Talk:Revolution (Beatles song)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Revolution 9

I'm not sure it's correct to say that Revolution 9 is unrelated to Revolution. In fact, I'd go as far as to say it's downright incorrect. They were on the same album and recorded by the same guy in the same era. I think 9 is supposed to be the sound of revolution, whereas 1 is about revolution. Just because they sound different doesn't mean they are "unconnected". --kingboyk 20:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Just because they are on the same album and by the same person does not make them any more related than any other song on the white album. I also think it is supposed to be the 'sound' of revolution. However, I think that part of the article sounds fine. Could it be said that the are connected but not related? Wright123 19:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It does if they're both called "Revolution"! Anyway, sure, go for it, see what you can do. --kingboyk 19:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I dont think anything needs to be done. It doesnt say that they are unconnected it just says that they dont share any of the same music/lyrics, which is true. Wright123 20:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Revolution and Revolution 9 are connected and are realted. Revolution 9 uses as its foundation (first tape), as stated in the article, the unrealised coda from Revolution. So, same name, same album, same composer, shared sound material and number secuencing.

B-side or Double A?

Thread moved from WT:TB:

Articles mentioning the song "Revolution" mention the song as a B-side with "Hey Jude". The song actually got equal treatment on the radio so it could be mentioned as a double A-side. What do you think? Steelbeard1 13:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Jude/Revolution is a Double-A side, and is listed as such in the Billboard charts. Brian.D 15:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane was a double A. Revolution was a B-side which the sands of time have distorted into the memory of a double A, as far as I can tell. The external link in the article, to a piece by Alan Pollock, lists Revolution as a B-side. If we're going to change that we need a good source. --kingboyk 15:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no distinction between how Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane is listed and how Hey Jude/Revolution is listed in the Billboard Hot 100 charts. Each 'side' charted individually during the same time span, and were on the same label/issue number. (Hey Jude/Revolution = Apple 2276; Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane = Capitol 5810) One difference between these two singles is that both Strawberry Fields and Penny Lane peaked in the Top 10, whereas Revolution peaked at 12. In fact, every Beatles singles release, from Yesterday/Act Naturally up to and including Get Back/Don't Let Me Down fared similarly on the charts (both sides charted on the Hot 100) and are depicted in the same manner. Obviously, not all of the 'B-sides' made it to #1... or even in the Top 10 -- some (The Inner Light) barely even made the Hot 100 chart. I contrast this denotation in the charts with the manner in which Queen's We Will Rock You/We Are The Champions is handled. We Will Rock You never charted in the initial release (10/22/77 on Elektra 45441), and the listing for the single shows "We Will Rock You/We Are The Champions" on a single line with no indicated 'B-side'. This single is specifically called out as 'not a double a-side' in the text at the bottom of double A-side. So, the question really becomes, 'What is the official definition of a double a-side, from the point of view of the chart makers (Billboard)?' Clearly, the above-mentioned Queen single is treated differently than the other releases mentioned here, so it makes sense that it wouldn't be considered a double A-side. What evidence is used to declare one identically notated release a double A-side and another as an A-side/B-side?

Ref 'Top Pop Singles 1955-2002', published by Record Research. ISBN 0-89820-155-1

- Brian.D 17:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I have read through the article you referenced in Alan Pollack's pages, as well as several others on his site. His listing Revolution as a B-side seems apocryphal at best. His series of articles on The Beatles singles tend to display an expertise in music versus an expertise in the music industry. As such, I would not consider the comment on his page about the song Revolution being a "B Single", nor the comment on the Wikipedia page as particularly authoritative on the matter. Brian.D 19:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It's how the band/record label designated them that counts, I think. I don't know how chart makers decide these things, but they might consider a single to be a double "A" if both sides get a lot of airplay? What we're interested in is, was Revolution a B-side according to The Beatles and EMI? That's what the article is saying and how I remember it, but I'm easily persuaded that I'm wrong :)

I'm away from home at the moment so I don't have a reference book to check nor can I go pull an original British copy out (if I have one, which I think I do). Surely someone here has a Beatles discog from Record Collector, a reliable Beatles book, or a 1st-issue copy of the single? --kingboyk 19:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess this is my point, as well. As far as the charts (Billboard's Top 100, in particular) are concerned, I would offer that Joel Whitburn's books (the above-referenced volume, as well as many others) are the authoritative source. I don't know (nor recall) any marketing differences between, say, Hey Jude/Revolution (Apple 2276) and Let It Be (Apple 2764). The labels on the records both have the same Granny Smith outside/inside as other Beatles singles -- as does Come Together/Something (Apple 2654), which might bolster the argument (from a marketing standpoint) that none of them are double A-sides. As you asked, who decides these things? Is it airplay (and/or chart position), or just an arbitrary decision made by A&R people at the label? If the former, then the Billboard (Cashbox, et al) data is valid in determining the answer(s). If the latter, then there's no verifiable source for the designation, save contacting the individual A&R reps directly and asking them.  ;) ...and this would hold true for every single specifically included or excluded from the Double A-sides page. --Brian.D 20:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Political meaning

More discussion should be added about the political meanings of the song and different interpretations of it. I think it's generally viewed as a reaction to either radicalism in general or certain Marxist/Leninist tendencies in particular which were in vogue at the time. ENpeeOHvee 04:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Count me in/out

Recently I read Bob Spitz' Beatles biography (appropriately titled "The Beatles"), and it talked about the song Revolution. Specifically, it talked about how he did debate between "count me in" and "count me out" in the lyrics, that he was undecided. So I think you no longer have to call it "folk lore" but can call it fact. They basically just waste the whole freaking point! Hello

Also important to note, and I'm surprised no ones mentioned it, this is written at the height of Mao's radical, brutal and hysteria driven "Cultural Revolution", which began in 1966, where young hardline maoist students did indeed "carry pictures of chairman mao" whilst they exterminated all "capitalist elements" through demonstrations, shop looting, altering/renaming land marks and streets etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.239.151 (talk) 13:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If Lennon or Ono have never said that the "out"/"in" thing was because he was undecided, then it is nothing but speculation. Besides, Bob Spitz's book is far from reliable. There are numerous mistakes so I cannot trust anything written in that book. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

After looking at the article, it actually says that Lennon did say he was undecided. It doesn't say anything about "folk lore" so what are you talking about? This is a talk page for discussion about the article, not a forum for general comments about the song. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Separation

"Revolution" redirects to a page explicitly about Revolution 1. A separate page should be made for the single (faster) version to aviod confusion.

Street Fighting Man

The article for "Street Fighting Man" is mentioning "Revolution". Stan weller 23:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Credits

I´m gonna add this section, according to Lewishon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.40.0.34 (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Beatles-singles-heyjude-uk.jpg

The image Image:Beatles-singles-heyjude-uk.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Key

Is this song in B or B flat major? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.68.33.33 (talk) 08:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, watch their hands on the video? That's what I do when playing along with people. Huw Powell (talk) 04:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

"First overtly political song?

What about "taxman"? That was pretty bloody political. Garth M (talk) 05:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"the sound of "Revolution" is often cited as presaging heavy metal"

I bet Dave Davies finds this theory rather humourous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.230.41 (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

merge?

"It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into Revolution (song)."

I think it's good enough as a standalone, having much content. See alsoing it makes sense, of course. Huw Powell (talk) 04:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason Revolution 1 (Take 20) should be a separate article. IF anyone wants to continue this discussion, please post on the talk page for the aforementioned article, not here. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 11:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Revolution 9 section

It seems to be all about the bootleg and not much about R 9. Thoughts? Huw Powell (talk) 04:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

"Revolution 9" has its own article; content on this article should all be related to "Revolution" or "Revolution 1". Take 20 is the only evidence of a connection between the songs. McLerristarr / Mclay1 09:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Revolution (song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 23:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: one found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   Well written, I made a few minor copy-edits.[2]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   In early 1968, media coverage in the aftermath of the Tet Offensive spurred increased protests in opposition to the Vietnam War, especially among university students. The protests were most prevalent in the US, but on 17 March several thousand demonstrators marched to the American embassy in London's Grosvenor Square and violently clashed with police. Major protests concerning other political issues made international news, such as the March 1968 protests in Poland against their communist government, and the campus uprisings of May 1968 in France. needs citations. Y

   All references check out.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Good detail of production and reception, personnel, etc.

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, where possible and appropriate.

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

   Suitable rationale, caption unnecessary in infobox, although one could be added.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for seven days for citations for 1968 demonstrations to be added. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

   I've added the requested citations. −Mainstream Nerd (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

   Thank you. This is good to go now. I am happy to pass this as a Good Article. Congratulations. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks for the painless review process, and especially for your edits/fixes. −Mainstream Nerd (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

   No probs, an interesting article. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Main image

The cover must be reduced per Wikipedia:Albums#Cover. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 19:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I've reduced the image to the 300px max guideline. –Mainstream Nerd (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Take 20: errors.

This passage has been severely mangled since I wrote it. First of all, why does the article say, "The authenticity of the recording has not been officially confirmed"? This observation comes from an article written shortly after the song appeared, by journalists who had not heard the recording and frankly didn't know any better. The authenticity of the recording is beyond question: the performances are identical to what is heard in both "Revolution 1" and "Revolution 9." And why does the article further say that the track is "presumed" to be RM1? It is explicitly slated as RM1 on the bootleg!

I will do a rewrite. --Captainsiberia (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

While much of the initial coverage included mentions of unconfirmed authenticity, I agree that the lack of any counter evidence since then has removed any significant doubts. The word "presumed" was unnecessarily overly cautious. However, the rewrite introduced two specific errors and a general issue. First, Geoff Emerick was not there the night of the Take 20 session (he was there during other sessions); the engineer announcing the take was Peter Bown. Second, the "It is that!" reply was from George Harrison according to the McKinney source as well as John Winn in an article on examiner.com (though Wikipedia has blacklisted hyperlinks to the entire site for unrelated reasons). Finally, the rewrite tends to incorporate the previous references at points which make it seem like they are supporting certain additional statements, when in fact the references do not cover those statements. —Mainstream Nerd (talk) 01:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

All right. Fixed at least some of those problems.--Captainsiberia (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Scream

The article says John does the scream at the beginning of the single version and the Personnel lists John on scream but it sounds like McCartney and in this video McCartney does the scream, so I believe that's incorrect. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Imb4tYOk8GE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.110.58 (talk) 08:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. It was John but Paul did it in the video cause that's a live show — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean199813 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. Virtually the same reason I made for closing the discussion at Talk:Revolver (The Beatles album) applies here, although I appreciate that the opposers' indignation was more transparent here. I understand you disagree with the closure at WP:PDAB, but that's water under the bridge. I'm reluctant to override the decision there without reason. Kauffner's remark has about the only rationale provided for overriding the principle in WP:PDAB, but it's not enough against the support. Revolver (album) is to remain a redirect to the album by the Beatles. -- tariqabjotu 02:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Revolution (song) → Revolution (The Beatles song) – per WP:NCM, WP:PDAB. No one will dispute that the B-Side of Hey Jude is more significant than all the other songs called Revolution put together (including Revolution (Chumbawamba song), Revolution (Jars of Clay song), Revolution (Judas Priest song), Revolution (Nina Simone song), Revolution (Spacemen 3 song), Revolution (Tomorrow song), Revolution (The Veronicas song), Revolution (B-Boy Anthem) and all the other 2 dozen non-articled album songs on Revolution (disambiguation)) but we do disambiguate The Beatles songs, see Rain (The Beatles song) and Category:The Beatles songs. The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for revolution is an armed uprising. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Support WP:NCM ambiguous disambiguation is a bad idea. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose we should do what's in the best interest of our readers, and sometimes that means ignoring dumb rules. Hot Stop 05:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support Per WP:PDAB. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support ambiguous disambiguation should not be used. The dab page is also missing songs colloquially referred to as the Revolution song -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 09:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • If you got an account, you might be able keep the multiple voting under control. I suggest User:Hurray_for_DABs! Kauffner (talk) 09:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Any reason to !support twice? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
      • It was an error, as I wasn't keeping track properly of whether I had !voted here or at Revolver. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Hot Stop. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 12:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Good call. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Considering its historic background. "No one will dispute that the B-Side of Hey Jude is more significant than all the other songs", good then why move it? Because WP:PDAB was based upon a "hidden" consensus between twelve editors that will affect millions of pages? Oppose per WP:BURO and WP:DAB itself: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." This is community consensus, this is just a joke. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Tbhotch, WP:NCM already had this policy in line with footballers, cities and fish, even if some songs/albums/bands editors were not aware of it. A Google search for "for other songs with the same name" brings up only this one. Likewise "for other albums of the same name" brings up only Revolver. There really are not that many examples. We're talking about bring a few dozen articles into line with the rest of wikipedia, at most. Maybe only half a dozen. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

"WP:NCM already had this policy", you have confirmed what I thought in the past: people with no idea what policy and guideline means and mixture their concept, because Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) does not have policies written in it. If you searched in Google "for other songs with the same name" good for you (my first hit was Paste Magazine), nobody in the world would search like this for a song titled "Revolution" as they will search:

• "revolution" (first hit Revolution (TV series))
• "revolution song"
• or "revolution [Insert artist title here]"

"Maybe only half a dozen". Yeah, sure, if only six articles are like this we don't need a WP:PDAB guideline. We really need idiotic titles. It is more interesting to know why when more people search the Beatles song is wrong and a full dab should be applied, but Pelé or Pelé (footballer) should not be dabbed when there are many other footballers with the same name. Oh yeah because the "primary topic" applies to non-dab articles, but dab articles cannot be primary topics of their subject even whyn they are what readers search the most or the only article with its title. Also, it is really interesting we care about the one percent of readers when it is convenient but we don't care about the one percent of them when it is not convenient. Contradictory as always. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The additional disambiguator makes the title look ugly on top of the page. The only situation in which it would add any value is in the case of a reader who would looked at Revolution (song) and assume it refers to a song other than the Beetles song of this name. As for the guideline, it should be written to reflect the outcome of these RMs. Kauffner (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The value of WP:NCM and WP:PDAB is that like Rain (The Beatles song) it disambiguates from other titles, in this case including Revolution (Chumbawamba song), Revolution (Jars of Clay song), Revolution (Judas Priest song), Revolution (Nina Simone song), Revolution (Spacemen 3 song), Revolution (Tomorrow song), Revolution (The Veronicas song), Revolution (B-Boy Anthem) and all the other 2 dozen non-articled album songs on Revolution (disambiguation). In ictu oculi (talk) 06:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The assumption behind WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is that readers are looking for an article on a particular song (or subject), as opposed to songs with the title "Revolution". So they would never group the articles together this way. Those who are interested in this aspect of the issue can use the DAB page. Kauffner (talk) 21:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support I'm pretty strongly against PDAB, but I'm not convinced this is a sub-primary topic anyway, nor has any evidence to that effect been presented by opposers (and no, "It's the Beatles!" doesn't count as an argument). --BDD (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Every other song named Revolution is relatively obscure. This use is the primary topic for songs named Revolution. The very new WP:PDAB section does not have broad community consensus support, and this is a great example of that. --B2C 00:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, WP:NCM is not new. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say WP:NCM is new. I will say it's wrong in that it doesn't reflect community consensus as expressed in reality and convention. Case in point. --B2C 17:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see anything relevant in NCM. It just says, "Use further disambiguation only when needed". The subprimary topic math is 45,392 / (45,392 + 527 + 257 + 1,181 + 713 + 170 + 205 + 653 + 238). So the Beatles song gets 92 percent of relevant traffic. Kauffner (talk) 11:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Revolution (Beatles song)/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.

I was confused by this: "The song appeared in two distinctly different incarnations, a raucous electric "Revolution", and a slowed acoustic "Revolution 1" It was my understanding the raucous electric version is Revolution 1 No, Revolution is indeed the raucous electric version, and Revolution 1 is the slower and acoustic version, distinctly recognisable from the other. --Liamshaw 15:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Substituted at 05:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)