Jump to content

Talk:Rock 'n' Roll (John Lennon album)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleRock 'n' Roll (John Lennon album) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 24, 2013Good article nomineeListed

2003

[edit]

Is there no room for an annotated Lennon disography in any existing entry? Will each Lennon album get a mini-entry like this? Wetman

This is a lumping-versus-splitting thing. Perhaps there should be an annotated discography on the John Lennon page, instead of separate pages. -- Cabalamat 04:57, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

"Just Because"

[edit]

The album's closing track has taken on monumental significance since Lennon's 1980 Playboy interview, where he states that he was "subconsciously saying goodbye" to the music industry. Back in 1974, however, it was simply the closing track for an album that Lennon envisioned as an "oldies hours" on the radio, and was mimicking D.J.'s from that era closing their show.

Phil Spector suggested this song to Lennon, he'd never heard it, or couldn't remember hearing it. Which is why, at the beginning, Lennon says, "I must've been 13 when I first heard this. Or was it 14?. Or was it 22? I could've been 12 actually."

The ending dialogue is also quite humorous as the song's leading lady turns out to be a transvestite of sorts "When I discovered you were wearing man's clothes, not that I'm prejudiced..."

When Lennon says, "This is Dr. Winston O'Boogie saying goodnight from Record Plant East New York, everyone here says 'hi'" -- all the studio personal say "hi" on the recording.

It continues on, as now heard in the re-mixed release, with fond messages to Paul, George and Ringo (and Lennon also plugs Starr's new album for good measure).

Lennon sequenced the tracks very carefully, opening with Be Bop A Lula, the song that he was playing with The Quarrymen when he first met Paul McCartney. Lennon also joked that McCartney would be making more money from this album than he would, because McCartney owned the publishing to "Peggy Sue."

Hotcop2 15:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit of this page

[edit]

As a page for the "Roots" album has been created, I removed Roots specific info from the page... also brought in some Rock N Roll facts. If something needs reference, please cite in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotcop2 (talk • contribs)

Rip It Up

[edit]

Wouldn't it be a good idea to mention the fact that this album was officially reissued under license on CD under the title "Rip It Up" (with alternate artwork) in New South Wales in 1988 on the J&B record label catalogue number JB 626? Boothferry (talk) 08:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Rock 'n' Roll (John Lennon album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 16:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding as I go along. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 19:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 20:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should "Gold" be capitalised?
 Done Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 19:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The French citation 36 only links to a search page.
Added note in ref. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 19:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "Lennon adds "It's all down to Goodnight Vienna, I'd like to say hi to Ringo, Paul and, George ... how are you? (and) Everybody back home, in England ... what's cookin'?" Lennon was still unable to leave the United States, because of his immigration case, settled later in 1975" seems a bit out of place. Why is it down there?
The "It's all down to Goodnight Vienna..." is a quote from the end of the track, the bit about the case can be removed sicne I've cited that further up the article. Should I remove it all? Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 19:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe make it a footnote, or move it to recording? Seems a bit confusing where it is. FunkMonk (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 20:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though it is a quote, it seems a bit odd the sentence here changes tense, couldn't the quoted part be paraphrased? "Lennon had to "record three songs by Big Seven publishers on his next album. The songs [he] intends to record at this time are "You Can't Catch Me", "Angel Baby" and "Ya Ya", [and] he reserves the right to alter the last two songs to any other songs belonging to Big Seven."
  • "Lennon was in Hollywood making a record, every musician wanted to be part of the sessions" I guess every musician there is meant?
  • Why is Spector's coma "alleged"?
 Done above three. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 20:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For a potential FAC, it could be nice with a sample.
Will do some point after the GAR. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 20:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some potentially interesting info about a New South Wales release on the talk page:[1]
The closet (non-selling site) I can find info for that is this LP version with correct cat, but not called Rip It Up, and a CD version called Rip It Up, but no cat. What should I do? Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 21:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, you don't have to do anything for now, but could e nice adittion if you find out more in the future.
Hello, and thanks for reviewing this one. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 19:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks good now, so I'll pass it. The images and sources look good as well. FunkMonk (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Personnel

[edit]

I don't know who Calkin is, but what happened to the list of session players on the album, particularly the Los Angeles sessions? The album was famous for "everyone and their mother" dropping in on the sessions -- Calkin reduced it it to nothing which is factually incorrect. Hotcop2 (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, someone played bass on the L.A. sessions. Actually, according to Lennon himself while singing "Just Because," he says, "There's two basses in this" but no one is credited for even one. We need to fix the personnel session. Hotcop2 (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rock 'n' Roll (John Lennon album). 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, 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Berry/Morris Levy lawsuit

[edit]

The outcome of the suit in 1973 brought by Chuck Berry's publisher (and claimed by Morris Levy) over "You Can't Catch Me," recorded in the article Music plagiarism, differs from this article's account. Was Lennon bound to include three songs on his 'next' album, which turned out to be Walls and Bridges, or did this album (in 1975) satisfy the conditions of the settlement? Dano67 (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personnel references

[edit]

Does anyone have a reference or two for the personnel section? I can add a Beatles Bible reference but that site has a slightly different personnel than the one listed here. Does the album itself have a booklet that contains the exact personnel, because that would work much better. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rock 'n' Roll (John Lennon album). 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) 13:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a compilation album

[edit]

Shouldn't Rock 'n' Roll be listed as a compilation album instead? If it is just a collection of covers and not original songs, doesn't that make it more of a compilation album instead of being a studio album? 24.127.236.115 (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the way album classifications are determined. Studio album means that most of the songs on the album were recorded during the same time period. And that most of the album's tracks were previously unreleased. Rock 'n' Roll is made entirely of new material, even if it doesn't contain any original material, therefore it is a studio album. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 04:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

introduction

[edit]

The introduction was confusing when I looked up this album last month and I had to read the main article and some external citations to make sense of it. So out of the kindness of my heart, I put the introduction into a more logical order and explained a few things better, like why the album was delayed so long and why John was recording an album of oldies in the first place. Why the hell did I bother? My version is clearer and more complete than what you keep putting back. The introduction is all that most people read when they look up something on Wikipedia so it should be the best part. Right now it sucks again.

It was clear and concise (and followed lead-paragraph format) before you added all the info that was already in the article making it redundant. Can't put everything in the lead, now can we? By the way, it was a GOOD ARTICLE before your kind heart made these changes. Hotcop2 (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "good article" recommendation on this page says the lead should be "at least two paragraphs." It's barely two now and the first one is hot mess that doesn't include basic information that people look for. It didn't even mention what month the album was released until somebody noticed it in my version and added it today. Why didn't you erase that if the introduction was already perfect? I'm going to put my version back one more time to give anybody a chance to work with it. If it gets taken down again I'm done here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.204.0.56 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it's already clear and concise then there's little need for it to be changed. Also not everything necessarily needs to be put in a logical order. Lastly, introductions are supposed to be brief. They aren't supposed to contain huge chunks of information. That's what the bodies of each article are for. The bodies of articles usually contain the best information. If people don't bother to read the bodies of articles then that's on them and not on the articles. The people that don't bother to read the body of the articles are the minority. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 04:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rock_%27n%27_Roll_(John_Lennon_album)&oldid=1247901629"