Talk:Walls and Bridges/Archive 1

Archive 1

Walls and Bridges in retrospect

I think this is a good example of an album that needs to be critically reevaluated. Too often fine albums are written off due to some bad reviews, which get repeated over and over and seem to eventually hijack the overall perception of it's quality. Pink Floyd's The Final Cut is another. I would like to see a day when Walls is included with POB and Imagine, not just because I like it, but because it is just as good, it is after all, the only #1 Lennon album during his lifetime. GabeMc (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree. I even think is probably his best album (so does Elton John). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.122.146.28 (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cannibaloki 15:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Quick-fail (see revision as of 16:13, 14 August 2010).--Cannibaloki 16:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments

---

 Not done--Cannibaloki 15:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Untitled

I also think this could be his best overall solo work. "Double Fantasy," however, I do like as a collaborative album (even Yoko's tracks as well), but "Walls and Bridges" was so much more adventurous, and not bogged down by the baggage of other things he was going through at the time that colored either the songs or the performances. It was lively, fresh, innovative ... contemplative when necessary, but a more solid body of work, at least as good (if not better in some parts) than "Imagine," and that's saying something. BTW ... I really like "The Final Cut" as well! A great record too often dismissed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.30.85 (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Request help with references

Could someone please get the proper authors/titles/page numbers for the Billboard references #55 & #60? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 10:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Walls and Bridges/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wasted Time R (talk · contribs) 01:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   See comments below

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   See comments below

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   See comments below

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   GAN being placed on hold

Comments:

• The lead is too short for an article of this length.

I'll do this last (you may have to remind me). Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 13:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• The "Critical reception" section needs some additional sources. The general lack of critical praise can be captured by the Pazz & Jop poll of that year, see results here, album not in the top 30. On the other hand, the article should state that it got him his most sympathetic reviews since Imagine (see Carr & Tyler's The Beatles: An Illustrated Record page 112). That book, as well as Nicholas Schaffner's The Beatles Forever, provide good contemporary book-form discussion.
• You could also include the retrospective critical assessments of some Lennon biographers.
• I think most of the text in the "Footnotes" would be better placed in the article. Why are they relegated down there? Bouncing back and forth makes the article very choppy to read. Usually Notes of this kind are the last resort when an article has gotten too big – see Paul McCartney for an example – but that's not the case here.

 Done Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 11:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

That's better, but a couple of Notes got put in the wrong place. "'Whatever Gets You thru the Night' was released as a single at EMI's instance." should be moved and integrated into the beginning of the "Promotion and aftermath" section, where the same selection is discussed. There are two descriptions of "#9 Dream" originating with the arrangement for Nilsson's "Many Rivers to Cross", they should be merged (either place would do I think). The whole sentence "The version of 'Old Dirt Road' that was included on ... similar to the master take." belongs in "Recording", not "Music and lyrics", since it's about the recording of the song, not about its themes. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 14:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• The entries in "Citations" are difficult to read due to heavy repetition. Please use some form of WP:CITESHORT, such that a bibliography section will have the full details of each book just once, and then each individual cite can be just "Blaney, 1973 to 1975, p. 142." or "Blaney 2005, p. 142."

Will work on other issues in a bit. Isn't this personal preference? Per WP:CITEVAR: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style". Granted, chapter titles aren't needed and removing them might make References a bit more readable. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 08:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree there are a lot of variations in good citing style and I would not ask an author to change from one to another. But when multiple citations exist and the only difference are page numbers, I believe that doing it your way is substandard. If you look at GA or FA Beatles articles by other editors – John Lennon or Paul McCartney or George Harrison or Cynthia Lennon or The Long and Winding Road or Hey Jude or All Things Must Pass or Extra Texture (Read All About It) and so on – they all use some variation of short form citation for books. So do the large majority of FA or GA articles on other subjects. What is the advantage that you see in your method? Wasted Time R (talk) 10:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

(I hope this isn't taken as some form of an argument) You can't use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a reason for the citation style to be changed. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 13:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not looking for an argument. I've looked at many different citation styles people use on WP and I've changed my approach a couple of times. But I'm trying to understand the rationale for yours. Do you think it is easier for editors to maintain? Easier for readers to follow? Wasted Time R (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I meant, I hoped my comments weren't taken as arguing. After looking over a bunch of articles, I've decided you're right. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 11:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 11:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

That's better. However, some of your short forms precede the first appearance of your long form, both for Blaney and for Urish & Bielen. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Other cites need to be consolidated. There's no need for five separate cites of "John Lennon - Walls And Bridges (CD, Album)". Discogs.com. Retrieved 30 January 2013." Just once per WP:NAMEDREFS.

These are all different. I'll clarify the titles. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 08:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 13:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• What makes SuperSeventies.com a reliable source? Where in that page is "pop rock" given as a genre? Just "rock" will do.

 Done Removed and changed. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 13:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You went too far, pulling the whole assessment and quote out of the article text. Editor Dan56 has restored that. But he also restored "pop rock" in the infobox genre. This I do object to, based solely on one source. "Pop rock" wasn't even a term in much use in the mid-1970s, and you will find few if any descriptions of John Lennon as a "pop rock" artist. If you want to use "Rock, pop", like the Beatles and Lennon articles do in their infobox, I'm fine with that, because that means something different than "pop rock". Wasted Time R (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Look out for inconsistent usage. "Lost Weekend" should be the same each time, "Ya Ya" should not be "Ya-ya", things like that.
• Look out for erratic linking. "Mind Games", "Julian Lennon", "Record Plant East", "Harry Nilsson", "Pete Hamill", etc. should be linked the first time they appear in the article text, regardless of whether they were linked in the infobox first. There shouldn't be any links inside quotations, such as in "Starring Julian Lennon on drums and Dad on piano and vocals".
• "WNEW" should be linked and it should be "WNEW-FM", and moreover why is that interview characterized as "infamous"?

 Done above three. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 13:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I've done some direct editing of links. Also of punctuation problems, including commas creeping inside song quotes or album italics. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll add more later if I come up with additional comments. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Some additional comments:

• This article really leans heavily on Blaney John Lennon: Listen to This Book. Yet there are lots of books written about Lennon, and the FA John Lennon article only uses Blaney twice as a cite. Why the heavy use of just one source?

It's used as a large majority of the book is available as a preview on Google books. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 11:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess you realize that isn't the greatest reason. Go to a good library, they'll have lots of Beatles and Lennon books. Or go to a bookstore and sit in a chair and write down notes and page numbers. Or buy the books for your own enjoyment - I have ten or so Beatles books, all acquired long before WP existed. One well-known editor here says he owns fifty Beatles books! Wasted Time R (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• What is the significance of the album title?
• What is the New York Philharmonic Orchestrange? It shouldn't contain a link to the New York Philharmonic if it's something completely different. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

And more:

• I've gone back over the article history and the assessment of critical reception has been all over the place. At first it said it wasn't as highly regarded as the first two albums but had devout followers (including Elton and Ringo, neither cited), then for a while the article has said the album was highly regarded by critics, then for a while the article said it had received mixed reviews, then about five weeks ago with this edit it was changed to "Walls and Bridges was poorly received by contemporary music critics" with a cite to Stine, Jean C.; Marowski, Daniel G. (1 October 1985). Contemporary Literary Criticism 35. Gale Research Company. p. 261. ISBN 0810344092. My county library carries this series, but unfortunately doesn't have volumes from 1985. So can someone tell me what exactly it says? From my own impression at the time, I believe the critical reception when the album was released was "It's not great, and is uneven, but it's certainly better than Sometime in New York City and Mind Games, and maybe it shows that Lennon is getting back on track." The Pazz & Jop poll I quoted above proves that "highly regarded" is incorrect. But the Gerson review in Rolling Stone, while hard to summarize, is certainly not "poor" but would support "mixed". The Carr & Tyler assessment of opinion corresponds to my impression. So should this Contemporary Literary Criticism assessment really trump all other sources? Wasted Time R (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Also:

• Some cites are missing publication dates, including "Bring on the Lucie" PopMatters and the Gerson Rolling Stone review.
• You cannot visibly link to the fansite beatlesinterviews.org for the 1975 Hamill interview - that's a copyright violation of Rolling Stone and a violation of WP:ELNEVER. You should make the cite directly to Rolling Stone. Fortunately, right now, the interview is visible at http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/john-lennon-long-nights-journey-into-day-19750605, but even if it weren't, you couldn't link to beatlesinterviews.org.
• Same story - you cannot visibly link to the fansite john-lennon.com for the 1980 Playboy interview. The citation has to be to that issue of Playboy. If it's isn't online, don't give a url.
• It would be better to find the original cite from Uncut than a blurb from CDUniverse.com.
• What makes this a reliable source: Calkin, Graham. "Walls And Bridges". Jpgr.co.uk. Or is it just some fan's website?
• What makes this a reliable source: "Beatle Brunch looks back 30 years ago this month to a very special Lennon anniversary". Joe Johnson's Beatle Brunch. Or is it just some fan's website?
• What makes Discogs.com a reliable source? It's user-edited content, which generally means no good for WP use. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Per the nominator's request on my talk page, I am failing this GAN, so as to allow the issues raised here to be addressed at a more leisurely pace. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Carr, Taylor citation

I'm not seeing "mixed reception" in this preview. Is there a particular quote from this book? All I could find through GoogleBooks is a line that doesn't indicate when (contemporary critics, retrospective reviews?) the reception in question occurred: "The album is generally lacklustre, though it has sold well and has been greeted by more sympathetic reviews than any Lennon product since 'Imagine'." ([1]) Nothing here about the "sympathetic" comparison to Imagine, although a comparison by one author would be more appropriate if quoted. Also, the observation that an album is noted list by the Pazz & Jop does not establish such research as notable; this idea needs to have been published, with some author or writer having said "It did not make the Pazz..." Otherwise, it's OR. Dan56 (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I found a better source for the aforementioned assertion, which doesn't require going beyond what the source says: 100 Things Beatles Fans Should Know and Do Before They Die (p. 35). Dan56 (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Another snippet. Please tell me where in page 112 does it say it garnered Lennon "his most sympathetic reviews since Imagine", or viewed "by some as evidence that Lennon might be getting back on track"? Seriously, stick to the source. Even more inappropriate is the connection you're trying to make to the critics' poll; we would need a source to make the connection in relation to the subject of this article. It's a clear case of synthesis. Dan56 (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I agree that Carr/Tyler doesn't say "mixed" directly, but I was using it to counteract the "poor" you put in with this edit a couple of months ago, which I don't think is sustainable. I'm okay with the Garr book to support "mixed" for this album (although I think she gives it a superficial treatment and the right term for "Sometime in NYC" would be "scathing"). So I've instead put in a close rewording of Carr/Tyler's 'most sympathetic reviews since Imagine ' text. I've also restored their assessment of what it meant for Lennon getting back on track; their text is "Perhaps ... this LP represents a further water-treading period for Lennon, and shortly he'll re-emerge in full flower to re-establish himself among the upper echelons once more. Opinions differ." I think my text is a fair summarization of what they were saying.

It's still unclear and doesn't equate to "viewed by some as evidence that Lennon might be getting back on track". Whose opinions? The author of the book is the one asserting that the "LP represents..." that; "viewed by some" is misleading readers, when it appears after "received mixed reviews from critics." And "perhaps" makes it even vaguer, so quoting the author's opinion directly would be appropriate, not interpreting it as a factual claim about how critics generally felt about the album. Dan56 (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

As for Pazz & Jop, I'm afraid I have to completely disagree with your OR interpretation of it. We have hundreds and hundreds of articles, including ones that are GA or FA, that make reference to critic/review aggregation sites - every recent movie article gives its Rotten Tomatoes rating and many recent music articles given the relevant MetaCritic rating. In no case do we have to have a third-party author say its Rotten Tomatoes or MetaCritic rating is significant; we just use it. Well, Pazz & Jop was the Rotten Tomatoes of its day, and as such is a very valuable resource. If you look at the list of who was in the 1974 poll (Christgau, Jim Wolcott, Frank Rose, Stephen Holden, David Marsh, Ed Ward, John Rockwell, Ellen Willis, Vince Aletti, Robert Hilburn, Chet Flippo, Geoffrey Stokes, Vernon Gibbs, Paul Nelson, Janet Maslin, Greil Marcus, Ben Gerson, Jim Miller, Ken Emerson, Wayne Robins, Lester Bangs, John Morthland, Jaan Uhelszki, Bud Scoppa, Kit Rachlis, Ira Mayer) that's like a who's who of American rock critics of the day (maybe some Brits too, I don't know some of the names). If you look at the 1971 poll, Imagine finished 5th. Many of the albums that did place in the 1974 poll are staples of classic rock and "best of" lists today, so the absence of Walls and Bridges is significant. (And yes, we're allowed to say things are missing from lists - we have many articles that say "the single failed to reach the Billboard Hot 100" or "the album was so-and-so's first to not achieve gold record status" and so forth.) And finally, using review aggregation sites improves article quality, not diminishes it, because it counteracts the ability of editors to cherry-pick individual reviews to skew the portrayal. I've restored this in the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, you're relying on your opinion of the Pazz & Jop; the poll is irrelevant here if a source doesn't connect it to the topic of the article themselves. Other things existing does not justify your addition. That "the album was not ranked in a critics' poll" needs to gauge the attention of a reliable source (WP:Notability), not yours or mine. It's not my interpretation; WP:NOR says "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources ... To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article". We're not allowed to say things are missing from lists unless a source explicitly says it. If they don't say it, it is an original idea. This concerns both notability and OR guidelines. Dan56 (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Your interpretation of OR and synth is too extreme to be workable. When you made this edit here a couple of months ago, you picked three reviews - Rolling Stone, Village Voice, and Billboard. What reliable source says these are the three most important reviews? Or even significant reviews? (In fact, the first two are, but Billboard reviews had very little visibility or impact at the time - artists and the public cared about their charts, not their opinions.) What about Creem or Crawdaddy? What about New Musical Express or other British publications? By your logic you were doing "synthesis" in deciding these three would represent all contemporary reviews. Your retrospective reviews were even more unbalanced - you added three, two of which were Allmusic. Now in fact, you were doing a good-faith effort to find whatever was available to you. As am I. And I am telling you, the collective result of a review aggregator (whether positive or negative) is always a useful addition to an article. If you go to any FA or GA movie article and delete the Rotten Tomatoes rating, you'll get reverted so fast your head will spin. Do you really think you have a better handle on OR and synth than all those FA and GA reviewers? Wasted Time R (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your comparison of review aggregate sites (which if cited would need to mention the topic, i.e. the album) to the Pazz & Jop, and I don't understand why you keep calling it "your interpretation". What part of needing to "cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article" don't you understand? Find a source that puts the Pazz & Jop in the context of this album. Otherwise, it's OR ("To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented"). I don't see any mention of Walls and Bridges here. If you can find reviews of this album from NME or Creem, feel free to add them. And this is textbook synthesis, using the word "but" to connect two ideas that aren't explicitly supported by one source. See this FAC, where I made the same mistake, but acquiesced and learned from it. Dan56 (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The "but" is not synthesis, it's just to provide transition in the prose. The juxtaposition of statements still connects them in the reader's mind and is still there, regardless of whether it is one or two sentences. By your logic, every time we use sentences next to each other from different sources it's "synthesis", because neither of the sources wrote what they did expecting it would be put next to something else. Look at the first three sentences in the "Background" section of this article. They come from five different sources and tell an interesting narrative, full of cause and effect, about the Lost Weekend. Why aren't you deleting that as synthesis? And what about ordering of sentences? What source told you to put the favorable Billboard review third in that paragraph? Why not first, which might change readers' perceptions? And you know what the biggest "synthesis" of all is? What to include in an article and what to leave out. There have been hundreds of books written about the Beatles and about Lennon and here we are, summarizing and reducing and synthesizing all that knowledge and all that criticism down into articles of a few thousand words. Taking something from source A and following it with something from source B and deciding something from source C isn't important enough and then finishing with something from source D to give a coherent explanation of an event that happened. That's what we do here. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The "but" is synthesis, as pointed out in a previous FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Song of Innocence/archive1) and in the example at WP:SYNTH. You used one source that says something different about the album's reception than the source you appended to make one sentence that you couldn't support with a source: "...received mixed reviews, but garnered..." (citation needed). Per WP:SYNTH, "'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." (If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research.) Ask anybody at Wikipedia talk:No original research and they'll tell you it's synthesis. I have no interest in how you pieced the other parts of this article together, though I'm sure three sentences cited by five different sources would be an issue if you chose to nominate it for FA, as would your "but" synthesis. Good articles have lower standards, however. As far as ordering review prose, if the album's reception was "mixed", placing the one positive review ahead of the two mixed reviews would undermine the opening statement, confuse readers, and not be neutral in form, giving precedent/undue weight to the one positive review. It would also be awkwardly phrased, like your synthesized "but" statement. Dan56 (talk) 02:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Choice A: "Walls and Bridges received mixed reviews from contemporary music critics,[44] but did garner Lennon his most favorable reviews since his 1971 album Imagine.[45]" Choice B: "Walls and Bridges received mixed reviews from contemporary music critics.[44] It garnered Lennon his most favorable reviews since his 1971 album Imagine.[45]" In both cases we are saying exactly the same thing: People had mixed feelings about the album, while also thinking it was better than his previous two albums. The contextual juxtaposition and contrast is there regardless of whether "but" is present! The only difference is B is clunky. Would you be okay with Choice C?: "Walls and Bridges received mixed reviews from contemporary music critics,[44] while garnering Lennon his most favorable reviews since his 1971 album Imagine.[45]" As for the reviews, the Christgau one as quoted is negative. If you think it's mixed, maybe you should revisit the quotes you pulled (synthesis anyone?). And I think you further confused things by using it as a contemporaneous review but putting his retrospective grade in the review box. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Attribute it as a quote: no source says "People had mixed feelings about the album, while also thinking it was better than his previous two albums" (that's your own impression). A comparison of this album's reviews with those of Imagine isn't elaborated on any further and adds nothing to the rest of the section's prose, if not just a unique comparison, not shared by any other source. You still aren't clear on what synthesis means: what quotes would you have pulled? "Aren't very good" and Christgau's grade/key for a "C" don't seem all that negative, although why bring it up if the Rolling Stone review is the first mentioned? "B–" grade issue? So why didn't you change it to the original if it's an actual issue? Dan56 (talk) 04:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Uhh, if an editor says in an edit summary that he's giving a rationale on the Talk page, it would be nice to wait until that rationale appears before reverting! Jeez ... Wasted Time R (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

"see talk page for rationales" suggests the rationales have already been placed there before the edit summary is made. Dan56 (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The exact Carr/Tyler text is "The album is generally lacklustre, though it has sold well and has been greeted by more sympathetic reviews than any Lennon product since Imagine. My text that you reverted is "... but it did garner Lennon his most sympathetic reviews since his 1971 album Imagine." What gives? Wasted Time R (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

"Sympathetic" suggests sympathy; "favor" or "approval" would be better replacements if we're not quoting the author. Dan56 (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Dan asked me to comment here. I do see a problem with the "but" here:

Walls and Bridges received mixed reviews from contemporary music critics, but did garner Lennon his most favorable reviews since his 1971 album Imagine.

and I am also not sure why we would use the US English spelling "favorable" on an article on a British musician. --John (talk) 07:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

John didn't engage my argument at all, just saw the magic word "but" and pronounced it bad. But in the interests of getting past this, I've changed it to two separate sentences. I also added the Christgau retrospective grade raise (based on his practices, the original "C" is pretty negative). I've also reworded the Gerson three stars bit, because I think that was added on later to the website; Rolling Stone reviews in the 1970s didn't get stars when they were originally published. I fixed the spelling. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussions?

Does anyone know where previous discussions about this article have gone to? Either I'm going mad or the archive for this talk page has just vanished … JG66 (talk) 04:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Here you go JG. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 11:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Walls and Bridges. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing 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 {{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} 08:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Walls and Bridges/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.

Concerning the personel playing on Walls and Bridges; Eddie Mottau played acoustic guitar on a majority of the tracks but is not mentioned.

Last edited at 21:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 16:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Walls and Bridges. 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.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=8287602&style=music&fulldesc=T
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120214060626/http://www7a.biglobe.ne.jp/~yamag/album/al_beatles.html to http://www7a.biglobe.ne.jp/~yamag/album/al_beatles.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) 16:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Elton J on "Surprise, Surprise"

Hotcop2, re your comment & change here, Elton John does sing on this track. He was credited as such, and the vocal overdubbing session is described in May Pang's book, from memory. JG66 (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

He's not credited on the album because he didn't make the cut. He was supposed to be on it; he tried singing the harmony but couldn't match Lennon's phrasing. Both Lennon and John have said this in interviews. Hotcop2 (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, he is credited on the album. But he's not on the final track. I'll find a reference and post it here. Hotcop2 (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I put it back in. I'll find the the interviews eventually. Even Pang's recollection is a little ambiguous. "Elton had to match John's phrasing exactly" but couldn't, after two hours John said "It's ok and he appreciated the effort" and "Elton turned and abruptly left." It could be interpreted either way. Hotcop2 (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I remember reading Elton saying, much later, that he had major problems trying to mirror Lennon's intonation and phrasing, which is what Pang recalls obviously. He is credited, though, so perhaps part of his contribution was kept ... Seems to me we should leave it that he did, but add a note giving any relevant comments that suggest it may not in fact be his harmony vocal on the track, despite the credit. JG66 (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)