Talk:I Am the Walrus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Frank Zappa Cover

Since there's a covers section in this article, I thought it'd be a good idea to point out that Frank Zappa has done cover performances of this song. Example: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.185.62 (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I Am The Eggman

Should we put a reference to the character of Doctor Eggman, from the Sonic the Hedgehog (series)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.3.46 (talk) 08:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Just thought I'd throw this in. The eggman reference has been noted elsewhere to be referring to Humpty Dumpty. I've yet to see this anywhere but wonder if "I am the eggman" could perhaps be from Robert Heinlein's Stanger in a Strangeland from 1961. It means "a novice". My understanding is that this phrase was co-opted by the Timothy Leary and other acid users during the time this song was written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

"When We Was Fab" by George Harrison

What have these two songs got in common? Why was it included under parodies and influences?

When We Was Fab contains a number of musical "quotes" from I Am The Walrus, most notably by incorporating the descending "Whoooh!" motif which was sung by the Mike Sammes Singers on the Beatles record. There is also a strong similarity in the scoring for the 'cellos for both tracks, particularly in the recurring eighth-note figures which oscillate up and down by a semitone and also in pronounced downward glissandos. I'd suggest that these references in When We Was Fab are immediately recognised by those who are familiar with I Am The Walrus. Henry Clarson (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Goo goo g'joob

Somebody needs to look into what goo goo g'joob means and where it comes from. Smerdis of Tlön 17:23, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's Koo Koo Kachoo!!Why do people keep thinking that he clearly makes a kah sound! And its just a random thing to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.250.234 (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely goo goo g'joob. Lennon and Harrison both are quoted as having corrected that. koo koo kachoo is a Simon and Garfunkel quote. "koo koo kachoo, Mrs. Robinson, jesus loves you more than you will know, whoa whoa whoa." Speaking of which, we should move all of this koo koo kachoo stuff to the mrs. robinson page. there's no reason it should be on a beatles page.

It's possible that "goo goo g'joob" is just Lennon's imitation of the noise a walrus or seal makes, and no more meaningful than "Meow" or "Woof."

It's definitely not, regardless of the acid-mangled spelling on the album cover. S&G and the Beatles are both just using the same expression, which is at least as old as Betty Boop and Helen Kane, one of whose songs was covered by Marilyn Monroe in Some Like It Hot. (It may go back to the Harlem performer Baby Esther but presumably the Beatles and S&G weren't referencing her over one of Marilyn's most famous roles.) — LlywelynII 02:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

James Joyce

What is the relevance of the James Joyce reference? It seems to be nothing more than a coincidence, so I don't see why it should be included. I started a section on this page to discuss this, but someone deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.231.129.49 (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree regarding the James Joyce reference. Unless someone can cite a reliable source as to its relevance beyond coincidence (and minimal coincidence at that), I'll remove it that statement soon. Ward3001 (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If Finnegan's Wake really did have the same misspelling of coo coo cachoo, it would be worth noting. The problem is that it doesn't and the idea that there's a connection is just an urban myth. — LlywelynII 02:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

LSD

Sorry about failing to give a description for my edit. I fixed the link for "acid trip" to point to the appropriate section of the "LSD" entry instead of to an empty page. Harmil 20:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jim Carrey

It has also been covered by actor/comedian Jim Carrey, whose version was considered among the worst Beatles covers ever.

Well I like it. :) --Nick R 22:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I love it!

I think this is a weasel word masterpiece... was considered by who exactly? and btw i love it too 62.10.82.167 23:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Carrey's version is worthless. Try and tell comedy from Music... 85.89.184.212 (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The sentence could be kept but without the opinion, unless it has a source. 82.141.66.232 (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Also referred to in the TV program "Buffy, the vampire slayer"

-Xander, one of the main characters, describes a creature made of slugs as "I am the bug-man, koo koo kachoo".

Failed GA

I failed this article from Good Articles for the following reasons: It is not well-written as it used too many quotes and the lead is too short; It isn't broad because it has no discussion of chart performance or how it impacted the career of the Beatles; It is not referenced well-enough because some quotes have to attribution and web references should have the date they were accessed. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Lewiss Caroll?

The reference to Lewiss Caroll should be explained. Where in Caroll's works (Book & chapter) and in what context are the walrus and the carpenter mentioned?

I don't think that's necessary. If they were looking for that information, they should be able to click on the "Through the Looking-Glass" link and find it there. GAMEchief (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Walrus photo?

Why was the photo of the Walrus removed? --NEMT 23:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone should put up a picture of the walrus from the Disney "Alice in Wonderland" movie, as it's the walrus from "Through the Looking-Glass," which is what the song references. -- GAMEchief (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a better picture from the book on The Walrus and the Carpenter page, which has no copyright issues. 63.87.189.17 (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

In the news this week

I have no idea how you'd work this in, but Lennon's school sketchbooks are going up for sale in April. They include his drawing of the Lewis Carrol Walrus character. Link here: http://arts.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1740368,00.html Image here (if you're patient): http://www.cooperowen.com/news_lennon.asp

Low chorus chant at the end

At the end of the song, you hear a large crowd of people all chanting something. What they're chanting is something not everybody seems to agree on. Many people think they're saying "Smoke pot, smoke pot, everybody smoke pot", though I've also heard something like "Want some, want some, everybody's got some". I tend to favor the first example, and credit the second with revisionism, since the former Beatles, particularly Paul, have tried to draw attention away from the drug-related aspects of much of their music. But since John basically admitted to writing this song on acid, it's not out of the question that marijuana would have been involved as well. Anyhow, it would be interesting to see an analysis of this part of the song on the main page somewhere. I just don't have any reliable sources to cite or I'd do it myself. --Lurlock 20:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Aren't there two chants-one "Everybody's got one, everybody's got one..." and the other one "Oompah, oompah, stick it in your jumper"?--Alexrules43 18:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Certainly the "oompah" chant is one of them. It's a very common phrase in the UK. Revisionism is performed by every drug-addled stoner wanting to see justification for their habit. It's kind of funny and kind of sad after a while. 75.28.166.58 19:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There are 3, and all 3 of you are correct. I forget which order they're said in though. --MasterA113 13:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was Oompah, oompah stick it up your joompah... (The beatles stuck it in to argue against censorship it think), oh yeah, and it was in one of their books. Omega Archdoom^Talk 13:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I am not a "drug-addled stoner" - in fact I've never touched the stuff, though I favor legalization - but that's another matter entirely. However, I have heard that as the quoted lyric from multiple sources, and listening to the song it sure sounds like it, though the voices are so distorted it could be just about anything you want it to be, which I think may even be what they intended - it can sound like anything, making it more difficult to interpret the song, which John has explicitly said was written specifically in order to be difficult to interpret. Lurlock 04:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I live in Manchester, which is about about 30 miles from Liverpool and knew "oompah,oompah, stick it up your jumper" as a popular childhood chant. "Stick it up your jumper!" (a jumper is a woollen sweatshirt, essential in the British winter) is an insult young children would use before they were old enough to say "stick it up you arse!". Oompah, oompah, stick it up your jumper was a chant said in a deep voice when you were dancing about prentending to be an African tribesman - not politically correct now, of course! In "The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions" by Mark Lewisohn, which tells you everything you could ever want to know about the recordings, it says "on 27 September........a choir of 16 voices, variously singing "Ho-ho-ho, hee-hee-hee, ha-ha-ha", "oompah,oompah, stick it up your jumper!", "got one ,got one, everybody's got one" and making a series of shrill whooping noises. Very strange!" It may seem laughable today, but at the time the Beatles were pushing the boundaries by putting in "naughty bits" like "everybody's got one", "you've been a naughty girl, you let your knickers down", "tit,tit,tit" in the song "Girl" on the "Rubber Soul" album and the reference to "finger pie" in "Penny lane". Just young lads trying to shock, really. If there is a life after death, how John must be laughing that people are still trying to analyse the words of a nonsense song that was just written to wind-up those who tried to analyse his lyrics - ho-ho-ho, hee-hee-hee, ha-ha-ha!!!!!!!! User:Richerman 23:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Going on four years after, but never too late, I stand by Richerman's comments above for the exact same reasons, being a native of those same parts of England, and not surprised to have had the same exposure to the jumper rhyme. I'm not surprised, either, to learn that people who are culturally unfamiliar with the area (Lancashire, between Liverpool and Manchester, and the adjacent county of Cheshire) find it easy to deny the rhyme and claim that it is something that it is not.

But what is surprising is that analysts take so much delight in a song written specifically to baffle them. To my mind, the entire content of this article could be summed up in one sentence. JH49S (talk) 11:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Related Theory: The Collective Unconscious

Common with many experiences using hallucinogens like LSD is the sense of being interconnected with nature and humanity. This feeling of oneness with man-kind has been associated with Carl Jung's theory of the collective unconscious. Considering these ideas and looking at the lyrics suggest an intuitive truth: "I am he, as you are he, as you are me and we are all together" certainly puts it straight foreward... but the chorus repeats and insists the same message only slightly disguised " I am the Walrus" = "I am the We All Are Us" The verses containing intentional madness and disorder account a world of these symptoms, The Walrus is the lunatic watching him do these insane things to himself.

that's what she said —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Walrus in Love

It would be good to have a (brief) mention in here of the use of this track in the Love show in Vegas -- both the mix used and also how the presentation relates to the interpretation of the song. (I don't have enough expertise to add material on either point.) Gusworld 03:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Australian band Custard

Their name comes from "Yellow matter custard, dripping from a dead dog's eye". But they are no longer together. I can't be fucked finding a reference, but I am sure someone will ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.232.51.243 (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Propose splitting the references/parodies into a seperate article

It seems to me that it might be a good idea to split the references and parodies sections into their own article. At some point they probably contributed meaningfully to the understanding of the original article - now that there are so many, major and minor, they only lengthen I Am the Walrus needlessly. The very fact that so many have been compiled make them a notable subject in and of themselves, and it wouldn't be the first time a subject like this got its own spot - see Paradise Lost in popular culture. (For a list of many more "in popular culture" articles, and there are many, just search it on Google.) PaladinWhite 23:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the list is unwieldy in terms of length yet. If others think it is, I'd suggest adding some text that describes the situation (simple, though: "The song has been parodied numberous times including the following...") and then removing all but the most notable instances. In general, I think cultural references are not notable in their own right (unless they are, then they should get articles of their own, not as a group, but as individual topics). They are included because they are evidence of the impact of the song on other artists and performers. If you move them to a separate article, some (or maybe even all) of the impact of the evidence is lost. My .02. — John Cardinal 03:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

We can avoid losing the impact of the evidence by moving the current sections to their own article, and including a short ubsection in the main article that reads like you said... Something like "The song has been parodied and referenced numerous times in popular culture, dot dot dot..." (where the redlink would lead to the newly-created article).

My main motivation for suggesting the move is that I don't think the current setup helps with understanding of the song - knowing where the song has been referenced doesn't really explain anything about it, besides the fact that it's culturally significant (which can easily be stated explicitly). It just seems like the song itself, with its history, lyrical development, etc, is one topic, while discussion of how other people have used the song is another. PaladinWhite 03:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, do you propose moving cover versions and cultural references do other pages for all songs? As far as I can tell, it's only suggested here because of the number of instances. I don't think we need to include all such items for songs that have the impact of "I Am the Walrus," and making a small, separate article would effectively orphan them. We need some other opinions on this, as I suspect I won't change your mind and t'other way round, too. — John Cardinal 04:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't propose doing it for all songs, because all songs haven't got the list that this one has (i.e. not all could stand alone as their own, notable topic, and not all of them make up such a bulk of their parent article, detracting from the original information.) Splitting the article wouldn't orphan the references if they were linked right where they lie right now, and who's to say what's "notable" and what's not, as far as references go, if we're going to pare it down?

I think you're absolutely correct about us agreeing to disagree. This article has to be on hundreds of watchlists, and I'm sure someone else will show up eventually to chime in. PaladinWhite 04:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The Possible Origin of "Eggman"

There is an entry under the Wiki listing for "Eric Burden", under the section entitled Trivia that states the following:

Burdon is claimed by some to be the 'Eggman' from The Beatles song "I Am The Walrus". The reason for this is that Burdon was known as 'Eggs' to his friends, originating from his fondness for breaking eggs over naked girls. Burdon's biography mentions such an affair taking place in the presence of John Lennon, who shouted "Go on, go get it, Eggman ..."[1]

Perhaps this is worthy of an entry in the "I Am The Walrus" articles where the possible meanings of certain terms are provided, or at the very least, there should be a link to the "Eric Burden" reference. Dwodo21 23:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the story has been terribly mangled. This is a quote from Burdon's autobiography, which I found here: 1.

We had some great times together, something John gave a nod to in his song "I Am The Walrus." It may be one of my more dubious distinctions, but I was the Egg Man, or, as some pals called me, "Eggs." The nickname stuck after a wild experience I'd had at the time with a Jamaican girlfriend named Sylvia. I was up early one morning cooking breakfast, naked except for my socks, and she slid up behind me and cracked an amyl nitrate capsule under my nose. As the fumes set my brain alight, and I slid to the kitchen floor, she reached to the counter and grabbed an egg, which she broke into the pit of my belly. The white and yellow of the egg ran down my naked front, and Sylvia slipped my egg-bathed cock into her mouth and began to show me one Jamaican trick after another. I shared the story with John at a party at a Mayfair flat one night with a handful of blonds and a little Asian girl.

"Go on, go get it, Egg Man," Lennon laughed over the little round glasses perched on the end of his hooklike nose as we tried the all-too-willing girls on for size."

71.197.233.132 (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Chicago reference to the song in "South California Purples"

On Chicago's first album (Chicago Transit Authority, 1969) the song "South California Purples" contains the words "I am he, as you are he and you are me, and we are all together, woah, woah". This could possibly be a reference (that apparently has never been adressed) to the Beatles' "I am The Walrus"..

Intro

The version with the four beat intro is the mono mix, the six beat version is the stereo (or "fake stereo"). I have the British "Magical Mystery Tour" EPs of both versions. This is replicated in the CD EP of MMT, which contains both mono and stereo versions over two discs.--Jd204 19:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

This article should consistently use either American or British spelling, instead of alternating (e.g. analyse / analyze). British seems more appropriate.

British is more appropriate, per WP:ENGVAR. Feel free to make necessary changes. Ward3001 (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

ENGVAR doesn't say that British is more appropriate. It just says keep it consistent with whatever came along first unless there are strong national ties. The Beatles themselves are British, but their songs seldom are. There was too much money in the American market. In any case, analyze is Oxford English and is a better compromise in any case. — LlywelynII 02:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Original research on Shakespeare

I have expressed some concerns about original research in this passage from the article:

In an amazing coincidence, Lear IV.6. is the only scene in all of Shakespeare (out of more than a thousand) that features both English homonyms for "Beatle" (only one other scene, II.1. of Henry 6 II, features either of those words more than once).[2] [3] In other words, the Beatles randomly added, in "real time" "found art," in "found art,"[4] the only scene from Shakespeare that features both the words "beadle" and "beetle".[5] [6][7]

The first two citations are to a Shakespeare concordance that only produces statistical results by searching for words in Shakespeare's works. It does not discuss anything; it does not note the "amazing coincidence" between the song and Shakespeare. That is clearly original research and/or or synthesized research. Likewise, the remaining sources do not discuss "found art" in relation to this specific song, making the the second sentence also original or synthesized research.

An anon editor has persistently re-inserted this information with no substantive change, despite being given an explanation of original research and Wikipedia's policies about original research. Ward3001 (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be completely WP:OR. Dayewalker (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There is some synthesis in there too. Either way, we are a Tertiary source here and I don't rule out some other version of this theory being out there. Hence the 48 hours. --Rodhullandemu 23:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

While the theory is interesting, it appears to be nothing more than just a coincidence. Without some irrevocably sound evidence, it's original research and while it does add at least a modicum of something most people don't already know about the song, it's never gonna be able to stay on the page.

Might I also add that the "theorist"'s behaviour and attitude has been questionable at best. Dude, I understand that you're pissed about not being able to edit in your information in an encyclopedia that supposedly anyone can edit but what can ya do? --Kaizer13 (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This is all cobblers... A Beadle was a parish officer having various subordinate duties, as keeping order during services, waiting on the rector, etc. Shakespeare didn't have a dictionary, and spelt lots of words (sometimes 6 different ways) as he felt. The above theory is as good as saying that a kebab used to be a sheep.--andreasegde (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The IP has twice returned to add the information without discussion again. I'll revert them unless they come and make a compelling case for it on the talk page, since consensus and policy are against them. Dayewalker (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Since it seems that there is a dispute, I've protected for 48 hours while this is thrashed out. Editors are reminded to be aware of our core policies. --Rodhullandemu 22:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Big Lebowski

There is a reference to I am the Walrus in the The Big Lebowski, where Donny confuses Lenin and Lennon. Will a section be added with popular references to the song? Hansdezwart (talk) 11:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Interpretation

Despite the fact that Lennon wrote this song as a response to his alma mater interpreting Beatles songs, "I am the Walrus" is often interpreted by the public

That is the one and only sentence immediately under the Interpretation section. Shouldn't there be something else there? BAPACop (converse) 23:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

From "Movie references"

I've snipped the following:

• In Finding Nemo (2003), when Crush wakes up Marlin and talks about baby turtles growing up fast "Oh, it's awesome, Jellyman. The little dudes are just eggs, we leave 'em on a beach to hatch, and then, coo-coo-cachoo, they find their way back to the big ol' blue. "

• In Bee Movie (2007), a flight attendant in the control tower of the airport says "Am I going koo-koo-kachoo, or..." as he sees the colony of bees carrying the falling airplane to safety.

...because there's no way I can see to tell whether these are "I Am The Walrus" references, or references to some other source. "Coo coo ca-choo" appears in Simon and Garfunkel's "Mrs. Robinson", and although that song was completed and released after "I Am The Walrus", I can find no indication that Paul Simon was referencing John Lennon. It's a string of nonsense syllables that could easily be coined by separate songwriters. -68.191.214.241 (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Box set version

It would be nice to add a few words about the Stereo Box Set version. I've been unable to find out anything about it. Rees11 (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Another song featured in fadeout?

I was going to clarify RigbyEleanor's contribution to 'Recording' "The song also features another Beatles song with an unrelated coda in the shape of new parts of strings, new choruses and the sampling of a radio in its fade-out" but, after reading it as few times, I'm really not sure what it means. It obviously means something, but what? Anybody familiar with the original ref?Blakkandekka (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Also covered by Italian band ...a toys orchestra

Hello, I know another version of the song. It was arranged by indie rock band ...a toys orchestra. Here's their website, you can find the song in the compilation which stands last in the "music" section: 1. I didn't change the page because I don't know how you do manage collaboration and don't want to be intrusive, but wanted to make you aware. Bye :-) Ale-sandro (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Ricky Nelson reference

Ricky Nelson, in his song "Garden Party", made a reference to John and Yoko at a concert at Madison Square Garden with the line "Yoko brought her walrus".

Avant Garde?

The lead-in calls this song avant-garde. How is that exactly? NeverWorker (Drop me a line) 00:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if avant-garde is really a music genre. The article on it describes it as simply music that is considered ahead of its time. The source describes I Am the Walrus as "one of the strangest and most avant-garde Beatles songs". It doesn't seem like avant-garde is being used as a genre, simply to say that the song was ahead of its time. --John of Lancaster (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I Am The Walrus - Longer Version

Guys, do you know what I wish? I wish the longer version of I Am The Walrus was released CD so the extra music stroke at 1:34 shouldn't be lacked out. -- (talk 18:30 (UTC)

Semolina Pilchard and Norman Pilcher: no connection

A recent edit explained the phrase "semolina pilchard" as a reference to Norman Pilcher. I have seen that claim made in several places, including sources that are somewhat trustworthy. So, no criticism of the editor who added it. But the explanation is entirely an urban myth. It's not true. It overlooks the sequence of events in question:

• "I Am the Walrus" was written before the end of 1967. It was featured in the film and audio recording Magical Mystery Tour, released in late 1967.
• Pilcher arrested Lennon on October 18, 1968, almost one year after the song was first heard in public.

Enough said, I think. I have removed the explanation. If really necessary, I can provide sources for both dates. But believe I should not have to. JH49S (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I was the editor who put it in. Thanks for catching the error, and for explaining it clearly to avoid future issues. Eric-Albert (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a Wiki page for Norman Pilcher where the error still remains.46.7.85.68 (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Song structure/analysis

The harmonic analysis under the heading 'Song Structure' is a an incompetent joke. A book about Lennon McCartney's songwriting has been referenced, but it is wrong. To suggest the D# in the middle section is an indication of the #4 of the lydian mode of A is laughable. There is merely a modulation to the key of B at that point, and the D# is a simple major third. To the author: You have to understand your sources better than this instead of blindly inserting them into a Wikipedia article. This is pretty simple stuff, and the sources in question are not entirely competent. 76.103.116.3 (talk) 16:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Affirmative, this analysis is complete nonsense. The roots of the chords used clearly suggest a minor tonality, the Lydian mode is about as far as one can get from that.

"The song is in the key of A and the instrumental introduction starts in the Lydian mode of B major.[8]"

Aside from being blatantly incorrect, this doesn't even make sense with regard to musical terminology. The phrase, "Lydian mode of B Major" would denote the relative Lydian mode of B Major, which is E Lydian, E F# G# A B C# D# E, which has absolutely no relevance to the song. One could assume the author was trying to say "The introduction starts in the B Lydian Mode," given that the first chord is B Major, which is also quite incorrect. Relative to B as the tonic, the introduction's chords are built on the b7, b6, #4/b5, 4, and b3. The Lydian mode consists of scale degrees 1 2 3 #4 5 6 7 8. Thus, the Lydian mode is not even remotely establish.

For comparison, the Locrian Mode consists of 1 b2 b3 4 b5 b6 b7, and saying that the F chord (scale degree b5) used in the song "suggests" a Locrian tonality would be excessive analysis and mostly irrelevant, but not blatantly wrong.

Drawing a connection to the Locrian mode is also consistent with the song as a whole being in the key of A, and the nontonic chords being derived from the A minor scale, as B Locrian would be the relative Locrian to the A minor scale.

To say the Locrian or any other mode is "established", however, is quite incorrect given that the song begins on a B Major chord, and the Locrian mode would demand a diminished B chord.

This is common in blues and rock songs. Traditional minor/Major tonality is abandoned intentionally in favor of establishing dissonance. The use of the Major chords built on the minor scale degrees (bIII, bVI, and bVII) against a tonic harmonized as Major is a staple of rock, and is theoretically arbitrary aside from their being identified "rock progressions".

Many rock songs consist of all Major chords with their roots on minor scale degrees "just because". That is simply a trait of the rock sound. If you want more than that, then you can turn to the deviations from diatonic tonality created by the chords used and their corresponding dissonant intervals, but this is not necessary to understand the structure of the song.

"...hanging as an imperfect cadence until resolved with the I (A chord) on "Mr City Policeman."[9]"

That would be what we call a "half cadence", not an "imperfect cadence". This is also terrible terminology. An "imperfect cadence" would denote an "imperfect authentic cadence" which would consist of a I-V resolution before the start of the following phrase. A half cadence ends the phrase on V, and frequently moves back to I at the beginning of the following phrase, which is exactly what the author is attempting to describe. The half cadence in classical terminology is often referred to as the "turnaround" in blues, jazz, and rock, because it sets up the following phrase to begin strongly on the tonic, and therefore commonly begins verses or choruses.

"At the line "Sitting in an English garden" the D# melody note (as in the instrumental introduction) establishes a Lydian mode (sharp 4th note in the scale) and this mode is emphasised more strongly with the addition of a D# note to the B chord..."

This is more misunderstanding of modes and scale degrees, and attempting to apply too much classical or (very poor) jazz theory to rock. The D# in question is part of the B Major chord, which is an "arbitrary" Major, common in Rock. The use of the tritone #4/b5 is also exceedingly common in Rock and Blues as part of the dissonance, and this is related to why Major chords which create this interval in the scale are common.

Besides that, the B is tonicized in this section of the song, so the D# and it's relation to the A tonic of the song as a whole is utterly negligible, and far from suggesting, implying, or establishing a Lydian mode.

The Lydian mode has a very distinctive characteristic to it. If you have experience with it- playing or listening extensively, it is audibly recognizable for its playful, dreamlike, or off-balance nature. I Am The Walrus does not have this characteristic.

I would conjecture that those loosely familiar with the nature of the modes might be eager to assign the Lydian mode to a song like this because its lyrical composition and texture might be described as "playful, dreamlike, or off-balance", but the notes aren't there, and the sound isn't there.

It's a minor-based rock progression built with all Major chords. There is a tritone #4/b5 presence in the song, which lends it some dissonant qualities, but this is very common in rock and blues music. The inclusion of this note is far from establishing any specific mode, though a connection to the Locrian can be defended with regard to the use of the F chord in a progression starting on a B chord. 74.197.35.71 (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Full stereo versions

The article currently states that the 2012 full stereo version included in the DVD and BD re-release of the film would be an entirely new mix. Isn't this rather the mix made in 2006 for LOVE prior to its mash-up for that album? In any case, on the new DVD and BD it's certainly the first time the fully mastered song has been released in true stereo in its entirety, rather than in mono (initial 1967 British EP release), fully fake stereo (1967 US LP release), true stereo except for the last part in fake stereo (1971 German Apple/Hörzu release used as the basis for most later stereo releases, including for the 1987 CD release), true stereo in its entirety, but mashed up (2006 LOVE release), or remastered 1971 version (2009 remasters). --37.82.15.255 (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

You crucially forget that the actual first complete-true-stereo mix was presented in the DVD release of the Anthology video in the early 2000s-decade. Admittedly the instrumental open is buried under narrative voice-over, and the song cuts off a few seconds early transitioning to Ed Sullivan; but it is here that for the FIRST time all that is present IS true stereo, without any fake-stereo. And BTW the 1967 US LP release is NOT fully fake stereo; it has the same true/fake stereo distribution as the German release. 67.186.19.151 (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)