Talk:Matchbox (song)

Fair use rationale for Image:04 matchbox.jpg

Image:04 matchbox.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 03:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:BeatlesLongTallSallyEP.jpg

The image Image:BeatlesLongTallSallyEP.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

unreferenced material

I don't think this was done intentionally, but somehow all of my references were erased. It will be very tedious to put them back in.

Anonymous editors, please supply references for this material.Steve Pastor (talk) 03:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Carl Perkins released "Matchbox" on February 11, 1957 as the B side to the Sun 45 "Your True Love", Sun 261, published and copyrighted by Knox Music, Inc., BMI U-231. The music is totally original and has nothing to do with any earlier traditional and public domain versions of "Match Box Blues". Carl Perkins merely used a line from the earlier song but wrote entirely new lyrics. Carl Perkins and his band performed "Matchbox" live on the Ranch Party television show in 1958 and on the Town Hall Party television series. In the Ranch Party performance, Perkins added the lyrics "Talk to me little box, Let's go now, Let's go."

"Matchbox" was included on the Carl Perkins Dance Album on Sun Records, known as Sun SLP-1225, Dance Album of Carl Perkins, which was re-released in 1961 as Teen Beat: The Best of Carl Perkins. A British version of the Dance Album was released in the UK as Dance Album/Blue Suede Shoes on London HA-S 2202. The Beatles most likely first heard "Matchbox" on either the U.S. or British versions of the Carl Perkins Dance Album on Sun Records.

The "Your True Love" b/w "Matchbox" single by Carl Perkins on Sun Records reached no. 13 on the Country and Western chart and no. 67 on the pop chart. Both sides were produced by Sam Phillips. Carl Perkins played a 1956 Gibson ES-5 Switchmaster guitar, known as "the Matchbox guitar", for the "Matchbox" sessions. Jerry Lee Lewis played piano on the songs on both sides of the single. Ricky Nelson covered the A side, "Your True Love", on his first album for Imperial "Ricky", released in November, 1957. During the "Your True Love/Matchbox" sessions at Sun Studios in 1956, Elvis Presley visited the studio and jammed with Perkins, Lewis, and Johnny Cash, in what came to be known as the Million Dollar Quartet.

This song is possibly the only Beatles song to have had three different lead vocalists for their renditions of it.

Numerous other artists have recorded their own versions of "Matchbox", including Ronnie Hawkins and Jerry Lee Lewis. In Sam Cooke's live version, he interjects, "Can you see me putting all my clothes in a little old matchbox?"

Paul McCartney plays the song during his soundchecks and played them at his recent "secret gigs" promoting his new album. McCartney released his version of "Matchbox" on the Tripping the Live Fantastic live album.

George Harrison sang lead and played lead guitar on a performance of the Carl Perkins song in the late 1980s with Bob Dylan, John Fogerty, Jesse Ed Davis, and Taj Mahal as "The Silver Wilburys". Harrison played the Carl Perkins-composed music based on the 1957 Sun single and sang two verses of the lyrics written by Carl Perkins, ad libbing the lines, "I'm sittin' here wonderin' will Bob Dylan hold my clothes." Pete Best, Ringo Starr, John Lennon, Paul McCartney, and George Harrison have all performed the Carl Perkins song and have sung lead on it. John Lennon sang lead on a version released on The Lost Lennon Tapes in the 1980s. "Matchbox" was also on a segment of The Beatles ABC Saturday morning cartoon show in the 1960s.

Bob Dylan recorded a version of the Carl Perkins song in 1969 and sang lead on a duet of the song with Carl Perkins in 1994, which is available on Youtube. Bob Dylan also recorded a version of the Perkins song in 1970 in sessions with George Harrison at Columbia Studios.

Jerry Lee Lewis recorded a version of the Carl Perkins song on his first Sun LP in 1958, including it on a Sun Ep as well, Sun EPA-110. Ronnie Hawkins, with Duane Allman on lead guitar, recorded a version of the Carl Perkins song.

Eric Clapton, Johnny Cash, and Carl Perkins performed the song on the Johnny Cash TV show in 1970 when Derek & the Dominos were guests. Eric Clapton also performed "Matchbox" on the cable TV special A Rockabilly Session with Carl Perkins on the 30th anniversary of the release of "Blue Suede Shoes" in 1985.

Willie Nelson recorded "Matchbox" in a duet with Carl Perkins that appeared on the Go Cat Go! album.

It has been reported that Elvis Presley was considering making "Matchbox" a part of his Las Vegas comeback repertoire in the late 1960s and that he rehearsed the song for possible inclusion in his concert set. He based his version on the Carl Perkins and The Beatles recordings.

It appears that the version Ringo sang on the BBC (available on Youtube) has different lyrics than the Perkins version, especially verse 2, and he says "Matchbox HOLE in my clothes". Much like Kansas City... Isnt this sufficiently significant to be mentioned in the article?Philipcwells (talk) 08:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)philipcwells

Beatles single

Beatleswillneverdie: Discogs is identified as an "unreliable source", because of its "Info is user-submitted/uploaded and fails WP:USERG" (see its entry on WP:NOTRSMUSIC). Rather than go back-and-forth on this, please add your proposed source here, so it may be discussed first. Also, a review of Wikipedia:Citing sources may be beneficial. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Ojorojo: Matchbox and Slow Down were released as a single in United States in 1964. Matchbox was the A-side and Slow Down was the B-Side.The reason why the picture sleeves are reversed it is to identify the song that is important to the article. I did some research and it says Matchbox was the A-side and Slow Down the B-Side. —Beatleswillneverdie (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources, please share them. I'm not saying you're wrong, but we can't just rely on what people say (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). —Ojorojo (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

JG66: Hello again. Maybe you can add something to this. My access to quality Beatles sources is limited, but I haven't been able to find anything conclusive regarding whether "Matchbox" or "Slow Down" is the A- or B-side of the 1964 Capitol single. Although he mentions the side for some other songs, MacDonald doesn't do so for these two.[1][2] I've looked at the different Capitol pressings and picture sleeves, gone though the Billboard July–November 1964 issues and saw nothing. A full-page promo ad in BB lists MB first, but this seems to just follow its practice of listing the names alphabetically (the same page shows "A Hard Day's Night" / "I Should Have Known Better", "I'll Cry Instead" / "I'm Happy Just to Dance with You", "And I Love Her" / "If I Fell").[3] But if you flip the picture sleeve over, "Slow Down" appears first in larger letters.[4] Both MB and SD entered the Hot 100 the same week (9/5); SD disappeared 10/24, followed by MB on 10/31 (neither were on the 11/7 chart). Both performed similarly, although MB tracked about 10 places higher. So it doesn't appear that Capitol was pushing either one in favor of the other. If you have a good source or two, it would be appreciated. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for all your work on this. As it happens, the alphabetical approach used in that Billboard ad for the other three Capitol singles is accurate per the most authoritative sources, but there does seem to be a question mark regarding "Matchbox"/"Slow Down". From a quick look at what I have here, the majority of sources support "Matchbox" as the lead side (eg, MacDonald 1998 edition p. 103 gives "US release: 24 August 1964 (A single/Slow Down" and then, in his entry for "Slow Down" two page later, "US release: 24th August 1964 (B single/Matchbox). This is supported by Lewisohn's The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions p. 200; Castleman & Podrazik's All Together Now list both sides with "A:", however. Given that the majority (Nicholas Schaffner's The Beatles Forever being another) appear to view "Matchbox" as the true A-side, I'd go with that. Bruce Spizer's book The Beatles on Capitol Records might help clear up the issue, simply because of the amount of detail and commentary he provides for each release, relative to other authors' treatment.

Thanks for the refs. Unfortunately, I don't have access to these. Lewisohn mentions the side for a few songs in his liner notes for Past Masters, but not for MB or SD. I'll go ahead and cite his Complete for both articles, unless someone has a better idea. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Beatleswillneverdie: This might be a good time to ask that you put some work into supporting your contributions – that is, actually cite some sources. "I did some research" is a totally lame statement after your changes to the article have been reverted and when you've been challenged here on the talk page. It's the same approach you've applied to several other Beatles-related articles, whereby you seem seems to be treating Wikipedia as a Beatles picture gallery. I'm thinking especially of when you've uploaded an image from a promotional clip without adding any supporting commentary to justify the inclusion of non-free media; it's then up to other editors, it seems, to search out commentary that ensures the image is significant to the subject of the article when you should be doing that. The alternative is that other editors undo you contributions, on the grounds that the inclusion of the non-free image is not sufficiently justified – but then you go and revert those editors' changes. So, here again, Ojorojo's had to do all the legwork while you've simply pointed to a user-generated listing at Discogs. It would be much appreciated if you could engage with other editors using reliable sources (which are the only thing that matters on Wikipedia). Thanks, JG66 (talk) 09:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Ojorojo and JG66 Hi, sorry for the late response. Some of the resources that I found [5] [6] [7] say that depending on the country, Matchbox was either the A-side or B-side. The same is with Slow Down. However, it's up to you guys whether or not if we should include whether or not they had A or B sides. I would also like to apologize for making other editor's too look up commentary. From now on, I will be sure to do that myself. Thanks, Beatleswillneverdie (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Identification in infobox

Ojorojo, I was going to raise this here anyway, but it's become even more pressing after seeing what you've done at "I'll Cry Instead" and "I'm Happy Just to Dance with You". Starting with "Matchbox", we identify the Beatles' version as a "single from the EP Long Tall Sally". On one hand, it's a relief to see the original intended release acknowledged (which is not the case at "I'll Cry Instead"); on the other, the song was not a single from the EP, it was a (US) single from the Something New LP.

At "I'll Cry Instead", we're now ignoring that song's far wider reach and notability as a track from the unadulterated, non-US Hard Day's Night LP – the album that the song was recorded for. Instead, we're kowtowing to Capitol's mangling of the Beatles' catalogue, because nowhere does it say that the song is from AHDN (which in fact was its first release, anyway). The situation's not quite as bad at "I'm Happy Just to Dance with You", but that song's described as a single "from the album A Hard Day's Night"; well, it is – from the US configuration – but you won't find "I'll Cry Instead", "And I Love Her", etc, listed among the singles in the top-of-article infobox at A Hard Day's Night (album). They are on that page at #North American release, but to me that suggests the original/Parlophone release is being ignored in the song infoboxes.

What I'm saying is, losing the 2nd infobox creates new problems each time. I know we've talked about this in the past, at length, and you and I were in agreement that multiple infoboxes should be avoided where possible; subsequent (by a decade or more) single releases were the real problem, I seem to remember. I agree it's all the one recording and one infobox should suffice, ideally. But we need to have a think about this, because the treatment here, and at "I'm Happy Just to Dance" and "I'll Cry Instead" is misrepresenting the song. JG66 (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I came to these articles via Larry Williams (coincidentally, May 20 was his birthday). While I was at it, I tried to tidy up the Beatles infoboxes (and some of the text). The chronos led me to ICI, If I Fell, etc., where I was just trying to make them consistent (rid of the |prev_title2=, etc.) I suppose I should have left it up to the Beatles experts, so revert/fix as you see fit. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Ojorojo: Well, thank you for your work, as always. This point, about how the inbox can inadvertently misrepresent the song's place in an artists' discography (by focusing on format and a recording by release type), is one of the ongoing problems with song infoboxes, imo. I'm referring to the idea that a recording needs to be defined as a "single", whereas it's simply a (recorded) song that happened to be released on a single.

A year or two back, when the infobox was the subject of lengthy discussion, you rightly referred to "infobox fatigue". (In your case, given the tireless efforts you put in there, I'm sure "infobox PTSD" is more accurate!) It would be good to fix this sometime, if anyone's got the energy. I've realised a major part of the problem lies with singles chronologies: we include them and suddenly it's as if a song's identity is redefined. That's an about-turn for me, because I know I'd favoured retaining them and cited album chronologies as crucial to infobox album ... Well, now, I think it would be easier to just ditch all the chronologies – it would cut down on the long, long 'boxes when it's a multi-artist work, for a start. JG66 (talk) 08:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

JG66: A couple of recent attempts to remove release-related parameters went nowhere (see track listings & format). But chipping away at those easiest to remove is probably the best way to shift the focus. Then removing chronologies would be easier. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Ojorojo: Yes, and I for one let you down by not participating in the first of those – I'm sorry about that. I might summon the energy to notify the Beatles project page of this discussion, with a view to taking the issue on to a wider forum.

I'm thinking this edit might be the way to proceed for songs where there's a subsequent single release, not to mention a different parent album: "Do You Want to Know a Secret". All repeated info is removed from the second 'box.

Much better still, imo, is this for "Matchbox". There, it's just a "Song by the Beatles" without any mention of a parent EP or album, which frees us up to list the pertinent releases all in the one infobox. (Although, I'd still like to go further and knock out the singles chronology altogether). So – and I'm getting way ahead of myself – this is with a view to type=single being deprecated, and all infoboxes carrying the basic "Song by [artist name]" and no more.

Pinging Hotcop2 too, because they have concerns about this multiple infobox issue as well. I totally agree that one 'box should be enough when it's the same recording each time; the question is how we achieve it. JG66 (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Both are possibilities, but I'm leaning towards the MB example. While I continue to ponder, have you considered how this would affect the guidance for Template:Infobox song#type and related parameters? As it stands, the most notable or best known receives the emphasis, otherwise some might be tempted to add details about minor releases. This just came to me, but I haven't really thought it through (I didn't want to muck up the article, so delete this with your next edit). —Ojorojo (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually, my example is just what you're saying above ("basic 'Song by [artist name]' and no more"). That would be my first choice, although it may looked too stripped down to those used to seeing loaded up infoboxes. So, my second would be your MB example, with a hidden note to the effect of "the Release format and details were arrived at by consensus, do not add or change without a new consensus", so the parameter guidance doesn't need to be changed. —Ojorojo (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the choice at Template:Infobox song#type, that's my point – this apparent need to define a single separate from a song (/composition/hymn, etc) is the main problem. It does strike me that, while the Beatles discography is probably the most documented of any artist's, it's still very difficult to transfer their releases satisfactorily within the Wikipedia model. I'd like to see it changed across the encyclopedia so that all songs, singles or otherwise, are "Song by ..." I think someone might have raised that idea a year or so ago, in fact.

By "single", it surely refers to a two-sided record or a three- or four-song CD single in the pre-download era – it's the whole release package, just like an EP or an album. As a result (you may remember), we end up with a ridiculous situation at "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (song)" where a subsequent single release is treated as if it's an entirely separate beast from the 1967 recording: more cover artwork, inclusion of the B-side title, UK & US singles chronologies (very long in this instance because of the A-side medley) all combine to take the infobox space way down the right-hand side of the page. I think it's these singles chronologies that encourage editors to add more infoboxes, to ensure the chain of releases is unbroken for a particular artist (eg an infobox for a cover version that probably doesn't merit it, in terms of commentary on the recording). I'm thinking that my "Matchbox" example deals with the situation well, because the alternative would seem to be a "Song ... from the Long Tall Sally EP" infobox, followed by a "Single ... from the Something New album" infobox. Another thing is, we can avoid the need to list a B-side (or perhaps two or three titles each time) because we're no longer responsible for the single "package".

I take your point that "some might be tempted to add details about minor releases." I don't think the "Matchbox" example hits that territory, just that UK artists, particularly, had their releases running on two separate rails for most of the 1960s – so this is as busy as it gets. As you say, the guidance states that the most notable or best-known release should receive the emphasis; the point that I think the guidance doesn't allow for is this (very common) situation whereby an act had a US release schedule that diverged from their domestic one. Both are equally notable, I'd say. "Eight Days a Week", "Yesterday" and "Nowhere Man" are all key tracks on their respective non-Capitol albums and that standing has travelled across to the US since the 1987 international standardisation of the Beatles catalogue, but there's no getting around the fact that those same three songs were chart-topping singles in the US and Canada. So, from the current two-infobox setup at "Nowhere Man", we'd have this.

Sorry to go on. I'm just repeating myself now ... JG66 (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I think you've come up with an interesting approach: get rid of type, "from the album/EP", and format and add the most important in |released=. My concern (not for Beatles songs, but mostly others that are less documented) is that there will be the temptation to add release after release regardless of the importance (releases in secondary markets, odd formats, reissues, etc.) that could lead to a bewildering number of extra chronologies, track listings, covers, etc. It seems whenever the opportunity presents itself, certain types of editors will try to exploit it. Maybe add some parameters to keep to the total a minimum, say three, similar to the chronology:

• |released_date1= May 23, 2019
• |released_type1= single or LP, etc.
• |released_title1= [album or EP name] (with auto italics?)
• |released_date2= May 23, 2019
• |released_type2= single or LP, etc.
• |released_title2= [name]
• |released_date3= May 23, 2019
• |released_type3= single or LP, etc.
• |released_title3= [name]

that would produce something like:

• June 19, 1964, Long Tall Sally (UK EP)
• July 20, 1964, Something New (US LP)
• August 24, 1964, A-side (US single)

Before I comment at WT:SONGS, I'd like to see what others may come up with. Meanwhile, I was experimenting with Infobox musical composition to get a different perspective and thought you might be amused.[8] —Ojorojo (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your considered response. Yep, it is open to misuse – I guess the idea would be to reinforce, perhaps with a line of buried/hidden text, that only the most notable releases should be included. I'll give it a go with those parameters you suggested. When considering the different scenarios (eg, Matchbox, Nowhere Man, I'm Happy Just to Dance with You, And Your Bird Can Sing), it did strike me how difficult we/Wikipedia had made it for ourselves in terms of representing a song – through committing to the Single type or the "from ... album" labelling. It's unfortunate that more people didn't weigh in whenever it was that the guidance was decided upon. Perhaps they did, I don't know – but I find it hard to believe no one highlighted this UK vs US release scenario for British Invasion acts up to, at a guess, 1967–68. Looking in Beatles and Stones books, they all treat songs in the way I'm suggesting.

I absolutely love what you did with "Matchbox" in Infobox musical composition. I could get used to seeing that 'box option replace all Song examples. Nice one! JG66 (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

At the time of the merger, there was the perfect opportunity to revamp the infobox. However, the implementation discussion was dominated by one editor, who was intent on preserving the single parameters and order and even emphasizing the idea of a multi-song release. So the guidance merely tried to accommodate both the former single and song parameters and reflect the current practices. If there is a consensus to de-emphasize or get rid of the single aspects altogether, your approach presents a good alternative. I wonder now in the download age how relevant "from the album (or EP)" really is? (the idea of song vs single is nearly meaningless). —Ojorojo (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Although I was referring more to the dawn of time – back when Wikipedia song and single infoboxes were first conceived – I agree it would have been perfect to address the issue when the two infoboxes were merged. Alas. Would you be able to provide a link to the implementation discussion you mention? I've got a horrible feeling you might be referring to me(?!) if, say, this is the one ... And yes, I agree that the distinction between song and single in the age of download is minimal. I recall someone mentioning that a couple of years ago, during the merger discussions. JG66 (talk) 07:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's the discussion (no, it wasn't you). As recently as two years ago, the single aspects of the infobox wanted to be preserved (see also the "keep" Infobox single arguments in the RfC). Maybe by now the mood has changed. Hopefully, beginning your discussion at WT:SONGS will generate some interest. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the links. I'll give both threads a read through ... JG66 (talk) 03:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

'Rojo (and anyone else), I've just started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs‎#Song vs Single (again?). (Either that or I've provided reams of text that'll bore the regulars rigid and duly be ignored.) If you've got any comments to add above, that would be great – but otherwise see you at Songs if you're interested. JG66 (talk) 09:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems there is a climate of dismissiveness at WT:SONGS: "I would never use it, so why bother". Maybe if it was on the "List of Zimbabwe Hit Parade No. 1s of the 1960s" it would receive some response. Anyway, WP:BOLD is looking like a better alternative. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Yep, ain't that the truth! Can't say I was expecting too much there; don't mind saying I wish I'd put the idea forward two years ago when your efforts did have everyone's attention.

I might raise this at the Beatles project page, but otherwise, as you say, it's a case of going ahead and just doing it. JG66 (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)