Talk:The Yes Album

Italian release

There seems to be a flurry of people eager to add the 1971 Italian release which misspells the title and rearranges the track list. Martinevans123 is correct that discogs.com is a self published source where anyone can add anything and we should avoid treating it as reliable, but in this case the actual citation is the record sleeve itself, and the discogs URL is merely a convenience link. If you don't believe the LP scan is genuine (and I created a parody of the cover with the dummy head replaced by one of Alex Salmond and plastered it on Facebook the day before the 2014 Scottish referendum, so it's always possible), you can track down the original LP and verify off that - the fact that's tricky is not a policy issue. I did see somebody selling a second-hand copy of the LP on Italian eBay with the same differences. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

If I was selling one on eBay, I'd certianly want to get the details into this article! Might even be a seen a s a "rarity". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC) .... ah-ha, Ritchie now we know who's fault it was!

You should take a butchers at some of the other odd sleeves that have turned up over the years. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying nothing about that. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Mannequin image

The mannequin image (emulating Phil Franks for the cover) is the only free image we have. We can’t add the original as it would fail the non-free fair use criteria. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Track times

Richie333: Editor(s) have been making changes to running times without citing any sources, so I thought it would be best to identify where the times are coming from. It may have been obtrusive, but it puts the vandals on notice that a RS is used. The image of the UK release (with a 1971 publishing date) didn't show any times,[1][2][3] so I used my original US LP. When there are differences, wouldn't it be better to use the original and explain the rest in an efn? —Ojorojo (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

(My original vinyl copy has a publishing date of 1971 on the label and 1972 on the cover. Neither bear any track times, and I'm pretty sure there was no insert sheet for lyrics etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC))

Well gosh, I just checked my 1971 vinyl copy, and there aren't any track times. I can assume where I remembered the wrong time on "Yours Is No Disgrace" (9:36 on the label, 9:41 if timed with a stopwatch) is from the first time I heard it round a mate of my dad's several decades ago. He must have had a reissue. Anyway, I used my 2003 CD reissue, because I'm sure the times are correct. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, now we can all sleep easier ... A problem with using a reissue is that it can always be superseded by a later reissue, whereas the original remains the same. Now, about those runout matrix numbers ... —Ojorojo (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Already asked off-wiki :-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Awww shucks. I've got just K 40106-A2/B3 on mine. I'm pretty sure I paid less than £3, brand new. But might just sell for £100. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

A K matrix number - K standing for the Kinney Music Group, means it was produced after late 1971.[4] Just the way fashion goes - in 1989, you'd struggle to give old vinyl away. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Unless you found a handy neighbourhood skip. But I feel so much better knowing that now, so huge thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Um, looking at my CD copy of the 2003 re-issue, the times given on the booklet insert are as follows: 9:36, 3:07, 9:23, 6:47, 3.13 and 8:50 i.e. all different to the ones currently shown? (there are no times given for the three bonus tracks). Any suggestions? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC) p.s. there is also an error with the ref name=liner.

Those running times are the same as the ones shown on the 1971 US Atlantic LP. Browsing through images of various releases and reissues show several different running times. Maybe the idea that track listings should only indicate a source in exceptional cases (from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 61#Citations for track listings and personnel, added to WP:ALBUMSTYLE#Track listing §Sourcing requirements) should be revisited. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Vachalia

I once read an interview with Howe where he explained that his sister came back from holidays in Spain with a gift for him: what she thought was a Spanish guitar. Howe noticed immediately that it was not so; it was a different instrument he had never seen. Since he had heard that there was a string instrument called vachalia, which he had never seen, he decided that his sister's gift must be that vachalia, and gave it that name. Years later he learnt that it was actually a Portuguese guitar. Thing is that it is not so; it is actually a Spanish laúd, which is relatively popular in Spain and somehow similar to the Portuguese guitar, though actually different. Comparing pictures of both instruments with Howe's vachalia, it is immediately clear that it is a laúd (the laúd article actually includes a picture of Howe playing it); the Portuguese guitar has a very distinctive machine head, totally different from the laúd. Besides, laúds can be quite cheap in Spain, and Portuguese guitars very difficult to find outside Portugal. Problem is that I have no actual references that can contradict Howe's account of it being a Portuguese guitar.--Gorpik (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is a problem. As I said in my last edit summary, "Steve Howe is currently sourced at Portuguese guitar". We are stuck with sources. But it looks like it's not a translation overlap/error. Not sure how we put something like "what Howe described as/ believed to be a Portuguese guitar"? Perhaps a footnote would help. Another alternative would be to just unlink that word altogether and just use s footnote. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I like your last suggestion. We should not just say "we know better than him" in the article, without presenting compelling references; but a footnote explaining what the vachalia is and presenting the different opinions on its real nature would be best, I think.--Gorpik (talk) 08:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Happy to also get a view from principle editor User:Ritchie333. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)