Talk:The Beach Boys Love You

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum

Rock music Mid‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Electronic music High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fair use rationale for Image:LoveYouCover.jpg

Image:LoveYouCover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review Suggestion

As an editor at Crawdaddy!, and to comply with COI guidelines, I am not posting the link to this review. However, I would like to recommend it on its merits, and hope that an editor will find the time to examine the review and—if he or she sees fit—post it to the professional reviews section. I appreciate your time. Crawdaddy! (favorable) 2008
Asst. Editor, Crawdaddy! FenderRhodesScholar | Talk 22:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian sings "Mona"

From the booklet of the 2000 CD release:

3. MONA Wonderful, circular love song on which Brian is the only audible Beach Boy. Special touching note: Brian's lyrical insistence that a shared love of Phil Spector is one of the prerequisites for romance.

I would add that "I Wanna Pick You Up" sounds like someone (probably Brian) is doubling Dennis's vocal.

"Mona" sounds like Brian -- not completely burnt out, just rough.

--63.25.118.201 (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on Talk:Mona (song). MookieZ (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguity

How can the album have both sharply divided critical opinion and "by common consent" be the last great BB album?

Roygbiv666 (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- "Common consent" would include the views of Joe Public, "critical opinion" would not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackerjack (talk • contribs) 12:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Wilson's favorite album?

"Though his view has changed many times over the years, Brian Wilson has called it his favourite [sic] Beach Boys album."

Where is this documented? According to the introductory notes that Brian Wilson wrote for the Capitol two-fer CD release of Friends and 20/20: "Pet Sounds is by far my very best album. Still, my favorite is Friends." 69.234.34.207 (talk) 08:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love is a Woman / All together now

How about "Love is a Woman" and Beatles' "All together now"? The lyrics. I'd like to think it's a reference to the Beatles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.188.217.70 (talk) 06:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Love You (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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.petsounds.com/mojo1.pdf

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 June 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Love You (The Beach Boys album) → ~~Love You (album)~~ The Beach Boys Love You – Page was just moved, without discussion, because of the presence of Love You (Ghost album), even though the Beach Boys album is much more significant. Would have been better to just add a {{Redirect}} hatnote. – Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 10:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilovetopaint: This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Love You (album) currently redirects to Love You, which is a long disambig list including 3 albums and 5 songs. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, like I said, only one other album (Love You by Ghost - Love Ya does not count). And nobody is going to confuse "Love You (album)" with... a song.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, check out how this issue is dealt with at Revolver (album) and What's Going On (album). This should actually be moved to The Beach Boys Love You, per WP:NCDAB.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ any move. Current setup is fine. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nohomersryan: Did you actually read WP:NCDAB? Natural disambigs are preferred to parenthetical. This is an identical case to The Beach Boys Today.Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know what natural DAB is. Sources seem to prefer "Love You", as does the official Beach Boys site (which, BTW, uses "The Beach Boys Today"). For me at least this is comparable to The Beatles (album) - where there have been several failed requests to change the title of the article to White Album which would eliminate disambiguation. Regardless of NCDAB I think Love You with disambiguation is the more encylcopedic title for the article. Nohomersryan (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm what? It would only be comparable to the White Album if the words "The Beach Boys Love You" was a nickname that never appeared anywhere in the packaging. The album is known by two names: Love You and The Beach Boys Love You - both are official and widely-used [1].--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also sources prefer The Beach Boys Love You. Note how many times it is used versus "the Beach Boys' Love You".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Book sources use "Love You" but a quick search shows a lot of contemporaneous/modern sources still use "Love You" - i.e. a search for "The Beach Boys Love You" brings up articles/videos that all use unqualified "Love You". I see there are a few sources that say the album's name actually was officially changed to "The Beach Boys Love You" from Brian Loves You, which is weird that official sources would still use plain old "Love You". That's enough to make me strike my oppose, but I'll stay neutral for now. Nohomersryan (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per the sources. The fact that The Beach Boys Today is treated differently by the sources, and even the band's publisher, is just too bad. WP:CONSISTENCY is not a Law of the Universe, and is trumped by WP:V / WP:RS. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 20:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Found independent reason to support, below. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 04:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: Nobody has ever provided a source from the band's publisher. The official website happens to list Carl and the Passions – "So Tough" as Carl & The Passions - So Tough, even though the former is clearly how the album is labelled on its front sleeve. It looks like the site is basing its titles from frivolous digital tags.

A contemporary ad explicitly promotes the album as The Beach Boys Love You.

In any case, WP:RS has nothing to do with this. The sources are already there, coming directly from the band and from countless others. The only matter left to resolve is which is more concise and natural: The Beach Boys Love You or Love You (The Beach Boys album). Yet another comparison can be drawn to Smile (Brian Wilson album) and Brian Wilson Presents Smile, which was ambiguous about its "official title" on its packaging, but which is invariably referred to as Brian Wilson Presents Smile to prevent confusion with Smile (The Beach Boys album).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A contemporary ad is meaningless; it is promotional material intended to catch the eye and send a message. It presents "The Beach Boys Love You" as a headline, not as the title of a work. Digital tagging: That is quite possible, but I never said anything about the "official" website. Since, as you say, no one has produced a source from the band's publisher, go with the treatment in RS, which strongly leans toward Love You. Even if there were a publisher statement, we might not accept it anyway; a tremendous amount of the time, the "official" style of a work, in record company materials, on album covers, etc. in in SCREAMING ALL CAPS or ALMOST AS OBNOXIOUS SMALL-CAPS, and we ignore this with impunity as marketing nonsense. The encyclopedic approach is to treat as the title what reliable sources (e.g. critical works) on music treat as the title. RS has everything to do with this, as it always does on Wikipedia. As Nohomersryan observed, above, "Book sources use "Love You" [and] a quick search shows a lot of contemporaneous/modern [online] sources still use "Love You"'. That is sufficient to use the shorter, better-attested title, per WP:COMMONNAME. You're right that WP:CONCISE and WP:NATURAL aren't really relevant in this case; CONCISE applies to the base name and to the disambiguating term separately, but not the entire thing combined (the CONCISE argument would be to move it to Love You (Beach Boys album), because "The" is unnecessary here), not the combined title as a whole. NATURAL tells us to prefer natural over parenthetic disambiguation, all things otherwise being equal, but they are not equal here; the sources prefer the shorter version. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish:

"The sources prefer the shorter version"

Once again: book sources name The Beach Boys Love You much more often than just Love You.:

Only one source on the first page of a Google Books search writes:

"The whole wonky package is similar in tone to the Beach Boys' Love You album" (note the apostrophe)

An ad featuring an all-caps title is a poor comparison - typographical effects are never allowed to begin with. The promotional ad is only evidence of the fact that the longer version was recognized by more "official" channels, as opposed to something like The White Album, which originated as an informal nickname (inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources).

You seem confused here. I never said CONCISE and NATURAL weren't relevant. But what's most relevant is WP:PARENDIS:

Parenthetical disambiguation ... [is] Wikipedia's standard disambiguation technique when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title.

Given that we know The Beach Boys Love You is supported (and preferred) by reliable sources, there isn't really anything left to argue. Paranthetical disambigs are supposed to be a last resort when no other WP:COMMONNAMES can be found--Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that book sources favor the long version. Scrolling through Google Books results (and ignoring various false positives), I see plenty of both the short version and the long one. Repetitively citing a handful of cherry-picked examples that favor your preference doesn't demonstrate anything, since anyone else can just put up opposite examples. Love You is not an "inaccurate" name for the album, it's one of two exceedingly common, and (in absence of a statement from band members to the contrary) equally valid interpretations of ambiguous album labeling. I'm not likely to respond again, per WP:BLUDGEON; other RM respondents can look at what's been cited so far, what the WP:P&G say, and how we're handling other cases, and offer their own views, without having to wade through more two-party back-and-forth. :-) In the end I don't really care much, and don't want to get into a "sport debate". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 04:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The cover looks ambiguous and interpretable either way as "The Beach Boys" and "Love You", or "The Beach Boys Love You", and such circumstances have arisen before, and been argued half to death (e.g. Star Trek into Darkness). However, not only is it sourced that the original title was going to be "Brian Loves You", we have RS stating "In January of 1977, The Beach Boys Love You (the name was changed to make it seem like a group effort) was submitted to Warner Bros." (from: Leaf, David (1985). The Beach Boys. Courage Books. ISBN 978-0894714122 – via Google Books. Revised version of The Beach Boys and the California Myth, 1978.) This is sufficient evidence that the title is – and very intentionally is – The Beach Boys Love You as a discrete title devised by the band, and is not sloppy cover typography. While the RS usage is divided between the short and long versions of the title, that really doesn't matter if we know that Love You is just a music-journalistic abbreviation and is not the real title. If the sources consistently preferred the short version, then WP:COMMONNAME would kick in and trump artistic intent, but they do not, and it does not. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 04:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Beach Boys Love You. 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/20151225083734/http://www.esquarterly.com/bellagio/gigs77.html to http://www.esquarterly.com/bellagio/gigs77.html

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) 01:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is sn exact title of this album?

Is it The Beach Boys Love You or simply Love You? — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

The former. ili (talk) 05:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Unnecessary detail"

@Binksternet: Care to explain what you find unnecessary here? The info about the songs themselves? The detail about Lindsey Buckingham being a fan? The commentary drawn from David Leaf's biography of the group? The detail about Warner having issues with the album? The detail about Adult/Child being cancelled because of the poor sales of Love You? The photo of Wilson? The photo of Patti Smith? I would appreciate the clarification given that I invested a couple hours into expanding this article with what I felt were pertinent details that readers would find interesting. Thank you. 2601:192:8802:970:AC27:B54E:A70:2423 (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First off, you should return to using your registered account ILIL (previously Ilovetopaint). You've been blocked once as ILIL and also blocked once as the IP range Special:Contributions/2407:C800:6F21:48:0:0:0:0/64. These two blocks should all be seen as applying to you.

You wrote that the album is known for its "heavy sound, gravelly vocal performances, and idiosyncratic lyrics", which is undue emphasis on traits that are not found in multiple sources. Nowhere in the article body is the album described as heavy. Binksternet (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but the text says "synthesizer-heavy", not "heavy". Since you didn't raise any other specific complaints, I will assume that this misreading was your only real issue and restore the rev with the original lead intact. 2601:192:8802:970:4475:FE40:8719:95E6 (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last great album?

hi,

I've been looking online to see the reviews for this after seeing the holland album, which is considered their "last great album", but when looking it up i noticed that a majority of the reviews/rankings place this higher than holland, and the ones who place it lower even said that it aint a bad album, which leads to the question, isn't this their last great album and not holland? 121.44.208.82 (talk) 11:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a synth-pop album

Avoiding an edit war here. There is no musicologist who would make the claim that this record fits the genre of "synth-pop". One paste blurb does not make it so. There are synthesizers present on the album, but other than that it bears zero resemblance to the subgenre of synth-pop that emerged in the later 1970s and 1980s. For instance, Gary Numan's single "Cars" had not been released in 1977, which informed the sound of the subgenre that was populated with artists like Pet Shop Boys and Depeche Mode. Brian Wilson using Moog synth to play bass lines does not a synth-pop album make. Stylistically it is most similar to the album that immediately preceeded it, 15 Big Ones. Classic pop songs that are melodically and sonically similar to popular vocal music from the 1950s and 1960s.

I would ask others to provide further evidence than one paste magazine blurb that retroactively has defined the album as "synth-pop". Wikipedia is meant to reflect reality, not opinion. Caseyehard (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]