Talk:The Beatles/Archive 22

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Years active

Years active the Quarrymen 1957-1960 the beatles Years active 1960-1970 93.41.60.3 (93.41.60.3) 23:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The Quarrymen have their own article. The Beatles came into existence in 1960. The Quarrymen is considered to be an associated act with three members who would become Beatles. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Years active

Years active the Quarrymen 1957-1960 the beatles Years active 1960-1970 93.41.60.3 (93.41.60.3) 23:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The Quarrymen have their own article. The Beatles came into existence in 1960. The Quarrymen is considered to be an associated act with three members who would become Beatles. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't this article included in.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Boy_bands --222.67.213.205 (talk) 10:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Because "boy band" is a contemporary term that does not apply to The Beatles. The description of boy band in that article likewise does not fit The Beatles. freshacconci talktalk 10:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Genres

The beatles are part of many genres: skiffle, rock and roll, rock, psychedelic rock, blues, hard rock, ska, pop. Shouldn't we include all of these in the genres in the box in the top right?Sebastian341 (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is that these are styles within rock and pop, not genres, and there is little to be gained by listing any possible style, otherwise the infobox would get to be almost as large as the article, and that's assuming they could all be reliably sourced. Rodhull andemu 21:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

How Many Records Did the Beatles Actually Sell

http://musicindustrynewswire.com/2009/04/29/min1592_195858.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesyull (talk • contribs) 16:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/games/last-beatles-rock-band-song-kept-a-mystery-20090819-eq0r.html

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/the-beatles--rock-band-downloadable-content-details-direct-from-gamescom

http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE57H5LN20090818 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesyull (talk • contribs) 15:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

They have only sold over 170 million albums plus 42 million singles a total of 212 million in the USA alone

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_discography#Sales_figures

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists_in_the_United_States

I do not know about their woldwide sales

If you can find the sales for every country including the UK then i will believe you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesyull (talk • contribs) 18:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not a matter of believing "us", Wikipedia, but the sources we use. Generally, the sources quote record companies but there is always some skepticism over what record companies claim and what true sales are. The standard that Record companies use is the quantity shipped out to record shops, less the returns that turn up later - but this is open to "massaging". When promoting a record or band aggressively a record company may send out many more copies than have been ordered, to create an artificial seeming demand that the industry media can be advised about (leading to comment, increased interest, potential higher demand, etc.) and to disregard returns in their figures for a while (ha, you can even send out the returns to different shops under the same scheme and add them to the "sales" figures without printing/cutting any more product!) There is also the case where record companies will declare less product was sent out and sold than was the case, so the sales percentage to the band/writers/etc. remain in the companies hands. There have been recent legal actions by various Beatles and their estates in this respect - and it works mainly at the bottom and top end of the "famous artist" rankings - unknown bands do not have the clout to question the company, and top bands whose records are selling really well may have some sales "lost" without anyone noticing (straight away anyway). So, in answer, there will never be a truly definitive answer - but we will use the most reliable sources we can find to give some indication. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

artists getting treat differtly http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124760651612341407.html

Michael jacksobn sales are an impressive total, and second only to the Beatles, but far fewer than 750 million

This means he has out sold elvis

Mr. Jackson's record label, Sony Music, declined to share sales numbers. Ms. Bain didn't respond to requests for comment; she sued Mr. Jackson in May after their business relationship ended. In her lawsuit, she claimed Mr. Jackson sold "over 1 billion records world-wide

It also speaks about other artists sales

Inflated numbers aren't unique to Mr. Jackson. The Beatles' supposed one-billion-plus sales record also reflects an estimate of the number of songs, not albums, according to trackers of such landmarks. Other performers, such as AC/DC, Julio Iglesias and ABBA, supposedly are members of the 200 million album club, but compiled sales figures put their respective totals closer to 100 million.

Units could be interpreted to mean a rough tally of the number of songs sold, not albums. But many journalists and fans interpreted the figure as albums sold, and a wildly inflated number was born.

it also says The Beatles' supposed one-billion-plus sales are Inflated so why are they still at 1 billion

Because that is what a reliable source says. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello

For the Beatles, you write this, and nobody will contest.

Despite A Career Of Only 8 Years - 1962/1970 - The Beatles Became The Best-Selling Act In The History Of The Twentieth Century. On November 9, 2008 Ringo Starr will be accepting a Diamond Award for the Beatles having sold more records than any other recording act in the history of the Music Industry

[[1]]

--Roujan (talk) 10:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Why Ringo? Zazaban (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I own 12 Beatles albums, so I would say they definately sold at least 12.--Crestville (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The claims of a billion plus album sales for The Beatles and Elvis is record company hype. The only two reliable measuring agencies in the US - the RIAA and Soundscan have The Beatles considerably ahead of Elvis Presley in album sales. The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry published its updated list of the 150 highest selling artists ever and confirms The Beatles as the biggest selling artists of all time.

1. The Beatles (40 albums) 400,000,000 2. Michael Jackson (14 albums) 350,000,000 3. Elvis Presley (150 albums) 300,000,000 4. Madonna (16 albums) 275,000,000 5. Nana Mouskouri (450 albums) 250,000,000

To say that Elvis has 300 uncertified albums in the US does not stand up to scutiny. According to Joel Whitburn’s Top Pop Albums 1955-1992, Elvis released 96 albums that charted during that period. Of those 22 did not make the top 100, that is they sold very few copies. Another 26 did not make the top 40 again selling few copies. Elvis had 48 top 40 albums, 25 top 10 albums and 9 number 1 albums between 1955 and 1992.

Elvis has not released 200 plus albums in the US in the past 17 years.

The Beatles had 27 top 40 albums, 23 top 10 albums and 15 number 1 albums up to 1992. The Beatles currently have 19 number 1 albums compared to 10 number 1 albums by Elvis.

The Beatles are the biggest selling recording artists of all time.

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry published its updated list of the 150 highest selling artists ever.

01. The Beatles 400,000,000

02. Michael Jackson 350,000,000

03. Elvis Presley 300,000,000

04. Madonna 275,000,000

05. Nana Mouskouri 250,000,000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 13:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

As you cannot find a way to count every single unit sold world wide then you cannot say that Elvis is the biggest selling artist of all time. If you look at the charted positions of the Elvis albums that were released prior to 1958 then there were no massive sales during that period.

Also the two albums that were released around the time of his death (Moody Blue on 7/23/1977 and Elvis in Concert on 10/29/1977 which peaked at #3 and #5 respectively on the Billboard charts) did not have massive sales.

You can talk all you like about massive sales being not measured by RCA or the RIAA but the sales that were measured were not great - it is strange that the measurable album sales were few but the sales not measured were massive. As a statistician by profession I work with data/facts not supposition, rumour or guesswork. In the audited figures The Beatles have sold more records (albums and singles included) that any other recording artist. Sales that cannot be proven are just not valid and are not reliable. If you cannot trust Soundscan and the RIAA then you cannot trust any figures.

Elvis may have more partials but that does not mean they are each .9 of a million. They may only be a few thousand - you should not make assumptions. As The Beatles have outsold Elvis by 27 million since 1991 (source: Soundscan) when each album sold is measurable, this is consistent with The Beatles outselling Elvis by 24 million in the previous years considering The Beatles gave Elvis many years and many millions start. The Beatles 1 album has sold 11 million plus albums in the US compared to 4 million plus for Elvis Number 1’s album - a considerable difference in the same market place for the same product. This is a potent indication of their current sales capacity.

You may think Elvis is the best - you are entitled to your opinion. That is subjective and I am not entering that debate. When it comes to record sales that can be measured then The Beatles win easily.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson michael jackson wikipedia page it says he has estimated sales between 350 million and 750 million records worldwide i agree with this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles The Beatles sold between 600 million and one billion records internationally I agree with this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis it say He is one of the best-selling solo artists in the history of music, selling over one billion records worldwide

that is wrong so change it since both michael jackson and the beatles pages have been changed like we said we will give each of these artist the same treatment —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 16:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello

The only thing important it's all the sales...(not only albums...why not only singles?)

Your numbers concerning albums are wrong

- The Beatles 1962-1970 : 12 albums (after 1970 zero album, just posthumous best-of)

But why the Beatles were recognized as the best selling act of the twentieth century?

Yes ok, it was because at the end of the twentieth century, precisely on December 31, 1999, sales of this group were the best in the worldwide.

But it was also and especially because the professional career of this group lasted a period of only eight (8) years! : 1962-1970

E.M.I announced in 1972, "...The Beatles who since october 1962 have sold 85 million albums and 125 million singles around the world,..."

So, more of 210 million discs

( E.M.I talk about exemplary, but i talk about discs..."White album" count two (2) discs.)

[[2]]

And it's incredible because the market was smaller than between 1973 - 2009!

If you want to compare with today, you must multiply by how much : just take the number 5, and transpose on ten years (10) years - 1999/2009 -

It's like if a group sold more 1,150 billion of discs

Who has selling 1,150 billion of discs since 1999?

Now you understand why it's the best selling during a career.

But it's also the best posthumous selling of the history of the music industry

After their professional career - 1973/2009 -, more of 390 million of discs of the Beatles were selling.

After a career, nobody has selling more of 390 million of discs

In reality, since the break-up of the Beatles, nobody has selling more of 390 millions of discs ( disc large format )

So, Why more of 390 million ?

Look your link in the main page

[[3]]

Apple Corps Ltd. was founded by The Beatles in 1968 to look after the group's own affairs. The London-based company has administered the catalogue of The Beatles releases of the 1960s that have sold to date more than 600 million records, tapes and CDs

600 - 210 = 390

It's not difficult: it's not my source, it's the source of E.M.I and Apple.

Ok it's true, E.M.I and a lot of labels have hidden a lot of sales of the Beatles for not paying royalties, so probably the real sales of the Beatles is higher, but seriously it's what Wikipedia?

An encyclopedia or a forum for fans?

The numbers concerning others artists are corrupted, inflated?...Yes i know, but it's not the problem of the Beatles's fans

The Beatles 's fans are not the most honest fans in the world?

When you talk about the sales of the Beatles, the only thing which is important, it's their sales.

You can't compare with others artists because the Beatles were disadvantaged: A career of only eight years. 1962-1970

Like you see, in reality the Beatles it's a career of only 8 years - 1962/1970 -, but concerning the worldwide sales, it's a worldwide domination of 47 years: 1962/2009

[[4]]

< Even Apple Inc., which knows more than a little about brands itself, borrowed a little of the Beatles magic, using the name of the Beatles’ record label when the computer company was founded.

That raises an interesting question. How has a group that split up almost four decades ago managed to stay such a massive global brand for such a long time? >

--Roujan (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I am just trying to explain to you lot that both michael jackson and the beatles sales have been changed on their wikipedia pages

if you read the link above for elvis wikipedia page it says he has sold over 1 billion that is wrong beacuse he has not outsold the beatles —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 18:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Im just saying that relible sources such as emi (beatles 1 billion) and sony (michael jackson 750 million) that are saying that they have sold this much

but elvis sales remian at over 1 billion even though their are much more reliable soruces for both the beatles and michael jackson which claim they have sold that amount —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 20:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Im just saying we should change elvis is wikipedia page from over 1 billion to claimed sales of 1 billion or estimated sales between 300 million and 1 billion http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/1760014.stm http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_headline=30-years-after-his-death-why-elvis-aaron-presley-is-still-the-king-uh-huh-huh&method=full&objectid=19639018&siteid=66633-name_page.html

like we done for both michael jackson and the beatles —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 20:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Hello Clifffrichard

This page talk about the Beatles.

My post talk about the Beatles

What do you think of my post?

--Roujan (talk) 21:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

roujan what i just said is about the beatles beacause on elvis wikipedia page it is say he has sold over 1 billion

but on the beatles wikipedia page it says the beatles have sold between 600 million and 1 billion

so people reading this will think elvis has outsold the beatles even though we know he has not —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 23:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)<! Template:Unsigned -->

Hello friend

You wrote:

< so people reading this will think elvis has outsold the beatles >

So what?...If tomorrow R.C.A and SONY claim: "Elvis sold 2 billion discs"...you are going to write on the Beatles's main page..."The Beatles sold 2,1 billion"?

The sales of discs don't represent the real sales : the gross numbers may be misleading

Example:

- A sold 110 million discs.

- B sold 100 million discs.

So we can say that A outsold B

But the gross numbers may be misleading...and it's for these reason there are men who carry out analysis

Indeed, if B it's been a career of 8 years, and A a career of 21 years, it's not the same thing!

A : 110 : 21 = 5.238,095 million discs per year

B: 100 : 8 = 12,5 million discs per year

So like you see the sales of B were superior than the sale of A

Another and last example but i can give other examples with others criterions

- A sold 110 million discs.

- B sold 100 million discs.

So we can say that A outsold B

But imagine if the career of B were between 1940 and 1950, and the career of A were between 1999 and 2009...So like you see B were disadvantaged for the sales because between 1999-2009 it was much easy to sell discs than 1940-1950.

In reality, the company of discs never do any analysis because they uses the gross numbers just for the marketing (propaganda)

But i don't understand fans of the Beatles (on wikipedia) : just a few months ago i gave a link but nobody put it on the main page...why?????

Here this link

< November 9, 2008

Ringo Starr received at the 2008 WMAs a Diamond Award on behalf of legendary group. The Beatles, for selling more records than any other recording-artist in the history of the Music Industry >

[[5]]

You click on < 2008 AWARDS > and after < DIAMOND AWARD >

And you will see Ringo Starr

(I'm sure if this Awards had been given to Madonna or Britney Spears, we could read it on the main page of this 2 singers...but Beatles's fans are not fan of this 2 singers)

--Roujan (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

redefined the idea of an album

The article states that "The Beatles redefined the album as something more than just a small number of hits padded out with "filler" tracks." This is hard to believe as I would would say with relative confidence that, even in the cases of the Beatles, an album has been roughly defined as a few hits with filler tracks. The general population will say they love a band if they know even only one song by them. Only real fans of a band tend to know most or all of a band's songs. And with so many die-hard Beatles fans, you'd think that people would know more songs, but they don't. I'm just saying that they didn't really even come close to even effecting the way songs are put on to albums and whoever wrote that was basically talking them up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.102.234 (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged that phrase as "uncited," expecting someone to provide a reference that supports it. If we don't get it after some time, we probably have to at least reword/edit. (John User:Jwy talk) 23:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

My take on this is that we are talking about a shift from "albums based on singles and a few filler tracks" towards stand-alone singles, and separate albums. In the early days of pop, a couple of hit singles would spawn an album to cash in. I don't think it's unique to The Beatles, although I think it's arguable that A Collection of Beatles Oldies presented, in album format, some tracks that had hitherto only been available on singles. But when that album came out, in 1966, I think the separation of albums from singles had at least begun, in that it was obvious that The Beatles could sell both with equal ease and did not need to complement hit singles with albums. Whether this can be sourced is, of course, still moot. Rodhull andemu 00:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, there is a clear difference between how album tracks were laid out before and after The Beatles. Since the late 60s, it has been common for a sense of flow and unity to be put into an album, but before that a bunch of songs were just thrown together. There is certainly a difference. This change started with albums like Rubber Soul and Revolver. And Sgt. Pepper originated the concept album. Zazaban (talk) 01:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Years active

Shouldn't the 'years active' be '1957-1970'? The band technically formed then, not in 1960. A name change does not create a new band. See Radiohead. Zazaban (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I take it you mean 1957, but apart from that I tend to agree. PL290 (talk) 09:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Thank you. Zazaban (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, since they released Real Love and Free as a Bird in the 90s, would they be considered active then as well? Deserted Cities (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, no: even though some new music was released, that was only ever a project by ex-members looking back on the time when they were active. Since no one's disagreeing about 1957 though, I suggest we go ahead and change that. PL290 (talk) 03:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Should pre-1960 members be added to 'former members' now? By the way, a friend of mine brought up that The Beatles didn't technically cease until 1975. I don't agree that this should be changed, but I want to mentioned it anyway. They weren't 'active' after 1970, unless you make silly arguments about solo collaborations (which he will if he ever finds out that non-registered users are able to edit this site.) Zazaban (talk) 08:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Years active the Quarrymen 1957 the beatles Years active 1960 93.41.60.3 (93.41.60.3) 22:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ringo wasn't in the band until 1962. Up until then, the ranks were constantly changing. For example, the original bass player, Stuart Sutcliffe, died of a brain hemorrage in late 1950 and early 1960. At that point, Paul took over bass. Then, in 1962 their drummer Pete Best was ousted in favor of Ringo because George Martin said Best wasn't talented enough to drum in the recording sessions, so John and Paul went and fetched Ringo from where he was playing with Rory Storm and the Hurricanes. If that makes any difference to the world... Crossover Genius (talk) 00:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are only Stutcliffe and Best under former members? They're all former members... the band has been dissolved for 40 years.J'onn J'onzz (talk) 02:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The remastered albums: a Record Collector article, a documentary, and reviews

The current issue of Record Collector magazine (UK) has an extensive interview with the small team who worked on the remastering process (most of whom had also worked on the Yellow Submarine Songtrack and Let It Be.. Naked). It goes into the most detail of any article I've seen on the remasters, discussing things like the condition and storage of the original master tapes, how they went about deciding what to keep and what to remove (In: Ringo's squeaky bass drum pedal! Out: air conditioning hum!), how long each album took to go through the remastering process, the reason George Martin's 1987 mixes of Help! and Rubber Soul were used rather than the originals, details on the video clips included on each disc, mono and stereo differences, and some of the project team's opinions on things like "loudness war" mastering and the move away from audiophile equipment and towards low-fi iPod listening.

So, the article might be a useful reference source for various Beatles-related Wikipedia articles.

This recent BBC Radio 2 documentary on George Martin (available on Listen Again/iPlayer for a few more days) also includes some audio examples of what they can change and correct nowadays, like a vocal drop-out in "Please Please Me" where two takes were spliced together. It also has examples of how, by isolating different frequencies, they can split "Taxman" into its individual instruments, even though they were originally recorded onto the same tape track. However, the mastering engineers interviewed in the Record Collector article note that while the instrument-isolating technique is sufficient for the Rock Band game, the technology's not quite good enough for a full remix of the early albums into "modern" stereo. Again, this documentary might be a useful reference source for statements about what's been changed in the remasters. (It's also worth a listen for the clips of John's original guide vocal for "Come Together"!)

Also: this month's wave of UK music magazines (Mojo/Q/Uncut etc) feature reviews of the remastered albums (although the reviewers had to go to Abbey Road to hear them). So perhaps a quote from one of those reviews might be more suitable than the "better even than we'd hoped" quote from Mojo magazine. (Incidentally, I think that the issue of Mojo with that quotation was the very first official confirmation that the re-releases were on their way - it was published in summer 2008, long before the official press release in early 2009. Perhaps there should be some minor rewording in that section, to reflect that?) --Nick R^Talk 18:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Poll and quote on popularity

Not sure this quite merits working in the main article, but I'll leave that to someone else to decide (and to do).

"Research shows that more than 40 years after their last public performance, Paul McCartney, John Lennon, George Harrison and Ringo Starr's music remains as interesting to young people now as it ever was.

A Pew Research survey released last month showed that 81 percent of respondents between ages 16-29 said they liked The Beatles. Eleven percent said they dislike the band and only 4 percent said they have never heard of them.

By comparison, current rockers Coldplay received 39 percent positive responses, with 45 percent saying they'd never heard of them. Forty-two percent said they like hip-hop star Kanye West.

"To put this in perspective: Try imagining young adults back in the 1960s putting the big jazz bands of the roaring '20s at the top of their list of favorites," the survey reads. 'Not very likely.'"

That's from a CNN article [6]. Piano non troppo (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

IMO the stats are OK for use in that CNN article, to demonstrate the basic point claimed by its title "The Beatles are still relevant today", but they're too selective to establish anything beyond that, so would not really add value to this article. But I've added the Greenfield quote to Legacy. PL290 (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Former Members

Shouldn't all members be in the "former members" section, rather than just Sutcliffe and Best as the band did dissolve nearly 40 years ago.--MichaelH3948 (talk) 17:24, 06 September 2009 (UTC)

We've had this discussion on numerous previous occasions, and the prevailing consensus is for the version we have now. Rodhull andemu 16:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Sound samples

Obviously, a selection of samples is essential to even a basic understanding of The Beatles, but this edit adds several that are not otherwise mentioned in the text. I'm concerned that they may not meet our non-free content criteria. Powers ^T 12:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we establish consensus here about a set of samples that demonstrates a representative range of significant and verifiable genres (within reason, i.e., I assume 6 or so songs). The WP:BOLD addition of samples was my way of getting that discussion going. (I think it's a pretty fair set myself, but with so many songs to choose from, there are lots of possibilities here.) By definition, the songs we end up with will each warrant a mention in the text, probably in the "Musical evolution" section which someone's already tagged for expansion. Thoughts? PL290 (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, my thoughts would be to write the text first, and then provide samples for the songs mentioned in the text, rather than the other way around. That ensures that the non-free material is supplementary to the text, rather than have the non-free material the primary content with the text constructed to support its inclusion. Powers ^T 13:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

All of them seem fine, except Eleanor Rigby seems out of place (not mentioned in text). Maybe we should drop that, add something from Sgt. Pepper (seems weird not to have something from the album) and then something from Abby Road or Let it Be. Deserted Cities 15:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

2009 remasters

Wouldn't you agree that section could benefit from a use of the following template?

--79.193.83.129 (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say so! Added. PL290 (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! And Happy 090909 ("Nine-Nine-O'Nine") Beatles Day to you! :) --79.193.83.129 (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles Stereo Box Set

Happy Beatles Day to you PL290! And you too, Andre! And everyone else! (Remember 09/09/09? Well, I told you and Andre so!!!) Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC) (formerly User talk:76.198.234.254)

Epstein removed from lead

I removed Epstein from the lead. I feel that while he was obviously important, the lead should deal mainly with the band itself. And, if Epstein is in the lead, we should mention George Martin too. Deserted Cities 18:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Tend to agree about the opening paragraph at least. Epstein still appears in 2nd para also, which is less prominent, so I've wikified him and added Martin there too... OK? PL290 (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing Epstein from the lead? That's like removing Egypt from the pyramids. The group would not have had a contract without him. The mind boggles...--andreasegde (talk) 13:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you read PL290's response? He's still in the lead section, in the 2nd paragraph.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

My objection was the idea of removing Epstein from the lead in the first place, and then leaving a note here to confirm it. Anybody wanna buy a pyramid?--andreasegde (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"Pop" or "pop rock"

The Beatles were always fundamentally a rock band. Their earlier work being defined as "pop music" is partially correct, the rock sound they always encompassed however being at its core. I believe it would be more appropriate for the infobox to read "Rock, pop rock", the genre of pop music being elaborated on in the "Musical evolution" section. Jakeb (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

In the 1960s 'pop music' was still an artform. Today people become blinded by the term being used to describe lip-syncing blond teens and corporate product performers who do not have any real musical talent, but are marketed in such a way that their lack of talent is hidden behind the fashion. In the 1960s pop music was art created by talents musical artists like The Who and The Kinks and The Hollies and, of course, The Beatles. They identified themselves as a pop band, just as all British Invasion bands described themselves. In the infobox the term is not there as an insult. It is there as information. And it is correct information. Fair Deal (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Incredibly true. I think it would be fair to say The Beatles were just as much as a pop rock band as they were a pop band, which is due to the obvious mediocrity and homogenization of of "pop music" today has turned it into an insult. Their diversity will obviously lead to such disputes. Jakeb (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Surely the point here is that the terminology has changed over time. In the 1960s (I was there!), all these people - Beatles, Stones, Beach Boys, The Monkees, everybody - were called "pop groups". I don't think anything was called "rock" at the time. There was "rock 'n' roll", which at that time essentially meant Bill Haley et al from the 1950s. They also were all called groups, not bands. A band in those days was something much more old-fashioned (brass band; military band; dance band). If the Beatles are now regarded as having been "always fundamentally a rock band", it is an ex post facto wholesale redifinition of terms. -- Alarics (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Words of wisdom, Alarics. I (we) thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

error in citing Please Please me as achieving chart succcess in late 1962

Refer to the Second paragraph of the entry

the song reference should be "Love Me Do " , not "Please Please Me"86.173.107.188 (talk) 09:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right that "Love Me Do" came first, but as the article says, it "produced only a minor UK hit, peaking at number seventeen on the chart". I'm not personally convinced "minor" is the right word, but that's why it's not currently the one mentioned. The Lead should summarize only the main points, and the first big chart success was when "Please Please Me" hit #2. But it's probably equally reaonable to say the first chart success of any kind, even #17, is the main point. I don't have a strong opinion about this myself. However, I notice it should say "early 1963" for "Please Please Me". PL290 (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Article Lock

What's the specific reason the article is currently locked? I have an account but can't be bothered to log in! 86.143.127.219 (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a hammer but I prefer using Mal Evans' head. :))--andreasegde (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The logs are available in the revision history. The specific reason given was, "Excessive vandalism: longterm semiprotection recently expired, results weren't encouraging." Hard to argue with that.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Reworked article

It's obvious from the review comments that the article needs a rework before it will get back to FA. I've asked to withdraw the current nomination and I'm going to completely restructure the article in my sandbox. It's come a long way and it's got good content that countless editors have built up over the years, but the content needs to flow in a narrative through the history section like it does in other band articles. When I'm done I'll ask for input before copying it across, but if anyone has any comments to make meanwhile, please feel free. PL290 (talk) 09:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I've reworked the main sections so I just need to do the post-breakup stuff now; should be finished in the next few hours so please give any input that's needed before the reworked article gets copied back over. There'll still be more finalizing and polishing to do, and I suggest we take a couple of weeks doing that before getting it back up to FAC (which is the time needed anyway before re-nominating). PL290 (talk) 12:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. One of the review comments was that the sub-article links aren't really needed as they're available in the infobox, so these have been omitted for now. Let's discuss this further if needed, but it does look better without them. PL290 (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I see that you've gone through the article removing all occasions where "press releases" have been referenced, noting that it's preferable to cite books instead. That may well be the case (I haven't kept up with Wikipedia guideline changes recently). But not all articles that appear in the press are necessarily press releases of this sort, as I understand them: as far as I'm aware, things like obituaries and news articles and opinion pieces that appear in established publications are still valid reliable sources on Wikipedia, aren't they? --Nick R^Talk 11:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please also see a discussiona about it that's already begun on my talk page; I have in mind to put at least some of them back. PL290 (talk) 11:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

May or may not

This, "Among inspirations for the Beatles' music may have been the music in the Black clubs of Liverpool in the late 1950s, which in turn may have drawn partly on Irish and Welsh singers.[138] Liverpool-born Black men to a large extent are descended from African seafarers who worked in the Africa-U.S. slave trade about a century earlier and married local Irish and English white women.[139] as well as Afro-Caribbean immigrants after World War II.[140] Their work and their relationships with other people in Liverpool and England likely influenced their music, thence the Beatles' music" is total crap.--andreasegde (talk) 10:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed it appear a while back, and it's of background interest; the ifs and buts and maybes are all cited, so it's not as if it's WP:OR, but I'd say by no means essential to keep. PL290 (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It's still bullshit, no matter how many ribbons are tied around it. It should have been shot on sight.--andreasegde (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

As no one's leapt to defend this, I've now consigned it to the recycle bin of History. PL290 (talk) 08:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of separate film section?

Why was the film section removed? OK, so it was a little odd having the paragraph on the cartoon series take up as much space as all the other films put together. And I can see the logic in incorporating the film information into the main chronological history. But I think having a separate section discussing all their movies together is helpful and organised, especially for someone browsing through the article rather than reading through from start to finish, and the first paragraph in that section was quite a nice concise little summary of their motion picture work (if I say so myself, having worked on that bit ages ago). --Nick R^Talk 11:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the review comments was, "I don't understand the purpose of the Films section; all of that can be seamlessly merged into the group's history (since you are not really analysing the films themselves, just stating facts about their release)". That struck me as a fair assessment. I think if there were dozens films it might make more sense to summarise them in their own section but as it is there seems little point imo. PL290 (talk) 11:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Cite title

I notice the "titles" of some web citations currently have the contents of the <title> element in the html page source. So instead of "The Beatles: Biography" and "The Beatles [White Album]" we have "((( The Beatles [White Album] > Overview )))" and "allmusic ((( The Beatles > Biography )))". This seems like a mistake to me. I fixed a few fairly recently but I have the impression they're reappearing. Is this an accident of some clean-up script, or does someone advocate it? PL290 (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Many web sites include info in the <title> element that isn't really part of the page name. So, for example, allmusic includes its name and parentheses as per your example above. I think they do that because the title is used in bookmarks, active task lists, etc. When citing such a page, editors have to balance the page content, where the page title may be ambiguous, with the title element content, where there may be extra info or punctuation. I am not aware of any bots that reset titles in {{cite web}} or other places. There are bots that assign link text when there is none, and those bots probably include the exact content of the title element. — John Cardinal (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Lengthy quotations, review sources, and the George Martin section

There seem to be a lot of lengthy quotations in the article, and IMO most of them should be condensed down so that the overall point is summarised without being quoted in full. The most obvious one is near the start: do we really need that whole Philip Norman paragraph in the "Early years" section in order to make the single point that they played in seedy clubs in Hamburg? This main article has to cover a lot of material as concisely as possible, so opinions should only really be quoted at length on more specialised song/album/history pages: for example, that quotation would be more appropriate in the article The Beatles in Hamburg.

Similarly, large parts of the "Musical evolution" and "Genres" sections are each taken up with an extended quotation from only one source.

The same goes for the article's summaries of the critical response to each album. Lengthy review quotations belong on the individual albums' pages; this article should focus on concise quotations that assess each album's place in the band's overall progression. For example, I think quoting a single opinion to the following extent is too much:

Beatles for Sale (1964), the fourth studio album, saw the beginnings of what would become a growing conflict between commercialism and creativity: "The weary expressions on the Beatles' faces in the cover photograph betrayed the effort it took to record the album within. Beatles for Sale marked the point where the intense commercial pressures generated by the magnitude of the Beatles' success began to conflict with the group's creative aspirations in a serious way."[73] Recorded over a period of six months from January to June 1964, its eight self-penned numbers standing out alongside its six covers, the album had "a split personality. On almost every level of singing, playing, songwriting, and arrangement, the eight new Lennon-McCartney songs [...] far surpass any collection of album tracks the Beatles had recorded to date. The improvement in the quality of the arranging was particularly noticeable."

The same with this review of the White Album:

Allmusic calls it a "sprawling" album on which each song "is an entity to itself [...] This makes for a frustratingly scattershot record or a singularly gripping musical experience, depending on your view [...] Clearly, the Beatles' two main songwriting forces were no longer on the same page, but neither were George and Ringo"; yet "Lennon turns in two of his best ballads", McCartney's songs are "stunning", Harrison is seen to have become "a songwriter who deserved wider exposure" and Starr's composition is "a delight".

It's not always necessary for all quotations to be preceded by their sources: that information can be gleaned by clicking on the footnote link. So a quotation such as the above could be condensed down to a summary of this sort of length:

The album has been described as either "a frustratingly scattershot record or a singularly gripping musical experience, depending on your view".<ref>{{cite web Allmusic.com review etc etc...}}</ref>

Perhaps there should be more variety in the sources used for reviewers' opinions: Allmusic is referenced a lot at the moment. Maybe quotations from Pitchfork's recent reviews of all the remasters would also be useful? Should there be more of a balance between original reviews from the 1960s and more modern reassessments?

The opinions of Jonathan Gould also seem to get quoted at length disproportionately frequently: if his assessments can be quoted that often, then I'm sure there are similarly insightful passages in Revolution in the Head that should be too! :)

In the "Contribution of George Martin" section, the only quote from Martin himself is a note about the studio being a "refuge" for them. That's fine, but it doesn't really say much about what Martin himself did: IMO a better quote from him would be one of him giving a more general, long-term assessment of his overall contributions to the band's work. (I don't have the book to hand, but there must be one somewhere in Summer of Love: The Making of Sgt Pepper.) Quotations from one or two of the Beatles themselves talking about what he did would also help that section. --Nick R^Talk 17:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Some good points here imo. I quite like the Norman quote that got added a while back; it sets the scene for the whole story, but I suppose the last two sentences could be dropped if others agree it's too long. (EDIT: I've now chopped off the last 3.) Album reviews: the article was criticized for only giving albums a passing mention, so I recently built up the album descriptions, quoting reviewers and and biographers to give at least some picture of what each album's like and the band's musical development. If you ask me, your summarized White Album quote abbreviates to the point of oblivion and brings back the "passing mention" effect. But I'm keen to hear more voices about this. As to other reviewers/biographers, yes, clearly anything people can do to broaden the range has to be a good thing. George Martin too; he also played instruments which is not mentioned yet. PL290 (talk) 09:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Intro paragraph and instruments played

The intro paragraph lists the instruments by the four. Should it just stick to rhythm & lead guitar, bass and, drums? By adding piano to McCartney we run into endless possibilities. Why shouldn't we add harmonica to John? The harmonica was a key instrument used by the band in 1962-64 just as piano ballads were key in 1968-70.

Also, by adding piano to Paul (which I just removed), we should also add sitar to George Harrison. Lennon also played keyboards quite visibly in 1965 (The Night Before video; the famous I'm Down clip from Shea Stadium, etc.).

There is also the issue of Paul playing drums and lead guitar on several songs. This would expand it to Lennon playing bass and mellotron.

In the Please Please Me LP, it only lists their core instruments - this may be the best route to avoid endless possibilities.

What do others think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellobeatle (talk • contribs) 17:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Other instruments

They did play other instruments, and quite a bit. Paul really DID play the vast bulk of piano, and was pretty easily the most skilled at it (at least of the four Beatles, if you aren't counting George Martin). And John played a good bit of harmonica in the early days. And George's Sitar is front and center on Norwegian Wood.

I could be wrong, but I can't think of a song where one of the other three played the piano. John played a bit of organ, I think.

I may be biased, since I'm a pianist, and I've always been impressed by how quickly Paul learned to play very well (the break in Lovely Rita is awesome). I know John played some piano in his solo career, but it really isn't even in the same league. And I don't know of him playing the piano in the Beatles.

So how should it be decided which instruments are included? You actually can include all of them - there really aren't that many that the four of them played. Guitars and Bass, Drums, Sitar, Keyboards, Harmonica, are - I think - it. And some of them are probably major enough to be included. Paul is playing the piano on some very major songs. Carlo (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well John obviously was a piano player too, as his solo work proves. Plus he did play acoustic piano on some Beatles recordings, such as Things We Said Today and Only a Northern Song, plus electric piano on several others. I just think if you include McCartney you have to include Lennon as well. I think it's simpler just to stick to the rhythm, lead, bass, drums description, which was the core of the band after all.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I saw the edits, and personally I agree that it's a mistake to have any more than absolute main instument in the Lead as it disrupts the flow. However, if you have interesting material on this with reliable sources, perhaps consider adding an "Instruments played" section to "Musical evolution". After all, the instruments being discussed are a far cry from the washboards, tea chests and kazoos they started out with.PL290 (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If you watch the video of I'm Down at the Shea stadium, for example, you will see John Lennon playing the keyboard. At times with his elbow, but he's doing it all the same. I also wonder whether he played the piano on his section of Day in the Life? Should be easy enough to look up... Westmorlandia (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

U.S. needs to become US (British English per MoS)

This came up in the review. So I checked and found that MoS says, "In American English, U.S. (with periods) is the standard abbreviation for United States; US (without periods) is the standard abbreviation in other national forms of English." So I'm about to go through the article changing it to use "US" throughout. PL290 (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Beatles Anthology page number needed

"The world was a problem, but we weren't. You know, that was the best thing about The Beatles, until we started to break up, like during the White Album and stuff. Even the studio got a bit tense then." I've added part of this McCartney quote from The Beatles Anthology. Anyone got the book handy? The citation could do with a page number. PL290 (talk) 09:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I looked (briefly) and couldn't find it. I bet it's in there, but without re-reading the whole book it may be hard to find. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks... anyone else? That quote is likely to be in other biographies too, of course; no reason that book has to be cited. PL290 (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

John, if you still have the book out, check page 237. I did a bit of creative searching on google books and found a "That was the best thing" type quote on that page. Doesn't look exactly the quote but worth reaching over to the book too look. Maybe the quote was condensed. (John User:Jwy talk) 18:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Instant Karma!

The point about Spector and "Instant Karma!" should be retained. "Instant Karma!" was the first time one of the Beatles worked with Spector, and it was the impetus for Spector's involvement with Let It Be. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Reinstated with more context. [7] PL290 (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Rock Band: the Beatles

should we add that to the first paragraph? The game should have a whole paragraph connected to the game's page in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GastroTV (talk • contribs) 00:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph? Hell, why not the first sentence! Joking aside though, I really think this is a good point; there's a lot in the Lead that is more momentous than Rock Band being released in 2009, yet it does underline the "still relevant today" point made by that CNN article, a point not yet stated in the Lead. I shall add something at the end of the middle para and see what people think. PL290 (talk) 09:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

There's no doubt it's big. The New York Times goes as far as calling it a "cultural watershed...one that may prove only slightly less influential than the band’s famous appearance on “The Ed Sullivan Show” in 1964." (!)--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The NYT game reviews tend to be hyperbolic in general when describing games they like. I think (hope) the statement is meant to be taken in the context of the gaming world. I don't think anyone with perspective feels it's such a monumental moment -- I doubt 72 million people are buying the game, or even have awareness of it. Opineapple (talk) 03:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

1970s?

Since The Beatles had hits into the year 1970, should they be categorized as a "1970s music group"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.209.234 (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The answer is a firm "no" as they only recorded only one new song in the 1970s, "I Me Mine" on 3 January 1970 without John. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

not one of the most; the most

{{editsemiprotected}} As common knowledge and categorical fact, it should more accurately read:

The Beatles were a rock and pop group formed in Liverpool, England in 1960 who became the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed band in the history of popular music.

This distinction corrects the inaccuracy of comparing The Beatles commercial success as equivilant to any other band.

Please change:

The Beatles were a rock and pop group formed in Liverpool, England in 1960 who became one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed bands in the history of popular music.

to

The Beatles were a rock and pop group formed in Liverpool, England in 1960 who became the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed band in the history of popular music.

Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve this article. That sort of change requires a reliable source to back up the claim. Celestra (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you name a more commercially successful and critically acclaimed band? --Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

While "critical acclaim" can be difficult to measure, it would seem to me that commercial success would be a matter of objective fact. ARE they the most commercially successful band? If so, the article should say so. Carlo (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Still need a reliable source... (John User:Jwy talk) 20:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I personally believe that the Beatles were the most commercially successful band of all time. But I would have a high bar set of expectations on allowing that statement. Even if you could find it in, say, Rolling Stone, I would want a more general recognition of it. It's just very, very difficult to say that anything is "the most" anything without stirring up all kinds of ruckus. As it is, the current version is a significant improvement over what it looked like just a couple of months ago, where the Beatles' greatness was not even mentioned in the first paragraph. But if you can find multiple, solid, sources, I'd be open to possibly changing that from "one of" to "the". Good luck! Un school 00:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The BBC is quoting Wikipedia.--andreasegde (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to change the lead to reflect that the Beatles are the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed band in the history of popular music, but then I realized that this may not be true simply because they haven't been touring stadiums for decades like the Rolling Stones have. Those tours have garnered the Rolling Stones a heck of a lot of commercial success. I don't know if it makes up for the Beatles large advantage in record sales or not. It's also difficult to measure critical acclaim. They had their share of bad reviews. The New York Times famously panned Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. Magical Mystery Tour also received a lot of negative press. It may be better to leave the lead at "one of," although I agree that it doesn't seem to go far enough. Perhaps we can say that they've sold more records than any other band in the history of popular music? That seems pretty well established. Clashwho (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles were one of the most sucessful bands in history as far as record selling statistics is concerned, but not the most successful. This is too broad a title to award one band, unless of course there is an overwhealming amount of evidence that supports this claim. Still, the title is extrememely vague. Maybe make it more specific? The Beatles Fan (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles have more number one singles, and albums then anybody. They have sold more albums then anybody by far. They have more singles in the top 10 more then any other band. They always top "best bands" or whatever of all time lists. "YEsterday" is the most covered song of all time, by far. And when they were touring, they sold out baseball stadiums and football stadiums years before the rolling stones could do anything like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Beatles record sales

Who has altered the info about the record sales, changing it to read that the Beatles sold "between 600 million and 1 billion records". Is this just a cosmic coincidence that this change has been made at the same time as the ridiuculous claims by some in this website that Michael Jackson has now sold "750 million" records. Isn't it amazing that his (Jackson's) sales, which were listed at 250 million before he died, have now magically increased by 500 million? In any event, according to the Guiness Book of Records, which is always quoted on this website as a solid source, the Beatles record sales passed 1 billion in 1985. Now the revisionists have altered the numbers, quoting some obscure magazine article, to magically reduce the Beatles sales to 600 million. Who oversees and permits this garbage? Put the article back to the way it was and leave well enough alone, or does the person who edited the article know more than Guiness? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.189.14 (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I see EMI have updated their site (still dated 2005) to remove the sales figures that were being used for the "one billion" cite. Citation details of Guinness/other reliable source for "one billion" anyone? (Assuming that's forthcoming, does anyone think we need to say "between 600 million and 1 billion"?) PL290 (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a recent article from Billboard giving numbers and charts showing the group's sales since Nielsen Soundscan started tracking sales in the U.S. in 1991. [8] Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The material in the Lead on sales figures has now been substantially changed by this edit. IMO it's potentially an improvement but I suspect some of it may have to go if it remains unsourced. Also I notice it no longer gives the UK stats. PL290 (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've pruned and formatted it somewhat, added a cite, and reinstated the UK bit. Re. "1 billion sales", it's now three weeks and no one's found a source, so it looks as though it will have to go. PL290 (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe the 1 billion figure comes from Guinness World Records. Previous editions always had it in; I don't know if they still do. But I think they were only repeating what EMI had estimated.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they've stopped saying it because EMI have stopped saying it. (I couldn't see it in a copy of the 2010 edition of Guinness World Records I came across the other day.) I've now removed it from the article. I considered reinstating this "600 million" cite that used to be in there, but to me it doesn't seem like a good idea, because (a) there's evidently dissent about the worldwide unit sales figure, and at least some indication that it might be a billion (previous EMI source), so why state a dubious figure that might anyway be way too low, and (b) the source is not that strong or clear: it's just an "about" footnote saying what Apple Records is in a Rock Band news article. I propose we leave it out unless/until the true figure from a WP:RS emerges. PL290 (talk) 07:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The Long and Winding Lead

It's been suggested that the Lead is far too long. The obvious reaction is, well, there's a lot to say. But I've been thinking the same recently, and actually I think the middle para may be trying to say too much (spoiled by too many "overdubs", perhaps?). The Lead should summarize the article but that doesn't mean it has to tell a short story of the entire history like it's currently doing. I'm going to have a think about it and will probably make some edits to try and make the main points without it getting so long. PL290 (talk) 07:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think all of the info in the lead should be there, but maybe the wording could be tightened up. And this may be the best section heading I've seen. Deserted Cities (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

:) By now you're looking at the shortened version but I agree it's still too much. I've now chopped out some further unsourced figures and the excessive Rolling Stone mentions. The key figures already demonstrate the band's success without all that. PL290 (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yea, this was way too long. Deserted Cities (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Paragraphs?

It's like reading a telephone book.--andreasegde (talk) 10:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, my bad. Someone rightly pointed out that we'd let the article become characterized by the dreaded "stubby paragraphs" but I think some recent changes I made took it to the other extreme and made it too dense. It's a fine balance. I went through this morning and added half a dozen or so para breaks so hopefully that helps. PL290 (talk) 11:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Cites / References

The References section should list authors in alpha sequence. For each author, the sequence is based on the year of publication. That sequence helps readers who are referring to abbreviated citations that include the author's surname and year of publication. For authors, like Harry, who have two or more books published in the same year, I believe the convention is to add an alpha character to the year:

Harry, Bill (2000a). The Beatles Encyclopedia: Revised and Updated. London: Virgin Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7535-0481-9.
Harry, Bill (2000b). The John Lennon Encyclopedia. London: Virgin Publishing. ISBN 0-7355-0404-9. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help)
Harry, Bill (2002). The Paul McCartney Encyclopedia. Virgin Books. ISBN 0-7535-0716-1.
Harry, Bill (2003). The George Harrison Encyclopedia. Virgin Books Ltd. ISBN 0-7535-0822-2.

Then, in the associated cites, use the year with the alpha when necessary:

Harry (2000a), p. 67.

Harry (2000b), p. 107.

Harry (2003), p. 3

There are other ways to do this—they vary based on the citation style being used—but this is one accepted way and none that I know of use the style this page has now where the title is included in the citation.

I would have made these changes myself, but the article changes every 5 seconds and it's difficult to get a word in edgewise. — John Cardinal (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This suggestion makes sense to me—there are indeed various citation styles, and there doesn't seem to be a WP guideline on the aspect in question, but this is a recognized style so let's use it. I've gone ahead and made the change. PL290 (talk) 07:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Good. Regarding citation columns, see Template:Reflist#Browser_support_for_columns. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I'll take a look. PL290 (talk) 13:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Beatles Record Sales

This subject should not be the topic of any controversy. The Guiness Book of World Records, since the 1986 edition (in other words, for some 23 years), has listed the Beatles worldwide record sales as exceeding 1 billion since 1985. The fact that it is not in the 2009 edition of Guiness means nothing. That edition doesn't mention their 20 number one singles in the USA, or their domination of the record charts in 1964. That doesn't mean that those facts have changed. If one looks at the 2008 Guiness book, it talks about the Red Hot Chili Peppers as having 'x' number of number one singles on the "modern Billboard chart". It appears that Guiness is appealing to a younger audience by featuring material about newer artists. That is fine, but, as I said earlier, it doesn't change the facts. Look at the heading 'Beatles record sales' in this very article. It still quotes the 1 billion figure. I'm just trying to understand the reason for someone altering the website to remove a reference to a fact that hasn't changed since 1985, with no valid factual foundation for such a change. If one has any doubts, then write to Guiness and ask them if anything has changed. So, unless and until whomever altered the website has clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, then the number should be restored. Exercise a bit of common sense. There could be a hundred reasons why EMI doesn't have it on their website now. What the person who changed the article (who is it, by the way, and on what authourity?) would have us believe is that EMI is now saying this: "Gee, everybody, we told the Guiness Book of Records people back in 1985 that the Beatles worlwide record sales exceeded 1 billion, but now, 24 years later, we discovered that we made a mistake and the sales are really only 600 million. Sorry about that." Please! Put the number back the way it was and leave well enough alone, and spare us the revisionist history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.189.14 (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Good topic

I think that this article may be part of a potentially Good topic consisting of the group and its members. Does anyone else agree?--Edge3 (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Years active

A while ago, I proposed changing the dates of The Beatles activity as a band to 1960-1970, 1994-1996. This way it would include the dates of Anthology, in which they recorded and released new music.

Some are opposed to this idea, because the dates of the Beatles' activity is almost "sacred", but the first two years (1960 and 61) are included and these are years before the Beatles became the band they are today.

When any other band reforms and releases new music, it is considered a reunion. There is no doubt that The Beatles did just that. Not only did the three surviving members utilize archival music from John, but they recorded and released two new songs under the name of "The Beatles" which were promoted as new songs.

I ask that you as the Wikipedia community reconsider the dates given for time active. I firmly believe that the reunion dates shouldb e included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CDaly (talk • contribs) 19:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per previous consensus after much discussion, and references to The Beatles' own views on this; I see no reason to resurrect this carcase of a debate because no new material is being brought to it. Rodhull andemu 19:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Anthology was a post-breakup documentary project by ex-members. There was no second breakup in 1996. PL290 (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Lennon recorded the songs in the1970s, and they were used between 1994-1996. This kind of juggling could mean The Beatles activity as a band was from 1960 to 1996. The partnership was legally dissolved in 1970. So said the judge, as Maxwell held the gavel above his head.--andreasegde (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - as per the above. A possible compromise might be something like Led Zeppelin has:

1960-1970
(Anthology: 1994-1996)

(John User:Jwy talk) 23:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday, today and forever:

Officially: The Beatles 1962-1970

You can read this information on all encyclopedias

(Wikipedia it's what? An encyclopedia or an revisionist site controlled by the Mafia???)

--Roujan (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This would be great:

1960-1970 (Anthology: 1994-1996) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CDaly (talk • contribs) 15:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

External link to concert database

Would a database of The Beatles' concert performances be worthy of an external link - e.g. www.songkick.com/artists/417271-beatles? As I work for Songkick I can't add it myself (and the last thing I want to be is a self-promoting corporate shill) but I'm curious to hear what the community thinks (which is why I'm asking the same question across quite a few talk pages). I suspect it may qualify under point #3 of the ELYES policy, but I'm far from certain. As precedents, both Shirley Manson and Glastonbury Festival have similar links added by contributors. Michaelorland (talk) 10:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sadly no, imo: point #3 of WP:ELYES relates to "accurate material". If it was a complete list of Beatles concerts, published by a reliable source, then I think it would be a good candidate for an external link. But it's not complete ("See full gigography (981 past concerts)"???) and it fails point #4 of WP:ELMAYBE, "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" because it's editable by users ("add an entry" link) so the sources are not known to be knowledgeable. PL290 (talk) 11:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

We've centalized the disscution about songkick.com at the External_links/Noticeboard, See this discussion. Feel free to comment on this link suitability there. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Tense? and Awards

"The Beatles were a rock band..." - is this the accurate tense? "The Beatles was a rock band". The Beatles also describes four guys, but it IS one band - singular.TheHYPO (talk) 07:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've had this same argument before, TheHYPO, and naught came of it. BTW, it's not British English to say "were" for a singular entity, but some people get confused with the rare exceptions like, "The police were here", and "The team were here". It's just lazy. Oh well...--andreasegde (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

In addition, why is there no section (or subarticle) on awards? They won the academy award for Let It Be according to the article, and they are categorized as Grammy winners, so there must be awards to speak of, but that important recognition is missing from the wiki article... TheHYPO (talk) 07:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

On your first point, "were" is correct because the article is written in British English. Regarding awards, that's a very good point. They should be gathered in an "Awards" section or suchlike, somewhere after the history. I'll look at adding that later today unless someone beats me to it. PL290 (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello friend I don't know how much The Beatles won Awards all over the world, but here a small list

UK

15 Ivor Novello Awards:

March 3, 1964 : 5 Awards

July 13, 1965 : 5 Awards

July 12, 1966 : 3 Awards

March 25, 1967 : 2 Awards

And on March 23, 1964 The Beatles receive 2 awards from the Duke of Edinburgh.

You can find all this information here. [[9]]

I tried to verify all these informations on the official site ( Ivor Novello).[[10]]...but I have not found a historic...But these informations are real, you can find it on Beatles' Books...(it's easy to verify).

4 Brit Awards. [[11]]

- 1977 : < Outstanding Contribution >

- 1977 : Won Brit Award category Best British Group

- 1977 : Won Brit Award category Best British Album for "Sgt Pepper's Loneley Heart Club Band"

- 1983 : Won Brit Award category Outstanding Contribution

- 1996 : 1 Q Awards : Best Reissue/Compilation The Beatles - "Anthology" [[12]]

Japan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Gold_Disc_Award

- 1988 : 1 award

- 1994 : 1 award

- 2001 : 2 awards : Artist Of The Year et Pop Album Of The Year : The Beatles '1'. [[13]]

- 2004 : 2 awards : Rock Album of the Year : LET IT BE...NAKED et Music Video of the Year : THE BEATLES ANTHOLOGY. [[14]]

Germany

[[15]]

6 <Bravo Otto>

- 1965 : Silberner Bravo Otto

- 1966 : Goldener Bravo Otto

- 1967 : Silberner Bravo Otto

- 1968 : Silberner Bravo Otto

- 1969 : Silberner Bravo Otto

- 1970 : Goldener Bravo Otto

- 1965 : 2 Grammy Awards (Best New Artist und A Hard Day’s Night)

- 1967 : 2 Grammy Awards (Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band)

- 1970 : 1 Oscar for the film < Let It Be > in the category of < Best Original Score >

- 1996 : 1 Grammy Award (Best Music Video The Beatles Anthology)

- 1997 : 2 Grammy Awards (Free As A Bird)

- 2008 : 2 Grammy Awards (LOVE)

USA

[[16]] and [[17]]

- 1 TRUSTEES AWARD : Awarded: 1972.

- 14 GRAMMY Hall Of Fame Award.

- 17 Grammy Awards

- 1 Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame

- 1 National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences Presidents' Award

- 1 The Beatles' Academy Awards

- 3 Grammys (26/2/97) < The Beatles won Grammys tonight for Best Pop Performance By a Duo or Group, Best Music Video: Short Form, both for "Free As a Bird" (the song and video, respectively) and Best Music Video: Long Form, for "The Beatles Anthology" video set, all three categories they were nominated in.>

--Roujan (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added an Awards section but I think a new List article along the lines of List_of_awards_received_by_Paul_McCartney would be the appropriate place for all the detail. The Grammy Awards table I added is already probably too much for this article. Let's summarize the awards here in narrative form. PL290 (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok....but seriously, i think it's impossible to count all the awards won by the Beatles. (If you count all the awards like for example awards given by the magazines.) ( I corrected the link concerning : <4 Brit Awards> )

--Roujan (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've now created a stub article List of awards received by The Beatles for that level of detail. I've summarized the main ones in the Awards section of this article but if people think more need including then please add them. PL290 (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello...Ok i can give information on The Beatles, but seriously for me it's impossible to write article because my English is too poor. ( and I do not want you laughing at me ...hahaha)

So, if you want i can only give you information...are you agree?

--Roujan (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Despite A Career Of Only 8 Years - 1962/1970 - The Beatles Became The Best-Selling In The History Of The Twentieth Century.

[[18]]

November 9, 2008 in Monte-Carlo : The 20th Annual World Music Awards.

Ringo Starr received at the 2008 WMAs a Diamond Award on behalf of legendary group, The Beatles, for selling more records than any other recording-artists in the history of the music industry.

--Roujan (talk) 13:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It was ten years, but thanks a lot for the link. That should shut up the people who question the validity of their success. :) --andreasegde (talk) 16:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello my friend

Firstly : Excuse me for my basic English (i'm a French boy)

Concerning the duration of the Beatles' career, you write: < It was ten years >...so i suppose you consider 1960-1970...Why 1960?...I suppose it's because John, Paul and George chose the name < Beatles > in 1960.

Is it for this reason?

If yes, you can also say a lot of another things: Example

1 - The Beatles : It was 12 years...(1958-1970)

Oh yeah, John, Paul and George played together for the first time in 1958.

But another person can say 8 years 1962- 1970, because Ringo was incorporated in 1962 (and without Ringo it's not the Beatles).

Like you see, we have already three hypotheses: But why in 1973, E.M.I released two double Complilation entitled: < The Beatles 1962-1966 > and < The Beatles 1967-1970 >

Simply because they released the first record of the Beatles in 1962 and the last in 1970.

So i think it's very important to be precise and make the difference between the professional career and the rest.

The professional career of the Beatles, it's : 1962-1970.

The career of the Beatles, or if you prefer the active career it's another thing. (Even the fans of the Beatles do not agree. (remember the three hypotheses at the beginning of my post)

--Roujan (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Beatles : Monuments, Statues

Usa [[19]]

Fab Four sculpture makes a giant impact on the Texan skyline August

Mongolia [[20]]

Mongolia To Erect Monument To The Beatles

Russia [[21]]

Beatles Monument to be Officially Open in Yekaterinburg

[[22]]

Beatles Monument to Appear in Samara

Poland [[23]]

Street in Poland named after The Beatles

Scotland [[24]]

Plaque commemorates early Beatles’ gig

Peru [[25]]

John Lennon : Beloved in Peru too

Cuba [[26]]

Once-shunned Lennon now feted in communist Cuba

Italy [[27]]

Beatles Museum

--Roujan (talk) 10:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What a ignorance

After hearing "Strawberry Fields Forever", Beach Boys leader Brian Wilson abandoned all attempts to compete with the band.

This is a myth!!! Smile started recording in may of 1966. The problems began well before, and was being aborted well before that Sgt. Peppers relization.... Wrong and liar this information. Wikipedia ia a serious encyclopedia! I think I will report this. (Mago266 (talk) 04:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

By no means a "liar", this information. However, I've rephrased it to be even more precise...and, perhaps, more poignant. If you still think this is all a myth, I suggest you spend some time with the sources: [28], [29]. DocKino (talk) 05:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing and paraphrasing

To create an excellent article, it's important to be able to read sources carefully, distill the significant information, and convey that information clearly and concisely. The ~~idea that the~~ description of Brian Wilson as "creatively ambitious" is ~~not~~ well supported ~~could only come from someone who is not familiar with this basic, important process~~. Here are some relevant phrases concerning Wilson from just one of the cited sources, the BBC article:

"musical genius"
"instilled [with] a great sense of competitiveness"
"continued pushing his own boundaries both physical and mental"
"Together with session musicians, [Wilson and his collaborator, Van Dyke Parks] worked on a concept album mixing doo-wop, jazz, choral music, and the use of bizarre instruments including whistles and animal sounds. The recording techniques involved revolutionary stacked voices, ornate instrumentation and state-of-the-art multi-tracking"

This source also clearly supports the "friendly rival" description. The other major source for the passage, Gaines's Beach Boys biography, just as clearly offers support for both descriptions. DocKino (talk) 06:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Your edit to the article was not well-written and interpreted the source material in a manner that makes the article inaccurate. In addition, your comments above are insulting. Please discuss the edits and not the editor. (Please read that last part carefully!) Back to the topic at hand: Neither source says "creatively ambitious" and neither says anything that could be interpreted that way with regard to Wilson hearing "Strawberry Fields Forever". They say he was crushed, that he felt the perfect rock album had been made. If he was "creatively ambitious" he would have tried to top SPLHCB rather than shelving the SMILE project. — John Cardinal (talk) 06:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

~~This is an incoherent response, in several ways.~~

I have laid out a clear argument for how "creatively ambitious" is a strongly supported summary of the source's content~~; you have not put in the slightest effort into making a counter-argument~~.
The BBC article does not use the word "crushed". It is neither appropriate nor necessary to quote Gaines's "crushed" when (a) multiple sources are cited, (b) perfectly good synonyms are available, and (c) words would be wasted making clear who is being quoted.
~~The idea that~~ Wilson~~'s response to "Strawberry Fields" and Sgt. Pepper means that he must not have been "creatively ambitious" simply betrays an ignorance of psychology. He~~ was crestfallen, he felt he'd been "usurped", he was "crushed" precisely because of his creative ambition. Any sensible reading of our sources informs us of that. ~~You certainly haven't suggested any alternative reason that a music lover might have been "crushed" by hearing musical perfection.~~ DocKino (talk) 06:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Still, the term "creatively ambitious", and the process you've outlined above by which you justify the term, contain elements of WP:SYNTHESIS and/or WP:PEACOCK. Radiopathy •talk• 06:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What is "peacock" about describing someone as "creatively ambitious" when that is both well established and explanatory of his reaction? As for WP:SYNTHESIS, you have misinterpreted it. Every statement paraphrased from our sources involves a process of distillation of extensive material. The "synthesis" we seek to avoid involves "combin[ing] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", a very different matter. The description of Wilson as "creatively ambitious" is a pertinent summation of material in the source I've detailed above. That it is supported by similar material in the other source cited only makes it a stronger choice. This article, like all excellent articles on Wikipedia, is full of such distillations. If we did not engage in this process, our articles would consist of little but quotations. DocKino (talk) 06:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"Creatively ambitious" is not a neutral term; it works well in a biography - or a press release - but not in an encyclopedia. Radiopathy •talk• 07:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"Ambitious" is perfectly neutral: "'having or controlled by ambition". "Creatively" modifies it in a pertinent manner. We're not calling him a "genius" or even "talented". If you don't believe this term "works well", please provide a similarly brief one that accurately describes Wilson and helps explain his reaction to hearing the "Strawberry Fields" single, which is the point here. DocKino (talk) 07:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Just catching up on this conversation. My £0.02: surely no one doubts that Wilson was hitherto creatively ambitious? The point, surely, is that due to his wider problems and illness (by no means attributable to The Beatles or their music, as #What a ignorance above stresses), he became unable to cope and ended his widely documented fierce (and by some judged effective, with Pet Sounds) competition to better Beatles music. Perhaps "Strawberry Fields" was the final straw, as more than one source indicates; certainly at that point he ceased to be creatively ambitious but that doesn't change "creatively ambitious" as the background fact of what then happened. I don't think there's any issue with the phrase. PL290 (talk) 07:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I also note that it stands quite well, and is perhaps even slightly better, without "creatively ambitious", as this is already implied by the preceding sentence. So perhaps we should drop the matter and just leave the phrase out. PL290 (talk) 07:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Reflecting on it, I realized it was possible the preceding sentence made the point sufficiently clear. If you feel it does, that's fine by me. DocKino (talk) 07:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The "friendly rival"/"crestfallen" wording strikes me as an accurate paraphrase and a vast improvement on what we had previously which carried the rather unfortunate implication that "Strawberry Fields" was somehow the direct cause of Wilson's very sad decline. PL290 (talk) 09:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Gaines wrote:

"Many things dealt the final blow to 'Smile ... and finally, the release of two new Beatle singles, 'Penny Lane' and 'Strawberry Fields,' so wondrous and different sounding that Brian was crushed."

The BBC article says:

"The combination of drug-induced paranoia and a feeling of rejection sent Wilson, still only in his mid 20s, over the edge. The final straw was hearing the Beatles' Strawberry Fields track on the radio. He felt he'd been usurped. He retired to bed for several years, got enormously fat and was unable to work. The Smile album disappeared into rock's mythology."

So, Gaines says "crushed", and the BBC article says it was "the final straw". Yes, drugs, the inability to finish Smile, the Wilson family issues, etc., were perhaps more significant, but two separate reliable sources felt compelled to mention a specific song as a trigger to the collapse of the project, and of Wilson himself. Yet now we have "crestfallen", as if someone gave him a cold latte. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps there's a better word yet. To me, "crushed" without enough context risks implying too much. Even if you say "so wondrous and different sounding that Brian was crushed", something's wrong. Without the context of his wider problems preceding it, that leaves too much open to the imagination. I am not crushed if I hear something wondrous and different. On the other hand, "crestfallen" has the right "limiting" effect, but is commonly used for much more minor things such as, say, a cold latte. I think if we are going to better "crestfallen", we're likely to have to bite the bullet of a brief indication of Wilson's context. I'll work on it. PL290 (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Better? [30] PL290 (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I like the phrase "the final straw"; it's accurate to the sources (one uses that exact phrase, and the other has the very similar "final blow") and doesn't imply the weight of "crush" which some editors feel is too strong.

I think we could drop the "friendly rivals" bit; it clutters the sentence, and while it's true they were rivals, the current sources aren't specific about that, and based on my reading of the Gaines book and many Beatle books, I am not sure how friendly they were. They were not unfriendly, but they weren't truly friends, were they? I won't argue it if other editors want it.

Should the part about abandoning attempts to compete with The Beatles be changed to abandoning the Smile project?

The situation with Wilson at that time was complex and capturing the full situation isn't possible in one or two sentences and shouldn't be a goal for this article anyway. It seems clear from multiple reliable sources that hearing SFF was a significant contributing factor to Wilson abandoning the Smile project and the more concisely we can say that, the better. However, I won't change it from the version PL290 linked above. — John Cardinal (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Were they friends: I wouldn't mind too much losing "friendly rivals" and have removed it [31] to see what others think of the effect; as a point of information, Harry (2000) p. 100 confirms it: "The Beatles and the Beach Boys actually became quite good friends."
Abandoning all attempts to compete vs. abandoning Smile: Harry (same page) follows the episode with "Later, when the Beach Boys decided not to appear at Monterey Rock Festival, Jan Wenner, editor of Rolling Stone, was to write in his publication, 'The Beach Boys are just one prominent example of a group that has gotten hung up in trying to catch the Beatles'". (See also festival article; interesting that members of the two bands were involved in organizing it.) Added to this, per the BBC article you've quoted above, Wilson retired to bed for several years, unable to work, and this was 1967... PL290 (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I stand corrected on "friendly rivals". I admit I haven't read all 1200 small-print pages of Harry (2000), but I did follow your cite to page 100. Also, the BBC article does say "friendly rivalry"; I was crossed up by it being written about Beatle attitudes towards the Beach Boys when I was looking for it the other way around. I still don't think it's necessary, but either way is fine.

BTW: I appreciate your effort to find a solution that multiple editors can support. — John Cardinal (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You need to study biography of Paul MacCartney, Brian Wilson, Beach Boys, and to know the story of Smile. Strawberry Fields Forever was not the thing.Van Dyke Parks abandoned the project well before that the Beatles song. In Documentary of Smile Brian blame Mike Love, and says that the Beatles left amazed, and saw that it had succeeded in concluding Beatles first, as the Smile was to be completed since January or February 1967. Smile is richer and more worked, and Beach Boys is so responsible Beatles, with or without Brian. Nobody here is a liar, but the phrase is pretentious. Beach Boys or Beatles? For me the both are wonderful!!!!!!!! (Mago266 (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

I don't know what phrase you mean when you say "the phrase is pretentious."
I've got at least 50 books about The Beatles in my personal library, and I've read all of them, and other books, magazines, and online articles, etc. I don't think I need to study the biography of McCartney (or any other Beatle-related person) any more than I have, though I will certainly read anything new that appears.
In general, I am not that interested in Smile and I doubt I'll study it, Wilson, or the Beach Boys more than I already have. I've heard the Brian Wilson version of Smile released in 2004, and it wasn't memorable and didn't move me. That's just my reaction, however, and I assume that it was different for you. On the other hand, I've listened to The Pet Sounds Sessions many, many times—the "stacks o' tracks" parts provide a great insight into Brian as a writer, producer, and arranger—and it's clear that Wilson was very talented. It's tragic that various issues sidetracked him when he should have been at the peak of his creativity. I don't see how any of that matters, however.
The key point is that we have reliable sources that say SFF had a negative impact on Wilson and the completion of the Smile project. That doesn't mean it's true: it means that reliable sources made that claim, and that's what we ought to report. Those same sources describe the family issues that plagued Brian since his youth, Brian's drug use, Mike Love's desire to stick with the traditional Beach Boys formula, Love's differences with Van Dyke Parks, Brian's weird behavior alienating everyone around him, etc. This article doesn't have to cover those (or other) issues because that's fodder for other articles.
I am not aware of any reliable sources that dispute the claim about SFF. If you know of any, then please provide them. You must be fairly specific; it's not up to us to find the evidence for you. I am not trying to be difficult, it's common sense that if you disagree with the content, then you ought to provide the evidence that supports changing it. — John Cardinal (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Featured!

Congratulations! Was awesome to watch the process. promoted! (John User:Jwy talk) 17:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic work. Congratulations all involved. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I have no idea how User:DocKino and User:PL290 have found time to do so much editing of this article, but well done to them and everyone else who's worked on it recently. Should we focus our attention on another Beatles-related article next? Maybe Lennon/McCartney, The Beatles in 1966, or one of the other articles listed in Template:The Beatles history? --Nick R^Talk 13:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest The Beatles timeline. (I have a conflict of interest, since I created it, but it is too short and the format isn't perfect yet). Dendodge _T\^C 20:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It means a lot to me to see this article regain its featured status, and I can only repeat my thanks to all concerned and acknowledge again the input from countless editors that got it to this point, including, of course, the unsung hero admins who tirelessly ward off vandalism and keep the article in good shape. I found the FAC process tremendously enjoyable and rewarding, and will be raring to repeat it when a suitable opportunity next arises.

On the subject of "what next", thinking more broadly, would it be useful to reinstate "collaboration of the week"? On the project page there's a link to one, but it goes nowhere, so I take it this was something dropped in the past. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music/COTW for an example of how this can work, including a mechanism for voting to choose upcoming collaborations. It could be very productive to concentrate attention on a particular article each week. PL290 (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Um... we have WP:TBCOTM. Dendodge _T\^C 23:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

May 2024
Walls and Bridges
talk · edit · collaborate · to do

Aha! Didn't notice that on the project page. I suppose if I was less cautious about the politics of signing up to individual projects other than WP:WikiProject Music, I would probably have received some kind of newsletter and gained awareness that way. I've now taken the plunge and signed up to WP:WikiProject The Beatles. PL290 (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Lewisohn Recording Sessions reference

Lewisohn's book The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions (1988) has been added to the references. However, when I click on the ISBN 0-066-55798-7 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum link, Wikipedia's Book Sources search says it's invalid. The book also appears in the "Further reading" section (from an earlier period when it was not cited in the article), but with a different year (2004) and an ISBN which works. Could someone with a copy of the book make sure it only appears in References, with the correct ISBN? --Nick R^Talk 12:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Might be ISBN 0-600-55798-7. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Reference style

It's been suggested at FAC that the article could use a different style for references. As we all know, there are numerous citation styles, and not just one acceptable one, but the one suggested appears to me to be very neat and I'm quite attracted by the idea of using it here. It will take a bit of work to make the change, but first I want to see if there are any objections in principle to this switch. Please see Reference style in the FAC discussion. I suggest we establish here on the article talk page whether there are any issues or objections so please fire away with any thoughts below. PL290 (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I like it (the Harvard style) and may be able to help convert should things head that way. (John User:Jwy talk) 19:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I am OK with using the Harvard template though I am not a big advocate. On the positive side, they help keep citations consistent and they create links between the Notes section and the References section. On the negative side, they clutter up the article with templates that aren't as easy to read as the short-format text, and the link between the Notes section and the References section isn't that important: the average reader can figure it out in short order. Also, on a personal note, the Harvard output style isn't my favorite.

I am surprised that the FAC comments include BS like the ref naming inconsistency. When I edit, I try to fix things like that, but come on! Readers don't see that stuff and if there is no name conflict, the article works properly. It' snot a battle worth fighting and my personal preference is to make them consistent anyway, but I think FAC reviewers should ease up on the trivia. — John Cardinal (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

As you say though, when you edit, you try to fix things like that. The goal of FAC (or any review process) is not just assessment but improvement; I personally have no objection whatsoever to making every possible improvement to an article, however small, while there remains anything that can be improved. Let's be grateful to reviewers for spending the time to identify possible improvements and log them on the review page. PL290 (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Grateful? In general, sure, but I still think REF element names are irrelevant to an FAC review. When mentioned in the context of the review they have a "change it or fail the review" threat--intended or not--that places undue weight on something that has no influence on the visible content of the page. — John Cardinal (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that could happen but in this case I feel there was no hint of any such threat. Anyway, if you still feel differently, I respect your opinion and per your edit summary, let's agree to disagree. PL290 (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I brought this up at FAC. These are not egregious issues— that is, I would not fail the article for FA —but simply ways to make the referencing a bit cleaner. The article does not use parenthetical (Harvard) style, nor am I advocating such a change. The article uses a mix of standard and shortened footnotes, and I find this non-aesthetic. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree about the mix of short and long footnotes, and I've fixed all the "cite book" cases. I was working on the ref naming issue when User:DocKino started making copyedits, which caused edit conflicts, and he/she refused to let me finish. It's very hard to make systematic fixes like that while other people are editing and so I give up. I leave it to DocKino to finish the job. — John Cardinal (talk) 06:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for starting that; I hope the other issue is resolving itself as I have a lot of respect for both parties and was sorry to see that develop (partly out of misunderstandings by both, I feel).

Re. your observation above, "On the negative side, they clutter up the article with templates that aren't as easy to read as the short-format text", don't forget, this will be (more than?) offset by the removal of all the "clutter" that is work definitions. That's one of the things I like about the suggested approach. As there's support so far, I'll start to play with things in my sandbox and perhaps create the new References section ready to copy in as the first pass if this proposal continues to be unopposed; we can then replace the cites a few at a time in further passes. PL290 (talk) 10:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

As there's support for this proposal, let's go ahead. John Cardinal's offered to implement it (thanks!). Gadget850 has come up with a further refinement which is to use {{sfn}} instead of {{harvnb}}, still within that same overall framework. This reduces markup/clutter still further, as you can see from these examples:

Example 1 - single citation - comparison of {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} showing reduced markup (no "<ref>...</ref>")

<ref>{{harvnb|Smith|2006|p=25}</ref>
{{sfn|Smith|2006|p=25}}

Example 2 - duplicate citations - comparison of {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} showing automatic handling of duplicate citations (no ref names needed)

<ref name="somerefname">{{harvnb|Smith|2006|p=25}</ref>...<ref name="somerefname" />
{{sfn|Smith|2006|p=25}}...{{sfn|Smith|2006|p=25}}

PL290 (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe I have converted all the book references to the {{sfn}} style. The remaining entries will take a bit more time. Most are {{cite web}} or {{cite news}}, and they are similar to what's been done already when they have an author and a date, but a little trickier when they don't. I am going to take a break now and get out of the way of other editors. — John Cardinal (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I've done a lot of the web and news references now. The ones that are left are the most difficult: multiple sources with no date and/or no author. Those entries are a challenge because the short entry is constructed from author surname and a year; when one or both is missing you have to get creative. Usually, you add |ref=harv to the {{cite whatever}} template, but that won't work: the default |ref=harv reference requires at least one author surname, but we don't have one. If there is no author, you'll see something like this:

{{sfn|BBC News Online|2004}}

As you can see, an organization name is used in place of the author's surname. The corresponding full citations uses |ref=CITEREFBBC_News_Online2004 because |ref=harv won't put "BBC News Online" in the right place without it. Here's the full citation:

{{cite news |publisher=BBC News Online |year=2001 |title=George Harrison Dies |date=30 November 2001 |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1492446.stm |accessdate=27 September 2009 |ref=CITEREFBBC_News_Online2001}}

That may look complicated, but remember that it's dead-easy for any citation that has an author and a date. I'll be watching the page pretty closely and if you can't get a citation to work specify it using the old style and I'll fix it up. — John Cardinal (talk) 05:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Done - All citations (as of the time of this comment) have been converted to the {{sfn}} format. — John Cardinal (talk) 05:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for lead

I know it was expanded partly in response to a concern I raised in FAC about the under-representation of British info, but I wonder if the following passage in the lead's fourth paragraph is now just too dense and data-heavy for the article's introduction:

They are credited with 6 Diamond albums, 24 Multi-Platinum albums, 39 Platinum albums and 45 Gold albums in the US,^[1]^[2] while in the UK they have 4 Multi-Platinum albums, 4 Platinum albums, 8 Gold albums and 1 Silver album.^[3]

While all of that information would, of course, be retained in the "Awards and recognition" section, my proposal is to replace it in the lead with the following:

The Beatles have had more number one albums, 15, on the UK charts and held down the top spot longer, 174 weeks, than any other musical act.^[4]

It could go either before or after the existing line about US album sales:

According to RIAA certifications, The Beatles have sold more albums in the US than any other artist.^[5]

What do you think? DocKino (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that the last paragraph is far too stat-heavy. I think the whole paragraph would be redundant to a reliably sourced statement such as "The Beatles have sold more records than any other act in the history of popular music; estimates put the number sold as ______".

Another problem with the lead is that it is a little too much of a hagiography. I wonder if we can tone down the praise we lavish upon them.—indopug (talk) 03:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It seem probable that The Beatles have sold more records than any other act in the history of popular music, and collating certified and estimated sales figures for different groups certainly supports that (see List of best-selling music artists). But, I've done some searching, and have yet to identify a reliable source that explicitly states so. I'll keep looking. As for the particular estimate, see PL's observations at the end of the Talk:The Beatles#Beatles record sales thread above.

What leaps out as particularly inordinate praise? DocKino (talk) 04:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

All three aspects (reduce stats, reduce praise, reinstate global sales statement if possible) sound like an improvement to me. We need to get the right balance between clearly stating what happen to be impressive facts and reducing the article to a hagiography; in other words, presenting facts in an encyclopedic tone. (What in particular jumps out, Indopug?) I have no problem with replacing the last para. with a combination of both Doc's and Indobug's suggested sentences, assuming they can be sourced, and I suggest they would be even better without the numbers: "The Beatles have had more number one albums on the UK charts, and held down the top spot longer, than any other musical act." The nearby sentence, "The Beatles have sold more albums in the US than any other artist", conveys its point more immediately without introducing numbers. I also feel the same is true of the global sales figure: "The Beatles have sold more records than any other act in the history of popular music" conveys the point being made far more effectively than introducing numbers. In all of these places, stating any big number is problematic because the reader may well not know knows what other big numbers it compares to, and unless those other numbers are stated too, numbers are possibly just a distraction in the Lead. PL290 (talk) 07:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the first sentence (gasp, I know!) may be due for toning down. There was a move, which I sort of championed in a number of articles at one point, to "establish notability in first sentence per WP:LEAD". Since that time, my interpretation of that guideline in this way has been questioned more than once elsewhere. That remains an ongoing question for me, but anyway, with that thought in the background, how about:

The Beatles were an English rock band formed in Liverpool in 1960.~~, who became one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed acts in the history of popular music. During their years of international stardom, the group consisted~~ They found commercial success from 1962 until their breakup in 1970 with a line-up of John Lennon (rhythm guitar, vocals), Paul McCartney (bass guitar, vocals), George Harrison (lead guitar, vocals) and Ringo Starr (drums, vocals). Rooted in skiffle and 1950s rock and roll, the group later worked in many genres ranging from folk rock to psychedelic pop, often incorporating classical and other elements in innovative ways. The nature of their enormous popularity, which first emerged as the "Beatlemania" fad, transformed as their songwriting grew in sophistication. The group came to be perceived as the embodiment of progressive ideals, seeing their influence extend into the social and cultural revolutions of the 1960s.

PL290 (talk) 11:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, in the strongest way possible, with this proposed change to the first sentence. Look, we're writing for the reader, and good expository writing tells the reader right up front what is happening. If we change it as proposed, we fail the reader who should be informed immediately if this is the article he has come looking for or not. Were there any other bands formed in Liverpool in 1960? I'm sure there were. But this is the one that people are looking for, and it should be identified as such in the opening sentence. That's just good writing. If we want to go bland, why not this for an opening sentence: The Beatles were an English rock band that had four members. Does that sound silly? Of course it does. Why? Because there are several other bands of whom the same thing can be said. Ideally (and this is an ideal, it is not entirely possible), every article on Wikipedia should have an opening sentence that could only be written for that article. That's why we don't write, The jaguar is a mammal. for the opening sentence of that article. Please don't change the opening sentence that got this back to FA status. Un school 19:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'm delighted Unschool disagrees with my speculative change to the first sentence in precisely these terms, given the context I mentioned. But perhaps someone feels differently? Anyway, as another option, how about just the second-sentence part of what I put above. PL290 (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I also favor retaining the existing language--I think your efforts to establish notability in the first sentence where practical are quite worthy. I also think the "international stardom" phrasing is fine, and allows us to refer efficienty to "their enormous popularity" later in the paragraph without further elaboration. (Also, if retaining "commercially successful" in the first sentence, we obviously wouldn't want "commercial success" in the second.) DocKino (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Good. I'm happy with that too. I'll now stop trying to second-guess what Indopug is seeing as the hagiography and wait till he returns to tell us. PL290 (talk) 07:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

My problem is with the first paragraph of the lead. I would much prefer it if like the rest of the article, the lead too works chronologically, listing down their achievements as we travel through their history. For eg: instead of vaguely mentioning Beatlemania as the first manifestation of their enormous popularity, how about seamlessly mentioning it as a matter of fact after the "Love Me Do" sentence? Why can't the "songwriting grew in sophistication" and "embodiment of progressive ideals" bits, as well as the psychedelic and folk influence, come with a sentence that discusses Rubber Soul and Revolver?

Going further, I think if we rewrite the lead mixing up the first and second paras, we reduce the number of times expressions like "immense popularity" and "international stardom" are used. Thus apart from, arguably, the hagiography, even redundancy is cut down. To summarise, I believe all the important things that need to be mentioned about The Lads are already there, just a little reordering would trimming down on some (what appears to me to be) fawning and redundancy. Other problems:

We give far too much weight to that one Rolling Stone albums list. I say remove its mention completely. Also, many critics also list Revolver and Abbey Road as the Beatles's masterpiece so why mention only Pepper?
Recentism: we don't mention Revolver, but we do Rock Band. Why are the September 2009 re-releases a much bigger deal than the original release of The White Album, or the 1987 CD releases?—indopug (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Indopug, to respond to your main points:

"My problem is with the first paragraph of the lead. I would much prefer it if like the rest of the article, the lead too works chronologically" - surely any chronological structure should wait till the second paragraph? The first paragraph has a special role in setting the scene (see WP:Lead#Opening_paragraph, and within that, see the special role of the WP:Lead#First_sentence).
"We give far too much weight to that one Rolling Stone albums list" - it gets this one mention, in the third paragraph, after the chronological summary, purely to give a flavour of the notability of the band's music in the grand scheme of things. Where is "far too much weight" in that?
"Recentism": the 2009 remasters and and Rock Band demonstrate the notable fact of the band's enduring popularity so long after the breakup, as the opening words of that sentence make clear. Mentioning Revolver or the 1987 CDs would not accomplish that.

Indopug, I actually think the lead serves its purpose well as it stands. See what you think about those WP:LEAD principles I mentioned in respect of first sentence and first paragraph. Doc's already tweaked the last paragraph and if that were able to continue along the lines already discussed above, that would be the icing on the cake. Those are my thoughts, to which others will hopefully add their own opinions. If you still think we're missing the point, some specific wording proposals may help. PL290 (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Those last two point are issues because they're too specific, and are thus very selective. The band has far too much impact for you to single out any particular items like that Rolling Stone list and the reissues in the lead (both of which are glaring examples of recentism, by the way, and that Rolling Stone list isn't an honor, award, or recognized achievement; every major music publication makes lists like this all the time). Just say the band is critically acclaimed and has an enduring legacy. The article body is where you get to the real meat. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to see where you and Indopug are coming from with Rolling Stone, 2009 remasters and Rock Band. It was hard to see it at first, since a lot of the WP:Recentism essay's concerns don't apply here, but it has to be said, those three items are absolutely not significant milestones in the band's story. They are purely illustrative examples, with no "weight" intended to be placed on them, of the band's enduring popularity—but of course, even that popularity is only a consequence of the band's achievement in their day. (In a way, this part is anti-hagiographic: we damn the Lads with faint praise by highlighting those three items!) One possibility would be to remove mention of those three items and merge what's left of that paragraph into the last paragraph. Thoughts anyone? PL290 (talk) 14:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a specific proposal for how to change the lead; I thought it was OK before, but I am not opposed to changing it based on concerns raised here. I'd like to counter PL290's comment above, "even that popularity is only a consequence of the band's achievement in their day," in case it might affect the future content of the lead. The Beatles certainly were immensely popular in the 60s, but the enduring popularity is not solely the consequence of the 60s. The music has stood the test of time, and not just a single album or song, but spread throughout their catalog. Without that, there would be no video game, etc. I don't have sources at hand for that, but it seems likely they would be easy to find. In any case, the lead cover their 60s success as well as their enduring impact and popularity. — John Cardinal (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: when I say "the band's achievement in their day", the aspect of which I speak is creating the music catalog of which you speak. So I think we're saying the same thing. Could you clarify whether you object to the latest proposed wording change. PL290 (talk) 14:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little lost... what is the latest proposed wording change? — John Cardinal (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I've now highlighted it in bold in my 12 November post above. Trust this clarifies. PL290 (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I would support the removal of those three specific items (Rolling Stone, 2009 remasters and Rock Band), but the resulting merged paragraph should indicate that enduring popularity of their music. — John Cardinal (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

^ "Diamond awards". Recording Industry Association of America. Retrieved 10 October 2009.
^ "Gold & Platinum artist tallies". Recording Industry Association of America. Retrieved 10 October 2009.
^ Cite error: The named reference uk_certs was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ "Record Breakers and Trivia : Albums". everyHit.com. Retrieved 5 November 2009.
^ "Top selling artists". Recording Industry Association of America. Retrieved 10 October 2009.

[diamond-1] "Diamond awards". Recording Industry Association of America. Retrieved 10 October 2009.

[goldandplatinum-2] "Gold & Platinum artist tallies". Recording Industry Association of America. Retrieved 10 October 2009.

[uk_certs-3] Cite error: The named reference uk_certs was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[UK1-4] "Record Breakers and Trivia : Albums". everyHit.com. Retrieved 5 November 2009.

[albumsales-5] "Top selling artists". Recording Industry Association of America. Retrieved 10 October 2009.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]