Consensus per this RfC closure and this RfM closure is to use "the Beatles" mid-sentence. |
Yesterday and Today was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think the 'butcher cover' ought to be displayed within the article. It's the one thing that makes this album infamous outside the US. -- kingboyk 23:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
NOT an external link! Sigh. If you want something done, do it yourself right? :) I'm gonna merge the article on the cover into here and add a picture. -- kingboyk 04:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
It was my understanding that Lennon and/or the Beatles had nothing to do with the use of the butcher photo on the cover of this LP. Snopes [1] has a very persuasive article indicating that the photo shoot was for a different purpose entirely, complete with an interview with the photographer wherein he states emphatically that the shoot was not intended for any LP cover. Is there any source indicating that anyone in the band or their management had "insisted" that the photo be used for the cover, as the article claims? -- G0zer
It is stated here and in other articles about the Beatles that the 'butcher' picture was originally used on the cover of the UK single of "Paperback Writer". This is incorrect. The picture was used only for promotion of the single, which was not issued with a picture cover in 1966. For the 1986 reissue, the 'butcher' picture was incorporated in the sleeve design. I will try to correct this wherever it appears. -- Jd204 00:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
What is up with the title of this article? Not only does Yesterday...and Today redirect here (and Yesterday... and Today not), but the title it redirects to has some oddly spaced periods in it! If the title should have an ellipsis in it, then it should be Yesterday… and Today (compare Let It Be... Naked vs. Let It Be… Naked), but I see no indication on either cover that it should have any ellipsis at all! I'm really in favor of moving this to Yesterday and Today. — Gordon P. Hemsley→ ✉ 03:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Since this discussion has been posted for so many months and no one has objected, I've gone ahead and moved the article. Next, I will fix and double redirects that have resulted. -- GentlemanGhost 06:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The first paragraph states that this is the ninth official album, however it is not in the sequence at the bottom of the page. The information in the box below the photo shows this album between Revolver and Sgt Peppers, and would be the 7th in the series of official album releases. Does anyone have any objection to updating the information in the first paragraph and at the bottom to match? --Baronvon
My apologies in advance to whoever labored over the lengthy and exceedingly detailed section about Peter Livingston, etc. -- but that section is far too long and detailed to belong in this article. It is simply disproportionate, and actually somewhat off-topic. A short paragraph summarizing the story would be fine, and more than adequate. I strongly suggest that it be taken down. Perhaps it can be moved elsewhere -- possibly incorporated into the article about record collecting? I'd like to know if there are any serious objections to my proposal before I proceed. Cgingold 11:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
It previously read "Alternate Cover." I think it should read "Original Cover" maybe "Banned Version" or something of that ilk. I would like the jury to look at this. Sixstring1965 21:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
It's plainly not an alternate cover. Sixstring1965 22:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I would also consider dropping the Butcher picture into the Butcher section. Sixstring1965 22:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Reformatted the picture. Hope you like it! Sixstring1965 02:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Arc, I have a citation I'm going to add for the "early album proofs. It was getting late and I didn't have time to finish.
The Butcher picture is now in it's section which explains the story behind it. I think it works better that way then having it as an alternate cover which is misleading.
Sixstring1965 13:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
To explain a little better, having the butcher cover photo moved to it's section makes the story more encyclopedic and I think it flows better. Sixstring1965 13:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
While I was at it, I added the citations requested. Why isn't time spent on fixing these problems instead? Sixstring1965 14:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't know where to go on that one. Perhaps you can reword it. My main concern was the butcher problem. Sixstring1965 21:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Strange that this has been nominated without any recent discussion (9 October 2007?) Hmmm... Anyway, it needs more references, but I hope it will pass.-- andreasegde ( talk) 23:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Find as many as you can. Sentences such as ""first state" covers, are very rare and command the highest prices", "Nevertheless, the album reached #1 on the U.S. Billboard charts by 30 July 1966 and was certified gold soon after", "Apart from the butcher cover, this album is of interest to collectors for the appearance of unique mixes of Revolver-era tracks unavailable elsewhere", "In particular, John Lennon pushed to use it as an album cover", all need references. That's just a start - there are a few more.-- andreasegde ( talk) 12:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Click on this to see an album of photos. Click on the photos to enlarge them.-- andreasegde ( talk) 13:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
This is also good.-- andreasegde ( talk) 13:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this meets the broad criteria of WP:GA?. Compare it to some of the GA Beatles articles ( here) - a lot of the songs there have a lot more information, including much more reception and release info, plus more on songwriting. I don't think this article is quite there yet, but I'd be happy to take another look if you wish to renominate it at some stage. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 09:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
User Riptastic ( talk · contribs) has been adding the link http://www.buythebutchercover.com/Home/Butcher-Cover to the External links section. I don't personally think that this site meets the WP:EL guideline as it is merely a website selling variations of the butcher cover. However, I mention it here as in case anyone wants to weigh in on the usefulness of this link. As of now, I have again removed it from the article (but I let Riptastic know my rationale). Cheers, GentlemanGhost ( talk) 00:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I realise the "butcher cover" is the original cover, but since it was replaced and is little known outside of collectors and Beatles enthusiasts (I'm both), shouldn't the main cover image used for the article be the cover that's best known? 216.153.143.247 ( talk) 20:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
According to http://www.mp3.com/albums/1253/summary.html, The Beatles Bible and many other sources, Yesterday and Today was released on the 20th, not the 15th. I cannot find any sources saying the 15th.
Also, should the album be considered a studio album? It is not an official studio album, just a collection of songs from UK studio albums from 1965 and 1966. It's more of a compilation released for Americans because some of the songs on the proper UK albums had already been released in the US. Mclay1 ( talk) 07:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
From all genres, "rock n roll, pop" is the last to fit.
Drive My Car, And Your Bird Can Sing, If I Needed Someone, Day Tripper - they're all classic rock songs.
I'm Only Sleeping, Nowhere Man, Doctor Robert - they're more into psychedelic rock.
Yesterday, We Can Work It Out, Act Naturally - yes, they're kinda pop, but not exactly. If we ignore Yesterday for a sec (it doesn't have an official genre), We Can Work It Out and Act Naturally are kind of folk rock songs.
But seriously, non of the songs in this album are rock n roll. Pilmccartney ( talk) 08:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
This statement is very broad and without further explanation may be confusing to some readers as to why it lost money for Capitol. It may also be false. The claim comes from the book The Beatles Forever by Nicolas Schaffner and is in reference to the cost involved in removing 750,000 "butcher" covers and repackaging the records, estimated to be $200,000 to $250,000. I believe the statement in the book is a somewhat mistaken interpretation of the press reports at the time of the album's release which suggested the additional $250,000 cost would negate the profit on those records. That is entirely possible, however it does not take into account sales of the album beyond that first pressing. This album went on to sell an additional 1.25 million copies (at least) so it is unlikely to have lost money for Capitol. Also, Schaffner's book was written in 1977 while the album was still in print so such a definitive outcome could not even have been possible at the time. Piriczki ( talk) 19:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
The alternate cover for the album -- the more common LP cover, with the Beatles posed around a steamer trunk -- has been nominated for deletion. The debate is about whether or not this second version of the album cover should be kept in the article, or removed. Interested editors are encouraged to give their opinions, at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 August 29#File:YesterdayandTodayalbumcover.jpg. — Mudwater ( Talk) 00:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning the name of this band in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 23:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
This article contains an erroneous statement: "The true stereo mixes of "I'm Only Sleeping" and "Doctor Robert" that appear on Yesterday and Today are different from the ones used for the subsequent release of Revolver in the UK,[7] and were unreleased on CD until their inclusion on the The U.S. Albums boxed set in 2014." The alternate stereo mixes used on Yesterday and Today were in fact, not included on the US Albums boxed set. That set caused some controversy in that all the original Capital mixes were substituted for the UK mixes found on the 2009 remastering of the Beatles catalog. You get the original U.S. track listings for these albums, but not the mixes. So I've amended the statement to delete the reference to the U.S Albums box.
The article currently describes Yesterday and Today as a studio album, without a source verifying it; I could not find one myself. My revision to compilation album, backed by a source (multiple verify this position), was reverted by JG66 who argued that it is "a typical US-format studio LP in that it included recent hit singles". I've since tagged the "studio" description as unsourced and added statements to the contrary. Dan56 ( talk) 20:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Material added to the article contradicting "studio album" (based on Riley, Beviglia and Music Radar:
Both Tim Riley and American Songwriter journalist Jim Beviglia classified Yesterday and Today as a compilation album, and MusicRadar said it was one in a series of "hit-filled compilation albums" that the American Capitol label "sliced and diced" from the Beatles' original British albums.
Furthermore, there was already a sentence in the article before my addition that said:
The hodge-podge nature in which Capitol Records compiled their albums irritated the group, who felt they had "put a lot of work into the sequencing" of the British albums.[12]
This source, a Beatles reference book, also verifies "compilation". Dan56 ( talk) 01:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I've received a request to comment on this matter, and to my way of thinking, from the songs included and the title itself, it is a compilation album. Netherzone ( talk) 18:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
@ WingsVs.ExpectingToFly: I've reverted your change in the numbering, because I believe that you are getting the higher numbers by counting the Canada-only releases as separate albums (if I'm mistaken about that, please let me know). But this raises the question of whether Capitol of Canada should be considered to be the same company as Capitol. It also raises the question of whether the lede's use of the word "American" means "United States" or "North America". Before we start changing the status quo, we should discuss these basic questions. I look forward to your response. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 20:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@ NewYorkActuary: Well I actually mean by US release mate.
@ NewYorkActuary: Here is a list of All of the Beatles albums released in the United States with the release year and record label:
1.) Introducing... The Beatles ( Vee Jay 1964 ) 2.) Meet The Beatles! ( Capitol 1964 ) 3.) The Beatles Second Album! ( Capitol 1964 ) 4.) A Hard Day's Night ( Capitol 1964 ) 5.) Something New ( Capitol 1964 ) 6.) The Beatles' Story ( Capitol 1964 ) 7.) Beatles' 65 ( Capitol 1964 ) 8.) The Early Beatles ( Capitol 1965 ) 9.) Beatles VI ( Capitol 1965 ) 10.) Help! ( Capitol 1965 ) 11.) Rubber Soul ( Capitol 1965 ) 12.) Yesterday And Today ( Capitol 1966 ) 13.) Revolver ( Capitol 1966 ) 14.) Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band ( Capitol 1967 ) 15.) Magical Mystery Tour ( Capitol 1967 ) 16.) White Album ( Apple 1968 ) 17.) Yellow Subamrine ( Apple 1969 ) 18.) Abbey Road ( Apple 1969 ) 19.) Hey Jude ( Apple 1970 ) 20.) Let It Be ( Apple 1970 ) @ NewYorkActuary: Your right there was ten Capitol Records releases but it was actually their 12th overall released in America.
One last point -- you really should be signing your posts. You can do this by typing four tildes (i.e., ~~~~) at the end of your post. Or, you can use the button that appears right below the Edit window (the one that says "Sign your posts on talk pages").
Thanks again for following up on this. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 19:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
@ NewYorkActuary: I think we SHOULD counted both questions. We change it to twelth overall release and besides the Story album you asked was apart of the US albums box set released in January 2014. ( talk) 3:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
How is this a studio album when it's ACTUALLY a compilation McGuinessTom1941 ( talk) 18:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
As explained with the edit, the text mentions that some retailers did carry (and sell) the "butcher cover" LP until the Capitol recall kicked in. In the Collectivity section, the article currently states:
An extremely rare original "first state" stereo copy that was not from the Livingston collection was presented for appraisal at a 2003 Chicago taping of the PBS series Antiques Roadshow. It was still in the possession of the original owner, who had bought it at Sears & Roebuck on the day of release in 1966 – the only day that the original 'butcher cover' versions were on sale before being recalled by Capitol.
This is sourced to an Antiques Roadshow page ( here), which goes nowhere ... I've found this Roadshow appraisal, where there's a linked page, "Beatles Butcher Cover", which the site terms an "article". I haven't been able to access this PBS article because of site maintenance; if anyone finds they can, please let me know. (It'll be useful to confirm the "only day" point, as it will much of the first paragraph of the Collectivity section, I imagine. Bruce Spizer's book would be the go-to source for the latter, too – if only more was available in the google books preview.)
Robert Rodriguez also writes, referring to Capitol's pressing plants working around the clock to have the album back out in the marketplace: "An indeterminate number of paste-overs were then reshipped, and made it to retailers. (Meanwhile, a precious few independent distributors fulfilled orders with the original cover; a handful of people actually bought a 'butcher' cover off the rack before they were reclaimed.)" A "handful of people" might be slightly dramatic, but the point is the album was released, in that it was commercially available in some stores and available for purchase.
If anyone disagrees with this change, I'd understand it. Without being able to get better informed through Spizer, especially, or the Antiques Roadshow article, it does look a bit flimsy. Perhaps a few hundred, a couple of thousand?, slipped through to stores for a day or so before the Capitol edict came down – but does that make it a 15 June (or 14 June) release? A lot of sources go with 20 June, btw – Castleman & Podrazik, Turner's Beatles '66, Lewisohn, Ian MacDonald (all cited in this article). On the other hand, Miles' Beatles Diary, Rodriguez's Revolver (by implication) and the timeline sidebars in Mojo Special Limited Edition: 1000 Days That Shook the World (The Psychedelic Beatles) set it out the way I've described in the recent edit. I've not looked at fansites like recmusicbeatles.com, because we can't use them – even though I've found in the past that when reliable sources contradict one another, it's those same sites that, in giving so much detail and thought to everything Beatles, help determine which version of events and which RS's to go with. JG66 ( talk) 15:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Originally this page only included the single for Nowhere Man. I added the Yesterday and We Can Work It Out / Day Tripper singles to the list. These were removed by @JG66. He noted that, "Per sources, [the] Nowhere Man single sets up & signals the upcoming album", distinguishing it from the others "which are not the same as singles 'from' the album". I am not sure I understand what the specific difference is as all three had been released prior to the album being issued. Tkbrett (✉) 11:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
OK, we have "The June 1966 LP was unusual in its inclusion of tracks that had yet to be issued in the UK." (Those were the 3 tracks left off Revolver by Capitol.)
This isn't the only case of early release in US. I know that Beatles VI had 4 songs not yet released in UK: You Like Me Too Much, Tell Me What You See, Dizzy Miss Lizzie (all then appeared on non-soundtrack part of the UK Help! album), and Bad Boy, which was unreleased in UK until British Beatles "oldies" LP reached late 1966 Christmas market.
(The rest of Beatles VI: the 6 songs which were on Beatles For Sale but not on Beatles '65; Yes It Is, flip side of Ticket To Ride and available for use on Beatles VI because it was not in Help! movie.)
Carlm0404 (
talk) 07:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Beatlesebooks.com has, regarding Beatles VI: Since George Martin was happy to comply with their request the year before, resulting in him sending "Long Tall Sally" and "I Call Your Name" for inclusion on the US album "The Beatles' Second Album" months before they were heard in Britain, Capitol didn't hesitate to ask again. Carlm0404 ( talk) 07:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Consensus per this RfC closure and this RfM closure is to use "the Beatles" mid-sentence. |
Yesterday and Today was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think the 'butcher cover' ought to be displayed within the article. It's the one thing that makes this album infamous outside the US. -- kingboyk 23:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
NOT an external link! Sigh. If you want something done, do it yourself right? :) I'm gonna merge the article on the cover into here and add a picture. -- kingboyk 04:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
It was my understanding that Lennon and/or the Beatles had nothing to do with the use of the butcher photo on the cover of this LP. Snopes [1] has a very persuasive article indicating that the photo shoot was for a different purpose entirely, complete with an interview with the photographer wherein he states emphatically that the shoot was not intended for any LP cover. Is there any source indicating that anyone in the band or their management had "insisted" that the photo be used for the cover, as the article claims? -- G0zer
It is stated here and in other articles about the Beatles that the 'butcher' picture was originally used on the cover of the UK single of "Paperback Writer". This is incorrect. The picture was used only for promotion of the single, which was not issued with a picture cover in 1966. For the 1986 reissue, the 'butcher' picture was incorporated in the sleeve design. I will try to correct this wherever it appears. -- Jd204 00:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
What is up with the title of this article? Not only does Yesterday...and Today redirect here (and Yesterday... and Today not), but the title it redirects to has some oddly spaced periods in it! If the title should have an ellipsis in it, then it should be Yesterday… and Today (compare Let It Be... Naked vs. Let It Be… Naked), but I see no indication on either cover that it should have any ellipsis at all! I'm really in favor of moving this to Yesterday and Today. — Gordon P. Hemsley→ ✉ 03:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Since this discussion has been posted for so many months and no one has objected, I've gone ahead and moved the article. Next, I will fix and double redirects that have resulted. -- GentlemanGhost 06:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The first paragraph states that this is the ninth official album, however it is not in the sequence at the bottom of the page. The information in the box below the photo shows this album between Revolver and Sgt Peppers, and would be the 7th in the series of official album releases. Does anyone have any objection to updating the information in the first paragraph and at the bottom to match? --Baronvon
My apologies in advance to whoever labored over the lengthy and exceedingly detailed section about Peter Livingston, etc. -- but that section is far too long and detailed to belong in this article. It is simply disproportionate, and actually somewhat off-topic. A short paragraph summarizing the story would be fine, and more than adequate. I strongly suggest that it be taken down. Perhaps it can be moved elsewhere -- possibly incorporated into the article about record collecting? I'd like to know if there are any serious objections to my proposal before I proceed. Cgingold 11:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
It previously read "Alternate Cover." I think it should read "Original Cover" maybe "Banned Version" or something of that ilk. I would like the jury to look at this. Sixstring1965 21:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
It's plainly not an alternate cover. Sixstring1965 22:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I would also consider dropping the Butcher picture into the Butcher section. Sixstring1965 22:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Reformatted the picture. Hope you like it! Sixstring1965 02:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Arc, I have a citation I'm going to add for the "early album proofs. It was getting late and I didn't have time to finish.
The Butcher picture is now in it's section which explains the story behind it. I think it works better that way then having it as an alternate cover which is misleading.
Sixstring1965 13:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
To explain a little better, having the butcher cover photo moved to it's section makes the story more encyclopedic and I think it flows better. Sixstring1965 13:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
While I was at it, I added the citations requested. Why isn't time spent on fixing these problems instead? Sixstring1965 14:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't know where to go on that one. Perhaps you can reword it. My main concern was the butcher problem. Sixstring1965 21:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Strange that this has been nominated without any recent discussion (9 October 2007?) Hmmm... Anyway, it needs more references, but I hope it will pass.-- andreasegde ( talk) 23:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Find as many as you can. Sentences such as ""first state" covers, are very rare and command the highest prices", "Nevertheless, the album reached #1 on the U.S. Billboard charts by 30 July 1966 and was certified gold soon after", "Apart from the butcher cover, this album is of interest to collectors for the appearance of unique mixes of Revolver-era tracks unavailable elsewhere", "In particular, John Lennon pushed to use it as an album cover", all need references. That's just a start - there are a few more.-- andreasegde ( talk) 12:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Click on this to see an album of photos. Click on the photos to enlarge them.-- andreasegde ( talk) 13:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
This is also good.-- andreasegde ( talk) 13:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this meets the broad criteria of WP:GA?. Compare it to some of the GA Beatles articles ( here) - a lot of the songs there have a lot more information, including much more reception and release info, plus more on songwriting. I don't think this article is quite there yet, but I'd be happy to take another look if you wish to renominate it at some stage. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 09:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
User Riptastic ( talk · contribs) has been adding the link http://www.buythebutchercover.com/Home/Butcher-Cover to the External links section. I don't personally think that this site meets the WP:EL guideline as it is merely a website selling variations of the butcher cover. However, I mention it here as in case anyone wants to weigh in on the usefulness of this link. As of now, I have again removed it from the article (but I let Riptastic know my rationale). Cheers, GentlemanGhost ( talk) 00:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I realise the "butcher cover" is the original cover, but since it was replaced and is little known outside of collectors and Beatles enthusiasts (I'm both), shouldn't the main cover image used for the article be the cover that's best known? 216.153.143.247 ( talk) 20:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
According to http://www.mp3.com/albums/1253/summary.html, The Beatles Bible and many other sources, Yesterday and Today was released on the 20th, not the 15th. I cannot find any sources saying the 15th.
Also, should the album be considered a studio album? It is not an official studio album, just a collection of songs from UK studio albums from 1965 and 1966. It's more of a compilation released for Americans because some of the songs on the proper UK albums had already been released in the US. Mclay1 ( talk) 07:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
From all genres, "rock n roll, pop" is the last to fit.
Drive My Car, And Your Bird Can Sing, If I Needed Someone, Day Tripper - they're all classic rock songs.
I'm Only Sleeping, Nowhere Man, Doctor Robert - they're more into psychedelic rock.
Yesterday, We Can Work It Out, Act Naturally - yes, they're kinda pop, but not exactly. If we ignore Yesterday for a sec (it doesn't have an official genre), We Can Work It Out and Act Naturally are kind of folk rock songs.
But seriously, non of the songs in this album are rock n roll. Pilmccartney ( talk) 08:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
This statement is very broad and without further explanation may be confusing to some readers as to why it lost money for Capitol. It may also be false. The claim comes from the book The Beatles Forever by Nicolas Schaffner and is in reference to the cost involved in removing 750,000 "butcher" covers and repackaging the records, estimated to be $200,000 to $250,000. I believe the statement in the book is a somewhat mistaken interpretation of the press reports at the time of the album's release which suggested the additional $250,000 cost would negate the profit on those records. That is entirely possible, however it does not take into account sales of the album beyond that first pressing. This album went on to sell an additional 1.25 million copies (at least) so it is unlikely to have lost money for Capitol. Also, Schaffner's book was written in 1977 while the album was still in print so such a definitive outcome could not even have been possible at the time. Piriczki ( talk) 19:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
The alternate cover for the album -- the more common LP cover, with the Beatles posed around a steamer trunk -- has been nominated for deletion. The debate is about whether or not this second version of the album cover should be kept in the article, or removed. Interested editors are encouraged to give their opinions, at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 August 29#File:YesterdayandTodayalbumcover.jpg. — Mudwater ( Talk) 00:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning the name of this band in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 23:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
This article contains an erroneous statement: "The true stereo mixes of "I'm Only Sleeping" and "Doctor Robert" that appear on Yesterday and Today are different from the ones used for the subsequent release of Revolver in the UK,[7] and were unreleased on CD until their inclusion on the The U.S. Albums boxed set in 2014." The alternate stereo mixes used on Yesterday and Today were in fact, not included on the US Albums boxed set. That set caused some controversy in that all the original Capital mixes were substituted for the UK mixes found on the 2009 remastering of the Beatles catalog. You get the original U.S. track listings for these albums, but not the mixes. So I've amended the statement to delete the reference to the U.S Albums box.
The article currently describes Yesterday and Today as a studio album, without a source verifying it; I could not find one myself. My revision to compilation album, backed by a source (multiple verify this position), was reverted by JG66 who argued that it is "a typical US-format studio LP in that it included recent hit singles". I've since tagged the "studio" description as unsourced and added statements to the contrary. Dan56 ( talk) 20:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Material added to the article contradicting "studio album" (based on Riley, Beviglia and Music Radar:
Both Tim Riley and American Songwriter journalist Jim Beviglia classified Yesterday and Today as a compilation album, and MusicRadar said it was one in a series of "hit-filled compilation albums" that the American Capitol label "sliced and diced" from the Beatles' original British albums.
Furthermore, there was already a sentence in the article before my addition that said:
The hodge-podge nature in which Capitol Records compiled their albums irritated the group, who felt they had "put a lot of work into the sequencing" of the British albums.[12]
This source, a Beatles reference book, also verifies "compilation". Dan56 ( talk) 01:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I've received a request to comment on this matter, and to my way of thinking, from the songs included and the title itself, it is a compilation album. Netherzone ( talk) 18:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
@ WingsVs.ExpectingToFly: I've reverted your change in the numbering, because I believe that you are getting the higher numbers by counting the Canada-only releases as separate albums (if I'm mistaken about that, please let me know). But this raises the question of whether Capitol of Canada should be considered to be the same company as Capitol. It also raises the question of whether the lede's use of the word "American" means "United States" or "North America". Before we start changing the status quo, we should discuss these basic questions. I look forward to your response. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 20:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@ NewYorkActuary: Well I actually mean by US release mate.
@ NewYorkActuary: Here is a list of All of the Beatles albums released in the United States with the release year and record label:
1.) Introducing... The Beatles ( Vee Jay 1964 ) 2.) Meet The Beatles! ( Capitol 1964 ) 3.) The Beatles Second Album! ( Capitol 1964 ) 4.) A Hard Day's Night ( Capitol 1964 ) 5.) Something New ( Capitol 1964 ) 6.) The Beatles' Story ( Capitol 1964 ) 7.) Beatles' 65 ( Capitol 1964 ) 8.) The Early Beatles ( Capitol 1965 ) 9.) Beatles VI ( Capitol 1965 ) 10.) Help! ( Capitol 1965 ) 11.) Rubber Soul ( Capitol 1965 ) 12.) Yesterday And Today ( Capitol 1966 ) 13.) Revolver ( Capitol 1966 ) 14.) Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band ( Capitol 1967 ) 15.) Magical Mystery Tour ( Capitol 1967 ) 16.) White Album ( Apple 1968 ) 17.) Yellow Subamrine ( Apple 1969 ) 18.) Abbey Road ( Apple 1969 ) 19.) Hey Jude ( Apple 1970 ) 20.) Let It Be ( Apple 1970 ) @ NewYorkActuary: Your right there was ten Capitol Records releases but it was actually their 12th overall released in America.
One last point -- you really should be signing your posts. You can do this by typing four tildes (i.e., ~~~~) at the end of your post. Or, you can use the button that appears right below the Edit window (the one that says "Sign your posts on talk pages").
Thanks again for following up on this. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 19:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
@ NewYorkActuary: I think we SHOULD counted both questions. We change it to twelth overall release and besides the Story album you asked was apart of the US albums box set released in January 2014. ( talk) 3:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
How is this a studio album when it's ACTUALLY a compilation McGuinessTom1941 ( talk) 18:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
As explained with the edit, the text mentions that some retailers did carry (and sell) the "butcher cover" LP until the Capitol recall kicked in. In the Collectivity section, the article currently states:
An extremely rare original "first state" stereo copy that was not from the Livingston collection was presented for appraisal at a 2003 Chicago taping of the PBS series Antiques Roadshow. It was still in the possession of the original owner, who had bought it at Sears & Roebuck on the day of release in 1966 – the only day that the original 'butcher cover' versions were on sale before being recalled by Capitol.
This is sourced to an Antiques Roadshow page ( here), which goes nowhere ... I've found this Roadshow appraisal, where there's a linked page, "Beatles Butcher Cover", which the site terms an "article". I haven't been able to access this PBS article because of site maintenance; if anyone finds they can, please let me know. (It'll be useful to confirm the "only day" point, as it will much of the first paragraph of the Collectivity section, I imagine. Bruce Spizer's book would be the go-to source for the latter, too – if only more was available in the google books preview.)
Robert Rodriguez also writes, referring to Capitol's pressing plants working around the clock to have the album back out in the marketplace: "An indeterminate number of paste-overs were then reshipped, and made it to retailers. (Meanwhile, a precious few independent distributors fulfilled orders with the original cover; a handful of people actually bought a 'butcher' cover off the rack before they were reclaimed.)" A "handful of people" might be slightly dramatic, but the point is the album was released, in that it was commercially available in some stores and available for purchase.
If anyone disagrees with this change, I'd understand it. Without being able to get better informed through Spizer, especially, or the Antiques Roadshow article, it does look a bit flimsy. Perhaps a few hundred, a couple of thousand?, slipped through to stores for a day or so before the Capitol edict came down – but does that make it a 15 June (or 14 June) release? A lot of sources go with 20 June, btw – Castleman & Podrazik, Turner's Beatles '66, Lewisohn, Ian MacDonald (all cited in this article). On the other hand, Miles' Beatles Diary, Rodriguez's Revolver (by implication) and the timeline sidebars in Mojo Special Limited Edition: 1000 Days That Shook the World (The Psychedelic Beatles) set it out the way I've described in the recent edit. I've not looked at fansites like recmusicbeatles.com, because we can't use them – even though I've found in the past that when reliable sources contradict one another, it's those same sites that, in giving so much detail and thought to everything Beatles, help determine which version of events and which RS's to go with. JG66 ( talk) 15:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Originally this page only included the single for Nowhere Man. I added the Yesterday and We Can Work It Out / Day Tripper singles to the list. These were removed by @JG66. He noted that, "Per sources, [the] Nowhere Man single sets up & signals the upcoming album", distinguishing it from the others "which are not the same as singles 'from' the album". I am not sure I understand what the specific difference is as all three had been released prior to the album being issued. Tkbrett (✉) 11:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
OK, we have "The June 1966 LP was unusual in its inclusion of tracks that had yet to be issued in the UK." (Those were the 3 tracks left off Revolver by Capitol.)
This isn't the only case of early release in US. I know that Beatles VI had 4 songs not yet released in UK: You Like Me Too Much, Tell Me What You See, Dizzy Miss Lizzie (all then appeared on non-soundtrack part of the UK Help! album), and Bad Boy, which was unreleased in UK until British Beatles "oldies" LP reached late 1966 Christmas market.
(The rest of Beatles VI: the 6 songs which were on Beatles For Sale but not on Beatles '65; Yes It Is, flip side of Ticket To Ride and available for use on Beatles VI because it was not in Help! movie.)
Carlm0404 (
talk) 07:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Beatlesebooks.com has, regarding Beatles VI: Since George Martin was happy to comply with their request the year before, resulting in him sending "Long Tall Sally" and "I Call Your Name" for inclusion on the US album "The Beatles' Second Album" months before they were heard in Britain, Capitol didn't hesitate to ask again. Carlm0404 ( talk) 07:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)