<toneboe> I was just thinking what sub genre would this one go in?

I want to vote for it but I'm not sure which nomination category.

What's scary is this track is only mono, not even a stereo mix version and it sounds extremely avant garde ; P

That is strictly a McCartney composition. I think the genre would be innovative ballad with a quartet added to the song.

No opposition to "Sgt. Pepper."

What about category of "linked songs" or "mini opera," that genre that Pete Townshend worked so well in The Who?

I vote for this sequence as best Beatles "mini opera," because these songs are in fact linked in theme as well as music- the songs make a unit:

P.S. I think you're talking about Pete Townsend's work on Tommy the 1st Rock Opera!

Here's Elton from the film Tommy
http://youtu.be/ePiGVI2Hs-g

Here is Pete's first "Mini Opera" and one of my all time favorite tracks:

It predates Prog Rock.

It's a much better school than the one where you have to bring books and the teacher hits you with a ruler.

I still remember "Mrs. Unwin."

Thank you for dropping by with such an explanatory post. Just to put it in the context of what you're replying to, I'll repost some of what I wrote earlier.

These are excerpts from a post in which I address <Karpova> about her question, "what do I think of Bill Wall's web pages":

<Bill's material on chess is about equal to the general wikipedia norm, which makes it no surprise to see his pages cited there. He was one of the first to post a large number of biographical sketches on the internet. Mainly what he did, I think, is read through his own library and post whatever he found in his books...

The thing is- most of the basic info about chess masters in Wikipedia and Bill's pages is true...

That said- there are serious flaws as we know. Lack of reliable cited contemporaneous sources, the propagation of hoary chess myths and legends, and a generally sloppy approach to fact checking...

But there remain serious factual errors in every "documentary" I've posted on youtube. I don't deny the mistakes, when I find them or they are pointed out by others...

But I also haven't taken down the videos or re-edited them...

Bill can correct his web pages more easily, although I'm not sure they are all posted on "recent" servers- I'm not sure he has access to edit them all without redoing them and reposting them on a new server. Anyways, as I've said, in the two cases I had personal involvement in, <<<Bill promptly re-edited>>> the pages in question.>

<Bill> I too am currently suffering from the the feeling "if I had to do it over again, I'd cite everything" with respect to the chess history videos I put up on youtube. There are way too many errors in them and it would be very difficult to do anything about that now except take them down and re-do them from scratch.

But that's what the future's for. These days,I'm keeping track of where I get every fact now whilst researching the next chess history videos I'm currently making.

###################

In addition, we are now in the process of editing the History of the World Chess Championship, and I wonder if you might have time/inclination to help us?

We could benefit greatly from your experience and your vast chess library.

If you are interested, here is how we are doing it. First, we made a forum to do the work in here- WCC Editing Project chessforum

Second, we made "mirror games collections" for each of the existing WCC series events- we can edit these directly. After we are finished all of them, we'll submit all our edits to <Daniel Freeman> at one time. Here's an example of one of our Mirror Collections, you can see the original intro in black italicized characters, and our edited information in colored un-italicized text: Game Collection: WCC: Alekhine-Euwe 1935

Finally, any Cg.com member, including you, is welcome to post any edit information they have on our forum pages. I then transfer that information directly on to the Mirror games collections (because I have the password- heh).

Anyways it's really good to hear from you again.

My thoughts on the topic are the following:

I think that your work should be regarded as a preliminary collection and interpretation of facts, a pioneering work at the beginning of the Internet Age, when it became available to a large public.

Certainly, to check and double-check all your work on chess history is too much to attempt for a single man, especially if not a professional chess historian. And you were ahead of your time, as an infrastructue like now did not exist.

I mean an infrastructure, which allows many people to work with your collection, discuss it and improve it. And it furthermore happened, that your work was often simply copy/pasted somewhere else and presented as gospel.

The results were, that your work was now not entirely under your control (or at all) anymore, and it was in a way petrified. Instead of a template for deepening, correcting and enriching, it had become a finished product simply by arresting its development.

As for the visitors, I can afford the caviar and the Dom Perignon because I have so few guests. I peaked after I posted the stories, shortly after the armistice.

My haircutter's son is currently stationed in South Korea. Please feel free to stop by and say hello to him.

I've been enjoying the "Live" commentary of the FIDE Crapshoot. Since the games start in the morning which is a time of day I only hear about on occasion, having a good, old fashioned, Don Dunphy blow by blow is essential.