Talk:1967–1970

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

The Beatles High‑importance

This Beatles-related article is within the scope of WikiProject The Beatles, which focuses on improving coverage of English rock band The Beatles and related topics on Wikipedia. Users who are willing to participate in the project should visit the project page, where they can join and see a list of open tasks.The BeatlesWikipedia:WikiProject The BeatlesTemplate:WikiProject The BeatlesThe Beatles articles

High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to albums on Wikipedia.

To-do list:

For WikiProject The Beatles

A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Articles on each Beatle tour (Category:The Beatles concert tours). See: Missing articles.
Expand : The Lost Lennon Tapes, notable radio series which has spawned many bootlegs. Apple Records See also: Adopt an article
Stubs : See: Category:The Beatles song stubs
Update : Pics/Graphics wanted: Kenwood.
Verify : Beatle wives
Other : Project: Add {{WikiProject The Beatles}} to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members and coordinate tasks. Enter articles assessed as stubs onto this list, also list articles needing cleanup and other work here.

This article does not yet have a related to do list. If you can think of any ways to improve the article, why not create one?

Purple Haze

I must point out that the main article picture of the 1967-1970 article is too pixilated and distorted to make out anything on the main front. I am going to correct this in good time. User:01kkk

Yes, I know Purple Haze is from JH.

Cover versions?

The articles for these two compilations include a paragraph that is identical in both, with this sentence:

Even though the group had had success with cover versions of songs, most notably with "Twist and Shout," which made #2 on the Billboard charts, only songs composed by the Beatles themselves were included.

While this sentence is appropriate for the first compilation, I'm not sure it's necessary for this article, as I don't think the Beatles recorded any cover versions of similarly great importance during the time period covered by this album. If they did, then a different example should be substituted here. Richard K. Carson 05:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Beatles 1967-1970 → 1967-1970 — correct name of album (except for use of hyphen instead of en dash, per WP:DASH#Dash guidelines for Wikipedia editors) —PEJL 19:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Oppose rename to 1967-1970 (The Beatles) instead, and rename the related to 1962-1966 (The Beatles). 70.55.86.83 14:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That defies WP:NC#Album titles and band names and WP:ALBUM#Naming which says not to disambiguate when not needed, and that if it is needed the disambiguation should include "album", making it 1967-1970 (The Beatles album). --PEJL 14:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't really care much about this at first but I'm going to support the move. 1967-1970 is the correct title and a disambiguator is not needed as there is no other article or term called "1967-1970."[1] I was hesitant initially because 1967-1970 could be confused with the actual years named but, realistically, who would do a search for "1967-1970" and not have the Beatles album in mind. — AjaxSmack 18:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but more out of pragmatism than idealism. It needs to be the same naming standard as the red one and since that's now 1962-1966, one of them's got to change and if you go by the letter of the standards, 1962-1966 and 1967-1970 is the way to go. However I don't think it was really a practical concern under the old naming. I think most people would search for "The Beatles 1967-1970" rather than just "1967-1970" but so long as the former redirects to the new name (like "The Beatles 1962-1966" redirects to "1962-1966") it may as well go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose 23:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yes, they should ideally both use the same naming scheme. I considered proposing both at WP:RM, but since the discussion would need to occur at both talk pages, I thought that would be impractical. --PEJL 23:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

As evidence in support of the move, 1962-1966 is already sans "The Beatles." — AjaxSmack 22:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I moved it just before I proposed this move (not knowing this move was blocked by edit history). --PEJL 23:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bust. I didn't check the edit history but the move is still a good idea. — AjaxSmack 18:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article has been renamed from The Beatles 1967-1970 to 1967-1970 as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 20:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://www.blender.com/guide/reviews.aspx?id=2958
- In 1967–1970 on 2011-05-25 04:00:07, 404 Not Found
- In 1967–1970 on 2011-06-06 13:45:36, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct title...yeah

So...let me get this straight: The "correct" title of the album is simply "1967-1970"?? Then I guess the correct title of the Beatles' second Parlophone album is simply "With"; and their fourth album is correctly titled "For Sale", incorporating a "negative 'The' " (because, of course, "The Beatles" is trademarked) — and the correct title of their album commonly nicknamed "The White Album" is simply "" ?? OK, right; thanks for the chance to clear that up. 108.1.68.112 (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, The Beatles' official site lists the title as 'The Beatles 1967-1970'; I wonder what other reliable sources say? Radiopathy •talk• 02:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some reliable sources: Allmusic lists it as "1967–1970". RIAA lists it as "The Beatles 1967 - 1970". BVMI (Germany certifications) lists "The Beatles 1967 - 1970, Blue Album". BPI lists "1967-70". Music Canada (Canada certifications) lists 1967-1970. The Official Charts Company (UK charts) lists 1967-1970. So I think we are safe in using 1967 - 1970. --Muhandes (talk) 07:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And would also be safe using "The Beatles 1967-1970", which their official site uses. The conclusion of the last post reminds me of an old "Excedrin" commercial: "When something works, that's what you use!" But it may not be the only thing that "works", or even what works best! 70.17.166.43 (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can always request a move. --Muhandes (talk) 09:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realise I'm probably coming to this discussion way too late, but I disagree with these compilation titles being simply date spans/years. First thing, I have to question whether Allmusic can be described as 'reliable'. (Go to Allmusic for a critic/reviewer's opinion, okay, but not for reliable information surely ... And similarly, I'd be wary of trusting a Beatles website, official or not. Licensing of rights to a website management comp or team doesn't necessarily make the site authoritative − only "official".) Anyway, I've got some books from the '70s and some more recent, which all give the comp titles as The Beatles 1962−1966 and The Beatles 1967−1970: Harry Castleman & Walter J. Podrazik, All Together Now: The First Complete Beatles Discography 1961−1975, Ballantine Books (New York, NY, 1976) [very reliable]; Nicholas Schaffner, The Beatles Forever, McGraw-Hill (New York, NY, 1978); Roy Carr & Tony Tyler, The Beatles: An Illustrated Record, Trewin Copplestone Publishing (London, 1978); The Editors of Rolling Stone, Harrison, Rolling Stone Press/Simon & Schuster (New York, NY, 2002); Ian MacDonald, Revolution in the Head: The Beatles' Records and the Sixties, Pimlico (London, 1998). (Same on the Charts Stats website, I notice.)

Just to qualify that statement: in the discography sections of these books, the words "The Beatles" appear in the titles (even when "The Beatles" is given as artists' name also) − personally, that's what I trust, how they're worded in a discography − but the likes of Schaffner and Carr & Tyler might also refer to the albums in their book's main text as just 1962−1966 and The Beatles 1967−1970, just like Castleman & Podrazik (and Schaffner again) do in tables listing chart performance. In other words, abbreviated form occasionally as just dates (understandably, quite a mouthful otherwise), but the official titles seem to be The Beatles 19..−19.., no question. Hope that helps JG66 (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per the picture on the article, the front sleeve simply says "The Beatles / 1967-1970". The back sleeve and the cover of the booklet of the 2010 CD version says the same. The front of the 2010 version has an additional, small, blocky Beatles logo on the top left rotated 90 degrees and the spine says "The Beatles 1967-1970". Typically, when there is a slash, the slash separates artist and album names. Also, if we were to assume that the spine includes the band name, as is common, then we must conclude that the name of the album is simply "1967-1970". 84.250.167.86 (talk) 11:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And again, "if we were to assume that the spine includes the band name, as is common", then we must conclude that the name of" their second Parlophone album is simply "With". 2601:545:8201:6290:84B6:82A7:CD:4F98 (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mix information?

The red album article has version or at least mix information of songs for the different releases. Any idea what the versions/mixes for songs might used in releases of this one? —84.250.167.86 (talk) 12:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:1967–1970/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.

*

All the start class criteria

Y A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details
Y At least one section of prose (excluding the lead section)
Y A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs
N A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians

Lacks personnel list.Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 19:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 01:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1967–1970. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111107224423/http://infodisc.fr/Album_B.php to http://infodisc.fr/Album_B.php

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1967–1970. 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:

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) 08:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1967–1970. 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:

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) 14:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"red album and blue album - titles and names we use

I came to know the Beatles at the age of 7 (1976 in Germany), to us, me and my much older sisters it was "the red records" i.e "die rote Platten" and "the blue records" i.e. "die blaue Platten" , especialy because there were a third one "the white" album. thought it to be expedient to name records by colors. someone told me later that both of it is a collection of singles (small records). as child I sometimes wondered why someone would sell the same song twice, the first time as small record, and then again as a biger 'normal' record. Mainly because the big records are much better, because there's more music to listen to. Is it fair to do so ? (childish thinking is straight forward).I think names like "red album" and "blue album" could also be known globaly But probably it would be good to use the title that was used by the producer, and mention the colors in the text of the article.

LG

bad english I know, bear with me

MWS 2.207.24.185 (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the articles? The articles already name the albums by color. Sundayclose (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deluxe track listing

See Talk:1962–1966#Deluxe track listing

Tedster41 (talk) 09:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Certifications in the USA of 1962-1966 and 1967-1970 albums are not coherent

Hello,

Here are the certifications of 1962-1966

in the United States (RIAA) : 15× Platinum 15,000,000

and

1967-1970

17× Platinum 8,500,000

Both albums were originally double albums published on the same day.

How the 1967-1970 US sales (8,500,000) can be lower than the 1962-1966 US sales 15,000,000 whereas the former was granted more RIAA certifications : 17 platinum versus 15 platinum ?

Something is clearly incoherent. Carlo Colussi (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because one is using actual sales (8.5m copies of a double album) vs. how the certification is calculated. Sell 7.5m copies of a double album, then RIAA considers it 15x Platinum. Kevin Crossman (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]