Talk:Revolver (Beatles album)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 20:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's get this one reviewed....

Lead

"....the folk rock-inspired Rubber Soul (1965)" - I don't think we need the (1965) in brackets.
"...and features many tracks with an electric guitar-rock sound.." - it does, but some of the more diverse influences such as the string quartet on "Eleanor Rigby", Indian influences on "Love To You" and general sonic mayhem on "Tomorrow Never Knows" should probably have a mention too
Worth briefly mentioning the cover in the lead as well?
"In 2013, after the British Phonographic Industry changed their sales award rules, the album was declared as having gone platinum" - this specific claim is not in the body

All sorted so far.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the body to follow. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background

"Aside from this activity, the four band members had no professional commitments for three months" - according to the source given, they also had a short UK tour
"Already one month into recording sessions for Revolver, the Beatles played a lacklustre set" - I'm not sure how the two events are connected. Possibly better to say something along the lines of "The group took a break from recording sessions to play the NME Poll Winners Concert, but their set was perceived as lacklusture...."
"By 1966 McCartney had attained an approximately equal position with Lennon" - according to MacDonald p.170 and 187, this was in part due to Lennon's increased consumption of LSD, which would be worth adding.

Not sure it is, addressed the first two.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recording and production

The first paragraph needs fleshing out a lot more. There are plenty of other sources that can document Revolver's pioneering use of the "studio as instrument"
MacDonald p.179 also mentions Revolver was the first session where the Beatles attended the mixing
I think we could do with specific dates. I have all of these here in both Lewisohn & MacDonald's books if you need them, but very briefly, "Tomorrow Never Knows" started work on 6 April 1966 through to "She Said She Said" on 21st June.
As well as ADT, the album popularised tape loops and backwards recording - that would be worth dropping in
I would mention that "Paperback Writer" and "Rain" were recorded during the album sessions, but were dropped as in the 1960s singles were generally not put on albums
I think it would be worth mentioning, as several sources do, that the Rickenbacker bass was a particularly important instrument on the album. MacDonald p.154 has a lengthy footnote documenting this and mentions it again on p.173

Most of these points require an expert with books on this. I don't think it's a good idea that I continue.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Music and lyrics

I don't think the opening paragraph is particularly useful - it's just a bunch of random opinions. It might be better just to explain what the lead hints at - lots of electric guitar pieces, with some more diverse elements appearing elsewhere
As mentioned elsewhere, I think the format of the songs should be rewritten in the format : background to the song, instruments used, any specific pioneering effects used. I'd cut the opinions right down here, just focus on the specific facts. Otherwise the article just reads as a whole bunch of opinion pieces, which isn't particularly useful, and it does seem to waffle quite a lot in this area
"Martin arranged the track's string octet, drawing inspiration from Bernard Herrmann's 1960 film score for Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho" - according to MacDonald, it was influenced by Herrmann, but based on Fahrenheit 451 instead
""Love You To" marks Harrison's first foray into Hindustani classical music." - so what was the sitar on "Norwegian Wood" then? ;-)
"Everett identifies the track's change of metre as its most salient feature" - not sure if "salient" is the right word to use here
"a characteristic that was without precedent in the Beatles' catalogue thus far" - this doesn't scan very well, maybe something like "a new characteristic for the group's recorded output" perhaps?
"Womack notes the introductory vocals, which shift from 9/8 to 7/8 to 4/4 within the span of twelve words" - to me, this shows one of the problems with systemic bias on Wikipedia. This is a nice romantic ballad whose standing has only been diminished because of the "coolness" of the tracks around it, and going straight in with technical talk of time signature changes probably isn't what most readers would be looking for.
""She Said She Said" marks the second time that a Beatles arrangement used a shifting metre, as the foundation of 4/4 briefly switches to 3/4 with the lyrics: "when I was a boy, everything was right", before settling back into 4/4" - as above, this is too much technical information and should be cut down. I don't mind saying that the song features a time signature change in the chorus, and I'd add that that caused problems with rehearsing the song to get a good take

Yes, I noticed that earlier, so I've trimmed it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would be worth explaining that "Good Day Sunshine" was written because it was a hot day (early June 1966)
Worth mentioning that ""And Your Bird Can Sing" was completely scrapped and remade (see Anthology 2)
""For No One" is a melancholy song" - POV, melancholy in whose opinion?

Removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"According to musicologist Dominic Pedler, the E7♭9 chord used in the song is "one of the most legendary in the entire Beatles catalogue"" - is this one opinion important? If I had to pick two "legendary" chords, they would be the opening one on "A Hard Day's Night" and the closing piano on "A Day In The Life"
Might be worth expanding on what the "Motown Sound" is. MacDonald explicitly mentions The Supremes as an influence on the track
"and used brass instrumentation extensively" - rather than "extensively", I'd just say "had a brass arrangement" (possibly including the instruments (trumpets and tenor saxes)
"This [recording "Tomorrow Never Knows"] was reportedly done live in a single take" - do we need the "reportedly"?

Removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"(Emerick was later reprimanded by the studio's management for doing this)." (in reference to hotwiring a Leslie Speaker for vocals) - this claim is unsourced, and it's not one I've ever heard of before.

Removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More in a mo. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cover art and title

Though there is a source about 3/4 of the way through the paragraph, I'm not sure it's actually citing everything before it. Can you grab another source and use that instead?
"German-born bassist and artist Klaus Voormann" - as far as I know he still is German, though he did live in England for some of the 60s, and then went to LA. In any case I'd lose the "-born"
"According to Barry Miles in his book Paul McCartney: Many Years from Now," - would be simpler to say "According to McCartney biographer Barry Miles", or possibly just leave this out together (as I don't think there's a source that disputes this as being factually incorrect)
The only source in this paragraph is "Irwin". As with the first paragraph, I suspect most of the content is in fact unsourced.

Release

"Revolver was released in the United Kingdom on 5 August 1966 and on 8 August in the United States" - for consistency, I'd change that to "Revolver was released on 5 August 1966 in the UK and on 8 August in the US".
"It maintained the number one position in the UK" - suggest "It reached No.1 in the album charts..." and then say for how long
"According to Rodriguez, Revolver 's release was not the significant media event that Sgt. Pepper 's was the following year" - I don't see why this opinion is important here
Would also be worth mentioning that although the US tour came after Revolver, none of it was played live - and indeed that was the last tour they ever did, becoming a studio only band thereafter
"The album's 30 April 1987 release on CD" - I don't think you need to be as specific as "30 April" here (or other dates elsewhere in this section). Stick to just the years for reissues

Reception

It would be useful to sum up critical response to the album at the top (presumably it was overwhelmingly positive; if there are any negative reviews, this would be a good time to cite them
As we have a "legacy" section, I'd keep reception limited to contemporary responses to the album, or directly in response to important reissues (the 1987 CDs and any remasters)
Related to the above, I'm not sure why the last paragraph here is not in the "legacy" section

Legacy

Obviously, opinions of the album are available by the bucketload, so I'd limit them to the most important "greatest album of all time" accolades

Isn't that what we have?♦ Dr. Blofeld

Track listing

For consistencies sake, I would spell out the group members full names, instead of just surnames, for the first mention in the writing / vocal credits

Personnel

I'm not sure about the "uncredited" musicians, particularly the backing vocals on "Yellow Submarine"

Summary

I've gone through the article now. I think the biggest problem is it makes too much of an assumption that you have a good working knowledge of the album already. The "Music and lyrics" section in particular has far too many opinions, and lots of people saying "ZOMG this is the best album evah!!!111one1" isn't really helpful for somebody just trying to find out more about it. There is a note on the talk page that Rodriguez's opinion is being used too much, and I agree, but hopefully the above action points will sort that out. The album has certainly sustained its popularity, with a particularly big boost in the mid-1990s, but now in 2015 I can't help thinking it's less well-known than it once was, and so we need to do more to cater for the younger or casual reader.

Agreed, there's too much waffle, needs trimming.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As there seems to be quite a lot of work just to get a GA, I'm not sure whether to put things on hold or fail outright. However, since we have some experienced editors working on this, I'll give everyone the benefit of the doubt and put the review on hold pending improvements. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm not sure it's worth the effort. All for what? ♦ Dr. Blofeld

A better article, that's what! JG66 will lend a hand, I'm sure. Or are you thinking "balls to it"? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did type and almost post when you said on my talk page about nomming "I think it needs a lot of work and probably better that somebody further researches it and sorts it out all in one and then takes to PR and takes to FAC. But then I thought you don't do FA, and Gabe has gone AWOL so after some thought I thought I'd give it a try. It's an excellent review, as expected, but I need one or two others (or five) to assist in going through it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could post a sob story on Eric's page, but if I know Eric he's more of an "enabler" and will entice you into doing work yourself rather than being a doormat for fixing articles. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind minor fixing and tweaks, it's just the amount you've asked to be expanded on this, most GA reviewers don't expect it to be comprehensive or all there, but focus on the minor glitches. Long term it's probably best this is done now though. I'll try to tackle what I can but it would be good if Gabe could return or '66 can respond to those. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to pass on this if it's OK, It needed to be reviewed, but I don't think opening a GAR was the right thing to do on this as it needs a lot of work. I don't have the books or personal knowledge needed to expand it. Hopefully Gabe will return at some point and see the comments and respond accordingly and eventually get it to FA.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, not a problem. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]