User talk:JG66

This user may have left Wikipedia. JG66 has not edited Wikipedia since January 2023. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Hey kids. If you want to discuss a change I've made to an article, please use the article's talk page, not this one, so that other editors get a chance to weigh in.

If it's more big-picture stuff (rather than specific edits), or if you want to be funny, or rude, then come on in ... (Did you bring your guitar with you?)

For all previous messages, please see talk archives for 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021.

Welcome! Hello, JG66, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 07:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Other useful pages:

• Album style guide
• Album sources

Hi! Would love your thoughts on a thread I've started over at WP:SONGS. Please chime in, if you can. Thanks! — The Keymaster (talk) 10:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Keymaster, blimey, that's bizarre – I was literally just posting there when you posted here! JG66 (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JG66 Ha, nice! Thanks for adding your two cents over there. I think we're pretty much on the same page with these issues. Although, given some of the responses there, I think I'm more confused about what to do than I was before! — The Keymaster (talk) 23:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond any of her individual conclusions, the book mostly works around the larger picture of how the literature has evolved over time. With that in mind, I think you should give it a read from front-to-back – it was actually pretty enjoyable too. Now is a great chance, since its price has come down to to CA$37.85 on Amazon, CA$17.99 for the Kindle version (unfortunately for me, I got it from my local bookstore when it was still CA$66.99 ...).

One point she makes is that Lewisohn's influence has pushed recent authors to include footnotes or endnotes to source their statements, whereas previous authors would include only a bibliography or nothing at all. The thing I'm hopeful for is that her book will prove influential on the Beatle books that haven't been written yet. She began it as a way to introduce her history students to historiography and historical method with a fresher topic than WWI or the French Revolution; I read both The Landscape of History by John Lewis Gaddis and What Is History? by E. H. Carr when I was studying some history, both of which Weber refers to, but I think her book serves as a much clearer introduction to the methods of source analysis. From the statements I've heard Robert Rodriguez make on his podcast, he seems to be fully onboard after reading it, but I have no idea if he has any plans to write any more books.

As for her not having read and discussed every possible book, I think that was inevitable given how many have been written about the band, which I know you've alluded to before. Instead, she focused on some of the most influential, comparing the differences between three editions of Shout!, three of Lennon: The Definitive Biography and four of The Beatles: The Authorised Biography. She's covered others on her blog and in her more recent podcast.

One point Weber makes about Doggett is that, through no fault of his own, he is the only one to have written such an in-depth look into the breakup period, which means he looms large in all discussions of it. I sent her a request that she review Ken McNabb's book, And in the End: The Last Days of the Beatles, and she told me she had it on request at her library, but it sounds like she's put things on hold for the moment because of her young kids. I know that she and Diana Erickson discussed Doggett in a yet unreleased podcast interview. The first part of their discussion, mostly covering the band's early years, was posted a year ago. I asked Diana in September when the second half would drop and she said in the next month, but it unfortunately still hasn't materialized. I'm excited for that one because, as you mentioned at the "Eleanor Rigby" talk page, Weber has mostly been positive in her mentions of Doggett, whereas Erickson, as one of Paul's biggest advocates (in case you aren't familiar, she loves Wild Life, something even I can't do), has regularly critiqued Doggett's conclusions. Anyway, before this post spirals too far, I'll end things here. Tkbrett (✉) 13:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tkbrett: Hey, I'd very much like to read ETW's The Beatles and the Historians in full. I'm lucky enough to have been given so many Beatles books for free over the last few years. I think the last Beatles book I actually bought was The Cambridge Companion to ..., late last year, having previously milked all I could from Amazon or Google previews. But if there's one more I'd get, it would be The Beatles and the Historians.

I hear you on ETW's historiographical approach and remember reading her references to those others books (mentions them both in the YouTube clip at "Eleanor Rigby", as I recall). I just also remember reading statements she makes in her book and thinking at the time, "Hang on, Erin, aren't you presenting that – that assumption as fact, saying what's 'correct' – in the very same way as those bad historians you've highlighted at the start [when she cites the models outlined by Gaddis and Carr, I believe]?"

It's not about whether she's read and discussed every possible book on the Beatles, not at all. More about the ones that don't seem to receive a mention, and particularly ones that, from what I see, are generally viewed as almost go-to texts on the area being discussed, or at least are far better known than some of the ones she selects. I can't give examples, I'm afraid – I'm just recalling the overall impression I had, years ago, from when I read (and screenshot [sorry, Erin]) a decent portion of the book. But like you, I do hope her work informs the approach other writers take in the future; in fact, I think it already has.

With Doggett's Money, have to say that reading it was akin to a eureka moment for me. So gratifying at the time to read a text that explores McCartney's psyche, and not idly (through, say, weighing up his various statements on one particular issue from many interviews, over decades), because of McCartney's continuing popularity and extremely high profile, and the resulting influence his version of events has on our understanding of the Beatles story, certainly in the 21st century. The epiphany I'm alluding to is after I'd read years and years of interviews with McCartney, in Mojo, Uncut, perhaps Rolling Stone, often tying in with Apple campaigns; and from that point of view, I think Doggett shows what is so often lacking in Beatles literature: respect for the reader's intelligence. At least: for anyone who read these interviews at the time and wondered why many music journalists, Beatles historians and biographers appeared to take a latter-day McCartney statement at face value, even if some of them do recognise a self-serving aspect in his general demeanour. This is what I meant by ETW taking what she wants from Doggett – holding him up as an authority (which he undoubtedly is), on one hand, yet then appearing to ignore things he writes that don't sit quite as snuggly with the narrative she presents. That's the way it felt to me, and there I was, looking for something eureka-ish from The Beatles and the Historians; I thought I'd be right on the same page as her.

I don't mean to zoom in on McCartney when discussing the Doggett book, btw, but he was always the PR Beatle, right? (Equally, I could be wrong about Doggett being in some way pioneering on this issue – influential, definitely. I hear Chris Salewicz wrote a very insightful biography on McCartney in 1986, so perhaps there's much of the same there.) Erin's comment about the legacy of Lennon Remembers really chimed with my reading of too many Beatles books – about how "fact" became determined by "which side spoke loudest and gave the most interviews". But does she then apply what you'd image would be due scrutiny to the influence of the ex-Beatle giving the most interviews through the 1990s and into the 21st century, and how his readiness to engage with a nostalgia-primed media might inform writers and shape the story? Obviously, I need to read the book in full. JG66 (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your action is wrong. If you want to complain about non-existent chart at that time, then the Kent Report didn't exist then, as were many if not most of the charts given there, and you could reasonably delete them, particularly if they are not sourced. You should take this up at the template talk page, and get it fixed. Why did you undo, for example, the Norwegian one if you want to keep the one in Beatles? Why don't you fix the Dutch one, which wasn't named such? So on and so on. Your action is just inconsistent and unreasonable. Hzh (talk) 07:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gerda. Thanks so much, and I hope you're well. Best, JG66 (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Emerick didn’t even work at the July 9-11 sessions for “Maxwell’s Silver Hammer”, so he wouldn’t have known what went on that day. The balance engineer was Phil McDonald and the tape operator was John Kurlander, so Geoff didn’t work on those three days and that was why I deleted his recollections.

Norman Smith didn’t know what he was talking about when he said that there was an artistic clash between John and Paul and Paul criticised George’s guitar playing - as I said before, none of the band have ever confirmed his claims or mentioned any discord. 60.241.226.102 (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanna say it looks bad, fine, completely up to you. But we need factual evidence that it's bad. If you know anything about the Beatles discography order, you would know that the US version always gets chosen because of it feeling more like a studio album with singles like Strawberry Fields, Penny Lane, etc. So I made that template with that info in mind and I suggest we keep it. I'm not changing history here. ChallengeCick (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are already several primary sources and third-party sources that list entire personnel sections. Per Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources, a personnel section should only be included if an external link doesn't already provide one. Similar to WP:NOTLYRICS.

Do you disagree? Tree Critter (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That honestly goes for track listings too. Tree Critter (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I do agree. But you should raise the issue at WT:MOSALBUM and gain consensus for the addition. Also post notification at WT:ALBUM to make sure as many editors as possible get to weigh in if they wish to. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JG66

Instead of removing[1] the {{Cleanup Bare URLs}} banner, why not take a moment to fix the problem by filling the ref?

WP:V is a core policy, and Bare URLs are unhelpful to readers and are vulnerable to WP:LINKROT. I ahve been working full-time for over a year on filling bare URLs using a variety of tools, and the total number of articles with bare URls has fallen by over 80%. That is why I am now tagging some of the remainder, after first running @Citation bot over them at least 7 times, to draw the attention of other editors to some of the remainder.

Unfortunately, some of the ref-filing tools do not support the {{Bare URL inline}} tag, so I apply it only to URLs which I know from testing cannot be filled by WP:Reflinks. The others get the {{Cleanup Bare URLs}} banner. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JG66, hope all is well. I'm sorry I didn't respond to that post above some six months ago – I still have thoughts to share but things seemed to get away from me. Anyway, I was wondering if you were aware of Jason Kruppa and Kenneth Womack's new book All Things Must Pass Away: Harrison, Clapton, and Other Assorted Love Songs (2021)? While I've mostly found Womack's earlier books rehash previously discovered material, it seems he's been moving towards doing research of his own. I thought some of this new stuff sounded like it would be helpful to you.

Womack is currently writing a biography on Mal Evans and has been reading personal journals for the book. Apparently Mal was the one in charge of paying all the session players on All Things Must Pass and so his journals have detailed personnel listings. I learned about it in a new episode of Jason Kruppa's podcast Producing the Beatles.

I noticed that some of the listings Womack provided from the journals diverged from the sources used in some of your GAs. For example, he mentions that on "Wah-Wah", Alan White plays congas and Mal plays maracas (heard at 17:50 in the episode). On "My Sweet Lord", he says Bobby Whitlock was the one playing harmonium and that it wasn't Mike Gibbins playing tambourine but instead Alan White. Those are the ones they mention in the episode. I presume there's more info in the book.

Cheers. Tkbrett (✉) 12:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tkbrett, nice to hear from you. Yes, I'm sure that book will be useful, and in fact there's no end of info to continue adding to the album and song articles from the ATMP 50 scrapbook and liner notes. Bit stuck for time right now – will try to write more in the next day or so. JG66 (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that the simple track listing format should be used, check out Pablo Honey, The Bends, and the Kid A articles. They all use the same track listing template I was trying to revert to on OK Computer. DENBRO1995 (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JG66, when you deleted the changes I made, you indicated I had not explained why I was removing "sourced material". I already explained why I removed it in previous posts. I removed it because the "sourced material" was inaccurate. The information you referenced is based on incorrect information that has been superseded by liner notes from the Beatles album in question. The liner notes indicate that McCartney played bass on "She Said She Said". If that isn't sufficient for you, I suggest purchasing the record and seeing for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C2:B00:730:A145:D07F:68DF:FB68 (talk) 04:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JG66 - just curious to know as a Beatles fan, what do you think of the new version of the album? Richard3120 (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard, always nice to hear from you. I confess I've not yet heard anything from the new release – not the remix nor the outtakes. Which is odd, I guess, because Revolver is probably my favourite album of all time. Didn't bother with any of the other 50th anniversary Beatles reissues either. (I only made an exception for Harrison's All Things Must Pass, but that was as much about timing as anything else – severe lockdown/lifestyle blues in Sydney.) Have you heard it? Any good? JG66 (talk) 03:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tag in! You're kidding! I enjoyed the remix, I think some tracks have some a lot better but others not so much. Like the White Album deluxe I think this reissue really benefits from the bonus tracks. Hearing the initial versions of "LYT" and "GTGYIML" were definitely eye opening. Check it out when you can, I think it's worth it. Sidebar: What it has brought for us here on WP however is the slew of people coming here saying Paul played bass on "She Said She Said". Ugh. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a sample, try "I'm Only Sleeping". I think it shows what most of the remix was all about: boosting the low end and giving a nice stereo picture. Sometimes they go a bit far with boosting the bass and drums ("Paperback Writer"), but I think it mostly sounds alright. On "She Said She Said", you can hear a bit more guitar noodling – by making it so you can hear each constituent part, I think that one unfortunately feels a little less cohesive than the original. "Taxman" sounds nice though by not having everything panned to one side. Tkbrett (✉) 18:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I think we can all agree on is Paul really was a masterful bass player, the new mixes of "Taxman" and "I'm Only Sleeping" showcasing that. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 19:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanna insert myself to see I completely agree about the She Said remix. I think it's dreadful and defanged, remixed as though the intention was to turn it into Good Day Sunshine, but we already have Good Day Sunshine! I'm not really keen on those sort of liberties being taken (cf. numerous things throughout the White Album remix, like the removal of 'pleh' or the smothering of the Long, Long, Long acoustic guitar). Anyway, that's enough moaning from me. The complete set is very nice. As you were. --TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My favourite Beatles album as well. I thought this might get opinions from other editors, and it's from the ones I expected! In general I really like the new mix – I don't think Giles Martin has taken too many liberties, it's more about getting a better balance of the EQs and getting rid of those early stereo effects that liked to put the instrumentation on one speaker and the vocals on the other, which many fans hated and preferred the mono mixes as a result. For instance, the original version of "Taxman" had the drums, bass and guitar all on the left channel, and the right just for Starr's percussion, which sounded totally unbalanced. Now the main instruments are more centred, but the guitar is separated from the rhythm section, which to my ears makes the whole thing crisper and with a bit more punch to it. On "Eleanor Rigby" you had the strings in the centre and McCartney's vocal off the the right, only moving to the left for the double-tracked chorus, which made the vocals in the chorus seem much louder than in the verse. Now the vocals are in the centre, and the two string quartets have been split, one each on the left and right speaker, which makes much more sense, and makes it easier to hear each individual string instrument in the quartet. My favourite is the new mix of "For No One" – I always thought the keyboards were far too low in the original mix and almost drowned out by Starr's tambourine, while McCartney's vocal almost sounded a cappella and disassociated from the rest of the song. The new mix splits the piano and clavichord into different channels and balances everything out better, in my opinion... you can hear this in the instrumental version of the song in the extras, where everything just seems to swing. I do understand the complaints about "She Said She Said"... in general, the McCartney songs seem to have benefitted far more than the Lennon songs, where Lennon's vocals appear to have been mixed higher up and had a bit more processing. The stereo mixes of "Paperback Writer" and "Rain" were a waste of time, though – they add nothing to the originals and given the obvious garage rock influences of both songs, they were fine in scuzzy mono. Richard3120 (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I acquired the mono CD boxset probably 5 years ago at this point so I haven't heard the stereo mixed of PPM to Pepper probably since that time, although I still recall how shitty the Revolver stereo mix was, like you said. One thing I can't grasp is why Giles made a quicker fadeout on "Got to Get You into My Life". Both the stereo and mono mixes had different fadeouts but the 2022 mix seems to remove those entirely for some reason. I wonder if the new book mentions why he did that... and I do miss the extra guitar thrash heard on the "I'm Only Sleeping" mono mix... – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 00:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all (if anyone's still watching). Sorry, didn't mean to ignore comments here, just had some time away from Wikipedia ... But no, I still haven't anything from the new Revolver(!). JG66 (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I know we have talked before about the issue of bonus tracks and alternate track listings. I read the long discussion about it from a while back and the consensus achieved here seems to suggest that bonus track listings are generally unnecessary, and that mentioning them in the prose should suffice. A user has continually removed sourced information on reissues from the Oingo Boingo album pages, stating it's best to just list the bonus tracks in the track listing, when that seems to be the exact opposite of what is stated in the MOS. (Personally, I think he wants this info removed because of a personal beef he had with the head of the label on a prominent music forum.) So I guess my question is should I reinstate the reissue info and remove bonus tracks from the track listing? Or is any of this information even necessary to add to those pages? Look forward to hearing your thoughts. —The Keymaster (talk) 07:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would love your thoughts on this thread concerning track numbering for LPs! —The Keymaster (talk) 07:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Material World Charitable Foundation logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Yeeno (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JG. I noticed in all the articles you have written, you introduce the Beatles with a definite article, like this: "The English rock band the Beatles". I have seen articles where editors simply drop it though and write: "English rock band the Beatles". I have looked around in style guides but I am not sure exactly where to find this sort of distinction. I'm guessing it may be an American versus British thing. Little help? Cheers. Tkbrett (✉) 12:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Helter Skelter (scenario) is back into shape, I think. You might want to take a look, see what you think.98.114.190.60 (talk) 03:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hope you are doing great! You've known me as Garagepunk66, but I just got a name change. I'll now be going by the name GloryRoad66 (GR66 for short). I tried to get GP66, but they wouldn't let me--they said it sounds too much like another editor's name. Good luck! GloryRoad66 (talk) 07:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, check out the Glyn Johns article! GloryRoad66 (talk) 07:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JG66, A discussion is taking place here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bob_Dylan#Listing_legal_name_first

Mick gold (talk) 11:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:The Beatles "Helter Skelter" US picture sleeve.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 06:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cover of Maclen sheet music for "Back in the USSR".jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]