Talk:Dear Prudence

Untitled

Shouldn't there be a musical analysis of this song? Like the dynamics and how the instrumentation builds with each verse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.26.169 (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ringo

An anonymous editor keeps adding Ringo to the credits.

1. The non-Ringo version of the credits has a source citation, which means it is supported by verifiable evidence. That source does not include Ringo's name, so any attempt to add him should clearly indicate that the citation does not refer to that assertion.
2. MacDonald's Revolution in the Head and Lewisohn's Recording Sessions cast exteme doubt on Ringo's particpation. MacDonald does not include Ringo in the credits. Lewisohn describes day-by-day activities, and clearly shows that "Dear Prudence" was recorded when Ringo had left the band. Both authors are viewed as experts. Any addition of Ringo to the credits must be cited to a similarly verifiable source. John Cardinal 13:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Although without a verifiable source you're correct WRT the article as it stands; but I would not simply conclude flatly that the existing, released recording has Paul on drums, rather than a later Ringo overdub. Unless Paul suddenly for one day only became a vastly more flexible and imaginative drummer who sounded exactly like Ringo, and then reverted to being a just a competent timekeeper, that drum track isn't Paul's work. Solicitr (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on other work, I'd conclude that Paul was quite capable of the "Dear Prudence" drum part. He was certainly capable of inventing creative drum parts, and the sloppy hi-hat work doesn't sound like Ringo at all. None of that matters, of course, as it's just my opinion, and like your opinion, it's WP:OR. The article presents verifiable evidence from two experts that Ringo didn't play the part and Paul did. — John Cardinal (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course John is correct based on the sources, but I think Solicitr is on to something with: "I would not simply conclude flatly that the existing, released recording has Paul on drums, rather than a later Ringo overdub. Unless Paul suddenly for one day only became a vastly more flexible and imaginative drummer who sounded exactly like Ringo, and then reverted to being a just a competent timekeeper, that drum track isn't Paul's work." I say that is an undocumented overdubb by Ringo. GabeMc (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that solicitr is "on to something", but it doesn't matter: WP is based on information from reliable sources and oher comments belong on fan sites. — John Cardinal (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I retract my comments completely, User:John Cardinal is not only correct about the sources but upon further review of the track, I also agree with his assessment that the drumming on "Dear Prudence" is well within the scope of Paul's abilities, there is little to no variation at all, except near the end of the song, where the drums rock, but are maybe not as tight as Ringo would be. GabeMc (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from WP:OR, even on talk pages—WP:TALK pages are for discussing the article, not its subject. HTH, Wrapped in Grey (talk) 07:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, what you just said was inappropriate and counter-productive. Nobody wants to see Wikipedia's Talk pages turn into a fan chat site, but there is vastly more freedom to refer to opinion, or speculate. The point is to create great articles. If editors, who want nothing but the best in our articles, feel restrained from expressing themselves on Talk pages, the eventual effect could be disastrous. More specifically, if GabeMc had felt he wasn't free to retract his previous comments (rather noble of him, I thought), this would lead to a colder, more hostile, and less productive environment. Kind of like, "I just bumped into someone, and I'd apologize, but this isn't a nightclub, it's an office, so I'll just be on my way." Nobody wants to work with that guy!

Last I read, original research was NOT expressly prohibited from Talk pages. If anything, it should be encouraged: "I believe _____. Does anyone know of a source for this?"

--09:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

dear prudence

In my limewire files I used to have a live beatles cover of dear prudences. It started off "we're gonna finish with a song by the beatles, its a happy song...called dear prudence" the artist was mislabled and i haven't been able to find since then.

Does anyone know what band this was or how I could obtain it?

Fair use rationale for Image:The White Album.jpg

Image:The White Album.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice article

Told me a few things I didn't know, is short and to the point but not devoid of content. Just goes to show that album tracks can make decent articles! --kingboyk (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Credits

I´m going to make some changes on the credit section, according to Lewishon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.40.0.34 (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to make changes, cite the source and note how it differs from MacDonald. MacDonald is cited now, and he is a reliable source. Today, someone changed the credits wiothout removing MacDonald and without citing Lewisohn and that leaves the article in a sorry state, so I reverted it. John Cardinal (talk) 02:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The crediting of song authorship and musician lineup in Beatleland is in need of a new framework. Certain claims and practices have taken on a rather canonical mantel over the years, without sufficient vetting. First and foremost, for a credit published by the artists themselves to be categorically overturned, i.e. that a Lennon-McCartney song be post-facto annotated as written 100% by one or the other, should require the most stringent authority and citation. The Beatles themselves are not completely reliable here either, in the academic sense. Any interview that may be cited on song authorship has to be considered on the context of informality and shorthand-- "that was Paul's song, this other was mine," a context that leaves out the nuance that John and Paul were each others' primary collaborator-editor, and that all four (typically, frequently) contributed creatively to the final work. Certainly many songs are the effort of a single author; Yesterday a prime example. But even Hey Jude, widely acknowledged as McCartney's creation, was in creative flux, with changes being considered to the line "the movement you need is on your shoulder" until Lennon advised him to leave it alone. That is creative input, and authorship. I have no argument with promoting the correct, factually supported revisionism that Lennon-McCartney songs were usually not 50/50, nor even close to it. But in my mind it underserves the truth to say (again, unless on the strongest authority) this song or that was "written by Paul McCartney" or "written by John Lennon." If they had credited their songs that way to begin with, it would be a different story; but for us to say we know the absolute creative provenance of this body of work is simply not supportable.

As to who played what, Lewisohn and (a few) others are strong. However, mixing and editing can remove or minimize the performance of a player who was witnessed as present at a session, and it seems to me that (in the absence of full recording and mixing notes) the ear is the best evaluator of what a final performance is comprised. At least the ear should be strongly used in evaluating who played what, and let the citations jibe with what we hear. If a citation seems completely at odds with what we're hearing on record, let's leave it out until we can firm it up with more evidence.--Seeker56 (talk) 10:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that we need a new framework. In any case, that topic should be discussed somewhere other than the talk page for a song article (too few editors watch specific article pages), and you should not edit war in that article about it. Discuss the topic on the talk page of The Beatles wikiproject, or possibly the Lennon/McCartney page.

WP articles do not "categorically overturn" the official credits; the infobox, in particular, but also tracklists and "credited to ..." comments in the prose, reflect the official, legal credits. Depending on the song and the circumstances, the prose describes who actually wrote the song supported by reliable sources and often include specific comments by L and M.

Your assertion that "At least the ear should be strongly used in evaluating who played what, and let the citations jibe with what we hear" is an endorsement of original research and that is specifically prohibited on WP, and for good reason. MacDonald and Lewisohn are reliable sources and they used their ears, their judgement, and the EMI documentation to describe who played what. — John Cardinal (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the point here is that although "Yellow Submarine" was a McCartney song, he got lines for it from others, such as Donovan, as in "sky of blue, sea of green.". Ringo supplied the "darning his socks" line in "Eleanor Rigby", etc...etc...etc...So while Paul's songs are mostly his, it is well known that he accepted lines from others to complete them, as did John and George at times. GabeMc (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

So? How does your comment bear on the discussion? — John Cardinal (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Remove unsourced content that could violate WP:BLP

Farrow explained years later that she was just trying to take Transcendental Meditation seriously. She said in Mojo magazine: "They were trying to be cheerful, but I wished they'd go away. I don't think they realized what the training was all about." In an early acoustic demo of the song, Lennon makes a direct reference to this story, when he said..... "Transcendental Meditation course in Rishikesh, India. Who was to know that sooner or later she was to go completely berserk over the care of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. All the people around her were very worried about her because she was going insane". -- — Kbob • Talk • 12:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The first part is found in Mia Farrow's memoir. The second is on the Beatles Anthology. I'll dig up the citations for them.   Will Beback  talk  09:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added something that's cited and covers all the bases. I think adding further details gives undue weight to Farrow rather than the article subject. Perhaps these other details about Farrow could go in her bio once sources are found.-- — Kbob • Talk • 15:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There seeme to be some duplication between the articles.   Will Beback  talk  20:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The ridiculous hijacking of this page by "Souxshee and the Banshees"

Can someone remove this crap from the right hand column? I don't see how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.66.143.224 (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

"Composition" section and what it's for.

I'm always a bit disappointed to see a section titled "Composition" and find it has nothing to do with the actual, y'know, composition. I suppose a fair amount of people see it as a section I would title "Lyrics", or "Inspiration", or "Background". But I came to this article expecting someone would have already written something about the influential chord progression, D to D/C to G/B to Gm/B♭, not to mention the bridge (F to A♭ to G to D).

I was working on the article for "I'm Not the One", creating a "Composition" section and talking about its chord progressions. If you know the Cars song, it's kinda impossible not to compare it to "Dear Prudence". One transcriptionist has it as the exact same thing, another has it as merely similar. But I was hoping somebody with actual Beatles sheet music to cite had already written about the music to this song. I could tell you exactly how to play "Dear Prudence", but I haven't a book of sheet music to cite.

I think other songs have used the main chord sequence as well, though off the top of my head I can't tell you which ones.

Don't misunderstand, the info on Prudence Farrow is interesting and I wouldn't cut a word of it. I would just categorize it as something other than "Composition".

--Ben Culture (talk) 10:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I think you've made a legitimate point and I've changed the section name to: Background. As for the chord progression and its influence on other music, we'd need some reliable sources for that and if you have some let me know and you/I/we can add content that summarizes those sources. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

John McCartney?

Say, who is this John McCartney credited with background vocals? (It's unlinked so there's no explanation). A distant relative of Paul's? More to the point, Paul has a brother Michael and a father Jim, but no brother named John. I Googled "John McCartney" and nothing came up related to Paul...so very curious as to who this is referring to. Do the sources explain? Is he a relation to Paul?70.91.35.27 (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Tim

It was possibly a joke or a hoax. I've removed it for now. The personnel section is sourced and I don't recall any of the sources I've seen mention a John McCartney, and that name would have stood out. freshacconci talk to me 19:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

It's reappeared; I've never heard of John McCartney.83.168.38.154 (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Fixed, again. No idea how long it's been there. freshacconci (✉) 19:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Since I last added it, I'd say(!). It's fine – John McCartney's a cousin, the relationship's mentioned under Studio recording. JG66 (talk) 04:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dear Prudence. 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://www.webcitation.org/6ARdLv9hh?url=http://www.hirambullock.com/scrolls/cd_way.html to http://www.hirambullock.com/scrolls/cd_way.html

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) 07:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

"Obsessive about meditating"

In the lede: was MIa Farrow or her sister Prudence "obsessive about" meditation? Syntax makes it kind of unclear. --Daveler16 (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I just went ahead and cleared that up. --Daveler16 (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Clawhammer

Here's Donovan in a 2012 video for Rolling Stone (see from about 1:22) claiming credit for teaching Lennon a new guitar picking technique which inspired his composition of "Dear Prudence", as well as "Julia". (Also a lot about meditation, of course). Martinevans123 (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Martin – wow, that's a massive omission from the article, not to include any mention of Lennon's adoption of the clawhammer picking technique via Donovan. And also, further to Don's point about chord structures, Harrison highlighted his influence on their entire approach to songwriting on the White Album, at least on the songs they started while in Rishikesh. We should mention both these points, and include the Rolling Stone video interview under External links, I'd say. JG66 (talk) 04:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

And if we believe Donovan (and why shouldn't we), it's also true for Paul's "Blackbird". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, "Mother Nature's Son" also, of course. Don's a prince; it's certainly not a case of him trying to grab a slice of White Album glory. Everything he says there is supported by reliable sources – albeit, I get the impression it took Harrison's acknowledgment of his influence beyond the clawhammer technique, in The Beatles Anthology, and Donovan's recollections in his autobiography, for the point about his impact on the Beatles' songwriting to come out. JG66 (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I think Donovan uses the word "clawhammer" only once, and quite quickly, towards the start of that video. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced genres for Siouxsie & the Banshees cover

Carliertwo: Please see this as an opportunity to resolve the issue about post-punk and neo-psychedelia appearing as genres in the article's second infobox. I gather that an attempt at resolving the issue, here on the talk page, is required before filing a report at WAN/EW.

The two genres are unsourced, and always have been. I'm trying to expand and improve the article, which naturally means removing unsourced information. This is in keeping with a key policy of Wikipedia, as mentioned to you in a couple of my edits.

So why exactly should the genres remain? JG66 (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Post-punk is the 1977-1984 era for British bands + psychedelia as there is specifically a psychedelic vibe on the guitar as Robert Dimery noted it in the book 1001 Songs You Must Hear Before You Die [1]. If there is a blank space in the infobox, there'll be ultimately someone to fill in with a tag such as "punk" or "New Wave" or whatever. Carliertwo (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

So you're just guessing. A psychedelic vibe-ish guitar part doesn't make a song psychedelic, let alone neo-psychedelic. A source has to explicitly state that the song is post-punk, and another that the song is neo-psychedelia. This can't be news to you, surely. It's not a matter of opinion: the genres need to be sourced.

I'm afraid I'm going ahead with my report at WAN/EW. I've looked back through the article's edit history and you've been reverting anyone who removes the genres and requests a source since 2015, maybe before. JG66 (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Do what is the best for the article. BTW filling the section with long quotes is really not recommended. You have to read the source, cited it without doing any synthesis, I had shortened a long quote but it was immediately reverted ! Carliertwo (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Angel Recording Studios

The article for Angel Recording Studios opens: "Angel Recording Studios Limited (also referred to as Angel Studios) ..." But it seems we have to use "Studio: Angel" in the infobox, as them's the rulez at template. The infobox at Hyæna currently breaks the rules twice, and yet remains perfectly clear? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I guess (because of them there rules!) it's a case of Hyæna being "wrong", no? Can't say I'm a fan of this idea to remove the word Studio/s; it's consistent with dropping Records from Label=, I realise, but in some cases – eg when the studio name is the same as a record company's (EMI, A&M, Columbia, Atlantic, Stax) – the abbreviated form looks kinda odd in the infobox, imo. It's worth remembering that the whole Studio= parameter came about because, years ago, an editor just started adding them to infoboxes where previously the facility was included as part of Recording=. The template documentation was then shifted along to follow the trend – I think I'm right in saying that's how dropping Studio/s came about. JG66 (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi JG66. Yes, I think you are right about the history of the "Studio=" parameter in the infobox. And yes, the Hyæna infobox may be "wrong". I'm just saying that it can also be read perfectly clearly without any confusion. But I'm also saying that in this case the term mandated by the infobox template directly contradicts the opening line of the record label article. I guess that's true for many other labels. So what's the big saving with that template rule... seven letters and a space in the infobox? saving the reader the inconvenience of having to read that extra word? Editors still have to go to the trouble of using a piped link (if one is available, of course)? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Not sure I follow you with the point about "directly contradicts the opening line of the record label article" – the recording studio article, perhaps? For me, and I've mentioned the record label-derived studio names in this regard, the abbreviation to Angel gives me an uh? moment: something doesn't sit right. The resulting "Angel, London" makes me think of The Angel, Islington; that is, makes me think it's saying Angel, London. I did remove "Recording" for what I thought (and still think) are good reasons but ... well, who knows. Seeing "Twickenham Film, London" (target article should include mention of "Twickenham Films Studios", btw, which was the title for decades) just looks idiotic, imo, even if it ticks the boxes for editors whose sole concern is "No 'Studio/s', no 'Studio/s'". As with anything on Wikipedia, it's about how the information reaches a reader, or at least with a thought to that, but I don't find too many regular editors here are able to edit and think like readers at the same time. (I'm tempted to call this Europafilm-Stockholm syndrome.) JG66 (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Europafilm Stockholm

This source says:

"POINTING BONE... this was actually recorded out of the country in the Europa Film recording studio, in Stockholm (Sweden), at the same time they recorded Dear Prudence, In July. The backing track for Dear Prudence had been recorded, when they just began playing their instruments in the studio. Siouxsie started making up lyrics as the music developed and the whole thing just occurred... simple 'eh? All that remained to be done on their return to England was for Robert to add his wha-wha guitars."

But perhaps that's not deemed to be sufficiently reliable? (At least it's not called Europafilm Studios, eh? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

In corroboration, we also already have The Independent source here, where Robert Webb reports: "The Beatles got slated for it when it was released – it was unbelievable – but there's just something about that record," said Siouxsie. "One of the main reasons we chose ["Dear Prudence"] was that John Lennon's version sounds a bit unfinished," concurred the bassist, Steve Severin. "We recorded it in Sweden, and the idea came from touring round Scandinavia, listening to the Beatles." Martinevans123 (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

And the only Swedish location listed as a recording location in the credits for the (US) parent album is Europafilm ... yes. JG66 (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

What???

This sentence:

"Despite the song was a previous song "Back In The U.S.S.R", the LP wasn't due of the LP was based on the 1973 edition, and later this song was added in third LPs."

makes no sense. 2603:8001:BD02:2A6:B5E3:630F:5A16:B6BF (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)