are we going to do the same on other Beatles albums? Though admittedly most of them don't contain as many as three Harrison compositions. MFlet1 (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Box set

According to Variety, there seems to be a Revolver box set coming this fall. Giles Martin has publicly acknowledged it on Twitter, so I think there’s a fair chance of it being true. blueskiesdry… (cloudy contribs…) 12:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

2022 reissue

The 2022 reissue needs to be discussed. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I leave here some sources:

• Official announcement at the Beatles website, with all the details and the confirmation of 28th October as the release date
• Review at Rolling Stone magazine
• Article at the Guardian

Alexcalamaro (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done I have added a section linking to its corresponding article. Alexcalamaro (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

How does one "reissue" something that hasn't previously been issued?

Just read the entry for 'Reissues.' I believe this sentence is incorrect:

"In 2009, Apple and EMI reissued remastered versions of the Beatles albums on CD."

The 2009 release wasn't a reissue of remastered versions of Revolver; it was an initial issue of a newly remastered version of Revolver. I suggest replacing "reissued" with '...issued remastered versions....'

Or am I just being a nitpicking ass? 🤡 Smbrannon (talk) 07:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Done, this was changed to "released".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Just a bit nervous to edit such an important page. 🙂 Smbrannon (talk) 07:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Change the title to simply “Revolver (album)”

There’s obviously simply really no other album named “Revolver” that’s famous just as this one. So, there’s really no need to add the fact that this is a Beatles album in the title since the reader will probably Already know that. Plus, if someone was to type in simply “Revolver (album)”, it would feel redundant due to the need of writing an extra “Beatles” and this page’s title already, although literally with just 3 words, could be arguably a bit wordy. Please do NOT change the article’s title until further discussion. Will post this again in case any1 misses it. Please chat/discuss or contact me!!!!!!! A banner on the article should appear as usual about this. Tengoritmo (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose, at least without more justification. Consider Revolver (The Haunted album), Revolver (T-Pain album), Revolver (EP). Sundayclose (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Photo caption inaccuracy

George Harrison (third from left) is seen holding a transparency of the controversial "butcher cover" for Yesterday and Today.

No he isn't. He's holding a coloured filter (gel) for the lights on the photo shoot. You can see all of the Beatles playing with these more clearly in other photos from the same shoot, e.g. in the 2022 CD booklet. Robert Whitaker's transparencies for the Yesterday and Today cover were ordinary photographic diapositives, I'd imagine. 176.85.135.222 (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 1 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn. The discussion has only been open for a day, but the consensus seems pretty clear already, so I'm withdrawing this proposal per WP:RMCI#Early closure. (non-admin closure) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 21:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Revolver (Beatles album) → Revolver (album) – I believe this album to be the primary topic for the title "Revolver (album)".

This article was originally moved to its current title following an RM in June 2013, which was largely based on the argument that the title "Revolver (album)" is incomplete disambiguation. However, in the time since that RM, the relevant guidance has changed: a 2019 RfC found that incompletely disambiguated titles can still have primary topics (see WP:PDAB for more discussion). PDAB does note that the standards for partially disambiguated primary topics should be stricter than those for standard primary topics, but even so, I believe that this album meets those criteria. Primary topic status is measured along two criteria:

1. Usage. There are three studio albums titled "Revolver" that have their own Wikipedia articles: this album, Revolver (The Haunted album), and Revolver (T-Pain album). Pageview analysis (linked here) shows that the Beatles album receives 19.9 times as many average monthly pageviews as the other two albums combined. This is admittedly a narrower margin than many of the ratios listed at WP:PDAB, but I believe it's still wide enough to justify a primary topic claim.
2. Long-term significance. The Beatles album is considered by many to be among the greatest albums of all time, a reputation that the album's article discusses in well-sourced detail. Conversely, the Haunted album does not appear to have attracted significant attention outside of metal-focused publications, and the T-Pain album received mediocre reviews. In my view, the Beatles album has a clear lead in significance over the other albums sharing its title.

In summary: current guidance allows for partially disambiguated titles when one topic is primary by a sufficient margin, and I believe this album has met that threshold. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think a lead of less than 1 in 20 is nearly enough for partial disambiguation. Yes that's generally plenty for a basename primary topic though. Partial disambiguation is rarely a good idea, disambigators should generally be unambiguous. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  It's definitely on the narrow side, but it's not unheard of - WP:PDAB lists other PDABs that with similar pageview ratios, such as Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game) (6:1), Asuka (wrestler) (10:1), Vanity Fair (magazine) (21:1), or The Bees (band) (22:1). ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - As said above, partial disambig is not a good idea. I don't think leaving it like it is will make any difference in how readers access the correct article. Sundayclose (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - As above, partial disambig is not a good idea, see WP:CRITERIA and WP:DISAMBIGUATION. There's no shame in a (Beatles album) being title (Beatles album) when there are other albums. Removing Beatles from the title helps no one. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. If it ain't broke don't fix it. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: Like everyone said, the current level of disambig is ok.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Definitely not a "Thriller (album)"-caliber situation. Steel1943 (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2023 (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.

Requested move 29 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

---

Revolver (Beatles album) → Revolver (album) – Reviving PDAB discussion as this album taking ~97% of the pageviews to albums titled "Revolver" (a ~28:1 pageview ratio to both Revolver (The Haunted album) and Revolver (T-Pain album) combined) and this album's long-term significance strongly suggest WP:PDABPRIMARY. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 06:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject The Beatles has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose No evidence anything has changed since the previous RM above. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  The pageview ratio has increased by ~8 since June 2023. User:Crouch, Swale doubted in that discussion that a lead of less than 1 in 20 is nearly enough for partial disambiguation; however, that should not apply here as it is now ~28:1.

  Also per User:ModernDayTrilobite above, WP:PDAB lists several examples of smaller pageview ratios than this. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 16:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support. When I launched the previous RM last year, I believed that the gap in pageviews and significance was enough to justify a PDAB. Since then, the pageview gap has only widened (and the significance argument is effectively unchanged), so I believe the case for a PDAB is now even stronger. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Revolver (T-Pain album) charted in multiple countries; its single 5 O'Clock (T-Pain song) did as well, going as high as #10 in the US Billboard charts. It is not an insignificant topic. Is it as significant as the Beatles album? No, it isn't, but we shouldn't intentionally introduce ambiguity into an article title when there is a legitimate second topic. 162 etc. (talk) 03:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Support. Pageviews clearly shows that this dwarfs any other album with the same name. However, unlike What's Going On (album) which was just moved to the Marvin Gaye album due to the other albums with the same name being extremely obscure, that T-Pain album does seem like a legitimate reason not to move this. SailorGardevoir (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:TITLE, current title is ok.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. No reason to hide the Beatles' involvement when there are other Revolvers out there. —  AjaxSmack  01:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose – No reason to change. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 02:36, 3 March 2024 (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.

2023 reissue

I think it would be good to include the 2023 reissue. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

It is covered: Revolver (Beatles album) § Reissues and Revolver: Special Edition. Tkbrett (✉) 12:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, I missed it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)