Talk:The Beatles/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about The Beatles. 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 5

←

Archive 7

→

Breakup and Aftermath - poor grammar makes meaning unclear

Hi. These sentences make it unclear who it was that wasn't talking to the rest of the band: "McCartney could not dissolve his business with The Beatles easily, so this led to him suing the others so as to cut off all of his business interests with the group. Not speaking with the other band members until 1973, Lennon admitted to McCartney that they should have gone with the Eastmans' management"

I suspect that it was McCartney, but the sentence reads as though it was Lennon. Can we confirm the details, and then ensure that we match up our adjectival clauses with our subject nouns? In other words, don't fall into this mistake: "Found guilty of murder, the judge sentenced Smith to life imprisonment"Leeborkman 23:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Found guilty of muder? andreasegde 17:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed now for clarity Leeborkman 11:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting, Leeborkman. (Not an attack - I´m genuinely interested, honest guv...) How would you phrase the sentence? andreasegde 17:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it was Paul who didn't speak to the rest of the band, then something like this: "McCartney could not dissolve his business with The Beatles easily, so he took the matter to court, thus ending his business interests with the group. As a result, he was not on speaking terms with the other Beatles until 1973, when Lennon admitted to McCartney that they should have gone with the Eastmans' management". If it was John who wasn't speaking to the others, then perhaps this: "McCartney could not dissolve his business with The Beatles easily, so he took the matter to court, thus ending his business interests with the group. Lennon did not speak about this until 1973, when he admitted to McCartney that they should have gone with the Eastmans' management". I'd be happy to re-write this, but I actually don't know the details of the story, and I can't figure them out from reading what the article as it stands. In fact, I think the best solution in the short term is to remove the part about "not speaking". I'm going to do that right now. Thanks. Leeborkman 00:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"I'm going to do that right now", is a wonderful thing to say. Go, go, go... andreasegde 16:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Over a billion albums???

Okay over a billion means...That almost a 1/4 a of the human population bought their music...That sounds like a little crazy right? I mean also if you think about it....where the hell is the gap? You know like Led Zeppelin and all them sold like 300 million...then The Beatles sold over a BILLION albums....NOw if this is true, where the heck is the gap? -The Bird —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.189.97.150 (talk • contribs) .

Over a billion records. Many people will have bought 20 singles, 10 albums on vinyl, then the same ten albums on CD. jnestorius^(talk) 18:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "the gap", but I'd like to point out that Joestynes has a good point. If we do the calculations using those numbers, then only 25 million people would have to buy the "20 singles, 10 albums on vinyl, then the same ten albums on CD" to get to 1 billion records sold. That seems very plausible to me. Not at all crazy. --luckymustard 18:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

ahhh okay...in that case why not just give the people true ALBUM sales, instead of the total records they have sold, I mean if you are going in records, then we might as well total all the singles, etc. That every band has sold all together. You guys got untill tonight to tell the people their total ALBUM sales or I am deleting the 1 billion crap. - The bird —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.189.97.150 (talk • contribs) .

Who is "you guys"? --luckymustard 19:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If you delete it I'll put it back again.--Crestville 20:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Me too. Vera, Chuck & Dave 22:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine then, well is it possible for us to get ALBUM/cd sells then? -The Bird —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.189.97.150 (talk • contribs) .

Anything is possible. Why do you say "us"? Also, the question to ask, I think, is if you or someone else finds the information that you're talking about, then should it be put in the article? The answer to that question, for the info that you're talking about, is probably yes. For info about Wikipedia, see:

Also, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Thanks. --luckymustard 11:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ragtime?

Can anyone give an example of the Beatles exploring Ragtime? I can think of one vaguely ragtime-influenced song, which would hardly justify mentioning Ragtime as the first in the list of styles they explored. Leeborkman 01:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, people - mostly anon IPs - come along and tweak with the genres and such things all the time. I don't know even know what ragtime is. If you see any nonsense just go ahead and remove it, you don't have to ask. --kingboyk 16:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha ha ha - ragtime. That's disgusting.--Crestville 16:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Leeborkman has a good point. It should be in "Influences". (Oops, it already is...)

Crestville - you perv. I have never thought of such a wonderful style of music in that way before... We live and learn... (laughing like a drain...) andreasegde 00:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ragtime? Well, honky tonk basically. Rocky Raccoon, Good Day Sunshine. TommyBoy76 01:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ragtime Lion King 18:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If you don't even know what ragtime is, perhaps you'd do well to realise that you are not an authority on things you don't know, kingboyk. I also suggest you further your understanding of 60's Britain before removing psych-folk artists The Incredible String Band from the list of late influences, since many British rock and pop artists of the time were fascinated by them (and according to a post-Beatles interview, McCartney's favourite album of 1967 is still the ISB's "The 5000 Spirits Or Layers Of The Onion"). The original Anon, 22 September 2006

Every band consumes and filters influences from other artists. We can't list all of them. "Rocky Racoon" and "Good Day Sunshine" are minor works in The Beatles' repetoire, and the ISB are not commonly credited as being a major influence on the band (major = the rock and roll artists of the 50s, basically, and later on Dylan). If Macca's favourite album is The 5000 Spirits Or Layers Of The Onion mention it in his article. It's quite apparent that you're a fan of the Incredible String Band, which doesn't well-qualify you for deciding that they were a major influence on the biggest pop/rock group of all time!

It's not going into the article without citations from authorative sources that the ISB were a major influence. Just as we can't list every factoid about the group here we can't give a paragraph to every band that Macca might have listened to in the 60s or who credibly had some peripheral influence on the group's development. --kingboyk 11:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The Incredible String Band were a major influence on The Beatles? News to me! Your'e not confusing The Fabs with Spinal Tap are you? Vera, Chuck & Dave 14:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh, this is a bit ironic. I'm doing some research on the K Foundation/KLF and have just found an article by Bill Drummond bigging up the ISB[1]. No such citation for their influence on the Beatles has been produced however... --kingboyk 17:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Same old same old! If anyone ever wants to big up a band they just say The Beatles were influenced by them. I can't find a citation for this either. Vera, Chuck & Dave 11:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

John Lennon Day

Okay dudes, we HAVE to put this thing in here. I mean if it's going to be an international holiday, like Martin Luther King Jr. Day then we HAVE to put this in here, you guys got three days to do it, or I'll put it in here myself. -The Bird —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.189.97.150 (talk • contribs) .

For some reason, the article (John Lennon Day) has been deleted. See discussion here. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 05:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

As a rule, giving an ultimatum just makes people even less inclined to do something. Is it actually going to be an international holiday and do you have any proof?--Crestville 16:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

1. yes, not in our lifetime 2. Yes, www.johnlennonday.com -The bird —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The bird999 (talk • contribs) .

Right, as I suspected it's a load of old nonsense (less than 4000 verified signatures since 2005). Thanks for clearing that up. --kingboyk 17:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it´s a clever ruse to have more holidays (which I totally agree with, BTW). Why not have a George Harrison Day, Mal Evans Day, Brian Epstein Day, The Cavern Day, Hamburg Day, Liverpool & Everton Day (ouch, Vera, Chuck and Dave!) The Beatles Day, "She/He loves you" Day (instead of St. Valentines day) Anymore...? andreasegde 23:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That's OK, we'll share a holiday with 'em, even if they do wear leather shorts and eat sausages! Vera, Chuck & Dave 16:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And what's wrong with wearing leather shorts and eating sausages?! :) Don't forget the beer also, mmm... --kingboyk 16:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You kinky swine! And you an Admin as well! Vera, Chuck & Dave 16:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I em liking ze fact zat Herr King-Bonking is like-ink ze good bier what vee are drinkin (Burp) and ze long, fat, wurstels. (Leder shorties are verry good for ze farting, I hope you are knowing. Please not answering...) I em Englander, so I am, but I heff picked up a teensy-weensy bit of a acck-cent. Sir Chumley-Warner 17:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

A Day In the Life Day, Good Sunshine Day, Tripper's Day (hmm....), the Week of Eight Days (with two Saturdays, natch), everyone's Birthday will be a legal holiday, Hard Night's Day, the list goes on and on Raymond Arritt 00:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh... I like that "everyone's Birthday will be a legal holiday" (for the person concerned). Now THAT´S a brilliant idea. My vote´s for that. andreasegde 11:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes that one's a winner! --kingboyk 16:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

On a completely unrelated note, anyone know where I could get 364 (and a quater) forged birth certificates? And still waiting on that steamroller.--Crestville 18:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

John Lennon Day? When was this announced? This is the first time I have heard of it! - User:Doctor Hesselius

It was yesterday, and the day before. You missed it :) andreasegde 18:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Original record and publishing contracts

Text of the article referred to how badly paid the Beatles were on their original contracts. And they were. But text also opined that these were among the worst deals around etc. Alas not. The Beatles were not singled out for lousy royalty rates. Those were the norm in the UK (and elsewhere) for brand new artists without any leverage. In respect of their publishing deal - a 50-50 split between publisher and writer was absolutely standard. The copyright law of that era specified that the writer could not receive less than 50% of the gross income - so publishers treated that minimum as a the base rate - and rarely offered the writer more than 50%. The Beatles did well financially DESPITE such low rates - only due to the magnitude of their sales. Epstein secured better record royalty rates for them in his 1966 renegotiation with EMI. Allan Klein got even higher rates in his 1969 renegotiation (but at a price to the Beatles unity). By the end of the 1960s successful artists were demanding and getting better terms. And eventually even new artists received much higher starting royalties. Prior to the success of the Beatles, Dylan, Stones etc record and publishing companies got away with outrageously low royalties - and artists had not been successful in securing a fairer share of the profits. Davidpatrick 12:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you will see this has been discussed (see archive) but... when it says it was a bad contract, we are talking about today´s standards (and today they´re still below what they should be - 12 points per CD for a whole band?).

The Beatles publishing contract was standard then, but a lot better than what other artists were getting in the 1950s. It´s all relative. Their recording contract was terrible though...

BTW, why don´t you put that good stuff (above) in the article? A bit of editing (here and there) and it would be most welcome. OR... why not put it in the Dick James article? That could do with it (because it´s a bit bare at the moment.) andreasegde 23:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Revert

I've done a two-level reversion to correct several errors. First, while SFF did not end up on Pepper, it's well attested that at the time of recording it had been intended for the next album (which eventually became Pepper). Second, they returned to the studio on 24 Nov; the edit makes it appear that they returned to the studio on 6 Dec -- yes, I know the intent was to state that this was the first date they worked on a song that later appeared on Pepper, but that's not how it reads. Finally, someone else's comments on drug are not needed because drugs already are mentioned (and there are other problems with the comments -- e.g., other insiders confirm that Lucy was indeed inspired by Julian's picture, not just "claimed" by John as if he were excusing away the drug influence). Raymond Arritt 18:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The Queen Mother

What is the relevence of the picture of The Boys with the Queen Mum? Vera, Chuck & Dave 20:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any great relevance save to illustrate how the Beatles were rapidly embraced by the British establishment. It was not from an event of great significance. A photo of them with Princess Margaret (after the Royal Command Performance in Nov. 1963) would be more essential as that was a significant turnng point in this regard. Davidpatrick 20:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a piccy of them with their MBE'S would be better? Cheers ,Vera, Chuck & Dave 21:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Took out the Queen Mother thingy, because it wasn´t a photo at all. Well, I couldn´t see it, and I´m not blind. andreasegde 16:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

One would, at this time, wish to thank the honourable editor for removing the Queen Mother thingy, it was indeed a monsterous carbuncle on the face of a beloved article. H.M. Queen Colleen of Dingle

Let it Be video (and tangents generally)

I edited out some details on the Let It Be video, such as where to find bootlegged versions and speculations on why it isn't available. This is just one example of a problem that the article as a whole tends toward: it includes too many details and tangents that aren't central to the Beatles' story. I think the article would be better (and maybe a contender for FA) if it was tightened up to be more concise and focused. Raymond Arritt 02:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that it was an FA article. (See archive, or this page). andreasegde 16:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Is Mystery Tour considered an album?

I have noticed that the album Magical Mystery Tour did not appear on Rolling Stone's list of greatest albums despite that it contains some of the best and most beloved songs. Also it seems that Mystery Tour wasn't released in Britain. If so, was there a British counterpart that had these songs, or were they just singles there?–Clpalmore 3:41, 07 September 2006 (UTC)

Magical Mystery Tour was released in the UK as a double EP which is two 45 rpm records with three tracks on each record. Capitol Records in the US chose to add The Beatles' 1967 singles and B-sides to make MMT an album. If you would have truly read the article, Clpalmore, I wouldn't have needed to write the message I'm replying to. Steelbeard1 12:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I see citations

and much improvement. Nice work with the pictures too. Terrific. I was just wondering what had happened to the lovely White Album portraits though? --kingboyk 08:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

They were taken out - then I put them back in - then they were lined up as one photo, and they´ve gone again. I looked through the history but I couldn´t find out who did it. What do you say that someone puts them back in again, and then waits with a large axe in a dark alleyway for unwelcome visitors? (I´m coming over all literary, like...) andreasegde 16:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have put them back in, although they may not be in exactly the right positions. --andreasegde 17:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Good job! I thought I was looking at the top of a Fabs fans user page! Vera, Chuck & Dave 17:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. The contrast between the early and later pics is nice. I especially like the fact that the early ones are in B&W while the later ones are in color. That's probably metaphorical or something (never was too sure about them literary-type words). Raymond Arritt 18:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I put them on one line a week or so ago, but some nerd removed them complaining of copyright breach and all the usual shit. Anyways , I hope they'll stay this time MrGater 17:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Anthology

What? No Anthology DVD photo in their release section? It´s bally well important is it not, you young spraffers? --Col. Chumley-Warner 17:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Young spraffers indeed - jolly good show Sir! Need a stint in the Paras dontchaknow! Lt. Nurdley-Smythe

I've gone ahead and added, though it'll likely need to be tweaked. And it turns out that it was the image missing from the left in our left-right patten going down the page. (Abbey Road and A Hard Day's Night were both on the right, with no left image in between.) —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 21:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice work, GPHemsley. I have created an Anthology section (under the Film section) which I put the collage photo into. I´m sure all you eager editors out there will be itching to add to it... andreasegde 15:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason I put the image where I did was because the next few paragraphs discussed the history and development of Anthology. The new section isn't likely to contain any information that isn't already in those few paragraphs or in the second article. Plus, the new section doesn't haven't enough text, making the image placement look awkward. I would suggest either reverting that part, or bringing more information down from the "Breakup and aftermath" section. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There could be more text about the decision to create the Antology series, the reuniting of the Fab three (which they said would never happen) Jools Holland, locations of interviews etc. That sounds like a lot, but it would probably only take up a paragraph, so the photo wouldn´t look so awkward, as GPHemsley so rightly says. --andreasegde 08:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The Beatles' official start year

It is common knowledge that the group began in 1957 as The Quarrymen and after a succession of other names, officially became The Beatles in 1960. Someone keeps changing the year. The official year that "The Beatles" began was 1960, the year they assumed that name. Steelbeard1 17:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It was probably an unsigned user (God save us from the drop-in, one-time users) but.... were The Quarrymen really The Beatles? (It was only John, was it not?)

I´m also not sure about the "official year", because they were only The Beatles when they played their first concert as The Beatles (on a poster, somewhere). To be totally pendantic, they were probably only The Beatles (as we know them) when Ringo joined. (I know this, but I can´t remember...) It´s a puzzler, unless someone can definitely put a pin on the donkey´s tail... That´s a challenge for you all out there... andreasegde 21:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the first gig they played as "The Beatles" and not "The Silver Beetles", with the line up of Sutcliffe, Best, Macca, Harrison, and Lennon was on the 17th August 1960, at the Indra Club in Hamburg. Lion King 23:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, per Lewisohn's "Chronicles" they were still the Silver Beatles through 30 July, their last Liverpool-area gig before departing for Hamburg, and opened at the Indra as the (non-Silver) Beatles. Raymond Arritt 00:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

And you are right as far as the name is concerned, they were indeed The Silver "Beatles". I was incorrect with Silver "Beetles". All the best, Lion King 12:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Concert at Albert Hall

I beleive it should be mentioned that the Beatles played a concert at the Royal Albert Hall, especially since they mention it in one of their songs, "A Day in the Life". I think that knowing that they played a concert at the Albert Hall is essential to understanding the meaning of that line. Also, it should definatley be included in the list of concerts played in the Albert Hall. To back up my claim, go to "thebeatles.com" and click on "64' Beatlemania UK" under "The Beatles" at the bottom of the screen. --I Am The Walrus 02:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur. The Beatles did indeed play this venue on the 18th. April 1963 in “Swinging Sound ‘63”. Also featuring Del Shannon, Shane Fenton, Kenny Lynch, Rolf Harris and The Vernons Girls, it was a live radio broadcast that had a talented young actress called Jane Asher in the audience. Introduced later backstage to The Beatles the rest is history. Incidentally, there was an argument between Lennon and the BBC production team about the volume the band wanted to play at. Paul told John to be careful as they might not play their records. Del Shannon insisted on going on after The Beatles and got his way. The Beatles played a second date on 15th. September ’63 for the Great Pop Proms hosted by Alan Freeman. I don’t think that this is necessarily connected to understanding A Day In The Life.--Patthedog 19:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"frequently distilling their multiple influences into a hybrid that came to be regarded as distinctly their own"?

Hi, I deleted this phrase a few days ago, but it has now re-surfaced, so I won't get into a revert-war ;-) I have added a "citation needed", because this seems to be complete POV. I certainly have never thought of the Beatles as creating a hybrid distinctly their own (certainly not "frequently"), and "came to be regarded" is a little slippery. I guess I'm really looking for expert commentary that describes examples of the Beatles' "hybrid of multiple influences". It's not obvious to me that they frequently created hybrids, ie that they mixed multiple influences in individual songs. It seems more to me that they moved easily from style to style, without particularly hybridising them. While the claim may be true, it is not obvious, and therefore needs references. Thanks. Leeborkman 07:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Quite well written, if you ask me. --212.241.67.98 18:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just what is it that you consider "quite well written"? Thanks for your response. Leeborkman 23:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Beatle Stamps

Have a butchers at this![2]Lion King 00:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow. They look great. About time too! Thanks for the headsup Jimmy. --kingboyk 09:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Fuck e-mails, I'm going to start sending letters again just to use these stamps. Anyone see any cringe-worthy Beatle related headlines? The Mirror went with "Letter It Be". Truly awful. The thing about these stamps is, they're always bringing out special stamps - commemorative ones, like - people get paid loads of Government money and spent a great deal of time designing special stamps, right? But have you ever used one? Whenever I go to get stamps, it's always the ones with the sillouette of the Queen on it. I've never even been offered another kind of stamp! What about Beatle stamps? Where do I get them from? People like the Beatles more than the Queen anyway. Rant over.--Crestville 10:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I sometimes ask people: "When was the last time you wrote a hand-written letter?" (No answer...) Scraping the bottom of the barrel comes to mind... It should go into Trivia (Which you all know I am interested in... , because I´m cheap BTW... :) andreasegde 14:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The last time I sent a hand written letter was yestrday afternoon, the Parker 61 is mightier than the e-mail - I always get a reply. I disagree, I don't consider it trivial, wer'e talking Royal Mail here, it's normaly Shakespeare or some other boring old get! It's hardly the same as the Azores or Bali issuing Marilyn Monroe or Elvis.

People won't stick em on letters anyway, stamp collectors the world over will go nuts on em, so there! Vera, Chuck & Dave 15:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)P.S. I also like the Express report - They have capitalised "The" Beatles! Vera, Chuck & Dave

If they like the images that much, why not just buy the album? You get a much bigger picture and a free CD to boot.--Crestville 19:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It´s the GPO that´s on its uppers, and wants to make a few bob. They could have at least done individual pics. Typical GPO; too little, too late. Postman Pat 09:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The photos

What is hapening with the photos? In, out, in out. The black and whites and colour worked well together. Who keeps doing it? Please leave a comment on this page please, Mr. photo-fiddler. --andreasegde 09:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the history, it looks like it was 200.118.217.125 Lion King 13:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Lion King. This user - 200.118.217.125 - is a 100% Pink Floyd fan. Possible vandal.

Your'e welcome. Lion King 19:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible vandal? --200.118.165.82 01:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Somebody please put back in the 8 photos. --andreasegde 22:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Done --200.118.217.125 03:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Who wants to bet that they´ll get changed again soon? --andreasegde 08:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup. As sure as eggs is eggs. Can we now please leave them as they are? --andreasegde 08:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I have put a message next to the eight photos. (!-- Please do not remove or change this photo--) Hopefully whoever wants to change them will come here first. (P.S. If any of you wants to move them a bit, put the warning sentence in there as well, so as to discourage any itchy fingers.) --andreasegde 08:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Album Tracks

Recently, whilst working on the Please Please Me album, it occurred to me that they may be a better way of organizing The Beatles song titles. At the moment if you type in an album track you will (usually) arrive at an article dedicated exclusively to that song. Would it be better presented as part of the album it originally came from? That way the reader would be able to see it in context and would probably choose stroll around and hopefully enjoy a better understanding. It would need to be based on UK releases, but that was how they were recorded, and I think the purist would accept this as the template. What do you think? --Patthedog 09:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

On the whole, yes, I think it would. Some songs have so much material they deserve to be chronicled seperately, but certainly I'd support losing many of the stubs we have about album tracks. --kingboyk 19:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I do feel that The Beatles album tracks are in a bit of a mess. Some are just stubs as you say, and some articles are poorly written. I want to try (or we could try) and take one album to begin with (perhaps Beatles For Sale) and incorporate all of the track info that is currently stand alone, to within that article. That way all interested editors would be able to view the current state of affairs, and exercise quality control where necessary. I definitely think that by grouping the songs into their relevant (British) albums would improve quality. But, I’m not sure how to technically go about it. It would mean deleting existing articles once any useful information from it has been cut and pasted into the album article. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. BTW, this would be only be an experiment restricted to one album to see if is successful. Thanks.--Patthedog 11:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Guys, if I can offer another perspective... While I don't contribute a great deal to Beatles articles (Bowie, Roxy Music, Iggy Pop and the New Wave are more my scene) I do revert vandalism and make the odd gnomic update in this space every so often, so hopefully this'll be fairly objective... I think you have to consider the detail and flow you want in an album article before going for incorporating all song info there. Given The Beatles' perceived importance in the rock scheme of things I don't think it's unusual that practically every one of their songs has a wiki article. Pretty well every Bowie song has one and many are not (yet) to the standard of The Beatles' song articles (however they include a lot of live and cover version info that would clutter up the parent album articles if it were to be merged). Killing a lot of the individual song articles and throwing their details into the album articles might not necessarily improve overall quality. For instance, looking at the Beatles for Sale article mentioned earlier, I think it has a pretty decent amount of 'album context' song info already, with links to further data on the tracks if people are interested. On the other hand Please Please Me, also mentioned above, doesn't IMO have the mix right because there's subsections on each song with as much copy as the song articles themselves. In the case of Please Please Me the project has to decide whether the album track subsections are to be merged into the song articles or vice versa to provide the 'definitive' song info repository - my suggestion, contrary to what appears to be the prevailing mood in this thread, would be move most of the track subsection data from the album article to the song articles, lose the album subsections and only retain as much song detail in the album article as is really pertinent to a discussion of the record as a whole. Cheers, Ian Rose 15:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Well written, Ian Rose, and some very good points. How about a few paragraphs? --andreasegde 21:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the Beatles For Sale album is well written. That is my point. It’s when you open any of the song titles (presumably written by someone else) that things get depressing. The thing is this: if you were to type in No Reply from the Wiki home page you wouldn’t even see any of the album context material (actually, I’ve just tried that, and it does direct you to the album. Bollocks!) Nevertheless, you might just want specific information about a single song, and the reader would be entitled to see (hopefully) a well written factually accurate piece on that title. The way things are at the moment, the reader would be disappointed and even misinformed. Pull in all of the tracks, get them up to a reasonable standard, and then set them free. I’m not suggesting that it ought to be a permanent arrangement, but it would be one way of seeing what needs to be done all under one roof. I’m ranting aren’t I? --Patthedog 16:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really, Patthedog, but there´s one thing that signifies (I corrected this for Patthedog - Bless him) a comment that a lot of people don´t read; no paragraphs. It´s hard on the eyes, and the thread of sometimes well-written comments are lost in the maze of black and white. How´s that for a bit of nice advice? Have fun. --andreasegde 08:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Andrea, nice to hear from you! Our cheerleader. Not sure what you’re on about, but it’s “signifies”. How’s that for a bit of advice. --Patthedog 16:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Bugger - you caught me. How could I make a mistake like that? (Probably had a bit too much "fire-water"...) I shall make myself wear a hair shirt for the next week. (Ouch!) Well done. It´s 1-0 to you. Have fun. (P.S. I´m not a girl...) --andreasegde 20:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless you can still be the project cheerleader ;) --kingboyk 15:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What, me in a tutu with a pair of pom-poms? Not on your nelly. I´d get arrested before you could say Antidisestablishmentarianism. --andreasegde 15:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I've had to throw people in similar attire over me shoulder before- very fetching is tutu's and pom poms! Vera, Chuck & Dave 00:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Citations

More citations/references. It won´t take long, and it will get rid of those annoying "No citations" headers. --andreasegde 15:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Project page

We all do know of the existence of the project page and its corresponding talk page, right? I'm seeing a lot of discussion here that is not directly related to The Beatles (the article, not the band), but to the project itself. Please keep project-wide discussion on the project talk page. Thanks. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 02:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Discussion here should be about the article. Chit chat and general project discussion should be over at (and is very welcome at) that current wilderness of a project talk page :) --kingboyk 15:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually there's no reason at all why you can't move misplaced threads to the correct page - just leave behind a link. That's perfectly acceptable. --kingboyk 15:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Reorganisation

The current organisation of the article isn't that great, I must say.

Contents [hide]

   * 1 History
         o 1.1 Formation and early years
         o 1.2 Hamburg
         o 1.3 Record contract
         o 1.4 America
         o 1.5 Beatlemania
         o 1.6 Backlash and controversy
         o 1.7 Studio band
   * 2 Changes in their music
   * 3 On film
         o 3.1 A Hard Day's Night and Help!
         o 3.2 Magical Mystery Tour and Yellow Submarine
         o 3.3 Let It Be
         o 3.4 Anthology
   * 4 Early Influences
   * 5 Later Influences
   * 6 The Beatles line-ups
   * 7 Instrumentation
         o 7.1 Microphones
   * 8 Discography
         o 8.1 Studio albums
         o 8.2 Official CD catalogue
         o 8.3 Song catalogue
         o 8.4 Song samples
               + 8.4.1 1965
               + 8.4.2 1966
               + 8.4.3 1967
               + 8.4.4 1968
               + 8.4.5 1969
   * 9 See also
   * 10 Notes
   * 11 References
   * 12 Further reading
   * 13 External links

Maybe we should try to integrate some sections in another. Early Influences , Later influences and Changes in their music should belong in a same section "Evolution of their music" or whatever.I think separating some parts from the "History" section into a new section could also be useful, as we have basically three parts :"History" "Music" and "Movies", which are quite light.

Of course this is only my opinion, maybe wikipedian experts have another ;) MrGater 15:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

My opinion would be to fatten-up the articles as they are (with references, of course).--andreasegde 21:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Fatten up

The "Beatlemania" and "America" pieces need to put on some weight. They´re thinner than Twiggy´s ankles.

Deletion

The Beatles trivia article was up for deletion a short time ago, and it survived. (16 July 2006 [3] ) It is now under threat of deletion again... The John Lennon article was also recently nominated for "speedy deletion" - which is unbelievable. Have the vandals learned how to be a Trojan Horse? --andreasegde 17:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Situation saved, thanks to Kingboyk. --andreasegde 19:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Instrumentation

Can anyone verify for certain whether the Beatles actually used a Wurlitzer electric piano? I have never seen a studio photo of the band showing such an instrument, and Paul is reported as having been disappointed that the Fender Rhodes piano(s) given to the band in 1968 didn't have "the" sound.

At the time, Wurlitzer pianos were not officially exported to the UK; the only well-known British player to use one at the time was Ian MacLagan, who bought a 1950s model second-hand, possibly imported by its original owner.

Apart from the lack of a sustain pedal, the Hohner Pianet can sound remarkably close to a Wurlitzer; certainly all the "HELP!"-period electric piano tracks used a Pianet. The recordings which MAY feature a Wurlitzer seem to be "Getting Better", "I Am the Walrus", "Revolution" (single version) and "Come Together". The later electric piano recordings ("Get Back", "Don't Let Me Down", "The Long and Winding Road", "Dig a Pony", I've Got a Feeling", One After 909" and "She Came In Through the Bathroom Window") use Fender Rhodes, apart from Pianet on "For You Blue" and brief Pianet overdubs on "Let It Be". If the Beatles DID use a Wurlitzer, it must be the most elusive of all Beatles instruments... User:butterfingersbeck 28-9-2006

I have only found a reference to a Wurlitzer organ. [4] --andreasegde 08:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

As an FYI, the Hohner Pianet "N" series was the instrument used in "The Night Before" and other songs from the "Help" album. Vox Teardrop 14:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I've also never seen any solid evidence that they used a Wurlitzer electric piano. During the Get Back / Let It Be sessions they complained that the electric piano at Abbey Road was old and unreliable, so it's plausible they could have rented a Wurlitzer at some point out of dissatisfaction with what was on hand. But that's just speculation. Raymond Arritt 06:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Hendrix and The Beatles?

There is an audio clip available of Hendrix playing Day Tripper, with lead vocals from what sounds like The Beatles, [5]. Could have been a "Mine´s a scotch and coke" evening in the studio... Sources say that it was Noel Redding, but there are two voices on it, and the other one is not Hendrix. What´s the verdict? --andreasegde 07:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

William Shakespeare and The Beatles

A short TV clip exists of The Beatles performing a short excerpt from Shakespeare´s "A Midsummer-Night's Dream", with John dressed as a woman, and Ringo as a lion: [6]. Long John Baldry is is a heckler in the audience. --andreasegde 08:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I saw that and for the life of me I can't work out whats going on.--Crestville 11:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

They is reciting t´old Will Shak(in-Stevens)-speare. If you look at the trivia page you can watch Peter Sellers doing "A Hard Day´s Night", which was probably on the same programme.

It was called "Light Entertainment", back in the 60s. The Fabs knew what traditional was, back then. No wonder that they later rebelled against the Establishment. Watch out for Ringo´s comment about money... --andreasegde 12:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)