Talk:A Day in the Life/Archive 2

MOS edit

I went through the article and fixed a bunch of MOS items, like punctuation, quote mark/apostrophe style (not supposed to be "curly"), etc. - may have missed some, so should go through it again. Also did some rewording. Still needs citation work. Hope this helps. Tvoz |talk 07:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts (Realist2)

Im just going to add some more ideas for Kodster.

The quotes should be made smaller, those are quite possibly copyvios.
- Done
Is the alternative section needed, firstly its the most boring part of the article, its quite nice reading through, but that section is completely dull, oh and unsourced. Trim it down, and add it to another section as it will then be small.
- I was just going to ask you: Is this section really needed? I don't think so.
- I would get rid of it.
By now the original name for the song had been abandoned in favour of the eventual final title.^{[citation needed]} - that needs rewording
- Done
The layout of the song is the intro, three verses, the orchestral bridge, the middle section, the final verse, and the orchestral outro. - remove all those "the" and dont say "intro".
- Done
Each verse follows the same basic plan - is "plan" the right word?, might be someother way of saying it.
- Done
Only use sir names, some times you say Paul other times McCartney. Stick to the latter and do the same for other people.
- Done
Starr's drumming makes this verse seem faster than the others, even though every verse has the same tempo. - this is clearly a point of view?
- Done
I see even more cases of the word "intro", that is a no-no.
- Done
The fade-out of the chord is extremely long, - extremely? i was expecting to hear 15 minutes not 1. Adjust.
- Done
studio chatter - bad choice of words.
- Done
complemented McCartney's piece very well - no need for the word very, could lead to pov concerns.
- Done
For all the chaos of the recording session, the results were a brilliant success; in the final edit of the song the orchestral crescendo is reprised, in even more cacophonous fashion, at the conclusion of the song. - POV, change wording
- Done
(mostly conservative, middle-aged professional musicians) - who cares?
- It's saying that these are conservative people, classically trained people who are wearing this weird clothing. That's all.
Immediately following the dying moments of the crashing piano chord is an extremely high-pitched tone—too high-pitched for some to hear, especially adults, but audible to dogs and other animals and most younger listeners.[22] - minor pov concern, but more importantly, i just think it needs a slight rewording.
- Done
I see that "studio chatter" thing again, really dont like that wording.
- Done
The song became notorious - pov issue, why not just say controversal
- Done
To much quoting in drug section, quotes are no replacement for continues prose. Something i only just found out myself.
- Done
I added a few citation tags but i imagine you can use the same sources over, (i always do it).
- Done

All the comments added are by Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) OK, im done, the article is good, much better than when i first saw it, most things are minor, once you do those things, and because of the backlog, you might want to consider putting it back up for GA. Realist2 (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a point - the idea that continuous prose is always better than quotes is not universally agreed to here. Just saying. Tvoz |talk 21:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you wouldn't want the whole article to be quotes, would you? I mean, they already have a website for that! I believe that a decent helping of quotes and prose will make a successful article. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 21:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wouldn't want any whole article to be quotes, but when I read this one last night I actually didn't think it was so far in that direction... but it's ok. As long as you retained the flavor that those quotes gave, I'm ok with it. I'll look at your edit, and most likely I won't disagree with your choices. Just was making a larger point about quotes. Tvoz |talk 22:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, global warming isn't globally agreed, but you still need sectioning if you dispute it. IMO that is. :-) Realist2 (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good well done. Realist2 (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image

I added an image (here's the link) that I think is beneficent to the article. It is fair-use, but could someone please check it out? Thanks. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 22:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration

I rearranged the section to flow better, and reinstated the Lennon quote as part of the prose (it didn't need to be set off in quote template anyway). My reasoning is that this quote provides a good insight into what Lennon thought about McCartney's role in the song - there has long been a lot of discussion about the nature of their collaboration overall, especially in the later years, and this song is a particularly clear illustration of what each brought to the table. What Lennon thought of it - he who was sometimes scornful of McCartney's writing - is notable for inclusion. Tvoz |talk 22:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 22:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Realist2 (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Nom

I think this is good enough for a nomination for GA. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 01:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, its got a good chance. Realist2 (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second

Ruhrfisch offered (I think) to peer review this article. So I think it would be advisable to wait for him before doing anything GA-related with this. Thanks. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 19:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kodster, causious? Why? Nothing wrong with a peer review mind, i know you can do it!!! Realist2 (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC) About the genre, it should be symphonic rock because you guys even say that it's the first example of symphonic rock in the article called symphonic rock. So that, I'm guessing, is a reliable source. If not it should be deleted from the Article called Symphonic Rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palaciopalermo12 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Audio sample

We could probably make a solid fair use argument for a short audio sample or two, especially those sections of the song that are the subject of intense detail in the article. IvoShandor (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the one in the infobox, but maybe the orchestral section or some of the ending babble would be an interesting addition to the article. IvoShandor (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be very good, but the Wiki-Police frown on including more than 30 seconds of one song. You could reduce one sample to 15 seconds, and include another, but you will be arrested if you do more. :) --Sun, sea, and sand... (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's no good. Oh well, maybe we could split up a couple of more relevant audio samples and use those instead of the one that is currently in the infobox.IvoShandor (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review: on Hold

You appear to have a wonderfully researched article here. I enjoyed reading it very much, and learned quite a bit about the song. I'm placing the article on hold for 7 days until the following can be fixed. It's mostly copy editing and MOS problems.

Lead

Please list the full names of John Lennon and Paul McCartney in the lead, preferably in the first sentence.
- DONE
The first sentence in the 3rd paragraph should probably be placed in the first paragraph as it states how important the song is. I would also add a sentence that includes information from the "Recognition" section of the article: you want your readers to know in the lead what an influential song this remains.
- DONE
Watch the copy editing. Rolling Stone should be in italics.
- DONE
Consider the order of the lead: it should mirror the order of topics in the article itself.
- DONE- but doing so kinda altered some of the top points a little

Lyrical inspiration

Variate sentence starts so the prose flows better. You have multiple sentences that start with "Lennon..." A better start to this section would read as, "While reading the the Daily Mail on January 17, 1967, John Lennon started to..."
- DONE
The same in the latter portion of this section, many sentences start with "McCartney..."
- DONE
Make sure all dates read as Month Day, Year, per MOS:DATE.
- DONE
The information about the auction of the lyrics seems rather tacked on at the end of this section. Is there a more appropriate place to put it?
- DONE - moved to recognition section, since they sold for so much, its a sign of the somgs recognition

Recording

If the beginning of the line of the song is, "Woke up, fell out of bed", capitalize the first word.
- DONE
I don't believe there is an MOS rule on how to capitalize The Beatles vs. the Beatles, but it should be kept consistent throughout the article. I noticed both ways.
- DONE
Why is this portion: given a (costume) piece in parentheses?
- DONE - It doesnt seem to be like that now

After the chord

This portion: spliced together apparently at random sections some of which would play forward ("Never could be any other way") and others backward (possibly "Will Paul be back as Superman?") is confusing. I think you're referring to backmasking, but it's quite an awkward sentence. You might consider breaking it up to explain it better.
- DONE
There is a fact tag in this section. It must be resolved.
- DONE - not a major issue, removed

Song structure

Watch for WP:Jargon here. If there are musical terms (I've never seen the word "outro", for example) link or provide a brief explanation of them. Preferably both.
- DONE - Me neither lol, removed

Recognition

The blockquote is unnecessary in this section, as the quote is too short to substantiate it.
- DONE
Link "Grammy" and the category it was nominated for.
- DONE - couldnt do catagory though, kept coming up as red link.

Cover versions

The proper way to refer to a song is in quotations, which you have done so far, but here you have the song in italics. Although albums should be italicized.
- DONE
Link the date of June 16, 2007.
- DONE

References

Please go through to make sure the red linked dates are fixed.
I noticed a source that would not pass FAC due to reliability (No. 31) because it is a fansite. I did not check all online sources for reliability, but you will have to track down better sources if you would like to take this to FAC.
Additionally, I would recommend you take the article to WP:LOCE to have them take a shot at all the tiny, tiny points of MOS prior to nominating this.
- Sorted red links, as for rest of sources, im not sure if their gonna bother with FA so have left for now.

Images

Please clean up the fair use rationale for Image:Back cover.gif.
- DONE - Removed, unnessary

You can respond here or on my talk page if you have further comments or questions. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK took care of list. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 00:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of these. I'm going to read the article fresh tomorrow and assess its progress. --Moni3 (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, cheers. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 00:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a thorough copy edit, but I always miss stuff, as does everyone. You seem to have taken care of the majority of the problems, but I need you to check where I altered sentences for better flow - to make sure it is still factually accurate. Again, I just couldn't understand that sentence about playing the garbled portion forwards and backwards - that's my biggest concern. Let me read it through once more within the next 24 hours to make sure I got everything, but I think it will pass nicely. --Moni3 (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read it the second it came up on my watchlist. Your edits are spot on. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 14:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of April 25, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: PASS

2. Factually accurate?: PASS

3. Broad in coverage?: PASS

4. Neutral point of view?: PASS

5. Article stability? PASS

6. Images?: PASS

Nice job. An excellent tribute to the band and the song, and a wonderful addition to Wikipedia. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Moni3 (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers!!!!!!!!!!!!! Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 15:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References marked as written in English?

There is hardly any point to marking every reference as written in English, because it is assumed that every reference is in English; when it is not, then that's when you typically use that field. Otherwise, it adds unnecessary information. Gary King (talk) 03:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McCartney - piano and piano?

It says McCartney is listed as playing piano and piano (E chord), shouldn't this be under piano, with stating that he playedt he final E chord? Speedboy Salesman (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final Chord

The rustling heard at the end of the final chord (if you turn your headphones really loud) is not "rustling papers" if you take Geoff Emerick's word from his book "Here, There, and Everywhere: My Life Recording the Music of The Beatles". According to Geoff; Ringo shifted in his seat making that clothes/chair noise heard, and earning a stern look from McCartney. I think Geoff's book should be quoted more often, because he seems to have that engineering mind and certainly an amazing attention to detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomasMFC (talk • contribs) 20:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I'd Love to turn you on"

I'm aware this has been disputed in the past as to who to credit this line to, and I thought it originally fine to credit it to McCartney, until I noticed that the citation for this bit of information contains contradictory quotes from both the songwriters as to who wrote it; Lennon claiming McCartney wrote it and McCartney claiming that Lennon did:

JOHN 1980:Paul's contribution was the beautiful little lick in the song 'I'd love to turn you on.' I had the bulk of the song and the words, but he contributed this little lick floating around in his head that he couldn't use for anything. I thought it was a damn good piece of work."

PAUL 1984: "That was mainly John's, I think. I remember being very conscious of the words 'I'd love to turn you on' and thinking, Well, that's about as risque as we dare get at this point. Well, the BBC banned it. It said, 'Now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall' or something. But I mean that there was nothing vaguely rude or naughty in any of that. 'I'd love to turn you on' was the rudest line in the whole thing. But that was one of John's very good ones.

Seeing how the source contradicts itself, it can hardly be used as a reliable source to say that McCartney wrote the lick, as, well, it contains the exact same information as far as McCartney saying that Lennon wrote it. The article should, if anything, acknowledge the disagreement or probably just not say anything about the lick.

Additionally, I strongly feel this line should be omitted from the article:

McCartney also provided a short, wordless vocal bridge back into Lennon's part of the song.

Because there is no citation for it. When I first read this, I came to the Discussion page for this article, where someone said that, although sources contradict themselves, this person, a self-proclaimed Beatles expert, "hear(s) Paul everytime." Although, I've spoken to another self-proclaimed Beatles expert who has read hundreds of Beatles books and she claims the exact opposite, saying the John said he wanted it to sound like "the end of the world," requesting extra echo in his headphones. The point is that this is not a reliable source at all, and unless one is cited, the article should NOT make claims about who the vocalist is on this part, especially since the bit is so filled with echo that it really isn't possible to tell just by listening. An encyclopedia is for general knowledge on a subject and, while that may be important, if there is no definitive source, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia.

I would make these changes myself, but when I tried to remove that McCartney had sang the wordless vocal part, I was accused of being "disruptive" for removing content before other editors had come to consensus (as if consensus is always correct). Anyway, I feel I've made a perfectly logical argument for necessary changes to this page, and if other, more frequent editors prefer to discount them, that's not my problem.

peace/love, Andy Jones. Andrewlargemanjones (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; it seems I have somewhat taken Paul's quote out of necessary context, it goes on to say:

I wrote... that was co-written. The orchestra crescendo and that was based on some of the ideas I'd been getting from Stockhausen and people like that, which is more abstract. So we told the orchestra members to just start on their lowest note and end on their highest note and go in their own time... which orchestras are frightened to do. That's not the tradition. But we got 'em to do it."

Which makes my previous claim that Paul said that John wrote the lick dubious. I myself am not sure whether he means the lick was co-written or the whole piece and, in hindsight whether "one of John's very good ones" is referring to the line or to the piece as a whole, whereas John definitely stated that Paul McCartney contributed the lick. At any rate, since John did say this, and Paul's quote about it is confusing, my concern on that section of the article is not much. However, I still feel the same way about the nonlyrical "ahh ahh ahh ahh" vocals in between Paul and John's part.Andrewlargemanjones (talk) 06:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've changed my mind about not taking action to fix the article. There is no longer any discussion on this page about the nonlyrical bridge back to John's part, so I'm taking upon myself to delete that Paul contributed it, and I feel justified for the following reasons:

ONE: There is no citation, and the part is so drenched in echo and reverb and such that it is really difficult to discern just by listening.

TWO: It is commonly accepted that John sings that part, not Paul. Every Beatles fan I've ever discussed it with, outside of people on Wikipedia say it is John's. I sang this song on karaoke, and the two parts were separated, and this part was with John's part.

THREE: Paul McCartney sang this song live recently, and had another vocalist sing this part. That doesn't prove anything, but it certainly doesn't help the case that it is McCartney's.

Now I'm not going to put that John sang it in there, because I have no citation that claims that he did, though, yes, I'll be honest and say that I'm about 95 percent convinced that John both composed and sang this part of the song. But as far as this article is concerned, it shouldn't say either, and I'm repairing this error.

Peace/Love,

Andy Jones. Andy Jones (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think it is important to specify who sings the Ahhhs. As many people, I had always assumed it was John, but after a discussion about it in a Beatles news group whose participants are writers and even a music writer with the New York Times, it was pointed out that it was McCartney who sang that part. Ever since then, when I hear the song, it has become so obvious it is McCartney singing the Ahhhs. In addition, I think that portion of the song is out of Lennnon's singing range, so it would have made practical sense for John to have Paul sing that part even if he had originally intended himself to sing it originally. 69.122.122.147 (talk) AR —Preceding undated comment added 21:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

(outdent) Yes, 'twould be nice to specify this but (as indicated in the article footnote) there is currently no reliable source. Cheers, Wrapped in Grey (talk) 09:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While there isn't a reliable source, there have recently been multitracks of some songs from the Sgt. Pepper album (not "A Day in the Life") released on the Internet. Years ago (long before the Internet) I heard bootleg multitracks of "A Day in the Life". There was a track that had the "Ahhh" part without the echo/reverb. It is clearly Lennon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.199.59 (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See here

Discussion about genre of this album and this song. Helpsloose 01:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THX Deep Note

The THX Deep Note sounds a lot like the crescendo in this song, could it be worth referencing? Also The famous Mac start up sound is a Deep note that is a sound that not directly related to this song, could be noted for being a highly recognized sound much like the one in the song. It's a C Major chord, stretched out as wide as possible. But I do not think there is that much to say about the sounds, they could be put in the see also section of the page, deep note any way. Max ╦╩ (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how relevent that is to the article; it seems like trivia to me. Anway, you need a reference to a reliable source to put that in the article. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul's Voice on Download

Anyone noticed that Paul's voice changed to a distant echo in recent downloads of the song? What's up with that.

It's either a Left/Right audio balance with the vocals heavily panned to one side over the other, or the source hasn't recorded the stereo aspect of the song properly. The same has happened with songs such as "Yellow Submarine." Styk0n (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a chorus in A Day in the Life?

The article currently states:

The line "I'd love to turn you on" ... serves as a chorus to the first section of the song.

Although that line concludes the first section of the song, I don't think that should be called a chorus. I followed the link to the cite and it doesn't appear to even contain the word 'chorus'. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's been a week or so. Nobody's commented one way or another so I will make the change. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a go at fixing this among some other changes I was making, but it's still not right; I'll have another go (if you don't beat me to it :-) 87.114.146.27 (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cliched?

I'm not sure what the point is of calling the final chord 'obviously cliched', even though it was descibed as such in the referenced article. What does that mean, cliched? Is it a criticism? Another way of saying it's common? Overused? Or a comment on the chord itself (e.g., the final chord of Sgt. Pepper)? Without any explanation (and there isn't any explanation in the sourced article) it just sounds like an opinion that's not particularly noteworthy...definitely not explanatory or encyclopedic-hence the deletion. 70.91.35.27 (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Tim[reply]

Agree, just because an opinion is offered does not mean we should accept it, especially when the opinion lacks an argument to support it. Many, many, classical pieces end on a "grand chord", so this may be the origin of the comment, but without the author's justification, I don't think it advances a reader's understanding of the piece. --Rodhull andemu 21:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genre?

Is the genre really just rock? It seems to be more like progressive rock or psychedelic rock with the orchestra in the background and unconventional breaks in the song. DAK4Blizzard (talk) 08:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of changes ago the infobox said the genre was progressive rock and psychedelic rock. [1] I don't know why this was changed. I think this should be undone. 90.130.209.83 (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finally it's been considered psychedelic rock on Wikipedia. For a long time I pushed for it being called psychedelic rock/progressive rock/symphonic rock, but my edits were always rejected. Now it seems that people are beginning to agree with us. Krobertj (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) There shouldn't be a genre in the edit box because there are no reliable sources cited for any genre in the article. What any editor thinks is the proper genre doesn't matter; only reliable sources matter. — John Cardinal (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I finally made it Progressive Rock/Psychedelic Rock and I sourced it. Now I have to make Helter Skelter Proto-Metal

I'm not sure that's a reliable source. What do Allmusic or Rolling Stone call it? And please don't change Helter Skelter to "proto-metal", that's just a redirect. Rodhull andemu 15:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source said it was prog rock because it combined two separate pieces. That's pretty dumb. If I yodel something, and you yodel something different, and we put it together, is that prog rock? In any case, the source is from user contributed entries and so unreliable. I removed prog rock. — John Cardinal (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference

The song is pseudo-covered by Harvey Milk in the song "Death Goes to the Winner." They use the lyrics "got up, got out of bed, put a pistol to my head" or something like that and then promptly end the song with a layered chord meant to be reminiscent of the famous "A Day in the Life" chord. Might be worth adding to the covers/references section of the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.23.138 (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love Version

On the Love version of the song, what's said right before the song? It sounds like "Sugar plum fairy, sugar plum fairy", but I'm not sure. Deserted Cities (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Please keep this in consideration when creating new sections on this talk page, please. This isn't directed just to you, but to everyone. Styk0n (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

500 Greatest songs list

I removed the opening section about it being on that rolling stones list because the list it's self is completely irrelevent. Also it's already at the bottom of the page under recognitionSkute (talk)

Similarity to Deep Purple song Hush

The chorus section in between the Paul McCartneys part is almost same as the chorus in deep purple version of Hush (Billy Joe Royal song) released around the same time. The similarity is a little too much to ignore. Should this be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.154.172.34 (talk) 10:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1kZ9zYr7kk check the part at 3:04 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.154.172.34 (talk) 10:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.reference.com/browse/Hush_(song) 67.154.172.34 (talk) 10:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one was written, recorded and released first. Informed Person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Informed Person (talk • contribs) 23:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1978 single image

Removed per WP:NFCC: the image does not give a rationale for use with this article. Any attempt to come up with a rationale for this use should take into account: (from WP:NFCC) 'Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding' & that the article topic is a famous album track. Wrapped in Grey (talk) 06:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to like to remove content from Beatles articles. Radiopathy •talk• 01:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Live versions

I had never heard a live version of "A Day in the Life" until Saturday Night Live on December 11, 2010. If anyone has information on other versions, it could make a good subsection, noting backing musicians, how the various sound effects were accomplished, etc. ~ InkQuill 02:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genres

The genre is starting to look ridiculous. Do we really need four genres for one song? I would suggest removing avant-garde because I don't know if it's really a genre, simply music that's considered ahead of its time. --John of Lancaster (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trip sequence

Can someone find information regarding the trip sequence? AmericanLeMans (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

24-bar bridge is actually 23 bars

The 24-bar orchestral bridge is actually 23 bars in duration. You can check this yourself by counting along with Mal Evans (and continuing to count once he gets drowned out). The final note of the crescendo comes on the first beat of the 24th bar, which is the first bar of the McCartney middle section, thus the duration of the orchestral crescendo is actually 23 bars. I believe that this article, years ago, actually used to refer to the bridge as 23 bars. If a source is needed (I don't see a source for the fact that it's 24 bars), my recollection is that Ryan and Kehew refer to it as 23 bars in Recording the Beatles, but I would have to check. Jeferman (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found the quote in Ryan and Kehew: "It was decided that the empty space left between John's verses and Paul's middle section would be comprised of 23 bars.... [U]pon reaching Bar 24, the piano dropped into a quarter-note vamp on E major. Two bars later, Mal set off an alarm clock, and the other band members dropped back in." I'm going to make the change in the article. Jeferman (talk) 00:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been suggested that most people disagree with the fact that the bridge is 23 bars, and that the article should say that it is 24 bars. I have problems with this for 2 reasons:

It is a verifiable fact that the bridge is 23 bars in duration—just count the bars.
I have provided a very reputable source which states that the bridge is 23 bars long.

I understand that it seems like 24 would be the right number, given that it's a multiple of 4, but it's simply not the case. Maybe the Beatles even intended for it to be 24 and they just screwed up the counting, but that's speculation and it's neither here nor there—they recorded a 23-bar section and the article is reporting on the song as it exists, so it must say that the bridge is 23 bars. —Jeferman (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George Martin: "It was Paul's idea to leave 24 bars empty, which we would fill in later with something. We asked him, 'What are you going to do with it?' 'Well,' he replied, 'let's worry about it later. Let's play the 24 bars down anyway.' So, in order to keep the 24 bars regular, we got Mal Evans, the Beatles' roadie, to shout, '1, 2, 3, 4,' at the beinning of every bar. And, in order to make the song less boring, we put tape echo on it. So, on the original tapes, you can hear Mal's voice with an echo as the bars go through. At the end of it, just to make sure we didn't forget the 24th bar, he sounded an alarm clock."

Paul McCartney: "Then I went around to all the trumpet players and said, 'Look all you've got to do is start at the beginning of the 24 bars and go through all the notes on your instrument from the lowest to the highest-- and the highest has to happen on that 24th bar, that's all."

They seem fairly knowledgeable about music, and this song in particular. Piriczki (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've seen these quotes before, and I think they lend credence to the theory that they intended for it to be 24 bars long, and they simply messed up and made it 23. But none of this changes the fact that it is actually 23 bars long, which can be verified by anyone who counts it. Shouldn't the article reflect what actually happens in the song? —Jeferman (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the video. Exactly when does the count begin? (although I can't hear Mal Evans at all — is this a re-mix?) Immediately after Jagger in his red t-shirt? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 1st bar begins at 1:40 in that video, with the word "turn." Mal's not very audible in this version, it must be a remix they did recently (in fact it doesn't have the cross-fade from the prior track so it is definitely a remix). But you can hear Ringo's hi-hat throughout providing the quarter note, so you can count the measures that way. Also if you have the Anthology version (I can't find it on YouTube) it has just the original backing track, no orchestra, and you can hear Mal counting all the way through. The version on LOVE I think has Mal more audible as well. The measure where McCartney changes to E major on the piano, which is the same measure where the orchestra plays an E major on the first beat and then cuts out, is the 24th measure, but this is the 1st measure of the next section, and thus the duration of the bridge is 23 measures. —Jeferman (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, the smiling be-spectacled Lennon and then the smiling moustachioed McCartney. Lennon was lazily singing the last three words of the verse "turn you on" over the start of the bridge, yes? So in which bar is the alarm clock? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the middle section he begins counting, at the beginning of each bar, at "love" (check the Anthology version) and at the end he begins counting at "turn" which can be heard on the released version. Piriczki (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying the versions differ? And I thought we were talking about the middle bridge here, at time 1:40? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's the same backing track. Evans counted out the bars in the middle and at the end. On the released version, his voice is only audible in the end section. If you want to hear him in the middle section, listen to the Anthology version. Piriczki (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So Lennon was lazy with five words, not three? And we can all start counting from blissful McCartney at 1:39? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is played in a medley

In the Variations section, the article says, "Paul McCartney has been performing this song in a majority of his live shows since his 2008 tour, with his latest performance being on Saturday Night Live on 11 December 2010. It is played in a medley with 'Give Peace a Chance'." Now, is that second sentence referring to the way it's usually played (in/since the 2008 tour), or just the way it was played on SNL? If the former interpretation is correct, perhaps the second sentence should be merged into the first one, with the second half of the first sentence split off into its own sentence. - dcljr (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say "check the source" but there isn't one, so added a citation needed tag for now. Uniplex (talk) 08:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Songs about automobiles

Not sure this categorization is so fitting. The category seems to be more for the Beach Boys-like car songs à la "Little Deuce Coupe" and alike, rather than such a song. Maybe Category:Vehicle wreck ballads would be better (though I'm not sure if it's a ballad...) --The Evil IP address (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soundwave picture!!!!!

What happened to the picture of the songs sound wave?!?!?! GET IT BACK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.220.240.104 (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beatles RfC

You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning that band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Piece at the end

There'a a piece at the end of the song on the Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album from 0:05:07 - 0:05:33. Except that it was removed in future releases of the song. Has it been mentioned in this article. Because it would be nice to have some form of information. Or at least an idea on what it is. Is it just some random extra they added to the end of A Day in the Life to tie in with the psychedelic / experimental nature of the album? C.Syde (talk | contribs) 11:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2 Musical structure and recording Comment

The lyric is "Woke up, got out of bed...", not "Woke up, fell out of bed..." as stated in the section "2 Musical structure and recording"SpencerCollins (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shortened radio version

I have this album and I heard some noise at the end of the song and the album version's running time is 5:35, and I also listed to the song on YouTube to see the length of the radio version and I discovered that the running time is 5:05. Where it says "length" I think that it should say 5:35 (album version) and 5:05 (radio edit.) On the radio version they cut out the part that I heard on the album version. I would like some comments using the words "agree" and "disagree." I would also like anyone who leaves those comments to explain why he/she agrees or disagrees--Kevjgav (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Filling the Albert Hall

Royal Albert Hall#Pop culture references quotes the "4000 holes" passage, thusly:

In the song "A Day in the Life" by the Beatles, Albert Hall is mentioned. The verse goes as follows:

I read the news today, oh boy
four thousand holes in Blackburn, Lancashire
and though the holes were rather small
they had to count them all
now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall
I'd love to turn you on.

I'm not sure whether to be relieved or disappointed by its source that puts to rest the idea that 4000 (undoubtedly "very small") core samples had been taken at points, say (if Blackburn has moors) within about a half hour (without traffic) from the Manchester Outer Ring Road near the moors where murder victims had been buried! Still, 4000 is a rough estimate of the seating capacity of the hall; any chance that one of the configurations implied by the variable capacity mentioned in that article has ~4000 as a reasonable approximation of the seating plan for some of the "350 events including ... rock and pop"?
--Jerzy•t 03:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was ranked the 28th greatest song of all time by Rolling Stone magazine.[5]

You have this stated two different ways in this article. It was ranked the 28th greatest song of all time by Rolling Stone magazine.[5] in the Opening paragraph of "A Day in The Life" In the Recognition and Reception Paragraph, you have it listed as Rolling Stone ranked "A Day in the Life" at number 26 on the magazine's list of "The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time",[5] It should be listed in both as 28th.2602:306:CF3B:E300:9064:BC54:C469:A54 (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks, now corrected. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"When"

In the "Basic Track" sub section, , there's a "when" footnote - "when did George Martin say it was decided to keep the alarm clock in?" Is that really important? Can O remove the "when"? The source for the statement does have a date, but even so - what does it matter?--Daveler16 (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delmé Quartet

Formed in 1962, the quartet comprised Granville Delmé Jones and Jurgen Hess (violins), John Underwood (viola) and Joy Hall (cello). The first three all played on this record. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible early "Northern childhood" concept for Pepper

Piriczki, I'm confused by your removal of the mention that the original concept for Sgt. Pepper, at least the only one under consideration until about February '67, was the Beatles' youth in the north of England. You describe it as an "original concept myth". Without looking at all far, I can find many reliable sources to support that their Liverpool childhood was a theme they were toying with at that time. For example, two studies dedicated to the album: Julien, p. 31 and Moore, p. 20; MacDonald 2005, pp 228 and 236; and Jim Irvin, writing in Mojo's [massive] feature on the 40th anniversary of the album (with interviews and input throughout from McCartney, Martin, Emerick, Peter Blake, Richard Lush, Barry Miles, etc.). In that last example, the piece carries an intro/byline that acknowledges: "Sir George Martin tells Jim Irvin how they did it" – which adds further credibility to the point, surely. The mention of this early concept is something that I've come across a lot just recently. And it's definitely a point that I'd like to add at the album article, with a view to addressing a problem I've always thought needed fixing (as one or two others did also) since before it made FA: the lack of meaningful coverage of Lennon's role. I normally find your views on things Beatle pretty spot-on, as I think you know; but what's with this one? JG66 (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion at Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band/Archive 5#Original concept about removing that claim from the Sgt. Pepper article. Not only is there no evidence of any of the Beatles or George Martin ever making this claim, all evidence suggests there wasn't a concept at the beginning. Music writers are prone to connecting dots that aren't there. In this case there were two songs about their childhood, and Sgt. Pepper later came to be regarded as a concept album, therefore the original concept was an album about their childhood. It's just supposition. No one ever said that. George Martin wrote a whole book on the making of Sgt. Pepper—he talks about "Strawberry Fields Forever" and "Penny Lane," about the subject matter of those two songs, about Sgt. Pepper being a concept album, but he doesn't say a word about any "original concept." For many years it was reported as fact that "Fixing a Hole" was inspired by McCartney repairing the roof of his farmhouse, it was reported as fact that "Let Me Roll It" was a pastiche to John Lennon, all these thing were really nothing more than speculation but after being repeated enough times they somehow become "facts." Piriczki (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that January 2015 discussion you linked to, you suggested that the text be changed to: "It has been said that the original intention was for an album thematically linked to their childhoods although McCartney denies this." I agree that something along those lines would've been correct at the album article; instead, another editor (whose judgment I consider to be about the worst on Wikipedia) just cut the thing entirely. In your wording, I think "McCartney denies" is a bit strong: as the Miles quote says, he doesn't remember if it was. And added to that should be the point made by Julien or Moore that any such early concept is usually credited to Lennon.

Rather than two, there were three songs that suggested a Northern-childhood concept in late 1966/early '67: "Strawberry Fields", "Penny Lane" and "When I'm Sixty-Four". I don't know about the theme having a bearing on McCartney's recollection of riding a bus to school, in "A Day in the Life"; but I'd say it's a valid, insightful comment if an author has pointed that out. I have read that the "Sgt. Pepper" song and therefore the whole alter-ego concept still suggests a nostalgic Liverpool theme, in its evocation of a Sefton Park bandstand and Jim McCartney's love of big band music. That's in the Jim Irvin piece, where, as I said, George Martin appears to be a co-writer. Also, "Only a Northern Song" was partly Harrison's (half-hearted) contribution to the Liverpool-youth theme. Plus, childhood and childlike wonder, inspired by LSD, informs much of Lennon's writing throughout this period.

Music writers are prone to connecting dots, yes, but if an idea has gained sufficient traction in literature on the subject – and as long as it's not utterly impossible, obviously – then it's notable enough to be included in a Wikipedia article. It's not a case of presenting this as fact, but neither should we bury something that many sources identify as a factor in the early creation of the album. You mention "Let Me Roll It", for instance. I agree that speculation and dot-connecting ran rampant there, but I'd say the issue's handled correctly (if inadequately) at the article: the comment's made that the song has invited comparison with Lennon's usual style; it's followed by McCartney saying that any similarity was unintentional. JG66 (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just find it hard to believe that the Beatles had an idea for a concept album based on their childhood in Liverpool, had written two outstanding songs that presumably would have been the cornerstones of that concept, had spent several weeks on the recording of each one, only to have them pulled for a single, forcing them to abandon that concept and come up with an entirely new concept nearly two months into the sessions, and none of the Beatles ever said anything about it? No one even seems to remember what would have been a major disruption and interference in their creative process? Lennon seemed to remember every perceived slight against him in many interviews but he never mentioned this? Or perhaps "they were just going to be tracks on The New Album" as George Martin said. (The Beatles Anthology p. 237) One can observe connections or themes and imagine a concept fitting into that but to conclude "the Beatles' original concept was..." is pure speculation, even if it comes from a respected author or publication. Let's look at what has been said directly about the subject:

From Barry Miles' Many Years from Now (1997) p. 306:

Sgt. Pepper is often described as the first concept album, but it was not initially conceived as such. There was never the intention to make a themed album, a 'northern' album, or present a mini-opera as the Who did later.

Recording sessions for the Beatles' new album began on 24 November 1966. 'Strawberry Fields Forever' and 'Penny Lane' were the first and third songs completed, with 'When I'm Sixty-Four' in between; but Paul does not remember any overt decision by himself and John to write songs with a northern theme, even though these first two would indicate a concept album along those lines.

George Martin, from the Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band CD liner notes (2009):

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band didn't start out life as a “concept album” but it very soon developed a life of its own.

George Martin, from With a Little Help from My Friends: The Making of Sgt. Pepper (1994) p. 63–65, 67:

"Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" was the song that triggered the whole idea of the album becoming a 'concept' album.

We started recording the title song on 1 February. Ironically for Britain's first 'concept' album, it was two months or so after we had first started work on the album.

Some of the details of the album's very first origins are becoming lost in the mists of time and our unreliable memories. For example, it is said that the original idea was to do an album about the boys' Liverpool childhood, a real nostalgia trip. This at least explains 'Strawberry Fields Forever', 'Penny lane' and 'When I'm Sixty-Four'. As part of this thematic journey, so the story goes, the band was to be a fictitious North of England brass band — hence the brass instruments the boys are clutching on the album cover. (Other people will tell you the band was meant to be a German marching band.) I had a word with Neil Aspinall about this and he thinks it is all tosh (nonsense). So do I.

Martin even acknowledges the story about the original concept and said it was nonsense. Any claims in the article about an "original concept" should be identified as speculation with a disclaimer that none of the Beatles have ever suggested such a thing and that McCartney and Martin directly contradict the claim. Piriczki (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed reply, much appreciated. It's at the album article that I'm thinking some more comment is needed, under "Concept and inspiration". And only with a view to tying in the childhood theme with a) the LSD-inspired focus on the childlike, and b) the Beatles' approach to building on the advances they had made with Revolver – because they're both factors that inspired and informed the album. Whereas, the picture we give there is: McCartney decided they should make an album based on the concept of an alter-ego group; McCartney, especially, was so enamoured with Pet Sounds, he felt the Beatles had to answer it (cue history lesson and various testaments to Brian Wilson's greatness); McCartney decided that the new album would be the Beatles' own Freak Out! … It's too simplistic, for one, and almost entirely McCartney-focused.

Any statement that their Liverpool upbringing was the album's early concept would need to be qualified – it goes without saying. I'm always wary of taking Miles' own comments, particularly from Many Years, as fact, because he's been accused of simply parroting whatever McCartney says and then presenting it as authoritative Beatles history. Which it isn't. Similar reservations with Emerick's book: it's been criticised as factually inaccurate and self-serving. Also, while Martin dismisses talk of a "Northern concept" as codswallop in that book, he appears to be far more amenable to the idea in the 2007 Mojo piece – perhaps because it's presented there within a wider, more informed context: the LSD worldview, the childlike psychedelic perspective inspired by Lewis Carroll, retro fashions in contemporary London, along with the sense of liberation the Beatles felt having quit touring. Don't worry, I'm not going to lean on that at the expense of Martin's 1994 statement; just trying to give some idea of how this issue has been refined from the level of exaggeration and "myth" to something insightful on the album's creation. JG66 (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on A Day in the Life. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714191639/http://www.teachrock.org/resources/article/villains-and-heroes-in-defense-of-the-beach-boys/ to http://www.teachrock.org/resources/article/villains-and-heroes-in-defense-of-the-beach-boys/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.applecorp.com/aditl/notes3.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on A Day in the Life. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]