Talk:The Beatles/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Elvis Presley

According to a Bulgarian book about Beatles, Elvis Presley was envious to their success and bought off all tickets for their concert, so no one could enjoy it. Can someone comment on this (I find highly improbable), and would you please enter a short comment on the main page to help shed light on the facts. Thanks, NT

Protection

Due the edit war between anonymous and registered users, I have fully protected this article for three days. I am awed that nobody started a conversation here to determine whether the added genres could be referenced, but instead preferred to discuss through edit summaries. Protection will expire automatically. -- ReyBrujo 16:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It's been discussed ad infinitum before. The Beatles touched on many genres; at the end of the day it's best to categorise them as pop/rock which covers most bases. The only changing without discussion has come from anons and redlink newbies. I support the semi-protection. --kingboyk 16:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I've already added a note there stating why I added folk rock and hard rock, but whoever kept changing it ignored it and/or deleted it. Raistuumum 17:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Some observations

1) This article has a large section on their early days in Hamburg. And an extensive section about their US breakthrough in 1964. But comparatively little about the importance of the band's ever-growing success in their homeland - which meant a huge amount to them and which was the launching pad for their American success (and success elsewhere). It needs more about the importance of their breakthrough year in the UK - 1963. And their developments in the UK in 1964-1966. The impact on them of their ongoing creative and UK singles chart rivalry with other artists - especially the Stones. The US was important to them in many ways. But the coverage in the article about the US is disproportionate.

2) This Talk Page has one or two notes of inaccuracies in the Bob Spitz book. They are the tip of a large iceberg. He is a well-intentioned writer - but NOT a Beatles expert. He is a journeyman biographer who specializes in writing pop biographies. He did interviews 45 years after the fact with people whose memories were naturally somewhat hazy and some of whom had an "agenda". He should not be disregarded of course. But he should not be regarded as the holy gospel. There are proven inaccuracies in many Beatles books eg - Hunter Davies, Philip Norman, Peter Brown. Spitz also has his share of errors. And a lack of understanding of cultural and socio-political context. The works of Derek Taylor, George Martin, Denis O'Dell, Tony Barrow, Ray Coleman, Barry Miles, Mark Lewisohn, Martin Lewis, Bruce Spizer - among many - should be examined and compared. In their specific areas - they are more reliable than Spitz.

Just a few thoughts... Davidpatrick 05:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. When I think of expert tomes on the Beatles I don't think of Bob Spitz. --kingboyk 11:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

As discussed in the Spitz section above.--Son of Somebody 11:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Even though I no longer contribute to this project, I will defend the the citations I provided. Spitz spent seven years researching/writing his book (fact) and that is not the sort of time a Pop biographer would think of giving. He did make one mistake that I spotted, but other books also have them - but that is no reason to discount his work. I suggest you read this... User Davidpatrick does not know how to put in-line citations in (fact) and I strongly suspect that he has not even read Spitz's book. I would even go so far as to say that I think he is a Trojan Horse, and has his own hidden agenda. andreasegde 12:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What does Davidpatrick's lack of wiki skills have to do with the validity or invalidity of his observations about Spitz? McTavidge 03:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You are scraping the bottom of the barrel. This is very old news. --andreasegde (talk) 11:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Revision history is so messy

...with vandalism and sub-standard edits, I couldn't find a suitable revision to roll back to. In the end I settled for Steelbeard's edit from a few days ago. Apologies to anybody whose good edit I zapped (if anybody!) but you try finding a good edit amongst all that crap! :( --kingboyk 00:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps we could list links to "revertable" editions of the article under this section to make it easier to clean up the vandalism? ErleGrey 17:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It might be an idea to have a an example of a vandal and cruft-free edit of recent times to compare against the current example. Thus any reasonable edits could be considered, and good ones (! per Kingboyk) retained. This then becomes the default referral edit. Can this be done, so that all changes appear as diffs? LessHeard vanU 22:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that can be done - if a good edit can be found! We can even have a WikiProject "peer reviewed" revision (we're the peers :P) and put it into that shiny articlehistory template at the top of the talk page if we want. --kingboyk 22:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have gone back in the article history and compared these versions, which both seem to be rather trustworthy. Believe it or not, there have been quite a few good revisions since - although a new plethora of {{fact}} tags have been added. ErleGrey 22:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah... I'm afraid that I wouldn't be able to participate in any peer review involving one of those examples. Best keep it amongst non-ex-Project Members. Sorry. LessHeard vanU 00:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps protection would be best for this page? I've just had to clean up a few irrelevant genre additions-(acid rock, folk rock) that were certainly not discussed here. These kinds of additions are just the tip of the iceberg, which makes protection more and more of a viable option. ErleGrey 14:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The thinking is that long-term protection from casual vandalism and naive editing by IP's and new accounts (full protection is never going to happen) is not worth the adverse reaction regarding the free and open ethos of Wikipedia. You have to remember that this article has one of the highest hits for edits on Wikipedia, so in a way it comes with the territory (for some reason this is never mentioned to people who express a wish to contribute). In a perfect world instead of just reverting those you might have considered contacting the editor, explain the processes and where to make suggestions and thus develop a new contributor... Which would mean we could have 2, 3, 4 or even 5 dozen new potential editors a day! (I giggle when the editors of the FA of the day express shock at the number of vandalisms they get for that day - usually about par for these articles on any day!) Having and updating a default example of the article, as discussed above, really would be a worthwhile concept, so we can concentrate on removing pure vandalism and perhaps discussing the validity of some edits while keeping the few that obviously improves the article. LessHeard vanU 15:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, again, there are very few IP edits that improve or advance the article. I hate to say this, but any edits by IPs must be reviewed/reverted almost immediately to sustain the encyclopedic nature of the article. In regards to having a default example of the article, we could simply list links to "clean" versions and diffs here in order to easily review the edits. ErleGrey 15:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I see the page is now protected. Does anyone know for how long (and why, if it wasn't from this discussion)? LessHeard vanU 19:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC) or I could have simply looked... LessHeard vanU 19:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Ron Richards / Love Me Do

In his book “ Summer of Love”, Martin states: “On the 6 June Beatles’ session I decided that Pete Best had to go. I said to Brian Epstein: I don’t care what you do with Pete Best; but he’s not playing on any more recording sessions. I’m getting a session drummer in [for their first proper recording session] because, above all else these guys need a good drummer”. When Ringo Starr turned up at the next session with the group (which would have been 4 September), Martin was totally unaware that the Beatles had fired Best, and, not knowing how good or bad Starr was, was not prepared to “waste” any more expensive studio time in finding out. Apparently then, this was the Andy White session - according to Martin - and not 11 September. This definitely contradicts Mark Lewisohn’s account, as in his book “The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions”, he has Starr on 4 September, and White for the 11 September re-make. Lewisohn also says that Ron Richards was in charge on the 11 September re-make, which means, if accurate, that Richards was the producer. George Martin says: “My diary shows that I did not oversee any Beatles recording sessions on 11 September - only the one on 4 September”, which doesn‘t rule out a session on the 11th. However, if, according to Lewisohn, “The 4 September session really hadn’t proved good enough to satisfy George Martin”, why then, was Martin not present for the 11 September re-make? There are copies of White’s Abbey Road session fees and expenses sheet that show he only did a session on the 11th. But, at the very least, Ron Richards ought to get a production credit!--Patthedog 17:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello -- this is the current consensus on genre statement

[1]

Have you read the discussion above? If not, please do. It is okay to say why you think the consensus is wrong. BYT 14:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

End of copyediting

I've been trying to do a copyedit session every week or so to keep the article in good shape with regard to grammar, style, and the like. Unfortunately I will not be able to continue doing this. Because of growing disillusionment with Wikipedia and how it is administered, my future work will be limited to damage control against POV-pushers in a narrowly-defined area related to my professional expertise. It was fun while it lasted, and I wish you all the best. Raymond Arritt 14:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Your weekly edit has been beyond valuable. May I ask what the cause of your disillusionment is and if anything can be done to make you change your mind? --kingboyk 14:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to go into the background. It was certainly nothing having to do with you or anyone related to (T|t)he Beatles related articles. You can email me if you really want the details. Raymond Arritt 15:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah OK. If it's a more general disillusionment with Wikipedia rather than some failing of WP:BEATLES I suppose we have no choice but to say farewell and thank you for your contributions. It was good knowing you and I hope you come back some day. --kingboyk 15:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

What he said.LessHeard vanU 16:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

non-free images

There is some non-free images in dat dere article, namely I speak about the four pics of the Beatles individually from the Album of White. Anyways, they is eminently replaceable by free media, and indeed that very free media is already in the article just above dere. So I am-a go remove them. Cheers. -- Y not? 19:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the free images are black and white and from the moptop era. Do we have any free images from the "hairy" era? There's none that I know of... --kingboyk 19:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand of course. Still, it's just not fair use. Would you like to take this to WP:FUR? I am sure MECU will ixnay the pics... -- Y not? 19:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm asking for other opinions and - ideally - somebody to say "I know of a free late 60s picture". --kingboyk 19:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I know of a free late 60's picture!. I look really cute in my flares and pudding bowl haircut. Er... How does this help the Beatles article? :~D LessHeard vanU 22:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC

Is it the reason why there is a lack of pictures in the article? The first time I looked at this, it still had the pictures of the other members from the White Album. If only we can add them back...the article can sure use some pictures to spice it up. Anthon 01:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Add in "Influence on Music" Section?

As was mentioned in the featured article review, there's not much mention of the Beatles' influence on popular music. Some of the most important things they introduced or popularized include sampling and the use of less-popular instruments in rock songs, such as the sitar. Is the "Musical Evolution" section sufficient? Cyktoo 16:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed it's on the to-do list. Nevermind then, though I guess this could be a reminder :p Cyktoo 16:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a very fine article entitled The Beatles' influence on music recording. There should be, and perhaps is/was, a link to it somewhere in this article. LessHeard vanU 16:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Could still use a summarization somewhere in the main article, as right now the link is in the "Musical Evolution" section Cyktoo 16:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can do it in two or three sentences (plus a link) then please do so. If you want to add to the linked article, again you are more than welcome. LessHeard vanU 16:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't a summary of that article in a section, with a {{main}} template, be the way to go? Of course if that were to happen the new section must be vigorously defended against expansion, lest we have the "history of the Beatles" problem over again, where the section here grows almost as big as the seperate article. --kingboyk 17:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Speaking of which, are there any plans to make a new "history of the Beatles" article? The Beatles article seems way too long right now. Cyktoo 17:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully not, it really didn't work last time. I'd hope we'd never do a forking again without some major restructuring being done first and a clear plan in place; just splitting out a major section like that was horrible (imho). --kingboyk 22:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Bass that should not be there

Moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_Beatles#Bass_that_should_not_be_there

Andrew, by all means post notifications of threads but please don't post the same thing in multiple places! :) --kingboyk 23:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - (ouch!) andreasegde 11:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Catalogue Remastered

Should there be some mention of the impending remasters under the Official CD Catalogue section? Type in "beatles catalogue remastered" on Google & you'll find dozens of sources, some straight from Geoff Emerick. ——Anthonylombardi 17:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't gone to look yet, but initial reaction is "what's the rush?". We're covering 40 years of Beatle history in the article and we're not a news service (well, apart from the WikiProject newsletter that is :)) --kingboyk 17:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Might fit better in The Beatles discography, though there isn't currently a section for it in that article. / edgarde 17:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Just done a Google news search, and there are a few juicy quotes there. I don't think it needs to go into this article yet, but there's definitely some material there for the newsletter and for the Apple and Aspinall articles. Thanks for the heads up. --kingboyk 17:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Flag

I'd like to raise the issue of the flag icon in the info box; do we really need it? If so, why would it be an England flag rather than a UK one? I propose removing the flag entirely. Thoughts? --Guinnog 17:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm changing that. They are a British band, so I'm changing that. There are too many references to English companies, people and places on Wikipedia, if you see one please change it to British. The UK is one country, we are British whether the Scot or English Nationalists like it or not.W2ch00 16:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure I entirely agree with you. While obviously they were British, it may be that "English" is more precise. The flag, however, obscures these subtleties. --Guinnog 16:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Er...just hang on, the UK is not one Country, it has four Consituent Countries England Wales, Scotland and Nothern Ireland. Anyway, this matter has been disccused before and if I remember correctly it was agreed not to have silly childish little flags in the article at all Vera, Chuck & Dave 16:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I used to know a woman who had a flag but she died soon afterwards. Do I win 5 flags? Or is it just the cash equivalent?--Crestville 17:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You can av the ackers Joe, I dread to think what you'd get up to with 5 flags! Vera, Chuck & Dave 17:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for removing it. Flags in articles like this are divisive, dumb articles down and, yes, silly. Good shout. --Guinnog 20:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Taboo and heresy

Criticism of the Beatles? Where is their dark side. They cheated Pete Best. They promoted drug use. They were cold hearted. They bickered like children. They wrote nasty songs about each other. Lennon preaches 'imagine no possessions' and records the song in his mansion. Paul said it 'was a drag' that John got shot. George promoted a cult that used many young kids. They are worth billions. John mistreated his father and first son then overindulged his second son.

And I really like their music.

But should it be brought out what a marketing gimmick they were. the wigs the long hair that was 50% of it and the screaming girls. maybe 10% was the music. and Paul was *cute*. can their music really compare to Rodgers and Hammerstein, Gershwin, Cole Porter? I would like to put a section on the really negative side to the 'mop tops' FatherTree 13:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Your "criticism" makes no mention of their music. If the best you can do is snipe at their personal lives then it is a testament to how powerful and influencial they are, and how weak your argument is. Lennon said "imagine" no possessiona that is, think of it as a possiblity. Did you expect him to live under the Brooklyn Bridge in a cardboard box instead of the Upper West Side? Unlike you he had talent that people will remember (including some "nasty songs"). In terms of cults--it takes a member of one to identify one! Sorry you haven't aged as well as they have, but the billions they are worth is the result of brilliance in terms of musical ability and marketing. That much is a fact, though I wouldn't classify the latter as a negative side, but rather as a necessity of the industry. John's father was a cripple and a drunk. Paul had a mother who was overbearing. George was morose. Ringo had a penchant for tomfoolery. Pete best had regrets. Boo hoo. Listing all of the "dark sides" of the Beatles reveal how far some desperate people will dig to unearth something that will make the Beatles human. Because they were so talented--beyond anything we've seen since--posts like yours show time and again that people have to be reminded of this fact. You're "criticisms" serve to reveal a bitterness on par with someone who hasn't come to terms with their infatuation with a band, one made up of four lads from Liverpool who in fact wore mop tops (ooo my! I think one may have had dandruff too!)

Cityguy99 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Depends on how it's written: it can't be an opinion. Most of what you say is true and can be verified, and as a Beatle fan I think it's crucial to keep them off a pedestal (they can take the criticism). Not sure about the wig claim: never heard that one. I don't believe they cheated Pete Best. People are kicked out of bands all the time, for any number of legitimate and petty reasons. John didn't mistreat his father: he was abandoned as a child and then his father attempted to exploit his son's fame with a novelty record. But yes, he was a bastard to Julian. The Beatles were all very much human. I wouldn't want it any other way.

Do you think you could write about this in an encyclopedic way, i.e. verifiable, NPOV, non-tabloid? Freshacconci 13:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The wigs: the ones people wore imitating them like Ed sullivan. I think they cheated Pete Best his mother got them started. They should have compensated him. Johns father was a cripple. It might be hard to find all the cites. But could we start a section with criticisms or something like that as a title? I just think in general they are view too positively FatherTree 14:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Pete best was antisocial, he just wouldn't work with the band. And the 10% of it was their music then how they were still a great success after they stopped touring, and their music is still enjoyed all years later?68.89.178.209 00:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Iron maiden

Micky Dolenz/Ringo

My wife told me that Micky Dolenz played drums in the Beatles when they toured America, because Ringo was ill. Should we put this in?

That's interesting, I was under the impression it was when they toured Australia that Ringo was crook and they had someone else - or was it both places? Maybe travel just didn't agree with him... Cheers, Ian Rose 23:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ringo certainly was covered by a temp drummer on an Australian/Pacific tour. The temp was previously noted in the info box, and I am sure it is mentioned in the text. Dunno about Dolenz, but it has not been mentioned previously so I am tending toward "agree with your wife but don't stick it in the articles..." LessHeard vanU 23:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC) Jimmy Nichol replaced Ringo for Aussie/Kiwi tour, see Beatlemania Crosses the Atlantic", third para from end.LessHeard vanU 23:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem is, The Monkees debuted in 1966, the same year the Beatles stopped touring. Dolenz only learned how to drum on the job, and actually didn't play drums on tour or record until at least 1967, long after the Beatles stopped playing live. Dolenz eventually became a decent drummer, but never in Starr's league, and given the Beatles' stature, they would probably only hire first-class drummers to fill in. As it has been mentioned, only Jimmy Nichol ever replaced Starr while on tour. Freshacconci 12:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

See the section Ringo in 1964 below. This an acucurate account. Mickey Dolenz did not tour Australia as Drummer with the Beatles on their Australia/New Zealand tour in 1964. Ringo developed tonsilitis and had to undergo surgery. He was substituted by Jimmy Nicol who with them in Amsterdam, Hong Kong and Adelaide. Starr rejoined them in Melbourne and playedallremaining concerrts on the tour. Nicol returned home once Ringo rejoined the group.Dolenz did however tour Australia in 1967 with The Monkees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.100.205 (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Brian Epstein and Joe Meek

In his biography of Joe Meek "The Legendary Joe Meek", John Repsch refers to Epstein approaching Meek to record the Beatles during their pre recording contract days. Does anyone have more info on this please?--Patthedog 11:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've heard that too. I think I have it in a book somewhere and will track it down. I think Meek was too eccentric in the end to be able to work with the Beatles. I don't think he was meant to replace George Martin, but work with the Beatles, or have the Beatles work with his equipment and studio. Freshacconci 12:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed that you actually said in "their pre recording contract days", so that pre-dates Martin. Still, I do recall reading something about it and will try to find the info. Freshacconci 12:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, according to my book, Epstein “wined and dined” Meek all over London during the Beatles bleak period of record company rejections, but could not agree on terms. Meek, reportedly, was not impressed by the Beatles, later describing their sound as “just a noise”. Anyway, if we could get enough evidence, then it might make interesting reading. Thanks,--Patthedog 12:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead section of this article is a massive violation of WP:PEACOCK. "The most critically acclaimed band ever", "innovative music", "helped define an era" etc are very POV statements, especially in the second sentence of an article. That these claims are sourced is not a reason for stating these POV claims very firmly. There are probably many magazines etc. other than Rolling Stone which do not agree that the Beatles were the "most critically acclaimed band ever". Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopædia, not a magazine. Review magazines like Rolling Stone are allowed to claim such things, but Wikipedia isn't. We'd better state some achievements of theirs instead of just saying how awesome they were, in accordance to WP:PEACOCK. Salaskan 12:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Changed the section a bit for neutrality, although we can't do a major overhaul yet Salaskan 12:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is, the beatles are the most critically aclaimed and popular band in history. Every critic who is objective at all will say the beatles are the greatest band of all time and Sgt. Pepper is always referred to as the greatest album of all time. They're also clearly the most popular band in history, with almost every record there is and they remain extremely popular today. Theres proof enough on wiki alone, every song on every beatles album has a seperate article about it which isnt true of any other band, and theres lengthy articles on minor people who were hardly involved with the beatles. Whats wrong with claiming something that is infact true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.237.173 (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"Every critic who is objective at all will say the beatles are the greatest band of all time and Sgt. Pepper is always referred to as the greatest album of all time"

Even though I personally consider them the greatest band of all time, your comments themselves are LOADED with peacock verbiage and POV (Every critic; always referred). That's OK for the talk page. But there's a little thing on Wikipedia known as verifiability. Keep that kind of hyperbole out of the article. Ward3001 (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Years active...

I know this is a stupid comment/question... but shouldn't the years active in the info box at least include 1995-1996 because of the newly released Anthology material, and the new singles "Free As A Bird" and "Real Love"? I'm just wondering though... and those songs do include all four members... GuitarWeeps 19:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That was discussed before and it was determined that the 1995-96 collaboration on the Anthology mini-series and CDs is not sufficient to be considered a "reunion". Steelbeard1 19:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

But on the Now and Then (song)#Origins article it calls the "Free As A Bird" and "Real Love" songs, reunion songs.

"dates next to names of group members are not allowed in the infobox"

Where is this from? Dates are used in other musicrealted articles, such as Pink Floyd for example. Zazaban 01:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

See the discussion in Template_talk:Infobox_musical_artist#Defunct musical groups Steelbeard1 02:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

New public domain photo of The Beatles needed

Now that the "p.d." photo turned out not to be "p.d.", a new one has to be found. One which is claimed to be p.d. is at [2] and appears to be from the Beatles for Sale cover photo session. The URL source of the photo is [3] Steelbeard1 02:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I moved the Ed Sullivan Show photo to the infobox for now. If this is a bad idea, feel free to revert. – Zone46 06:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"Active Members"

As per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_musical_artist , should Paul, John, Ringo, and George not be moved to "inactive" on the Info box? ACA 13:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

See Template_talk:Infobox_musical_artist#Defunct_musical_groups which explains that listing the members at the time the group broke up is allowed in the 'current members' template. Steelbeard1 13:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh my god could this be THE most vandalized article in WIKIPEDIA HISTORY?

Seriously guys this article was PERFECT when it was a featured article right? Since then it gets changed just about every day, or damn close to every other day of the week.

/rant

71.182.73.134 03:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Quickly looking over the history, I don't see much (any?) vandalism. What's the problem? Adam McMaster 09:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

He's right though, why don't we just revert it tothe way it was when it was featured? BTW if you want to see vandelism go look at Michael Jackson.--Crestville 09:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The Featured Article status edit that has Paul McCartney MBE being happily remarried and George Harrison still alive? LessHeard vanU 12:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Aye, you'd have to update it obviously.--Crestville 17:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This is featured status? As far as I'm concerned, the article has improved as time has progressed. CloudNine 15:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit crap though.--Crestville 17:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That's because the amount of better stuff is outweighed by the poorer stuff. The FA article is quite bare in many parts. The current article, cruft and unreverted vandalism notwithstanding, has a lot more detail and a damn more cites/references. When the next bunch of enthusiasts come on board and give it a spruce up it may well be a great article for a while, before the dross, drift, and something else bad that starts with "dr" starts creeping back in. It seems to be the Wiki way... LessHeard vanU 20:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted another vandal's handiwork. Steelbeard1

The most vandelized article is of someone you've likely never heard of: Mike Steely

Ringo in 1964

Ringo rejoined the tour shortly before the New Zealand leg, arriving with the rest of the band on 21 June 1964. I think he actually played in the Sydney concerts of 18-20 June. Also, while I guess it is true he was 'ill' it would be more accurate to say he had his tonsils removed.

(I'm a bit of a noob so am too scared to make changes to this article myself :-))

Update: we have just launched a web feature on the Beatles visit to New Zealand in 1964, should we add this to the External links or maybe refs?: http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/culture/beatles

Jamie Mackay 01:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually Ringo Re-joined the Beatles in Melbourne and played Festival Hall on June 15th They were great! Dave C —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.82.20 (talk) 07:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

And before the Beatles...

Strikes me there's plenty of stuff about how influential the band were, but what about who inspired them in the beginning? You'd think the only influence of the 50's giants of rock'n'roll, blues players, etc. was the Crickets/Beetles name thing. This looks like a fan site in the sense that it reads like the Beatles were just so fab they invented Beatles music out of thin air and skiffle. Presley gets a mention ("those filthy unkempt Beatles") only from a period when he was more or less stoned out of his skull all the time (he was collecting police badges, for heaven's sake). Any thoughts? Rikstar 06:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Grab a good Beatles book, find out and start editing! From memory, Lennon was into Chuck Berry and Jerry Lee Lewis, while Macca enjoyed Fats Domino and Little Richard, while George liked bluegrass artists like Chet Atkins, Ringo was into country music. As mentioned, all were fans of Elvis. A good start is also to see who sings what on the cover versions on the first two albums. Like I said, find out for yourself and then add what you have learned into the article. LessHeard vanU 20:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my suggestion was a pointer for someone with more time, and interest in the Beatles, than myself. Rikstar 23:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

What the heck, no one else has bothered, so I have created a 'Musical influences' section to document those acts who helped make the The Beatles what they became. I will provide citations when I can - it's a start. Rikstar 16:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

First UK No. 1

The article has "Please Please Me" as their first UK No. 1. However, according to the official UK charts, it was "From Me to You". http://www.theofficialcharts.com/all_the_no1_songs.php?show=2

• The article has been changed to show "From Me To You" as their first "official" number one, however the Music Week/Record Retailer charts were not regarded as "official" until some time after 1969. If anything, back in 1962 the NME chart was the one that most people took notice of. Therefore music fans at the time would have regarded "Please Please Me" as the band's first chart topper. This is a long running debate and one that has never been settled to everyone's satisfaction. MFlet1 11:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

PPM was their first No. 1 album. Does someone want to update the article? bigpad 13:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

According to Ian MacDonald's Revolution in the Head (p.63 n.1) "Please Please Me" went to no. 1 on the Melody Maker, New Music Express, Disc and Top of the Pops charts but on other charts it went to no. 2. So perhaps the best way of addressing this is to say that it was the first no. 1 on the British charts (plural) but that there was no standardized chart at the time and that the above link places "From Me to You" as the first "official" chart topper. It could go on to address the continued disagreements on this, but I would tend to agree with MFlet1 that to the public mind, "Please Please Me" was the first. (I known that's hardly encyclopedic, but it can be worded somehow to reflect perceptions). I think all of this is part of the overall story (i.e. that it's not cut and dry either way). Freshacconci 12:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

McCartney said, "They've got to buy them before they can burn them."

A quick Google search shows that the above quote (from this article) has at one point been attributed to every Beatle, other than Ringo. Does anyone have a verifiable source as to which member actually uttered the quote? I can't seem to find anything other than Wikipedia mirrors that state it was Paul's quote. -CapitalQ 17:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

STARFLEET7

I do not edit this article lightly, but I am removing the following sentence:

"On 15 August that year (1965), The Beatles performed the first stadium concert in the history of rock, playing at Shea Stadium in New York to a crowd of 55,600.[63]"

The above quote is not true. Honestly, I do not know where, or on what date that the Beatles did "their first Stadium Concert", BUT I DO KNOW IT WASN'T AT SHEA STADIUM IN AUGUST 1965.

My reasoning is simple: "ON SEPTEMBER 11, 1964, the day after Hurricane Dora smashed into Jacksonville Florida, "The Beatles" performed a 2-hour concert for 20,000 fans at the Football Stadium called "THE GATOR BOWL" (Jacksonville Memorial Municipal Stadium) in Jacksonville Florida.

The winds were so strong at concert time, that "Ringo Starr's" drumsets had to be "nailed-down" to the stage.

So, if The Beatles played a concert on 9/11/1964 at "The Gator Bowl" stadium, then how could "Shea Stadium" claim to have the "first stdium concert" in August of 1965 ? A full year later ?

Starfleet7 18:59, July 2, 2007 (UTC)

What Gig at "Gator Bowl Stadium"? Where does this come from??? Vera, Chuck & Dave 14:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles at Shea Stadium was the first Major Stadium concert in the history of rock. Vera, Chuck & Dave 19:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The Gator Bowl concert was important from another point of view as the Beatles, during an earlier press conference, had threatened to pull out unless they had an assurance that the audience would not be segregated. Political statements such as these embarrassed Brian Epstein, who preferred the Beatles to stay neutral. I can’t find any information regarding how successful this stance was however. 32,000 tickets were sold (9,000 were unable to attend because of the storm) which means it was a pretty big gig, though not as impressive as Shea Stadium’s 56,000 capacity which was a record at that time for a rock concert.--Patthedog 10:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Section: The future of The Beatles catalogue

In an article where space is at a premium, is this section worthwhile? It's mostly unsourced speculation. Mainstream Nerd 02:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, The future of the Beatles catalogue is now in the hands of both EMI music and I-Tunes. They have a split sell rate now. 6:43, 25 June 2007

No, and I removed it some time ago. There's plenty of material out there which could expand (with citations) the articles on Apple Records, Neil Aspinall (some of this is related to Aspinall's departure), Jeff Jones, or even a new article; but until something hugely significant happens I agree with you that we do not have the space to cover these machinations here. --kingboyk 23:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Style

I don't seem to comprehend the Beatles being a rock band. They experimented with many styles, and many of their songs (i.e. "Yellow Submarine" and esp. "Eleanor Rigby") are far from rock. 74.36.25.236 16:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The band members themselves called every piece they ever wrote or performed "rock and roll." You can't listen to their records, especially the early ones, without agreeing that it's rock music.Pohatu771 22:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"The band members themselves called every piece they ever wrote or performed 'rock and roll'."

Okay, this might be true.

"You can't listen to their records, especially the early ones, without agreeing that it's rock music."

This is a matter of opinion, but this isn't true to me. I consider their early records, particularly "Love Me Do", "From Me To You", "She Loves You", and "I Want To Hold Your Hand", to be "pop music" as opposed to "rock music". And, for the record, 74.36.25.236 is right: "Yellow Submarine" and "Eleanor Rigby" don't sound like "rock music" at all.

There is also a debate on whether Beethoven was a Romantic composer, or just a transitional figure between the Classical and Romantic periods of classical music. For the record, I think he was a very early Romantic composer, for the most part. 70.101.160.105 00:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this debate illustrates a significant point about the Beatles: They often defy categorization. They were innovators, possibly more than anyone in their genre (however that might be labeled). I think "rock" and "pop" both apply, depending on which songs you're talking about, and I'm sure other descriptors would apply. But it clearly would be a mistake to remove the "rock" category. Most of their music fits that description as it is explained in the Wikipedia article. Ward3001 01:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Tin Pan Alley

“…..the group explored genres ranging from Tin Pan Alley to psychedelic rock”. Is Tin Pan Alley a musical genre? --Patthedog 17:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It was a place and is also a musical genre. [4] Vera, Chuck & Dave 15:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

O.K. I’m aware that TPA refers to a neighbourhood or area, as in Denmark Street, London, and originated in New York. “Genre” used in the context of the article though means type, as in perhaps country music. Encyclopædia Britannica says: “The phrase tin pan referred to the sound of pianos furiously pounded by the so-called song pluggers, who demonstrated tunes to publishers” meaning the noise was like tin pans I suppose. So is it clear what that might mean to the reader? Which Beatle songs does it apply to? Thanks --Patthedog 17:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

From the "Yesterday" article: "Bob Dylan had a marked dislike for the song, stating that "If you go into the Library of Congress, you can find a lot better than that. There are millions of songs like 'Michelle' and 'Yesterday' written in Tin Pan Alley". – Zone46 22:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Meaning the place where the songwriters would work. Like the Brill Building. Not a certain type of music. 'Michelle' and 'Yesterday' aren’t Tin Pan Alley, they’re ballads.--Patthedog 06:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Meaning rushed out doggerel like "Baby's good to me you know, she's happy as can be you know, she said so."/"She loves you yeah, yeah, yeah - and with a love like that, you know you should be glad."/"Michelle my belle, these are words that go together well, my Michelle" etc, etc. It dosen't matter about the tempo, it's TIN PAN ALLEY DOGGEREL. It's hardly Eleanor Rigby, is it? Vera, Chuck & Dave 12:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably 50% of the Beatles lyrics could be described as doggerel using your example, as could the lyrics to just about every single popular tune ever written. So a big chunk of their music is to be described as merely tin pan alley doggerel is it? I think the TPA reference is too ambiguous. Ironic too, when you consider that the Beatles actually rebelled against the TPA system by refusing to accept songs such as “How Do You Do It”, effectively destroying its monopoly in the process. Anyway you’re mistaken, it’s not a genre, no matter how loud you shout. --Patthedog 14:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not shouting pal, I am just at a complete loss as to what it is you want. They rejected "How Do You It" What for? "Last night I said these words to my girl, I know you never even try girl." Bob Dylan, eat yer heart out! Vera, Chuck & Dave 14:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Listen, I’m saying that if the article is to cite clear examples of musical styles that the Beatles explored, then Tin Pan Alley is too broad, as it produced a huge variety of genres within itself over a significant period of time as it pandered to change. I’m sorry - I can’t respond to your bit about “Please Please Me” vs. Bob Dylan as I don’t know what you’re on about. That’s it. I’m not trying to change the world, just suggesting that perhaps a better illustration could be given which might help the reader. Pal. --Patthedog 15:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure what I can add, here. Tin Pan Alley is a genre as MOR is, it can cover a wide variety of styles. Perhaps it could be described as popular orientated music of inoffensive content - often regarding relationships/love. In that way the Beatles were "guilty" of producing material such as "She Loves You", or "Eight Days A Week", that Dylan (coming from a folk protest background) never ventured - or was capable. If the "Tin Pan Alley" line came from a source then it may be best to simply reference that and let the context there explain it. LessHeard vanU 19:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, arseholes, and the disappearing up thereof. Middle of the road is not a genre either. But more likely sounding than Tin Pan Alley is. Fuck it and bollocks, let this be the last word on the subject.--Patthedog 21:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Most critically acclaimed band in the history of popular music?

The article claims that "[The Beatles] are the most... critically acclaimed band in the history of popular music" and cites this Rolling Stone piece as support: http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/thebeatles/biography. Is there an objective standard for this claim, and is it a claim that the Rolling Stone article makes? 75.110.215.216 08:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"The Beatles are the best-selling musical act of all time in the United States of America, according to the Recording Industry Association of America, which certified them as the highest selling band of all time based on American sales of singles and albums.[3] In the United Kingdom, The Beatles released more than 40 different singles, albums, and EPs that reached number one. This commercial success was repeated in many other countries: their record company, EMI, estimated that by 1985 they had sold over one billion discs and tapes worldwide.[4] In 2004, Rolling Stone magazine ranked The Beatles #1 on its list of 100 Greatest Artists of All Time.[5]"

This long paragraph in the intro is all about record sales/success. It is overkill and really should be shortened - more interesting things about the Beatles could be included in the intro to lure the uninitiated into reading the rest of the article.Rikstar 15:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Recreational drug use

Re. recent edit implying that "Lennon & Harrison has previously smoked low grade pot" before meeting Dylan in '64, is this in fact what the cited work says? Haven't read that one myself but my understanding (from Dylan sources at least) was the Beatles had never smoked it before that. Cheers, Ian Rose 22:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

"The Beatles were drinkers rather than drug takers (scotch and coke being their favourite tipple), and although it has been reported in books about the era that they had never smoked marijuana before, Harrison and Lennon at least had smoked home grown pot. The Beatles had never smoked high quality marijuana." Bob was surprized: he had assumed the middle eight in "I Want To Hold Your Hand" was "I get high, I get high"! Howard Sounes, Down the highway: The Life of Bob Dylan p198. Lion King 22:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Lennon is on record as saying that they had never used pot before being turned on by Dylan. It's in the Rolling Stone "Working Class Hero" interviews. Raymond Arritt 01:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounes' sources - Beatles, Dylan and marijuana: The Beatles Anthology: author's discussions with Al Aronowitz and McCartney's publicist, Geoff Baker; interviews in Mojo magazine December 1993: Paul McCartney: Many Years from Now by Barry Miles; and Cherri Gilham interview in The Observer September 10, 2000. Hope this helps. Lion King 21:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, checking out those sources it looks like there are contradictory stories. McCartney says clearly in MYFN that Dylan was the one who turned them on to pot. Even though in the Rolling Stone interviews Lennon says Dylan introduced them to marijuana, in "Anthology" he's quoted as "some guy was showing us pot in Liverpool in 1960, with twigs in it. And we smoked it and we didn't know what it was. We were drunk." Harrison says in Anthology "we first got marijuana from an older drummer with another group in Liverpool. We didn't actually try it until after we'd been to Hamburg." So I'm not sure what to believe. Raymond Arritt 01:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh it gets better! In No Direction Home by Robert Shelton, Dylan says that Ringo was the first one to have a smoke, Dylan says he ran into them on the tarmac at London airport in 1964 and that he and Ringo went behind a hangar, and had a puff! Cheers, Lion King 13:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Instrumentation - Remove reference to Wurlitzer electric piano?

After examining the evidence for many years I have come to the conclusion that The Beatles never actually had access to, let alone used a Wurlitzer electric piano. All recorded electric piano parts have recently been attributed (Babiuk et al.) to either Hohner Pianet or, latterly, Fender Rhodes with one exception - Nicky Hopkins' contribution to "Revolution", though it appears that it is probably a distorted acoustic piano.

I therefore recommend that the reference to Wurlitzer be removed.

Simon Beck, www.hallofelectricpianos.co.uk

Has anyone looked into this? (I don't know who Babiuk is off hand but sounds important :)) --kingboyk 23:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Beatles Gear, Andy Babiuk, 2001, updated and released in paperback 2003. A comprehensive account of all the Beatles' instruments and amplifiers, both in the studio and on stage. Highly detailed regarding guitars, drums and amps; less so on keyboards, but still a remarkable piece of work.

Simon Beck, [5]

The Beatles logo.png

...was deleted (not by me). Whether it's fair use to use it here or not is borderline I think. If anyone wants it saved and is willing to write a fair use rationale for it, I'll restore it. I'm inclined to let this one pass personally. --kingboyk 23:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

'Most critically acclaimed band ever'

This has been brought up time and time again, but it will not stop. We simple cannot say that The Beatles were the most critically acclaimed band of all time, because that is impossible to determine. There have been millions of reviews for hundreds of thousands of bands over the years, and to say that one has had better reviews than all the others is completely ridiculous. Unless someone somehow read every review of every album ever, they can't have the grounds to say that! Yes, they were highly acclaimed, but they were not the highest, and no one ever will be, because it's not possible to determine whether or not they were.

I've repeatedly changed the text to reflect this and recently added hidden text, but I can't watch the article 24/7. If you see someone adding or removing text to say that they were the most critically acclaimed band ever, you must remove it! --ParakeetSong 09:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

We can say what we like if it's supported by - or, rather, properly reflects - the sources :) Such is the beauty of WP:RS and WP:NPOV.

It's important that this article communicates the status and stature of The Beatles (icons of the 20th century, the biggest pop phenomenon the world has ever seen) whilst avoiding sweeping generalisations or fan"wank". I believe that if you remove part of that message it's incumbent on you to replace it with something else which is adequately sourced. If we have an article describing The Beatles as just another band we have an inaccurate article.

I am a little curious... if you think there really has been a contender to beat The Beatles in the critical ratings, who would it be? --kingboyk 12:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You know as well as I do that The Beatles were the greatest musical force in the last two hundred years, but we can't say that because it's definitely more opinion than anything. For instance, let's say that I believed that George Washington was the single most influential man ever. If there was a website that supported this theory, we still wouldn't put it in the article, would we? No, because it's something that's impossible to determine, just like the idea of a single band being more critically acclaimed than all the others. And to say that they are the most acclaimed because we can't think of any bands who are more popular isn't right, either; see negative proof. Unless we have definitive reason to believe that The Beatles are the most acclaimed band ever (and there will never be such a reason because it's impossible to determine), it should not be in the article. --ParakeetSong 21:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, we have to take into account bands from other planets, which may have been/be more popular than The Beatles. We don't know. Zazaban 21:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with kingboyk

We can't read every single review of every band ever, but we are only concerned with every band of fame or note, as they tend to be the ones that are "most critically acclaimed", otherwise they wouldn't be there. Any person on this planet could call themselves a critic, and according to you their opinion would be valid in deciding this. We should only concern ourselves with the major music commentators and reviewers and magazines for the last 40 years who have repeatedly, in the main, put the Beatles at number 1 on most of the "best band" lists or lists of that type. There is no other contender for "the most critically acclaimed band". It's a pointless argument of Wikipedia semantics to suggest otherwise. Liverpool Scouse 22:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Then you should link to all the major music commentators and reviewers and magazines for the last 40 years, and not just rely on Rolling Stone as a source. – Zone46 22:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I made no mention of Rolling Stone, or any other magazine, thanks. Liverpool Scouse 22:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Rolling Stone has been the "source" for the statement that The Beatles were the "most critically acclaimed band ever" since that sentance was added. It's your opinion that they've been number one on all these lists, and unless you can prove it, and prove that they are the most critically acclaimed by actually linking to every review of The Beatles ever (not to mention the reviews of every other band in existence), you can't say that it's true! --ParakeetSong 22:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There are numerous sources for such a comment, not just Rolling Stone, and when I have the time and the inclination, I'm sure it will be possible to compile a lengthy list from some very notable music journalism sources. It won't be every review ever, but my point above is that we don't need every review ever. Just enough to put it beyond dispute. This very argument, as you admit yourself, is not about disputing the fact, but discussing what sources are adequate or necessary to support it, and I don't think we need 'every review ever' on 'every band ever' to support the statement. Liverpool Scouse 23:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The statement itself requires every review ever in its current form. "The most critically acclaimed band of all time". In order to prove that, one would need to see all the reviews of The Beatles ever written! I don't have a problem with "one of the most" or "are widely considered to be the most", because that's not absolute. But the statement as it is now claims that they are the most critically acclaimed band ever, no questions asked. We have no way to prove that that is true, and no way to verify it, other than by what you are saying! --ParakeetSong 23:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Would it not be possible to edit the statement slightly, possibly to say that The Beatles are; 'believed by many (critics) to be the most critically acclaimed band ever'.

At their arguably creative peak, say from 1966-1970, the Beatles were not only overwhelmingly popular but also worshipped by critics. A musicologist (sorry, no cite) wrote an academic piece praising the use of modes in Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown). Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band was valorized as a major musical statement, the very pinnacle of recorded popular music. It's interesting to read the heretical voices, first in punk rock's reaction to all things baroque and bourgeois, and later, more nuanced listeners. Putting any credence in the writings of Rolling Stone critics after, say, 1985, is pretty hit-and-miss. Any measure of critical acclaim that laps heartily at the trough of Rolling Stone, and ignores, say, Steve Albini or Byron Coley is about as worthless as the boy-band swill of the Beatles' first few (and immensely popular) albums. You could compare their critical acclaim to that of any number of groups. Compare the critical reception of their recorded output, to, say, that of the Rolling Stones (up to Some Girls, say, to exclude their mostly uninteresting and unimpressive later records). So for the Beatles, arguably, we have Rubber Soul, Revolver, Dr. Pepper, Abbey Road, and Let It Be, excusing them Magical Mystery Tour, which would be complete offal without the inclusion of the excellent Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane single. And then for the Stones, we have Aftermath, Let It Bleed, Beggar's Banquet, Exile on Main Street, Sticky Fingers, and Some Girls. You get my point. Or not. It's all subjective, anyway. Except it isn't. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Dave Marsh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.197.14 (talk) 04:11, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

This is of course, something that is bound to be disputed. However, you cannot say it is not so, since it in fact is the truth. Oh yeah, you shouldn't disrespect Magical Mystery Tour. --Kaizer13 18:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with the argument that to 'prove' the band are the most critically acclaimed, one has to read every review ever written. Science does not work that way. In general you evaluate evidence (eg statements from a range of critics) and draw conclusions. These can then be challeneged by evidence from elsewhere. You don't need to read every piece of research ever published to draw a conclusion backed by your own evidence and the onus is on others to challenge your findings.

Everyone who takes an interest in pop criticism (ie most of us here) will have formed a judgement based on their experiences, and the debate is only significant if there are competing claims from different quarters. Nonetheless, authoritative voices would be looked for, so here's a couple. Ian MacDonald, who wrote what is widely regarded as the definitive work on the group said, "Agreement on them is all but universal: They were far and away the best ever pop group". Note - 'all but universal'. The NME Book of Rock said "The importance of The Beatles' recorded work in the shaping of contemporary rock is incalculable and is approached in significance only by the career of Bob Dylan". Bob of course is not a band (and anyway, they say 'approached' not 'surpassed'), so NME too are stating The Beatles are otherwise unrivalled in importance. If Rolling Stone agree too, as stated above, then there's three reliable sources giving high critical acclaim, and placing The Beatles at the very summit.

So, let's hear competing statements from noted critics refering to other bands. If they are not forthcoming, then no rival to the title has been found. If they are then fair enough, the proposition will have proved questionable. At the moment, it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.161.52 (talk) 12:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope it will be a interesting information for you: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/beatles1.html

"In this memo from the British national archives, a U.K. ambassador reports on the Beatles' wild 1966 trip to Japan." (page 1)

"In the event, the "Operation Beatles" which the Metropolitan Police mounted was of almost the same order of magnitude as the arrangements for the Tokyo Olympic Games in 1964". (page 3)

Another link: http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20060702x2.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roujan (talk • contribs) 00:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Question!

Why is the article entitled "The Beatles" and not simply "Beatles"? I thought that if rules said that if the indefinite "the" is not capitalized in running text (like here, here, here, here, and here, their official website, and even this small excerpt from a New York Times article, and this one from the Washington Post), then it should be omitted from the title. 99.245.184.175 06:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The simple answers is, because that is how the band was known - "Ladies and Gentlemen, please welcome the Beatles" and not "Oi, you lot, 'ere's Beatles." If the article was called Beatles its subject would be John, Paul, George, Ringo, Pete & Stu - since they were Beatles at some time or another and not the band. LessHeard vanU 21:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Please Please Me was No 1

According to Lewisjohn, the "Please Please Me" single was No 1 in all the British charts of the time- except one. The trouble is that publications, such as "Record Mirror" disappeared, whereas the BBC's chart still exists. This has given rise to the myth that "Please Please Me" was not No 1, when it clearly was, by the standards of the time.

Evieconrad 02:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I recally it certainly was. I used to buy all the music organs of the time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.17.19.191 (talk) 12:59, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

It's not included because the Record Retailer chart is the one considered to be "official." Though, yes, Please Please Me was #1 on several charts. Faithlessthewonderboy 21:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Grammatical Error

In the second sentence of this article, "band" should be "bands". Would someone who can edit this article please fix it? It's pathetic that people should be locked out of correcting such a basic mistake. This really makes Wikipedia look like a joke. --69.177.53.55 03:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Freshacconci 03:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The page is partially protected and it makes a lot of sense to have it that way. People with named accounts can edit the page, but anonymous editors can not. This page is a frequent target of vandals, and anonymous editors vandalize more frequently. Vandalized pages look a lot worse than adding a very minor inconvenience for editors: if you want to edit the page, register an account. It's easy to do. John Cardinal 13:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

However, there is a few days' waiting period for new accounts to be able to edit semi-protected articles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Years Active

Very minor issue here, but they were active in 1994. I'm sure this has been discussed to death, but a band getting together to record and releasing 2 new singles is the very definition of active. Above it's said consensus was that it was a collaboration, but that's just silliness. A collaboration is John and George collaborating with Ringo on I'm the Greatest, the members of a band recording music as a band and releasing it under the band's name is being active. -MichiganCharms 19:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Spelling of Beatles

The article states that "During an interview in 2001, Paul McCartney took credit for the peculiar spelling of the name"

The evidence for this is the following quote: "John had the idea of calling us the Beetles, I said, 'how about the Beatles; you know, like the beat of the drum?' At the time, everyone was stoned enough to find it hilarious. It's funny how history is made."

I've not seen the quote in context but I have two concerns over it.

First, by 2001 McCarntey had been familiar with the effects of cannabis for about 36 years and in my view it is very probable that the laughter he refers to is associated with being 'stoned' on cannabis rather than 'stoned' (drunk) on alcohol. This being the case, it is highly unlikely that the account is accurate since the Beatles were not users of cannabis until at least 1964. Therefore, I think the account is questionable.

Second, taking just this sentence, and I admit I've not seen the rest of the interview, I think it may have been transcribed wrongly and implies the opposite of what the article says. Verbally, McCartney could have been saying this: "John had the idea of calling us the BeAtles, (Aside: [after] I said, 'how about the BeEtles); you know, like the beat of the drum?'"

Given these two question marks, I think it unreliable to suggest that McCartney could claim the spelling. 81.96.161.52 13:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

well the beatles did take slimming pills which got them high way before they ever tried cannabis P3nabad 01:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Contribution to medical science?

Surely this section needs to go? The Beatles had nothing whatever to do with medical science. The tenuous link appears to be that they made lots of money for EMI and EMI of their own volition invested in developing some technology. It wasn't John, Paul George and Ringo who did this - they probably have no interest in how EMI invest their money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.161.52 (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Rumored 2008 "Reunion"?

Reading through some pages about the band, I keep seeing articles claiming Paul and Ringo are planning to finish and release a new Beatles track for 2008. This isn't mentioned here and I'm wondering if it should be, it's citied in The Beatles bootlegs, The Beatles line-ups and Now and Then (song). -MichiganCharms 05:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it probably should be, as long it's properly sourced (which it appears to be in Now and Then (song). So go ahead! :) faithless (^speak) 05:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Images

I am allways informed that The Beatles is one of the best articles music wise on Wikipedia, however it is so bland, surely it could have some images on it other than the infobox, or is there more wikirules that you can have no images at all? (86.159.141.158 20:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC))

There were images, but they were all deleted due to absurdly strict image use rules. Zazaban 22:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I've given up posting images to Wikipedia. One gets tired of knocking one's self out trying to improve an article only to have some bizarre interpretation of an arcane rule undo it. When they removed a picture of an album cover which was used to illustrate an article about the album, I decided that I had had it. Carlo 01:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah i have been trying with many articles but other users are just getting so stupidly picky about images in unbelievable, most wiki-music articles are just getting duller and duller through over obsessed users finding a problem with any image uploaded, there may as well not be images on wiki at all at the rate this is going. (LemonLemonLemons 14:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC))

One image was actually deleted because a logo on a guy who was in the background's shirt was copyrighted, and another because they weren't sure a PLAQUE was copyrighted still. Zazaban 00:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I have photos of almost all important Beatles sites which I took myself, so there are no copyright problems. They're not from the Beatles' heyday, of course, but if anyone wants an image of a particular place I'll try to find it and upload it. Raymond Arritt 03:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see there are pictures on the page now, although im sure it won't be long before some user comes up with another interpretation of the guidelines and then deleted them all, well thats been the pattern for a while now! (86.160.199.215 19:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

EMI is a label

>>>>>Please don't add EMI to the list of label, as Parlophone/Capitol/Apple are distributed/owned by EMI. Usually, we don't list both the imprints and the parent company. Thank you. (name withheld) 18:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Read the credits of the albums, and you'll see on most releases, it clearly states "EMI Records Ltd.". If you can't accept this, then you are denying accurate information. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Electrokinesis (talk • contribs)

Most of the albums were in fact released on Parlophone, Capitol, Apple, etc., in which case EMI was indeed the parent company and shouldn't be included. However, I believe there are some releases out there for which EMI is in fact the label as well as the parent company, so EMI should stay in the list. --Lukobe 03:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please name the examples here. In order for the EMI label to appear on the infobox, the release should be on the EMI label only. If a release bears the Apple label as well as EMI, then it is not sufficient. Also, note that EMI is a record company and EMI Records is a record label. Steelbeard1 08:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any, but I'm sure the information is available out there. It's just a suggestion. Re your other points, of course this should only apply where EMI is the only label mentioned, and yes, it should be listed as EMI Records in that case. --Lukobe 18:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're going down this route surely Odeon should be included as all their German releases were on this EMI label. What about Music For Pleasure used for the Rock 'n Roll cassettes? I think EMI Record was the label for all Mexican releases. simonthebold 09:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Mexican Beatle releases were on the Capitol label. Odeon has been inserted in the infobox. MFP I don't think should be included because it's a budget reissue label. Steelbeard1 11:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Weren't "Rock and Roll Music Vols. 1 & 2" originally released on MFP though? --Lukobe 18:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No they weren't. Rock 'n' Roll Music was originally issued in 1976 on Parlophone and Capitol as a double LP. MFP reissued the set in 1980 as two separate albums. Steelbeard1 20:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah well, that makes sense. I guess a determination should be made as to whether reissue labels count or not. --Lukobe 20:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would make more sense to distinguish between the record companies they signed to and the labels they were released under. The contract they signed in 1962 was with Parlophone I suspect and they resigned in '67 (or was it EMI?). Did they sign with Capitol or anyone else or was that just an arrangement made by their record comapny or management? simonthebold 08:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles' original recording contract was with "The Parlophone Company Limited." In 1965, this company was absorbed into "The Gramophone Company Limited." So the 1967 contract was with Gramophone. I believe the other EMI units world wide and NEMS Enterprises (Brian Epstein's management company) made distribution arrangements with Parlophone/Gramophone. Steelbeard1 10:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Therefore isn't true to say their record company was Parlophone and later Apple Records. The various labels their appeared under were really marketing brands and distribution agreements rather than their labels. For instance I often read that they signed to Capitol - this isn't stricly true. simonthebold 10:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a distinction between a label and a record company. Parlophone and Apple are record labels. The fact that Parlophone is owned by EMI accounts for the fact that EMI are named on the records, but they are not the record label - Parolphone is.

I think the list of labels is misleading. There is no specific reason why US labels should be listed unless we're going to round up the entire world. I suggest it is limited to the UK labels as all other territories were in effect licencing deals made by EMI. But if the US labels are to be included, shouldn't United Artists be listed for the "Hard Day's Night" album?

And either way it needs further thinking through, since you can find Beatles records released in the UK on Polydor, MFP, Pickwick, World Records, Lyntone and several others.

My view is we should only include UK labels for whom The Beatles specifically recorded - so just Parlophone and Apple. Any others should be noted with an explanation.

MegdalePlace 22:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Time to archive the talk page?

'Tis rather long. Just a suggestion. --Lukobe 03:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Empire Stadium concert in Vancouver before Shea Stadium

It states on this site that The Beatles' performance at Shea Stadium in 1965 marked the first time a pop music band had played in a venue other than a concert hall or theater. This is incorrect -- The Beatles had appeared at Vancouver's Empire Stadium in late August of 1964, which was also their first appearance in Canada.

Cichacech 20:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Hello I'm a French Beatles's Fan. It's for you http://www.dermon.com/Beatles/details/tours.htm http://www.rarebeatles.com/photopg7/photopg7.htm#1964 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roujan (talk • contribs) 23:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the article states that they played the first major Stadium Concert. Cheers, Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Should Tommy Moore and Norman Chapman be under former members?

Just thinking, since they were part of the band, if not for just a short time. Zazaban 19:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, they were only members of the Silver Beetles. The Beatles came to be after they left, so I'd say no. Freshacconci | Talk 11:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

They were never "Beatles" with an "a" so the answer is a firm "no." Steelbeard1 12:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree, neither of them were members of "The Beatles". Vera, Chuck & Dave 15:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Grammy?

Forgive me if this has been discussed before - I don't recall - but is there a reason that nothing is said in the article about all of the Grammy Awards they won? The category is there, but nothing in the text. Tvoz |talk 06:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

because who cares about the grammy awards? they're ridiculous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles

If you like contributing to articles about The Beatles, you should add your name to this list... :) --andreasegde 22:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

John moved to former members.

John was not part of the 1994 reunion, therefore he was not part of the last time Beatles was a group. Helpsloose 00:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course, John did perform on the songs that came out of that reunion...Shsilver 00:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

But he was dead. It does not count. Dead persons are not part of any bands, not even Lennon. Helpsloose 01:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles are no longer a group, so technically all Fab Four are "former" members. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree, but it looks like the last members active should be called "current members". This does not include John. So if it has to be a difference to "former" and "current" members, John is not one of the "curent". The best is maybe to merge it to just "members" and put all 6 there. Helpsloose 01:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I nominate this for lamest Beatles discussion topic ever. Does ANYONE really think this is a good idea? The Beatles without Lennon are The Doors without Morrison. Moving him to "former members" is a completely ludicrous suggestion on the face of it. K. Scott Bailey 01:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, it doesn't say "Current members," it just says "Members." Ask anyone on the street to name you the Beatles, and they would give you four names, and Best and Sutcliffe would not be among them. And suggesting that those two are as important to the band as the other four is, as another editor put it, ludicrous. faithless (^speak) 01:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I mean Lennon is very important in the Beatles, (even more important than Paul(?)), but it is not "important members" or something we should write there. It is the last active members. Even if in my opinion I will always think of the Beatles as John, Paul, George and Ringo and most other will too. This shall not look like written by fans. We must see the fact that he was not part of the last Beatles reunion. Helpsloose 02:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The template says "current members", but the actual display wisely says "members". John, Paul, George and Ringo were the members. Pete and Stu were "early members". The Beatles are the Fab Four, period. The 1994 activities were strictly recording sessions weaving Lennon's material and their own. I suppose if they were to do this again, with Harrison dead he would also be then labeled a "former" member. No. The Beatles are the Four. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this entire discussion is POV-pushing. Did the three surviving members in 1994 say "We three are now the Beatles"? I don't think so. Now, if Paul and Ringo were to form a band and say "We are the Beatles", then you'd have something. But unless the group itself made the statement that John is no longer a member, then it's "original research" and POV-pushing to claim that to be the case. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This is like an episode of The Twilight Zone, for cripes' sake! Someone seems to be suggesting (and I have to assume they mean it, per WP:AGF) that John should be moved from the members section down to where Pete Best and Stuart Sutcliffe reside. This could potentially be the lamest discussion thread of all time--or at least amongst those that have been started in good faith. I'm sorry, Helpsloose, it ain't happening. K. Scott Bailey 02:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Moving John down there seems very weird to me too. But even so we must look at the facts. And if this is wrong, then we must maybe remove the 94-95 reunion from the infobox. (Baseball Bugs say they did not claim they where the Beatles then) Helpsloose 03:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that I know of no claim by the three surviving members in 1994 that just those three by themselves were claiming to be the full contingent of "The Beatles". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

What?! That was Lennon's music! They took tracks that he recorded before his death and just finished them, the same way they did while the group was still together! I'm just flabbergasted...are you suggesting that the songs John wrote and recorded are not his? Or...what are you suggesting? faithless (^speak) 03:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It's becoming harder and harder to assume good faith with Helpsloose. Now he's claiming that if we don't agree that John should go down with Pete and Stuey that the 94-95 studio album needs to be removed. To assume good faith here, one must also assume that this editor is completely lacking any clue of what constitutes "The Beatles" in the minds of everyone--including the remaining two living members. Heck, even Pete Best and Stuart Sutcliffe would laugh at this proposal! K. Scott Bailey 03:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a copy of a 2003 album called Let it Be... Naked, which was compiled with two of the former Beatles dead by then, yet miraculously the cover shows all four Beatles. The owners of the rights to the Beatles' material apparently consider the Beatles to consist of John, Paul, George and Ringo. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

We must maybe get an expert's look on this discussion. You have all very good arguments, but I am still not sure. Helpsloose 03:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the Beatles themselves are the best experts on who they are, and they consider THE Beatles to consist of the Four. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone find a proof they do and this discussion is over. Helpsloose 03:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Go to their official website. See the pictures of those four guys? Look at the bottom of the screen, at the four links at the bottom; the links to the official websites of John, Paul, George and Ringo. Those are the Beatles. To suggest otherwise is just ridiculous. faithless (^speak) 04:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I am glad you found that. Helpsloose 04:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

members

in the top of the article it says: "whose members were John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr." what about Pete and Stuart? they where still part of the Beatles even if they quit Helpsloose 01:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Treating those two as if they are as important as the "Fab Four" would be giving undue weight to the very minor contributions they made. faithless (^speak) 01:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course they are not as important, but they are still the Beatles. Well, if not anyone supports me here I will just agree to let it be as it is. Helpsloose 03:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"Musical influences" section breaks continuity

Do others agree that this section breaks the flow from "1957–60: Formation", which ends with losing their drummer before departing for Germany, to "1960–70: The Beatles", which begins with being drummerless in Germany? I am conflicted by two lines of thought. First, I thought about moving the Influences section, but to where? Secondly, I thought that the Influences section really focuses only on John's thoughts, so maybe it should go in John Lennon rather than The Beatles. Any thoughts? Ward3001 21:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it breaks the flow. If anything, since it refers to Elvis' early records, it would be more appropriate before "1957–60: Formation" - but it's not really the best section with which to open the article. I think that the paragraph should be incorporated into "Musical evolution" (as pre-Beatles influences surely had an effect on the direction they took as a band), although that would mean there'd be quite a jump in time, as the next paragraph talks about their mid-'60s experimentation. Also, there is the fact that it's only got John's comments, so maybe a couple from the others would be helpful... though would that make it too long? --Nick R^Talk 16:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed Section

I'm moving this to the talk page because I don't think it's that relevant to the Beatles specifically. -MBlume 23:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This generalistic, editorial comment could apply to a large percentage of the 60s population. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Lifestyle

The Beatles' lifestyles were greatly altered by their success and the income they earned. The availability of the first oral contraceptive and illegal drugs changed many people's opinions — including The Beatles' — about life, marriage, and sexual relationships.

Fair use rationale for Image:JLENN01.jpg

Image:JLENN01.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 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 18:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles as Prototypes

Years ago a book published on the history of The Beatles detailed a theory proposed by Timothy Leary that The Beatles were a group of prototypes sent to Earth to exemplify just how perfect humans can function in terms of a specific ability. His claims included, among other things, the fact their music only got better with time, they learned studio techniques at a rate still rare today,and the fact their music transcended space and time. As outlandish as this theory may sound I find it more probable than the "Paul is Dead" hoax, which many believed, and of which wikipedia devotes a page to. Does anyone have this Leary link? 03:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)WebGlass9 (talk)

I don't have a link, but I do have a comment. Both Leary's theory and "Paul is dead" were outlandish. The difference is that "Paul is dead" was a widespread phenomenon. Millions of people on radio stations and college campuses were talking about it. The Leary theory was a tiny blip in the history of the Beatles that very few people ever heard of. Ward3001 (talk) 03:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Your'e not wrong there Ward3001 - that's the first time I've heard it. Far out man! LOL! Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The theory is not as obscure nor as far-fetched as is sounds. There are references to this peppered throughout the Beatles scholarship. One place is the International Journal Review of the Aesthetics and Sociology of Music: Vol 28. There's an article in there about Leary's claim. He made it before JOHN LENNON used him as an inspiration for "Come Together". Leary declared The Beatles were agents of God (although this was unknown to them) and that as "mutants" they had abilities that were superhuman--that together the ubermensch were unlocking their genius as they went along, surprising the unsuspecting public and especially themselves. The Beatle's consistent message of love made Leary assert that lyrically and sonically they perpetuated a sound even the best couldn't rival. Before his death in 1996 a former student of his at Harvard asked him if he still believed that the Beatles were "God energy" and "mutants" to which he replied "haven't you been paying attention all these years?" Robert Agadganian, Jr.9 (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Timothy Leary's dead. (No, no, no, he's outside looking in.) I'd say this is a bit obscure for a basic encyclopedia article about the Beatles. Maybe one on "Weird theories and oddities about the Beatles" would be the place. Tvoz |talk 04:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Tvoz. Regarding Robert Agadganian, Jr.9's comments, how far-fetched it is, is a matter of opinion, but we need a lot more than one academic journal to demonstrate that it is not obscure. Ward3001 (talk) 05:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

They had abilities that were superhuman? Then how come they had to bring in Eric Clapton, Billy Preston and half of the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra? "Just say no" - DRUGS ARE BAD! Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 14:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles didn't have to bring in Clapton, Preston nor an orchestra. If you understood anything about the recording sessions Chuck, Vera, et. al, and the environment during them, you you'd appreciate the fact Clapton played on one released track. From an album that was the least collaborative of all the Beatles efforts. They needed Clapton on "While My Guitar.." like they needed Linda on "Birthday." As far as Preston he played on one released single, and not until 1969, when the band was near it's end. Not sure how that qualifies as an essential component of the band, but maybe as a distraction from the acrimony created by Paul. The Orchestra was needed--if in fact their vision was to be realized. I suppose it's hard to see the needs of such talent when you are living with eyes closed, ey Chuck? LaneCoutell (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

..Et in unum Dominum Johannes Lennon, Fillium Dei unigenitum, et ex Patre natum ante omnia saecula. Deum de Deo; Lumen de Lumine; Deum verum de Deo vero; genitum non factum! Lol! Vera Chuck and Al 10:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's cool down, LaneCoutell, and be mindful of Wikipedia's policies against personal attacks. Don't take Vera, Chuck & Dave's comments so literally. This is a discussion about Timothy Leary's theory of the Beatles as superhuman agents of God, not about whether the Beatles needed anyone to play in their sessions. Ward3001 (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

More to the point of the (The) Beatles being prototypes, there are tons of musicians who have said that after they saw A Hard Day's Night, they went straight out and bought Rickenbackers and formed a band. I'd heard of Leary's statements a long time ago ("I declare that the Beatles are messiahs, bla bla bla...") but their influence on other musicians is far more noteworthy. Farout Owaouwman aka Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

So NOW Pete Best knows why he was sacked - it was because he was a mere human. I'm sure he will want to know that, finally. Of course, Lennon and McCartney must have been mentally programmed to ask Ringo to join, as was Ringo to accept, after getting rid of the human Best. I wonder if their parents knew they had sired such alien offspring? Hmmm... It also means that The Fabs were not really from Liverpool, which I dare anyone to suggest to a packed pub of scousers on a Saturday night. --andreasegde (talk) 23:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"All Those Years Ago" as a reunion

The article calls the release of "All Those Years Ago" a "reunion" for the Beatles. I object to this wording because it wrongly conveys the impression that the three surviving Beatles used the occasion of their bandmate's death to reconcile old differences and come together to record a new song in the same recording space. Unless I am mistaken, this was not the case, and, unless I am forgetting something, never was until work on the Anthology project. This impression has now been exacerbated by altering the article to make Anthology a re-reunion. Would those editors who favor calling "All Those Years Ago" a "reunion" please explain the reason to preserve misleading wording when more accurate wording is available? Is there any reliable source--a major (non-quickie) Beatles biography/chronology or scholarly essay--that refers to "All Those Years Ago" without qualifying it with the information that the Beatles did not, in fact, "reunite" in the physical space sense of the word? The issue about when, if ever, the four (later three) Beatles "reunited" following the rooftop concert (to play live), the recording of overdubs for "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" (to record in the studio), or two days later for their last official photo session, is a matter of concern for any piece of Beatles scholarship, and I oppose Wikipedia's blurring of the issue with language that misleads by using, unqualified, the word "reunited" in a streched sense. A phone call is not a reunion, and the recording session for "All Those Years Ago" was surely less of a reunion even than a phone call: nobody consulted creatively with each other, was forced to talk to each other, was even so much induced as to look at each other. Robert K S (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

"Collaboration" would probably be a more accurate description. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is nearly as big a deal as you seem to, Robert, and I don't necessarily object to "collaborated" or think that "reunited" is the most crucial word to be used here but I think you're being overly literal and writing an awful lot into the word, and making many assumptions above about what they did or didn't do or what the word does or doesn't imply. "Reunite" means come together again, and I take it here as "come together again musically" - which they did on this record. But I'm curious about what other editors here think, seeing as this wording has been in the article since January 2007 without objection as far as I recall. Tvoz |talk 18:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

...which neglects, as I outlined above, the importance placed on understanding "The Beatles' last ____ together", covered by any piece of historical-overview Beatles scholarship, and the near-misses that could have resulted in a Beatles reunion, such as, for example, at Clapton & Boyd's wedding reception, at which the Threetles did play together but Lennon, who was alive and invited, did not attend. It's notable that the post-Lennon Beatles (or "Threetles") could never agree to get together again to play together until the Anthology project. The position outlined above seems to be "We should continue to allow it to be misleading because it's not that important." Robert K S (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said. I don't find it misleading - you are taking it to mean a literal physical meeting, and I don't think that is necessarily implied - and I'm interested in what other editors think. Tvoz |talk 19:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think "reunited" is fine. Lennon's death sparked a collaboration in which the three surviving members performed together, at least on record. I don't think that readers will interpret the sentence to mean there was a formal reunion, especially given the song was not credited to the Beatles. If the wording is changed, the sentence should remain in the active voice and should be well-written. Changing it to awkward phrasing that obscures what happened in order to avoid the word "reunited" is ridiculous. John Cardinal (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, quite ridiculous. Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The version of the text most recently reverted [6] by Tvoz contained no active voice or awkward phrasing: "Shortly afterward, in 1981, George Harrison released 'All Those Years Ago' as a solo single, its original lyrics rewritten as a tribute to Lennon. All three surviving Beatles contributed performances to the track." What is "quite ridiculous" is putting the actual reunion of the Anthology project on the same par as the non-reunion of "All Those Years Ago" ("reunited again") and obscuring Mark David Chapman's name as a matter of convention. [7] I'm going to rewrite the section with proper sourcing; this will hopefully obviate the issue. Robert K S (talk) 10:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for tracking my edits, Robert, but please don't make assumptions. I removed Chapman's name not as a matter of convention, but because it is not relevant to this article. I never removed it from Lennon's article, where it belongs. I changed it to "a deranged fan" here because I have always said that the fact that he was murdered by a fan is relevant to an article about the band - it was not a random act of murder, say a mugging - and Chapman's name itself does not convey any information. I am not completely opposed to just saying "Lennon's murder" without saying by whom, as we had before someone stuck "Chapman" in, if that's the consensus among editors here, but personally prefer including "by a deranged fan" as stated. Moving on, you are putting "Anthology" on a par with "All those years", not I. I think John Cardinal expressed it well above, regarding this not being misleading - but I don't think it's a major issue, as I said initially. So far, however, I don't see consensus for your wording - at the moment you seem to be the only one having a problem with the word "reunited". If others agree with you, I'll go along with it. Tvoz |talk 20:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

And now I see that you actually made your edit again despite the ongoing discussion - whatever. I don't object to including Chapman's name with "deranged fan", and at this point I don't much care about including "reunited" or not - I don't know if the facts you posted are accurate or not, so I have no comment about them and I think you might have added that clarifying information here seeing as we're in the middle of a discussion (and please don't quote wp:bold to me) - but that would have been the collegial thing to do, and you seem to want to have your way. So, as I said, whatever. Tvoz |talk 21:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You may or may not be aware that some years ago Lennon's widow pronounced a taboo on Chapman's name, asking that he be henceforth referred to only as "a deranged fan" so as not to reward the name of a murderer with fame. Applying such an edict as policy on Wikipedia out of sensitivity to Lennon's family would be anti-academic, and it was in that spirit that I thought Chapman's name had been obscured in your edit. I agree that his name is not particularly relevant to this article, and so long as Chapman's name wasn't being obscured out of hand and as a matter of course, I have no problem with removing it or simply wikilinking "a deranged fan", as you had it. As to whether material I've contributed to Wikipedia is accurate--indeed, more accurate than the potentially misleading "reunited" wording (and yes, it was potentially misleading, as it caused me to question my own memory, which was the only reason why I chimed in on this in the first place)--well, the given source is easily checkable, with the page number supplied in the citation. Robert K S (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not mention Mark Chapman just once, and stop the "deranged fan" stuff - it's encyclopedic. As for the song; it's also encyclopedic to state that Starr played drums and McCartney sang backing vocals (with Linda) on the song. Make it simple, and take the emotion out. --andreasegde (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"Deranged fan" is editorializing in any case, as he was convicted and sentenced. From the legal standpoint, he's sane. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Except Wikipedia does not have to follow the court's dictum about how sanity is defined. Use of the term "deranged" is not much of a stretch, considering what Chapman did and said. Ward3001 (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have to follow what's verifiable. If he is verifiably "deranged", that's one thing. If not, the comment has no place here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability is the least of the problems if you want to split hairs. He has been diagnosed by the professionals as psychotic, or delusional, or both. So to keep everything all fit and proper, we can follow Wikipeida's procedures and diagnose Chapman by consensus. Or we could simply call him "deranged". Ward3001 (talk) 00:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Then you can call him psychotic and/or delusional. "Deranged" would be considered "unencyclopedic". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but there's no consensus, not even among the psychiatrists. So maybe we should post an RfC to see whether Wikipedians prefer "delusional", "psychotic", both, or neither. Ward3001 (talk) 01:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Then wikipedia should make no judgment at all, and simply report that Lennon was killed by Chapman. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand. If the court calls him "insane", we can call him "insane" (and "deranged" means the same as "insane", so we could also call him "deranged"). But we can't call him "psychotic" or "delusional" because the court doesn't say that he's either of those, even though some of the psychiatrists used those terms. Chapman shot Lennon and immediately sat down to read a book. He said the murder would turn him into a "quasi-savior" and "guardian angel". But let's not call him "deranged" unless the court says we can. Ward3001 (talk) 03:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You can call him "deranged" if a veriable source calls him that. That's how it works in wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

And the court is a verifiable source, but not the psychiatrists who examined him, right? And if, by chance, you would accept the psychiatrists' opinions, how do you decide which ones to accept? Or do we need an RfC to establish consensus? Or do we only do what the court says we can do and ignore the psychiatrists? And what if the court uses the word "insane" but not "deranged"? I'm confused. Ward3001 (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"Lennon was shot and killed by Mark Chapman on 8 December 1980 in New York City. In May 1981, George Harrison released "All Those Years Ago"; a single written about Harrison's time with The Beatles. It was recorded a month before Lennon's death, with Starr on drums, and was later overdubbed with new lyrics as a tribute to Lennon. McCartney and Linda McCartney later contributed backing vocals to the track.[92]" --andreasegde (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good effort, but I think the passage omits the important part: Harrison, Starr and McCartney didn't happen to collaborate on that song by accident; they came together to honor a friend. They didn't sign contracts or say what they were doing was a Beatles reunion, but the three did reunite to produce music. I don't care enough about which word is used to argue anymore about it, but IMO changing the wording to avoid "reunite" or "reunion" makes the passage weaker for no good reason. John Cardinal (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

When Ringo went solo, he collaborated with John, Paul, & George at various points throughout the 1970's. If "All Those Years Ago" is to be considered a reunion, then in effect all these prior "collaborations" would then have to be considered reunions..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMojoRisin (talk • contribs) 00:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

When the other Beatles performed on Starr's solo albums, the other 3 did not appear on the same songs, and more to the point: the object of those efforts was to complete one or more tracks for an album. The object in the "All Those Years Ago" case was specifically for the three living Beatles to honor their deceased friend. In addition, we aren't saying they "Reunited", we are saying they "reunited". In other words, I can go to a high school reunion without actually enrolling as a student. John Cardinal 15:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ringo Hey Jude.jpg

Image:Ringo Hey Jude.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 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 (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Incongruency

These two statements appear to contradict each other:

1. The Beatles had the fastest selling single of all time with "I Want to Hold Your Hand". The song sold 250,000 units within three days in the U.S., one million in 2 weeks. (Additionally, it sold 10,000 copies per hour in New York City alone for the first 20 days.)
2. The largest number of advance orders for a single, at 2.1 million copies in the U.S. for "Can't Buy Me Love" (it sold 940,225 copies on its first day of release in the U.S. alone).

If "Can't Buy Me Love" sold 940,225 on its first day, one can't say that "I Want to Hold Your Hand" is the fastest selling single of all time at 250,000 units within three days. -DKM- (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It probably depends on how "fastest selling" is defined. If the category is judged by sales in one day, then you're right, "Can't Buy Me Love" would be the winner. On the other hand, if it's more than three days, we don't have enough information with the data presented. For example, if the category is judged by sales in one week, then the above numbers don't answer the question. Ward3001 (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought the statement about "I Want to Hold Your Hand" was referring to sales at that time: that record was the fastest-selling record at the time it came out. "Can't Buy Me Love" was later. Carlo (talk) 02:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles were or was?

The article begins by saying "The Beatles were"- but isn't "The Beatles" act singularly and thus shouldn't it be "The Beatles was"? Just like when you refer to, say, CNN as singular. Cheers, Rothery (talk) 04:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC).

No, it's a plural noun. In fact the Brits often take the opposite view, such that singular nouns representing a group of people are construed as plural ("Arsenal were the better side and fully deserved to beat Southampton...") Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, not again! Raymond has it right. Tvoz |talk 06:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Raymond and your good self are correct - again! Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 09:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a FAQ at the top of the talk page as this comes up often. --kingboyk (talk) 13:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

References

Any edit made without a verifiable reference will be deleted, including edits that are slipped into referenced sentences, BTW. --andreasegde (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Achievements section

that achievements section must be deleted it is completely unsourced. Unsourced material must be removed per wiki policy. A ta was put there a while ago and nothing was done to improve the section.Realist2 (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A tag was placed there less than a week ago, during the holidays. What did you expect? All the info is correct, why the rush to delete? I'll assume good faith on your part and leave it at that. Please allow other editors to respond and let's get some consensus here. Thanks. freshacconcispeaktome 13:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Weither it is correct or not is irrelavant and not the point, there is no proof it is correct and I choice to disbelieve it. Ha there` my point exactly, it might be true but how am I to no? I no nothing of the beatles. This page isnt for people who love the beatles to write about there idols. Its a place for people who want to learn and therefore traditionally know little on the subject. You are fully aware of wiki policy everything must be sourced or deleted, no ifs, no buts , its the policy. That said the tag was up during the holiday period. I will give it until the 10th January but if nothing is done and progress hasn`t even been started then it will go. No ifs no buts. Realist2 (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't like your attitude much, because you've been told the info is true and could verify or source it yourself but for some reason you'd rather believe you're being lied to (?!). That said, you are technically correct. The section makes some bold claims which should be sourced and it would be perfectly legitimate to remove it after a time if it remains unsourced (we generally allow more than a few days however; this isn't a BLP issue).

It's unfortunate, because it's actually quite a well written list. Therefore, my suggestion would be to move it to the talk page if it doesn't get sourced in a reasonable time period. Then it still has a chance of being salvaged. --kingboyk (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

do i look like have have time to find the citations for all those "facts"?! I shouldn`t have to source it as that was the job of the person who put it there in the first place. It is not well written either. If it is unsourced it is poorly written. I did this a few months back on the Janet Jackson page, there was a list of 50 achievements, many of which im sure were true but were non the less unsourced. I removed the unsourced claims leaving just 17 points and no1 argued about it because at the end of the day I was only following the rules of wiki. How bad of me to be such a good wiki I feel like im in the wrong for getting the policy right. like I said Jan 10th is plenty of time since that tag has already been up a while. Realist2 (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Freshacconci is right. There needs to be more time for discussion, consensus, and allowing editors to find sources. Realist2, these knee-jerk reactions are not in keeping with Wikipedia standards of conduct. This is not a matter of life or death, and it's not blatant vandalism. It's not unusual for "citation needed" tags to remain up for a month before someone adds a citation. Your unilateral and arbitrary deadline of January 10 has no basis in Wikipedia policy and, more importantly, is not finding a lot of support on this talk page. Although you are right that information needs to be sourced, Wikipedia cannot be fixed in a matter of days. You have to have a little patience. Please assume good faith and give it some time for editors to respond. And while you're waiting, you might want to read Wikipedia's policies on civility, etiquette, consensus, and the concept of "ignore all rules". Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

dont lecture me it not going to work, i wont be made to feel bad because i want to stick to the policy. I have every right to simply revert it as its unsourced, its meaningless as it is. Im not saying that it needs to be up and ready on Jan 10th im saying that there needs to be SOME progress, if nothing is done, the key word being NOTHING by the 10th which is plenty of time , I will take it that there is no interest on the matter and delete it. Realist2 (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this discussion shows that there is a great deal of "interest on the matter". I'm not certain where you think you can just arbitrarily set a deadline that everyone must follow. Really, who do you think you are? Let's look at this according to the chain of events: you deleted a large portion of text, without discussing it here first. kingboyk reverted your edit and rightfully added the citation tag. You then created your own deadline that the changes needed to be performed by--again without discussion. Now you are claiming to be only sticking by policy, as if you had added the tag and were merely just following up. In addition to the reading that Ward3001 suggested you look into, you may also want to look at WP:OWN. Three editors feel the section is worth saving. That indicates interest. Your deadline is meaningless. Any attempt to delete the section borders on vandalism at this point, again per wikipedia guidelines on consensus. So I'd like to request that you refrain from lecturing other editors. The interest is there. At least three editors are interested in working on this to some degree, and we will not be rushed by some arbitrary deadline you have set against consensus. Thank you. freshacconcispeaktome 23:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree totally with Freshacconci that an arbitrary deadline set by one editor is meaningless when multiple opinions express a different opinion. As I said earlier, it is true that the information needs to be sourced, but Realist2 alone does not establish the consensus about a deadline. Right now, the consensus is to give it more time. If necessary, we can set up an RfC to seek other opinions. And that's not a lecture. It's simply the way things are done on Wikipedia. "Wikipedia does not have firm rules". Ward3001 (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

well if peope feel so strongly about its importance can we all at least agree on a time period that people feel they can sensibly meet? "At some time" is no source of enthusasm to get on with it, unless some sort of time table is set it will never get done.Realist2 (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, Ward3001 has already started. So I guess that's "SOME progress"? freshacconcispeaktome 14:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

well great all i was asking for was that it was started by the 10th jan and look you already started. see it wasnt that big a target after all, keep at it.Realist2 (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep at it? LOL! Who died and made you wiki-boss? Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh im just keeping every1 in hi spirit. Realist2 (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh aye, proper little comedian you are lad! Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

now now no need to get bitchy ashume good faith and all LOL, Realist2 (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ashume? You bin on the ale? Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

yes thats right mock me because english isnt my first language, typical yank. Realist2 (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Vera was just being humorous, and he's really nice, honest. I left a note on your talk page explaining the joke. :) --andreasegde (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Beatles logo in infobox

An edit war has begun regarding whether The Beatles' logo should be included in the infobox, including different opinions from two administrators. I personally feel neutral about this, so I am seeking opinions. Apparently WP:MOS-TM indicates that use of logos is permitted, but some have argued that there is a consensus against using logos at Template talk:Infobox Musical artist#Logos; I personally do not find a consensus there, but I'm open to discussion. Ward3001 (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I hate when logos are used. I think it looks amateurish and fansite-ish. Also, I really don't see how they qualify as fair-use. All that being said, they do seem to be allowed, and many good articles on bands feature their logo in the infobox. faithless (^speak) 21:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

My comment here sums up my current thinking. I agree they look amateurish, but the point to remember is that when considering how we use nonfree material, the onus is on those who wish to use it to demonstrate that the use is essential to the encyclopedia. Failing that, we should not use them. --John (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)