Blonde on Blonde is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	Blonde on Blonde is the main article in the Blonde on Blonde series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 16, 2016.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 19, 2011 Good article nominee Listed January 1, 2012 Featured article candidate Promoted August 8, 2023 Good topic candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

This  level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Albums 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 Bob Dylan Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bob Dylan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bob Dylan on Wikipedia, including songs, albums, concepts, people, books, and movies related to him. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bob DylanWikipedia:WikiProject Bob DylanTemplate:WikiProject Bob DylanBob Dylan Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Rock music Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

It's a shame that a generally good article persists in giving a completely wrong release date for Blonde On Blonde. Yes, Columbia records did plan to have the album out in May 1966 (and their original press release forms the basis for the wrong information being repeated to this day) but the album was delayed and did not reach stores until July 1966 (which is when I bought my copy so I know, I was there). Adverts and reviews in the music press (Billboard, KRLA Beat, Melody Maker, NME, Record Mirror Disc & Music Echo etc) all date to their July and early August 1966 issues, which is when the album began to appear in the USA and UK LP charts. If Blonde On Blonde had in fact been released as early as May then the audiences at the concerts in Great Britain would have already been familiar with Fourth Time Around, Just Like A Woman, Visions Of Johanna and Leopard Skin Pill Box Hat but they weren't and likewise none of the contemporary reviewers knew these songs before they were played live and so had to guess at titles. I was at one of these UK shows and these songs were all new to me: if Blonde On Blonde had been released at that date I would have known about it. Some Dylan writers have pointed out the error of the 'May' date but it seems nothing will dislodge it after all this repetition. I tried to correct this Wikipedia article but it was reverted very quickly. Glenrow (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed before. Like you, I think it is July, but the point is we can't prove that - all the evidence says May. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Glenrow: Album release date is discussed in the article: Release is section 3.1. Both Michael Gray and Clinton Heylin agree that early July is the likely release date. Heylin says an overdub section for "Fourth Time Around" was recorded in June. Mick gold (talk) 13:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyone in the USA with access to: Phonolog. New York City, New York : Muze, 1948- . 1098-0156 / 0279-6562 Phonolog ( PhonoLog or PhonoLog: The All-in-One Record Catalog or PhonoLog: The All-in-One Record Reporter) was a recorded music directory that listed artists, currently available albums, and songs, focusing on popular music. Each directory contained thousands of loose-leaf pages and listings. Many libraries in the USA still have them. Library of Congress is thought to have the most complete set..." "Looseleaf service, updated weekly. $498.00 Access by song title and performer as well as by album title makes this a useful print adjunct to Schwann Spectrum."

When does Phonolog first list Blonde on Blonde being distributed to shops? That would be worth stating.

http://www.worldcat.org/title/phonolog/oclc/38463083&referer=brief_results

Anyone still use libraries?

"June 29, 1966 issue of Variety lists Blonde on Blonde as an upcoming release (bottom left of photo)"

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CimMy-VWwAAM8yh.jpg:large

Bob Dylan: The Recording Sessions Part Two By Michael Krogsgaard The Telegraph

Columbia Recording Studios Nashville, Tennessee June 16, 1966 Produced by Bob Johnston Overdub Session. 1. Fourth Time Around CO83182 Take 1b 2. Fourth Time Around Take 2b 3. Fourth Time Around Take 3b 4. Fourth Time Around Take 4C Original recording done February 14, 1966, track 20. Musicians: Charlie McCoy (harpsichord) and Kenneth Buttrey (drums).

http://www.punkhart.com/dylan/sessions-2.html

KRLA BEAT, 16 Jul 1966, p.1 & p.4: p.1: "...his new album ... will probably be talked about as much as the Beatles album cover that's just been withdrawn." p.4: "The album has been delayed for some time now and word has reached THE BEAT that it was Dylan himself who delayed it... It had been cut and mastered when he called it back to re-mix some numbers on it... He also changed the title from Blonde on Blond to Blonde on Blonde."

EDLIS Café 22:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I know the issue is closed here, but someone just changed BoB's release date on Bob Dylan discography to Columbia's "official" May 20, 1966 date, pointing out that the article's June 20 date had no source. This is true, so I intend to change the date back to June 20 and use Heylin's Judas! as the source. I suspect we'll hear from the editor, Abebenjoe, so I'll add something on the discography's Talk page to reference the discussion here.

That's one issue. The other is that the "Date uncertainty" subsection in the BoB article cites the overdub of "Fourth Time Around" in June as further proof of the revised release date. I don't know all the ins and outs of this, but the sentence in question implies the overdub version appears on the album, though it could also mean the producers were still having second thoughts prior to the actual release. According to Michael Krogsgaard's Bob Dylan: The Recording Sessions, as cited above, the overdub was never used. It should also be noted that like Heylin, Krogsgaard had access to the Sony archives, but he cites June 16 as the release date. I don't have Judas! so I have no idea what Heylin has to say about picking June 20. In any case, IMO the sentence about the overdub should be clarified. Allreet (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an entire subsection becuase contributors don't agree, or is the date discrepancy actually significant enough to justify so many words? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.78.91.41 (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kapeter77, please stop repeatedly removing the word "had" from the second sentence in the "Background" section, as you have done in these edits: [1], [2], [3], and [4], without any explanation. The edits are unnecessary and worsen the article. The sentence is fine as it is, and does not require "fixing".

The paragraph starts with a description of an event that took place no earlier than August 30: after the release of the "Highway 61 Revisited" album, Dylan in September set about hiring a touring band. The next sentence refers to events that happened at a time earlier than the one already referred to: Bloomfield and Kooper had performed with Dylan on the Highway 61 Revisited album, and at Newport in July. For this, the pluperfect form is used. Please stop removing it. --IamNotU (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence that was there before was not unambigous... so please write a sentence that is clear: when was the album, when was the event. 'Had' is only for something happened earlier than another event.Kapeter77 (talk) 03:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is it ambiguous? It refers to "the release of Highway 61 Revisited in August 1965", and then to the fact that Bloomfield and Kooper had performed on the new album, which obviously happened earlier than the release date. They had also performed at the Newport festival which had taken place in July. The word "had" itself makes the time relationship clear. There is no need to rewrite the sentence that I can see. --IamNotU (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this version is the best... 'New' the word was not goodbecause it was already mentioned. Kapeter77 (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"His new album" was ok, but "the album" is simpler so I left that. I removed the other words you added. Please just leave "had backed Dylan" alone. --IamNotU (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The section on the Nashville recordings makes no mention of who played the piano parts notable in a number of the cuts recorded there (eg I Want You). Did Paul Griffin too come down from NY? GianniBGood (talk) 12:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inside your album Blonde on Blonde there is an error on the release date of a single by Bob Dylan, yesterday the artist remembered the release of his single Just Like a Woman: https://www.facebook.com/bobdylan/posts/pfbid0SxeuKmTZzacdcZbkigTwqQmrWf6QGTPETT4JFz57DnkUP3H1c79xob3eQ4zHuJF9l - which happened on the same day in 1966. Here you need to correct the date, while inside the story of the single you created it is correct. Barbara1941 (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should we retitle this section as "Subsequent Appraisal and Legacy" or simply "Legacy"? "Reappraisal" would indicate that it was poorly regarded upon release and has subsequently become highly regarded (or the opposite as the case may be). Based on the article it would seem that it was highly regarded at the time and remains so. David18426 (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Half of the section belongs in reception anyways. This article's layout would not pass FAC today. 174.78.91.41 (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]