Redirect for 'Variation IV'?

edit

'Variation IV' redirects to this page. I am unable to find an reference to it in the text of this article though. Is it the title of a track in this album, it's not on the track list included in this article.

I'm making the redirect point to Variations (Cage)#Variations IV (1963), the subsection about Variations IV, a composition by John Cage, in the article about the Variations series of compositions by Cage—which I think is the more appropriate redirect. —I'llbeyourbeach (talk) 07:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Singles

edit

The singles removed on 12 November from the infobox were in fact issued from these sessions. The fact that they were edited differently than the album's version is irrelevant. The singles were issued to promote the film and album. JeanPaulGRingault (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Of course they were from the same sessions (but, eg, Day Tripper and We Can Work It Out were from the same sessions as Rubber Soul). Some relevant points from Template:Infobox album#Template:Singles: 1) singles can be included in the infobox for "songs on the album that were released as singles during the marketing and promotion of the album"; 2) "Do not include singles that were added as bonus tracks on a re-release of an album." That seems to rule out including them here. JG66 (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
These were released not from a reissue, but in 1966 (and 1967 for the american single by UA). According to Joe Goodden, Love in the Open Air and the theme were two of the melodies heard on the album, simply edited for the singles. I've fixed the source. JeanPaulGRingault (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
Look, I'm going to keep reverting if you keep adding unreliable sources. Joe Goodeen/Beatles Bible is not reliable. The article's track listing does not include either side of the single, so those recordings do not seem to be on the original album, but they do appear on the CD releases in the '90s and 2011. If you've got a reliable source that clears this point up and supports what it is you want to see added, then fine – but do you?
If this article doesn't present the situation quite as a listener or fan might see it, that's no major disaster, because Wikipedia only aims to reflect what reliable sources say about each subject. There are a whole load of guidelines and policies I should probably link to, to support the points I'm making, but I just know they're there and that they dictate the way we should approach article content. All of us. JG66 (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
Joe Goodden is a BBC journalist and producer and a published author (Riding So High: The Beatles and Drugs - 2017). If you say his source is not reliable, fine. But, do you have any objections if I put this information on this talk page in order for it not to be lost ? Maybe someone out there can confirm. I heard the album and single and my own ears tells me I'm not wrong. JeanPaulGRingault (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
I didn't know he was a BBC journalist and producer, but his book Riding So High is self-published, I was disappointed to find (and Beatles Bible is a one-man show also, therefore a SPS).
I have no objection at all – far from it – if you want to lay out the situation here for others to then try to find sources that can support its inclusion in the article. It might not seem like it, but I am already trying to work with you on this ... I've been looking in Steve Turner's The Beatles '66, which gives the Family Way project more detail than any other source I've come across, John Winn's That Magic Feeling, and a couple of other books. Winn doesn't seem to mention it all, which really surprises me (but I've only got pages as individual PDFs, so it's a case of going through all the likely scans). I'd say the second volume of Kenneth Womack's George Martin biography, Sound Pictures, might be the best source, because he gives a lot of detail. I no longer see a preview for the book at Amazon, unfortunately.
What we need, obviously, is someone stating that the recordings from the late '66 single appear on the 1967 album. Judging by the titles of the two sides of the single vs the album track listing on this page, that's not the case at all. On that front, maybe this alternative listing I've just come across (from my ancient copy of Castleman & Podrazik's All Together Now) gets us partway there: for side one of the LP, it gives "Love in the Open Air" as the sole track, lasting 13:09. Within that, it itemises six "cuts" or sub-tracks (cut one: 2:07, cut two: 1:10, etc). Side two consists of another track titled "Love in the Open Air", lasting 11:10, with seven cuts and their individual durations. So the first question is whether that should be our track listing.
Whether it's yes or no, I still see a problem in that, going back a few pages to the December '66 single entry, the track lengths are 2:18 and 2:05 (2:18 also for the April '67 US A-side) but none of the six cuts on side one of the LP or seven on side two are 2:18 or 2:05 in length. JG66 (talk) 03:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
This information was removed because it was taken from an unreliable source. I'm copying the info here in order not to lose it and maybe eventually someone can confirm it:
The single "Love in the Open Air" coupled to "A Theme from The Family Way" was released 16 December 1966 in the US (London Records) and 23 December 1966 in the UK (Decca Records) credited to the Tudor Minstrel. George Martin released his own version of the single on United Artists Records which was also released on 23 December 1966 this time credited to the Tudor Minstrels and the George Martin Orchestra. In the US, this single was reworked and a new version of "Love In The Open Air" coupled to the instrumental "Bahama Sound" was released on 24 April 1967. None of these singles reached the charts. (Joe Goodden|title=The Family Way (Original Motion Picture SoundtrackReview|url=https://www.beatlesbible.com/people/paul-mccartney/albums/the-family-way/2/ ) JeanPaulGRingault (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

edit

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply