Talk:The Beatles discography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).


B
This article has
been rated as
B-Class on the
assessment scale.
  This Beatles-related article is within the scope of The Beatles WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve and expand Wikipedia coverage of The Beatles, Apple Records, George Martin, Brian Epstein/NEMS, and related topics. You are more than welcome to join the project and/or contribute to discussion.

Top
This article has
been rated as
Top importance on the
importance scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines:
If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Assessment Department for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Assessment.

Article Grading:
The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)

Comprehensive list with a long introduction/overview. Needs a little tidying and towards the bottom some more pictures would add some welcome colour. I propose this to be our first featured list candidate.--Steve (6 March 2006)
The Beatles To-do: You can HELP!:
A Wikipedian removed The Beatles discography from the good article list. There are suggestions below for improving areas to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, renominate the article as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.
Removal date: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{DelistedGA|insert date in any format here}}

Contents

[edit] Number of albums sold?

I don't see it anywhere! Where does it say how many albums they've sold? TheDavesr 02:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The White Album

I don't see it listed in the discography - I'm sure it was an official album when I bought it when it was released ?

The OFFICIAL title of this album is The Beatles. It's popularly known as The White Album because of the plain white sleeve. If you type The White Album in Wikipedia, it redirects to The Beatles (album). Steelbeard1 10:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restarting

Oh my gosh, who broke apart this entire page? I suppose I should help get started on restarting?


I've corrected the Heinz Edelmann link in the "Yellow Submarine" item, and removed the reference to Peter Max's alleged influence: People who worked on the film deny Max had anything to do with it. (see "Inside the Yellow Submarine" by Dr. Robert R. Hieronimus) Skyraider 22:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Magical Mystery Tour was released in 1976 ? The Beatles split in 1970. MMT was released in 67. Jerome Potts 05:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Magical Mystery Tour as an LP was formally released in the UK in 1976. It was released in the UK as a double EP, not an LP as it was when it was released in the USA. It became a popular import in the UK, continuing to sell as an import until it was released as an LP in the UK in 1976. steelbeard1

We have the Beatles Canadian albums listed. Shouldn't we include their Canadian singles? Ian911299

I noticed some of the US Singles peak chart positions do not agree with the Billboard Hot 100 charts (as compiled by Joel Whitburn in Top Pop 1955-2003). Shall I update accordingly, or what was the reference used in creating this list in the first place? Brian.D 02:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I've completely rewritten/reformatted the Singles section, correcting erroneous chart information and generally making it easier to read. Also corrected the wikilinks to many of the singles' pages. -- Brian.D 18:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

...and, to coin a phrase, it's fab! :) --kingboyk 18:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I feel likewise. I indicated the two Beatle singles which made the American charts which were actually Canadian imports as indicated by the 72000 series catalogue numbers. Steelbeard1 21:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
...thanks for the kind words.  :) (fab, even... that's like the ultimate Beatlesque compliment! heh) I thought about adding in the Canadian imports, but I guess my fingers weren't listening to my head while I was typing it up. Thanks for adding them in.  :) -- Brian.D 01:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magical Mystery Tour

Why isn't Magical Mystery Tour included in the "big" list? The albums feels like it should be in there, considering that it contains an album's worth of original songs. Kangy 00:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Because the MMT LP was never formally released in the UK until 1976. Until then, it was only available in the UK as an import. MMT was first released in the UK as a double EP. Steelbeard1 16:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me second Kangy's question. I don't know enough to add it, but I'm almost sure it should be there. Also, the text of the article says 14 albums, while the Brit list is 12 and the US list is 20. Rick Norwood 00:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
The Beatles have 25 major CD albums. Magical Mystery Tour is one of them. I feel it should be included in the big list. After all, Magical Mystery Tour did become part of the official Beatles catalogue, so it should be included. Ian911299
For historic accuracy involving the British Beatle LPs issued while The Beatles were together, the official pre-CD listing should stand. steelbeard1

There's a project getting underway around The Beatles, please consider joining up and helping shape direction. Info at top. ++Lar: t/c 01:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] song links

Gosh this page looks nice! But I'm wondering if the songs that have articles should be linked? ++Lar: t/c 01:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting

Kingboyk wrote in "The Beatles discography" log:

> I prefer the central align.

Using alignment of page elements to lead the eye is a basic principle of graphic design. [1] [2] [3] You may not know this if you are not a graphic designer.

The central align makes readability considerably more difficult without visible table cell borders. There isn't a clear indication of where the description begins for the relevant album image. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that the spacing between table cells is little more than the spacing between lines. All of the descriptions for the albums run together.[4] The alignment of the album images to the top of the cell gives a visual clue to the reader of where the description begins. Without that alignment the user must expend effort to hunt for the beginning of the description.

Given this would you please reconsider the vertical alignment?

> I planned to keep the style="border: 1px solid lightgrey;" change, but
> that doesn't work if the browser window is made small. It borders the
> CELL, not the image.

I will make a replacement image then. I could not find a way to specify a border for an image in the mediawiki syntax.

For replies, please respond here or via email.

Mperry 22:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

All I can say "is what I like" and nope I'm not a graphics designer. I preferred it before. Let's see what other people have to say. Comments please!--kingboyk 03:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you have diffs? are these two (below) representative of the basic difference in style? Assuming they are I have set this up to leave prefer siggies (remember "polls are evil" though) ++Lar: t/c 03:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll

Prefer http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Beatles_discography&oldid=43652410 (text aligned with the top of the cover image)

  1. I am guessing Mperry prefers it this way?
  2. I find centered text hard to follow. I'd prefer that in addition to top aligning, we actually added horizontal rules between each album if it wasn't too busy..++Lar: t/c 03:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Prefer. I would advise against adding horizontal rules. That just adds more graphic elements to the page and makes it busier than it is. A better solution would be to add some padding between the rows. Just a bit of whitepace will help to separate the rows and make things more readable. I tried to add an ID to the table and then style the TD of ID to have "padding-bottom: 1em" but the style was ignored by the wiki and displayed in the page instead. I'm not sure how to add style tags in the page in MediaWiki. --Mperry 22:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Prefer http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Beatles_discography&oldid=43661858 (text aligned with the center of the cover image)

  1. I am guessing Steve prefers it this way? -- Aye. --kingboyk 04:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


No preference

  1. Comment: I have no strong opinion either way on this. Both look ok to me, and neither seems any harder to digest.. though I do appreciate the logic of our graphic designer. --Mal 10:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The Capitol Albums, Volume 2

Capitol Records will release "The Capitol Albums, Vol 2" which features the American 1965 LPs with an April 11 release date. Info at http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/21/music.beatles.reut/index.html Steelbeard1 15:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Who wants to start the article? I tried using The Capitol Albums, Volume 1 as the template but couldn't create the article to my satisfaction. Steelbeard1 19:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I got the article started! Of course, as more info becomes available, feel free to add to it! Steelbeard1 04:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Is there a DYK in there somewhere? I'm not seeing any tidbits that are hook-y enough. Now's the time to nom it if there are some, as it will have more days of chances... PS nice work on your last DYK'ed article! ++Lar: t/c 05:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. Right now, all I see is the chartbusting Beatle accomplishments in April 1964. I mentioned that this box set will be released on the 42nd Anniversary of The Beatles holding a record 14 positions in the Billboard Hot 100 singles chart. This was one week after The Beatles monopolised the Top 5 positions in the Billboard Hot 100 chart. —This unsigned comment was added by Steelbeard1 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 23 March 2006.
That was the tidbit I needed, nominated! (see March 21 entries)... BTW you should not feel shy about nomination yourself if you're so inclined. Great article, thanks! ++Lar: t/c 18:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Past Masters 2-LP set

Because the Past Masters compilation was issued as a 2-LP set comparied to the two individual volumes on CD, does the Past Masters 2-LP set deserve its own article? I did submit the cover photo. But as you can see, I could not eliminate the glare on the glossy cover. Steelbeard1 16:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Image:Pastmastersvol1and2albumcover.jpg

In my opinion, no, because it was just a 2LP version of the same CDs wasn't it? A little different from Rarities, the two releases of which were very different. --kingboyk 17:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Then how about indicating what tracks are on each side of the LPs in the existing articles? Steelbeard1 17:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that's really neccessary (it can be done in the discography) but hey if you think it can be done without harming the existing articles go right ahead. You don't have to ask :-) (although it's very nice and courteous that you do!) --kingboyk 17:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Done. I indicated the side selections for the LP version of Past Masters, Volume One and Past Masters, Volume Two. Steelbeard1 15:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Sites

Do you think this Beatles Lyrics site could be included in the main page of external links. It has a wealth of information on every song? Just a suggestion.

[edit] Souvenir of Their Visit to America

I created the article to fill a gap. How is it? Steelbeard1 01:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting article. If there are sources, it could stand a little analysis-ish stuff. Why was it released? Why did it not do well? Who are Vee-Jay (one sentence since they have an article already.). Why these songs? Who took the cover photo? Again, if there are sources for any of this... if not, never mind. Secondly, this probably could/should be discussed at the project page somewhere since it's about another article, not this article. That said, good work! Needs a few more tidbits to be DYK nominatable. ++Lar: t/c 04:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This is also mentioned in the main article's talk section. I Added FYI worthy trivia about why many of The Beatles' early records were released on Vee-Jay Records. Of course, you can add to it. Steelbeard1 12:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The article made DYK for April 3! The DYK was that while the EP was the first one released in the USA, it did not chart! Steelbeard1 08:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! Don't forget to add such things to the project log :) Good news indeed! --kingboyk 12:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Tony Sheridan recordings

The latest repackaging of the Tony Sheridan recordings have been introduced in this discography. Except for the UK release of "My Bonnie", there has been no mention of the Tony Sheridan tracks in this article. There have been numerous repackagings of the tracks, mostly from Polydor Records. Do they belong in this article? Steelbeard1 10:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Not in their myriad reissues, no, I would say (it seems to be an annual event rereleasing those doesn't it?!). The very first release? Sure. --kingboyk 11:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The original LP release was My Bonnie by Tony Sheridan and The Beat Brothers. Steelbeard1 15:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the mention of the above reissue in this article. The only releases which should be included are the original German "My Bonnie" LP, the circa 1963 British Polydor release, the 1964 vintage American MGM Records and Atco Records releases and the circa 1970 Polydor USA release of "In The Beginning (circa 1960)". Polydor was not active in the USA until 1969, hence the later release of the Sheridan material in the USA on Polydor. Steelbeard1 16:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
We should do further research on the first release of the Sheridan material. I found out that the first UK release was in 1967 as "The Beatles First" on Polydor 236-201, released August 4, 1967. Info at [5] Steelbeard1 19:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I just contributed the first consolidated American LP issue of the Sheridan material In The Beginning (Circa 1960) Steelbeard1 04:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I completed the two remaining American releases of the Sheridan tracks with the MGM LP The Beatles with Tony Sheridan & Guests and the Atco LP Ain't She Sweet. Steelbeard1 17:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More detailed American LP discography

I noticed that Analogdemon has started work on a more detailed American original Beatle LP discography which I commend. I would suggest following the UK LP detailed discography format and giving the track selection for each side. For American Beatle LPs which exactly match the British LPs, mention 'as British album' without giving the redundant track listing. I'm sure it will satisfy those who want a full listing of the Magical Mystery Tour LP which was released in the USA first a decade before its official release in the UK. Steelbeard1 16:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on that now. --Analogdemon (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Nice job, Analogdemon! Anyone want to give the original UK albums the same detailed treatment? Steelbeard1 02:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Ooh yes, very nice job indeed! --kingboyk 12:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll do the UK albums tonight. --Analogdemon (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Done --Analogdemon (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Looks great, Analogdemon. Steelbeard1 15:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Actual release date for Introducing...The Beatles

According to "The Beatles on Vee-Jay Records" (a source for the album's article), and also Beatles-Discography.com, while copies of the album may have been pressed as early as July 22, 1963, the album never hit store shelves before January 6, 1964. I have changed the release date to reflect that, as it doesn't matter when the records were pressed if people couldn't buy them. --Analogdemon (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Jude album

Shouldn't the US Hey Jude album be categorised under compilation albums? warpozio 08:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Compilation albums consist of material previously released on LPs. Except for "Can't Buy Me Love" and "I Should Have Known Better" which were issued on the UA soundtrack LP for A Hard Day's Night, all of the tracks in this album made their LP debut. Also, Apple (make that Allen Klein) was behind this release. It was also treated at the time as a new album because of the mostly new on LP material. I say keep it in the main USA LP discography. Steelbeard1 10:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I do not agree with a definition that compilation albums consist of material previously released on LPs. If that is the case, then the two Past Masters albums should be put in the main list as well...
IMHO Capitol followed the Parlophone album release from 1967 (Sgt. Pepper, White album, Yellow Submarine, Abbey Road and Hey Jude). So, just like "A Collection of Beatles Goldies", it could be put in the compilations list.warpozio 20:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll chip in since you two aren't agreeing: I think by the fact alone that it included some very old material it's a compilation. Provided the compilations are going to get the same prettification treatment it also doesn't matter too much which section it goes in, and of course a note can be added explaining the release and the difficulties in classifying it. Hey Jude was also imported to the UK, of course, where it most definitely was a compilation. --kingboyk 20:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... then, by this same reasoning, why not call the US release, Beatles '65 a compilation album as well?
I've always personally considered the "post-Beatles" albums 1962-1966, 1967-1970, Rarities, etc. as compilation albums, and any released during their tenure as a band as regular releases... -- Brian.D 23:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Beatles Collection and The Beatles Box Set

An anonymous poster made mention of The Beatles Box Set in The Beatles Collection article without mentioning the separately listed article. I made mention of it in the latter and mentioned availability in digitally remastered vinyl and cassettes in the former. What wasn't mentioned is the digitally remastered set has the first four albums are in mono whilst the first four albums in The Beatles Collection are in stereo. Should this be mentioned in the articles? Steelbeard1 11:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

If you think it's useful info, add it. If you don't, don't! :) --kingboyk 17:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to merge The Early Tapes of The Beatles into The Beatles' First

I formally proposed merging The Early Tapes of The Beatles which is the umpteenth repackaging of the Tony Sheridan Hamburg sessions of 1961 into the original and definitive repackaging of the tracks called The Beatles' First. You can go to the articles' talk pages to continue the discussion. Steelbeard1 14:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swan Records article

I want to avert a revert war because someone insists on inserting a graphic of a 78 rpm label of an earlier Swan Records without including any info on that Swan Records. Of course, a later Swan Records in existence from 1957 to 1967 had as its biggest hit "She Loves You" by The Beatles which the company was given the rights to before Capitol Records in the USA finally said yes to The Beatles. Can you check out the article and decide for yourself? Steelbeard1 17:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Matter taken up at Talk:Swan Records, which I've watchlisted. I've also added a {{WPBeatles}} as it seems to be within our scope (small label most widely known for releasing a Beatles single). --kingboyk 17:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other Compilations

Many Beatles compilations not listed here can be found at the following website.

http://music.yahoo.com/ar-262009-discography--The-Beatles

[edit] Good article

I passed this article as I think it's met all the criteria to warrant good article status. I can't think of any other suggestions to make this article any better. NIce work guys. HK51 12:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Auto peer review suggestions

[edit] The Beatles discography

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[1]
  • Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per WP:MOS-L and WP:CONTEXT.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, yesterday might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.[2]
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[3]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.[4]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[5] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.[6]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.[7]
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. [8]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mal 06:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 01:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UK Singles reissues

How come this discography only includes US reissued singles, but not UK ones. In the 1980s The Beatles had many of their singles re-enter the UK top 100 (not just "Love me do"). Surley these are just as noteable? 64.12.116.201 20:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Delisting

Unfortunately, the article is still missing in-line citations (of particular need in the section Historical background) and such doesn't met the Good Article Criteria at this time. The article is being delisted from the current GA list until the reference concerns are address. I encourage the editors of the article to continue working on the article to bring it up to GA standards and resubmit it for GA consideration on the nomination page. Agne 02:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Beatles (EP)

Someone listed this on the request page for albums and such; can someone verify that this exists or not and then delete it from the request page if it doesn't or if you create the article? Thaaaaaanks, --Notmyhandle 06:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does exist. [6] gives the details. Zakko 06:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magical Mystery Tour

Why is it not listed as being released in the UK? It was wasn't it? Errr....--andreasegde 08:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you look in the British EP section? It's in there. Also, the LP wasn't officially released in the UK until 1976 so it's listed in the Compilations and other releases in the UK section of LPs. Before 1976, the MMT LP was only available in the UK as an American (later German) import. Steelbeard1 11:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Good grief, I'm gob-smacked. Only released in the UK in 1976? I am speechless... --andreasegde 22:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian discography

Thanks for the Canadian discography, but there is no source for the Canadian chart rankings. Also, were the early 1963 Canadian singles immediate hits or did they become hits a year later? I'm assuming the latter because most of the British Please Please Me album tracks were not issued in Canada until 1964. Steelbeard1 12:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the CHUM Chart link. It's a useful tool as the CHUM Charts searchable link at [7] allowed me to add additional info which indicated that the earliest Canadian Beatle singles in early 1963 did not chart until a year later. Steelbeard1 18:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

4== Bonus tracks on Russian release? ==

Does anyone else have these? There were some bonus tracks on the release of the Russian version of The White Album.

Picture --

- ErikB 16:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind. I made the picture a little smaller. Interested parties can click it to see full-size version. John Cardinal 02:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remastered CDs Release Date

When are the new Remastered Beatles Albums goin to be released exactly. And could I be shown where it was this matter was reported on. I found a USA today article, [8] that is apparently from march of 2006, and yet the wikipage reports that there was such a report in early 2007. I'm not picking at anything, I just would like to read the article, as I wish to buy those remastered CD's and want to know an approximate release date.

Thanks. G.AC 17:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it's going to be a while, from what I have found from articles.

[edit] Suggestions to improve the article

First of all - hats off to all the people who have worked so hard to assemble information for this article. it is apparent that a lot of effort has gone into it.

I would like to make some constructive suggestions of how I think the article could be improved. In some cases to make it more logical to read. And in other cases to reflect some factual issues.

I would not presume to make any of the changes I suggest without discussion and input from others who obviously care about this article a lot.

1) It has rightly been noted that the discography is not easy to comprehend - because of the fact that there were different releases in various countries. So it is incumbent upon us to make it as clear as can be.

2) In addition to the difference of releases in UK, US and Canada - there were actually many different releases in other countries. That would probably be too confusing to address in this article. However - down the road - some adventurous souls may wish to create a separate article to at least note the major different releases.

Anyway - that is not the main thing I want to address.

3) It certainly makes sense that there are different sections for UK, US and Canada. However - one key suggestion. The Beatles releases were always viewed (in their time) as a body of work. Singles, EPs and albums. So I think it more useful to list the Singles and EP releases for each country - in their respective national sections.

Noting that in the 1960s in the UK - singles were releases unto themselves. And very important. They were NOT (as they were in the US - and as they became in the UK from the 1970s onwards - tracks taken from albums for release AS singles to promote an album. They were works in and of themselves. And very important to the Beatles.

Given their importance to the Beatles - perhaps the discography should lead off with their singles - in chron. sequence of course,

Followed by their albums.

The EPs (with two exceptions) were compiled from already-issued albums and singles tracks - and should follow after the albums.

4) This pattern could repeat for the US and Canadian releases.

5) The article makes a useful distinction between studio albums and later "compilation" albums. The point is well-taken. I think there is room for a further few refinements. Ones that would accurately reflect some distinctions that the Beatles themselves make.

I think there should be a distinction made between the official releases created and/or sanctioned by the Beatles and Apple. Which means everything from 1962 to 1970. And then from 1987 onwards.

Between 1970 and 1987 there were numerous releases initiated by EMI (in the UK) and Capitol (in the US) that did NOT have the sanction of - nor input from - the Beatles. These releases were primarily compilations - but also include "Hollywood Bowl". They also include singles that the Beatles themselves did not regard as official singles releases. It was only the settlement of the legal battles between Apple/Beatles in 1986 that led to the change and the policy that no releases could come out without official sanction of the Beatles/Apple.

Starting with the two "Past Masters" compilations - and then all the releases from "Live At BBC" onwards - these are Beatles releases in the true meaning of the words. Ordained, sequenced, sanctioned by the Beatles. Even "Collection of Oldies" in 1966 had approval of Brian Epstein and the Beatles - and the inclusion of a track unreleased in the UK.

But every release from after the "Let It Be" album and the "Let It Be" single (in 1970) to the "Past Masters" volumes and the "Live At BBC" album were PURELY record company initiated. George Martin was consulted on some releases (eg the "Hollywood Bowl" album which he actually produced). But George Martin was not acting on behalf of the Beatles. The Beatles in those years did not have legal clout or leverage over EMI. And the releases that came out 1970-1986 should be seen as record company compilations, reissues and releases. The Beatles official discography re-starts in either 1987 with the two Past Masters CDs - or with the "Live At BBC" album. And everything since then is an official release.

One can certainly see the distinction between the various compilations issued in the 1970s and the "Anthology" series in the 1990s. And that should be reflected in this article. A difference in effect between the creative works of the artist -which represents a canon of an artist's work. And in the 1970-1986 era - the (quite legal) exploitation of some of those works by the artist's record company. Certainly lawful. But they were purely commercial undertakings as distinct from a part of the artist's canon of work.

Perhaps the best way to do this would be re-characterize the lists. There would be official Beatles releases - all the records from 1962 to 1970. Then again from 1987 (or 1994) onwards.

With a separate section. "Record Company Compilations & Releases"

This would cover all those releases - including "Hollywood Bowl" and the various singles reissues etc that had NOT been sactioned by the Beatles.

6) Another abberation that should be addressed... The multiple releases of the Hamburg material - the vast majority (if not all) was originally released as The Beat Brothers (or not credited at all except to Tony Sheridan) and was only subsequently released as The Beatles.

Perhaps there should be a section titled "The Hamburg Recordings" - with a brief preamble about the recordings. And then a list of the multiple incarnations of the recordings. In any event - I don't think they belong in the same list as the official Beatles recordings.

7) Given the importance that the Beatles - and music critics - attributed to the band's evolution over the years - particularly from 1965 onwards - perhaps there should also be a succinct release chronology 1962-1970 - ie the years that the Beatles were active. Year by year - listing all the singles, albums (and the two EPs containing ORIGINAL material) in exact sequence with release date.

I look forward to a spirited debate on this. I hope my suggestions are taken in the spirit they are offered - and no one takes offense. Thanks Davidpatrick 01:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I can add and should point out is that The Beatles (through Apple) authorised the 1962-1966 and 1967-1970 compilations in 1973. The Beatles' contracts with EMI expired in the mid-1970s and beginning with the Rock 'n' Roll Music compilation in 1976, The Beatles' new compilations were done by EMI without the authorisation of The Beatles or Apple Corps. As mentioned previously, the CD reissues and Past Masters compilations led to legal settlements between EMI and Apple in which The Beatles, through Apple, authorised new compilations. Steelbeard1 01:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there an official source for that? I don't doubt you - but I'm curious as to the source that says they did authorise those two releases. The individual Beatles were still feuding among themselves and with Allan Klein at this point. Did the Beatles/Apple "authorise" or perhaps just acquiesce in those releases? Actually I'm not sure that their original contract gave them power of sanction in those days. It precluded then (as it still does) any budget-price releases. But I'm not sure if it gave them power to sanction a compilation. Certainly Apple did not prevent these two compilations being released on CD in the 90s - so they are certainly not regarded with the same disdain as the other compilations. But certainly 1976-1987 is a period where they had no sanction on releases. And those releases are a different kettle of fish. Davidpatrick 02:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Beatles_discography_dce6.html"