Talk:A Day in the Life/Archive 1

Bassoon balloon

Currently the article states: "George Martin recalled that...a bassoon player placed a balloon on the end of his bassoon, leading to its inflation with every blow." He may indeed have "recalled" that, but it's certainly not true, and its falsehood should be obvious to anyone who's played a bassoon (or any other woodwind). - Nunh-huh 02:27, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Interesting. So the statement in the article is true (that is, he did make the quote -- I added or corrected the sentence you refer to based upon info in Mark Lewishon's book), and I think it adds texture and color to the article, but it is probably an inaccurate recollection and might lead a reader to draw an incorrect understanding of how woodwinds work. So, what should we do? Jgm 13:41, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good question. A footnote? ¹A balloon placed on the end of a bassoon wouldn't actually inflate this way, so his recollection is mistaken.. Or "George Martin claimed...". Or just let it lie? The odd thing is that one would assume George Martin would know that a balloon on the end of a tube with a lot of holes in it wouldn't inflate...not a bassoon, not a clarinet, not a piccolo. It sounds like he'd been watching too many Marx brothers movies! - Nunh-huh 21:24, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd leave it in, assuming it is an actual quote, but as previously suggested, put a footnote stating that while George Martin is actually quoting as saying that, such an event would be impossible due to the fact that a bassoon has many holes in it and a balloon would not inflate in that matter (and if it did, would all but entirely mute his sound =P). Me2NiK 03:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

Do we really need a Sgt. Pepper's cover photo on this article? Does it really help at all? How on earth is it directly related to the song? I'd rather we have a still from the promo film, but I don't know how to capture one using software on Linux. Johnleemk | Talk 15:39, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Appeal

This was my addition... what does everyone think? - JollyBengali

Please Please Me

The info on the Please Please Me album page currently contradicts your assertion here that the Please Please Me album was recorded in its entirety in ten hours. GeneMosher

Inner groove

"The 1987 CD rerelease - in any country - recreates this effect, although, since an infinite loop cannot be created on compact discs, the Beatle chatter is looped eight or nine times before fading slowly out."

The trouble with CD's is that they are spun at a much higher rpm than LP records, so a concentric end loop of pits and lands wouldn't work.203.214.75.127

On another note, in the biography of the Beatles by Bob Spits, he mentions that the inner groove is actually a backward recording of the beatles saying "We'll fuck you like we're supermen." Why isn't this mentioned in the article? Is it not 100% confirmed? Jhayes94 23:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"We'll fuck you like we're supermen"? Sorry, but that seems like something a fan desperate to know what the last line is would make up. I don't think it is decipherable, even when played backwards.--I Am The Walrus 03:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got two different copies on vinyl and neither one has any sound on the run-out track after the high pitch note. Is it only certain pressings that have the goofy chatter? I have a manual turntable so it isn't a question of 'not getting to the inner groove' and I can stand there and see that there is no groove between the label and the inner circle the needle is on. So whats the deal? Gront 07:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the US pressings of the LP do not have the chatter inner groove, only the UK pressings.Gront 19:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of Off-Topic

I recently found out that the high-pitched note before the 'crazy blabber' at the end that I've heard all my life is only hearable by some humans, and I tested it on my friends and close contacts, apparently, I'm the only one that can hear it. Can anybody else? -RPharazon 20:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can.Rt66lt 01:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can hear some of the lower tones, but not the really high pitches.

--I Am The Walrus 02:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can hear the really high pitched noise if it's quiet. Spartacusprime 19:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent revert

We need a source for the assertion that George Harrison wasn't involved in the final chord. (Oh, and it's unnecessarily informal to refer to the other Beatles as John, Paul and Ringo. That's fine for a fan site but not for an encyclopaedia.) Johnleemk | Talk 05:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree--they should be referred to as Lennon, McCartney, Starr, Harrison for an encyclopaedia. Freshacconci 18:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Chord

Somewhere I heard that the choice of the prominent E chord at the end of this song (and album) was meant to coincide precisely with another E chord which is on the beginning of another album, not by the Beatles, I think it was some classical album. The idea was that you'd have that record set to play immediately after this one ended, and aside from a brief silence while the record dropped, one would lead right into the other, the classical album's E chord building at almost the same rate as this song's E chord fades away at the end. Does anyone have more info on this? --Lurlock 21:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. 'A Day in the Life' is based on 'Polymorphia' for 48 strings by Penderecki, which was published in 1961. But the chord in 'Polymorphia' is in C-major. The authors of the Beatles-project should mention it. Excuse my bad English. Best wishes -- Gudrun Meyer 10:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super-High Note

Is there by chance any way to edit this out of the song? I can hear it, and every time I come to that part, I have to turn the volume way down or skip to the next song because it kills my ears. I'm fine with doing that, but if there is some way of editing that out it would be nice.

There's lots of ways to do that. But then, why would you want to? That's like putting black bars on the nudity on famous paintings. By changing it, you change the entire artistic intent of the song. -- 12.116.162.162 19:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really true most humans can't hear that? That's really hard for me to believe since it's so damn loud.--71.236.97.221 07:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The American CD release supposedly omits the noise and the repeating chatter at the end. I think I have both versions of the album because one has the noises while the other ends after the chord fadeout. – Zone46 16:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that most people can't hear is the dog whistle in Good Morning, Good Morning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.224.168.225 (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Comment

This sentence needs cleaning up: "Perhaps it would have remained in any event; Martin later made a cryptic mention that editing it out would have been unfeasible." Anyone know what the comment was and/or have a link to it? Wwwhhh 13:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It refers to the alarm clock that Mal Evans controlled to signal the end of 24 bars of silence, which was later filled with an orchestra. It couldn't be edited out because it was on a track with other instruments (they only had four tracks to record everything).--andreasegde (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concert at Albert Hall Reference

It should be noted that the line "Now they know how many holes it take to fill the Albert hall" refers to a concert the Beatles played at the Royal Albert Hall. The meaning of the line is to suggest that many of the Beatle's fans were empty "holes" who screamed and shouted too loud to actually hear the music, and without information about the Albert Hall concert, the meaning is lost. --I Am The Walrus 02:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the source of that info? The article already says, and I've read it elsewhere, that John couldn't think of the verb ("fill") for that line and it was suggested to him by someone else. If that's true, it calls into question the connection with the concert and fans being the holes. John Cardinal 14:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every account I've read says the same thing: Lennon read something about work being done at Albert Hall and the "how many holes" bit is Lennon punning. Freshacconci 18:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, It's actually based on Lennon's reading about Pothole filling in Blackburn. The Albert Hall thing was, like previously mentioned, a line recommended to him.--Soakologist (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the very first time I've ever heard that assertion, and I'm extraordinarily well-read on Beatles lore and facts. The Beatles only played the Royal Albert Hall twice, 18 April and 15 September 1963. I can't think of ever seeing a mention of a tie-in to any concert in any of the biographies or Anthology. Donnymo

It was from Lennon reading about a northern politician saying there were "enough holes in Blackburn to fill the Albert Hall", meaning holes in the roads. Lennon found it funny to think that holes (which are merely holes and contain nothing, of course) could "fill" the Albert Hall. Case closed. :)--andreasegde (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drumming

I think somewhere should mention Ringo Starr's excellent drumming on this song. One of his best, IMO, along with Tomorrow Never Knows and Strawberry Fields. --58.165.94.71 11:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a drummer could add something as long as it's WP:NPOV and not fanspeak. I agree Starr is a great and often underrated (misunderstood) drummer, but we don't want to resort to "It's amazing the way he..." type language. I'm not a musician so I don't want to touch it from a technical point of view. Maybe some references to professional drummers (Phil Collins, Max Weinberg, Dave Grohl) who highly rate Starr as a drummer and innovator and count him as a main influence. Freshacconci 18:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opening paragraph

Is it only to me that the last line of the opening paragraph appears somewhat pretentious? "...the song is considered to be one of the most ambitious, influential, and groundbreaking works in music history." First of all, considered by whom? And I mean, sure, it's a great song, but it's not the Eroica or anything.Lbark 04:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drug references/date inconsistency

"The song became notorious for its supposedly numerous references to drugs — on June 1, 1967 (two days before the Sgt. Pepper LP was released) the BBC announced it was banning "A Day in the Life" from British stations due to the "I'd love to turn you on" line, which according to them, implicitly advocated drug use." Wasn't the album released on June 1, 1967? – Zone46 16:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it is correct in the infobox and the album's page. I will correct this. --Jd204 23:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

is it legal

to put the song here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.106.143 (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because it has a fair-use rationale.--andreasegde (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Impromptu work in the studio" citation

I reverted this edit because new material was added between text and a citation that (by placement) indicated it supported the original text. I have now reviewed the source material and the citation does not support the text, or at best, supports only a part of a previous statement. Despite the incorrect citation, I still think the text I removed was speculation. I think it could be rewritten, and a similar point made that would enhance the article. Meanwhile, I am going to try and get citations for the current text and also figure out where (if anywhere) the "Steve's Beatles Page" citation should be placed. John Cardinal (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible connection to Stuart Sutcliffe's death?

I was reading the John Lennon article a few weeks ago and came across this passage: "...In April 1962, The Beatles returned to Hamburg to play at the Star-Club, and were told that Sutcliffe had died a few hours before they arrived.[47] This was another shock for Lennon, after losing Uncle George and Julia.[47] He dealt with the loss of his best friend by laughing hysterically at the news...", which I later took the lyrics "I read the news today, oh boy. About a lucky man that made the grave. And though the news was rather sad. I just had to laugh." was reference to this. The death occurred before the recording of this song, so wouldn't it make sense that this was reference to Stuart Sutcliffe's death? 99.240.217.191 (talk) 08:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was about the Guinness heir, or... a story Lennon read in a newspaper about a car crash.--andreasegde (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High-pitch note and chatter are not parts of the song

The article treats the "inner groove" chatter, as well as the 15 kHz tone as parts of the song. However, they are NOT and were never intended to be. They are a coda to the album. Only on the CD release of Sgt. Pepper these sections are added to the track, leading to confusion. They don't appear on any other release of the song, and the "inner groove" alone (actually just one iteration of it) appeared on the U.S. album Rarities. Rsnetto74 (talk) 11:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right—moved it to SPLHCB album. Please add the ref to Rarities there. Aquegg (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stray beat during intro

In the "Song Structure" section of the article, it mentions that "there is a stray extra beat between the second and third bars of the introduction." I believed this to be true for many years, until the release of the LOVE album. On LOVE, the song begins with Lennon's count off, and if you count the beats throughout the introduction it is apparent that there are no missing or extra beats: the introduction is in fact in 4/4. (Lennon's movement between the the 2nd and 3rd measures fools my ear into thinking he has added a beat, but then there is a beat missing at the end of the introduction. In total, the introduction is 8 measures of 4/4).

I propose that the comment be removed entirely, making no mention of the rhythmic anomalies during the introduction of the song. --Jeferman (talk) 06:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh in the bridge

I don't have anything to back this up, but I know that's not Paul singing the ah's in the bridge between "Woke up" and the last verse. It's John. Does anyone have a way to verify this? --KSnortum (talk) 03:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tough question, but I have a fairly reliable source to confirm that McCartney sang the "ahh" bridge. The book Recording The Beatles has two pages on the process of recording A Day in the Life, and it states the following: despite the popular belief that Lennon sang the bridge, and despite the fact that it sounds very much like Lennon, it as actually McCartney. The authors proceed to justify this assertion with several pieces of evidence. I have the book, but not on me, so I can't produce a quote. If someone else has the book perhaps they can chime in, otherwise I'll report back later. --Jeferman (talk) 06:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see the evidence to that, because to my (untrained) ear it DOES sound very much like Lennon, and I'm very surprised to hear it's McCartney. But there are still no sources for it being McCartney, shouldn't it be edited out in the meantime? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.70.153.75 (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The melody for the "Ahs" in the bridge was in the song "Hush," for those who have a keen ear. I'm surprised Joe South, who wrote "Hush," wasn't sued for plagarism as others have been successful with less blatant examples! It's such a bold example I've removed the "citation needed" flag, as all that is really necessary is a comparison listen between the two songs to recognize the melodies are extremely similar, especially the last hook in "Hush" when the notes in the melody are drawn out longer. And I would swear it's Lennon singing it, not McCartney. I don't have my authority handy or I would look it up. For those who have "Beatlesongs" by William J. Dowlding, look it up please, though I don't know if there's any such mention of this controversey or not. Deuce1231 (talk) 04:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re "Hush": If no reliable, published source can be found for this, it is at best OR, and should be removed whether obvious or not. I've tagged it accordingly; if anyone thinks a source can be found, they're encouraged to change to a {{fact}} tag. (Or add a reference, obviously, if they have one handy.) — the Sidhekin (talk) 07:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GEORGE ON MARACAS ???

If u listen to the album the beatles anthology 2 (disc 2} John says when the song begins to keep in time with HIS maracas. Plz look in to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.61.25 (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maracas, "ahhh" bridge, "I´d love to turn you on" lick and possible to acoustic guitars

I agreed with the last comment on this subjetc: On Anthology 2 Lennon clearly says: My maracas. On that same take I heard some kind of organ or other reed instrument, did anybody listen it? Now, if you take a look at some pictures from the sessions, they show Lennon and McCartney on keyboards, Harrison on acoustic and Ringo on congas. This pictures are in Lewishon book and the Anthology 2, but there´s no especificatins about what session exactly they belonged. I always associated them with sessions for "Strawberry..." or "A day...".

The "ahhh" bridge is so good that every Lennon fan (as myself) wishes would be him sing it, but after so many years of revisionism, I heard Mccartney every time. Now, there´s no evidence, some books suggest McCartney, others Lennon, but no one are for sure. Is the same with the orchestration, MCartney says it was his idea, and some book support this, but Martin says "Lennon give enough instructions" for him to write the score.

I'd ALWAYS thought the vocal bridge that was Lennon, and then I read this in the article. Upon second listening, it is possible that it is Paul, but it also quite possible that it both of them. It certainly isn't clear enough to state that it is McCartney in the article, and until a definitive source is cited (if even possible), the statement that it is McCartney should be removed from the article. A simple "citation needed" is also not sufficient--with a matter this ambiguous, it shouldn't say that it is either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.227.202 (talk) 05:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove content from the article when other editors are trying to reach consensus. That's disruptive. Also, please use the edit summary to let others know what you are doing. Thanks. freshacconcispeaktome 15:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Well I understand your complaint, but shouldn't this part of the article be left blank until consensus is made (if it at all can be made on this matter)? Sorry about the edit summary thing-- will make sure to do this in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.227.202 (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, the lick "I´d love tou turn you on". Lennon himself says it´s McCartney idea: once again, just the line or the tune of it? In "Free as a bird", the tune is complete, MCartney finished off the bridge lyrics, as we can know listening the demo, but we got this Lennon/McCartney/Harriosn/Ringo credit. In fact, the line is no McCartney original, is a line they used to say in those days.

I hear another acoustic guitar coming in the second bar, doing exactly the same. Anybody else does? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.40.0.34 (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Italic text[reply]

GA

I nominated this page for GA. I think it's pretty good. Feel free to leave comments and review it. Thanks. Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 21:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree im afraid, it has about 25 citation tag requests and i could add another 25 on top of that if i wanted to.
"An orchestral ‘soft upward glissando’" this section has no sources
"The chord" this section has no sources
"After the chord" this section has no sources
"Alternative versions" this section has no sources
"Cover versions and references" this section has the 20 odd citation tags and is written entirely by bullet point form.
The lead is poor, it needs expansion

Well, there's only one more citation tag. Can you tag it any where else? I referenced all the quotes, but I'm not positive as to what needs referencing and what doesn't. Just add tags where appropriate, so that I can reference them. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 17:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ill give it a proper good tagging in the next day or two i promise (please remind me to if i forget), i just need to get Thriller out the way and finish off the last of my reviews so that i have a clean sheet so to speak. I have a mountain of wiki work to get through, once thats out the way ill get right to it. Realist2 (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There isnt a lot of hope for this article to get improved in a week while onhold, i dont think its in the best interest of the article to try and rush to finish it in a week. I would quick fire it. Realist2 (talk) 22:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right. Help! I need somebody! This is obviously a big task, and if anyone wants to join me, feel free. I've added some references here and there, replacing...I'd say seven citation tags with refs. I'm really focused on referencing right now, and some quotes I can't find, so if anyone knows where these quotes are from, please add references or tell me here or on my talk page. Thanks! Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 21:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be best to just delete the unsourced parts of the cover versions section and turn whats left into a proper paragraph. If people want to readd whats deleted they can source it themselves. It looks like a trivia list right now? Its quick, easy and who needs a list of 30 covers and samples anyway? We get the point after say 10 examples..... Realist2 (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I'll do so immediately. Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 23:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 01:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any in the list that arent sourced should be removed (unless you personally intend to source them yourself) and should be turned into a paragraph not bullet points . ;-) Realist2 (talk) 01:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this looks a lot better now. Realist2 (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

Is it okay that there is a separate "references" section, and they are not referenced in the article via in-line citation? I would assume that, for there to be said "references" section as there is, those references should be cited in-line, referenced in an abbreviated form in the "Notes" section, and then fully cited in the "References section". (See the Wikipedia example for a better clarification. Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 01:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No either add them into the article where they are usable or call them "Further reading". Hope that helps. Realist2 (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 15:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too Many Quotes Spoil the Article

See the history to see what I mean. There are too many quotes in this article! Please, if you do add more, make sure they are:

1. Relevant to the section!!
2. Enhance the article in a way summarizing the quote can't

Please see Wikipedia's guidelines on quotes for when to use quotes.

P.S. If the quote is not longer than 4 lines, don't put it in the quote template. Simply write it where you want to write it, just as you would normal text. Please talk to me for any questions, comments, and concerns that you may have. Have a great day! Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 15:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And also feel free to talk to me. Realist2 (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Progress

Im already seeing some great improvements. I cant wait to get back to doing reviews, just need to get Thriller up to FA. Wont be long now. Realist2 (talk) 10:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

I've found references for most of the things that need them. There are only three "citation needed" tags left in the article, and I am unable to reference them. I fear that, although they contain good info, they will have to removed so that there will be no unreferenced material. Either that, or someone will have to find references for them, which I would really appreciate. Thanks. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 16:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]