Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by the Beatles/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 05:41:49 29 December 2019 (UTC) [1].

List of songs recorded by the Beatles[edit]

List of songs recorded by the Beatles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): – zmbro (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles. The ultimate British act. 2 years and over 500 edits later (yes I'm serious), I have finally brought this page up to where I think it's FL worthy (it's gone through probably 3 major revamps). While it's definitely not as big as McCartney's song list, this has been my biggest project yet. The lead took the longest; what the Beatles did to music can't be summarized in 4 paragraphs, but I believe I have tried my best to cover the majors. The list includes all their core songs (all the stuff released on their studio albums and Past Masters), other released songs since 1970, as well as unreleased songs that have been mentioned by various authors. I'm really looking forward to all of your comments and concerns. I can't wait to see what's in store after this. Happy editing :-) – zmbro (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Only got time to look at the lead right now, but here goes............

  • "of which include live songs" => "which include live songs" – fixed
  • "the group's music [....] were primarily responsible" => was primarily responsible – fixed
  • "Throughout their career, every band member contributed to songwriting" - this might be massively pedantic, but the band's career included members other than John, Paul, George and Ringo. Is there a better way of saying "all four members of the group from the point where they signed their first recording contract"...........?
  • Great point. I somehow always forget about Stuart Sutcliffe and Pete Best (and the other Quarrymen member if we wanna go back further). How about something like "Following their signing with EMI, each member of the "Fab Four" contributed to songwriting."? I think mentioning them as the Fab Four would make more sense, since only John, Paul, George, and Ringo were known as the "Fab Four".
    • Sounds good to me, but maybe say specifically "Following their signing with EMI in 1962"? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "introduced numerous innovations into popular music than any other rock band of the 20th century" - this doesn't make sense. Should it be "introduced more innovations into popular music than any other rock band of the 20th century"
  • Reading it back yeah that didn't make sense. Changed to "more"
  • "Some of these innovations" - no need to repeat the word "innovations"
  • "The opening chord of "A Hard Day's Night" and the ending chord of "A Day in the Life" are viewed as particularly striking and memorable" - this bit seems to sit in the middle of a section about the Beatles' innovations but isn't really about innovation itself. Could it be moved somewhere else?
  • I just removed that. I thought that needed to be mentioned but there's really no way you can fit literally everything they did into 4 paragraphs so we'll just ditch that.
  • "unreleased songs have seen release" => "unreleased songs have been released" – fixed
  • Think that's it on the lead.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments
  • "primarily due to different practices in both countries at the time" - this is very vague - what "practices", exactly? TBH I am not sure this clause is actually needed.
  • Yeah I mainly found that reason on their "North American releases" page. I tried to find out what that meant exactly (to expand it) but I couldn't find much. I just removed it since none of the US albums (except MMT) are relevant today
    • My understanding is that it mostly boils down to the fact that US albums at the time usually contained fewer tracks than was the norm for UK albums, so the US labels would chop tracks off the albums, and then release additional "patchwork" albums with the material they had chopped off, bulked out with singles and stuff. But, as you say, not really worth mentioning given that you only talk about the "core 14" in the article.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and a few other rarities" - I'd just say "and other rarities" – done
  • Against All You Need is Love - "(A-side of "Baby, You're a Rich Man")" - this doesn't seem right. Why denote it by what was on the B-side? This applies elsewhere too. Denoting songs which actually were the B-side seems right, but this just looks odd......
  • I originally just had the B-sides noted but was thinking it'd be helpful to list which ones were A-sides so it wasn't showing just the album. Now thinking about it more it definitely seems odd. I'll remove those one I'm back on my desktop.
  • First table gives the original artist of cover songs but the second does not - any particular reason?
  • That's a great point I actually have no idea. I'll fix that on e I'm back on desktop.
  • If "Isn't it a Pity" was a solo performance by George and didn't appear on any Beatles record, is it really a Beatles song.....?
  • Technically not but I think the same situation applies to "Come and Get It". Solely McCartney but released under the Beatles name on Anthology 3 and Abbey Road super deluxe. But since "Isn't It a Pity" was actually Harrison solo and never under the Beatles name I'll remove that.
  • Note a - you wouldn't normally say "these include" and then give the entire list. I would change it to "these consist of" – changed
  • Note b - not a complete sentence so doesn't need a full stop. This may apply to other notes too. – fixed
  • Think that's it from me. Excellent work all round....or should I say "fab"? ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ChrisTheDude Mostly done with a few comments above. I'll take care of the bigger things once I'm back on my desktop. Thanks very much for the comments :-) – zmbro (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ChrisTheDude Everything's taken care of. While I was looking at the cover songs I found that many did not really have a definitive "original artist", since many were written by someone then given to dozens of artists; sometimes the original artists were complete unknowns so I just removed the original artists on the main table to make it easy. – zmbro (talk) 03:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to be a pest, but it still says "Throughout their career, every band member contributed to songwriting." Everything else looks great, and I am OK with removing the original artists for covers -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overall a great list, well done!
  • The last two sentences in the lead are not referenced.
  • The last sentence in the "main songs" section regarding Past Masters is not referenced.
  • Ref 33 (Rodriguez 2012, pg 69), ref 113 (Castleman 1977, pg 82), ref 124 (Sulpy 1999, pg 193), ref 128 (Sulpy 1999, pg 277), ref 141 (Giuliano, pg 125), ref 143 (Sulpy, pg 148), ref 144 (Giuliano, pg 123), ref 154 (MacDonald, pg 334), ref 156 (MacDonald, pg 78), ref 159 (MacDonald, pg77), ref 168 (Badman, pg 521) all are tagged as harv referencing errors as they don't seem to match a citation.
  • Similarly in the bibliography section, Compton 2017 and Guiliano 2005 do not point to a citation.

Cowlibob (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cowlibob Thank you! I believe I have taken care of everything. How did you get those refs to appear as errors? It is like a gadget? (because that would be very helpful for me) – zmbro (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zmbro: Ref 114 has a harverror. I use a script. The Uchucha HarvErrors script which you can find my common page. User:Cowlibob/common.js. I also find the Frietjes findargdups script useful as it identifies when you have duplicated a parameter in a reference. Cowlibob (talk) 09:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cowlibob Fixed it. Had the wrong year. Thank you! I'll be sure to install that once I'm back on desktop. – zmbro (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Ojorojo

This is impressive. Separating the tables (Main, Other, & Unreleased) is a very good approach. Also, identifying the core albums places more focus on the songs rather than complicating it with all the various releases.

  • "Main songs":
  • Intro: in the first sentence, "United Kingdom (UK)" is unnecessary; UK and US are well-known enough to be used later without first being identified (see MOS:ACRO).
  • Gonna be honest I have no idea how I missed that. Fixed
  • "plus the 1964 EP Long Tall Sally and other": without a comma, this can almost be read as "in addition to", i.e., the catalogue includes both Past Masters and the EP; maybe "along with the 1964 EP LTS,(comma) and other".
  • Changed; put the comma before "along with"
  • "Song" column: Singles were very important in their early days; maybe highlight them all instead of just those "originally released as a non-album single". (see next)
  • I actually originally had them colored but removed them since those can be left for the discography page. The NA singles are more important to note in terms of this list.
  • "B-side of": UK & US often had different A/B sides. Maybe in the key, use "Indicates song released as a single A- or B-side in the UK or US" and add more detail as a footnote if important.
  • Technically almost every NA single was released on an album in the US (i.e. "I Want to Hold Your Hand" on Meet the Beatles!")
  • Since several songs have footnotes with alternative releases, maybe the songs on the Long Tall Sally and Magical Mystery Tour EPs should also.
  • Honestly a little confused by this. The songs from the MMT EP already say they're on MMT and the LTS has not been relevant since the 1960s. The only reason I've mentioned it is to show that not everything on Past Masters was a single.
  • "Lennon McCartney" is repeated for several entries in a row. Would rowspan= for 3 or 4 give it a less cluttered look?
  • Nah I don't think that's a huge deal
  • "Other released songs":
  • "Key": Since it's a separate table, add "Indicates song not written by the members of Beatles" and colors (shouldn't the live recordings also be highlighted?).
  • Done
  • If the live recordings are marked with " ‡ ", it seems they should be colored/highlighted as well. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • Intro: "On top of their" this sounds awkward to me, maybe "In addition to".
  • Changed.
  • "Song" column: I think this should be wider for more emphasis and consistency with the Main table (could the "Year" columns be narrowed by using <small>?).
  • They actually are already small
  • Yes, I see. I was using a different screen and they didn't show. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Songwriter(s)" column: I find the sort function useful, as in the "Main" table. One can see all the songs by a particular writer grouped together.
  • Makes sense. Done.
  • "en dash": this is used for three "lead vocals" entries, but isn't explained, such as in a footer at the bottom.
  • Fixed
  • "Instumental": These are highlighted using {{N/A}}, but I'm not sure why.
  • Changed. Leftover from previous versions
  • "Notes" column: I wonder if sometimes there's too much detail. The year recorded is already given and, since all the songs are linked to articles and the albums list where and when recorded, is it really that important to add the rest? It gives more of a sessionography look.
  • I agree. Removed

Over all, great work. More later. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ojorojo Sorry it's been a busy week. Thanks for the comments. Replies above. – zmbro (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC) Most are OK, but I noted a couple. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unreleased songs"
  • "Song" column: This column appears especially narrow; I think a width closer to the preceding table would look better. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Year" & "Notes": Sometimes the connection between the two is unclear. Some entries with "1960" only mention much later performances in the notes. Maybe add "First played by the Quarrymen, it was performed in 1969 during ...", etc. Also, "Just Fun" shows "1969", but the notes seem to indicate an earlier "origin". —Ojorojo (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Notes": For those unfamiliar with the more obscure material (me!), some of these could be clearer. Some entries note "It is unknown if it was ever properly recorded". Do they exist as rough demos or were just never actually recorded? Were the rest properly recorded even when not indicated as such? If they're in a film or documentary aren't they "released" (just not on record/CD/etc.)?
  • Ojorojo I primarily got all the info here from Walter Everett's 2001 book, which highlights the Quarrymen to Rubber Soul. In the book, Everett actually describes some of the ones listed as never properly recorded, rather just written. I'll see what else he has to say about it; I'll also make the writing here more consistent. I mainly borrowed it from the Lennon–McCartney page. – zmbro (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, I might just remove this section and maybe create an unreleased songs page. From what I've been seeing on this book, it looks like they recorded hundreds of songs during the Get Back sessions (both originals and covers), much more than what's listed here. So I think I'm just gonna leave this list for the ones that have been released, which is typically what I've done previously for these types of lists. What do you think? – zmbro (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This type of info is important to hardcore Beatles fans, but is also probably subject to disagreement and debate. Since the Beatles are so high profile, it may be better to stick to safer ground. I'd say include it on a separate page, where the song discussions/descriptions can be more fully developed and more meaningful. I don't think this list would suffer without it. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Notes" (efns):
  • "'Helter Skelter' is also considered by music historians to be a key influence in the development of heavy metal." The ref says "proto-metal roar" – "key influence" seems to be a stretch and is probably unnecessary for this list. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lead vocal credits per Castleman ...": efn|name= can be used so this doesn't need to be repeated for the next table —Ojorojo (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'shoo-bee-do-wop' backing vocals that are a reference to doo-wop music": Maybe "vocals in the style of doo-wop" or "reminiscent of doo-wop" (seems more than a "reference") —Ojorojo (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'Revolution 9' is an avant-garde sound collage ...": n. & o. could also be combined since they appear to be saying the same thing. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bibliography"
  • State abbreviations (NY, MA, WI) shouldn't be used; New York City can stand on its own. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some publishers are linked and others aren't – better to be consistent. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also: Maybe add {{The Beatles singles}}

All looks good so far – this should wrap it up. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ojorojo Taken care of. – zmbro (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support All my comments have been addressed. It's great to see how much this list has improved over the last 2+ years. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why songs not written by members of the Beatles have to be pointed out and highlighted as if they are more important to the list than songs written by the Beatles. It seems a bit WP:UNDUE. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars I really don't understand what your problem is with colors. Like I told you at List of songs recorded by Weezer, it's not a matter of "importance", all it does is point out which songs they didn't write. Obviously, the covers they did did not surpass the quality or "importance" of their originals and having them colored definitely doesn't mean they are. All it does, as it says in the key, is "indicate" which songs they didn't write. That's it. – zmbro (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that important? All it does it bring my attention to those songs specifically. It's distracting. I shouldn't have a reason to focus on those songs any more than any other. Get rid of it. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 06:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly no. No one has a problem with it except you. Go ahead and oppose, I'm not changing it. – zmbro (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree on the colors- that's a standard of song lists, and gray is a color too. I find the colors chosen to be a bit bright, but they're not out of line with other FLs and it's not enough to oppose over. Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 05:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_songs_recorded_by_the_Beatles/archive1&oldid=935985506"