Talk:Some Other Guy

Beatles and Lyrics

It's ridiculous to have a Wikipedia article blame the Beatles for wrong lyrics on other web sites. First off, there's no way to prove that, and coincidentally, there are no citations in that section. Second, the lyric sites are probably copyright violations and not official lyrics; who cares if they are wrong? In addition, the section in question is poorly written, poorly formatted, and seems POV to boot. I'm going to remove it (again). John Cardinal (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Number one , I didn't put the section in about the lyrics,I just added to it. But if you do check the internet for the lyrics, why does it come up as a "Beatles" song and give their incorrect lyrics?. Number two, the addition I made to the lyrics section is correct. Listen to the record sung by the guy who wrote it.There is nothing I contributed that isn't 100% true. I think it's you who has the POV problem. And who are you to decide what is poorly written about an obscure song that was never a hit? We all can't be Rhodes Scholar's that I'm sure you must be. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmajor98 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't add the section on lyrics, but you restored it, so you appeared willing to defend it as worthy content. If the other sites "come up as a 'Beatles' song and give their incorrect lyrics" then perhaps those sites are simply accurate reflections of what the Beatles sang. Who cares? Incorrect lyrics are sung pretty regularly, accidentally or deliberately, but that doesn't mean the band who sings the wrong lyrics is responsible for "damage", or that singing the wrong lyrics is notable and worthy of a section in the song's article. Regarding your claim that what you added—based on your listening to the song—was 100% true, that doesn't matter: that's WP:OR, and what's required is reliable, verifiable evidence. Even so, I'm not disputing that the Beatles sang the wrong lyrics. I just don't think its notable. The poor formatting of the entry didn't help the case. (That was someone else's work, but you restored it.) I think fancruft like "the originator of the Atomic Beat" doesn't belong on WP and claims that Pete Best was the most popular Beatle at that time requires supporting evidence. Even if such evidence exists, the claim belongs in some other article such as the Pete Best article. John Cardinal (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi John: I kept restoring everything because I didn't know how to do anything else. It's my first time here. I'm just learning. I thought I was doing a service with my addition to that lyrics section. I've always liked that song, even Richie Barrett's version which sounds like a Ray Charles imitation. I would have to assume :), that his clearly heard lyrics would be correct. He wrote it. I always wanted to know what the lyrics really were because you can't understand the Beatles, and the Freddie and Dreamers version has different lyrics yet. To search the internet yields mostly the words that the Beatles sing, and 80% of the time, credit the song as theirs. While it wasn't me who was "blaming" them, it's obvious to see where those lyrics derived. As for crediting certain statements such as Best being the most popular Beatle at that time, I have the website containing Bill Harry's(Founder of Mersey Beat) article entitled "When Pete Best Was The Most Popular Beatle". Of course I have no idea how to incorporate that into the Some Other Guy piece, but I thought that was general knowledge. As a big Beatle fan that I think you are, you would know it's accepted that Pete Best was famous for the "Atomic Beat" or sometimes called "Atom Beat". That was the slogan then.It was developed in Hamburg. It also happens to be mentioned in the same Bill Harry article. I believe that these are relevant to the Beatle film, which in itself is relevant to the SOG article. The film is the first film "ever" of Ringo as a Beatle, with sych sound.They happen to be singing SOG, surely making this song famous and now worthy of an entry in an encyclopedia of all things. In light of that, people should know something about the drummer who he replaced. There was a "Beatles" for years before this film of August 22,1962. We also know that Best didn't leave on his own, he was kicked out. So all in all, I think I'm only guilty of being a neophyte, not a prevaricator.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmajor98 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

First, you should read WikiPedia guidelines on evaluating evidence, citing the evidence in articles, etc.

Second, with regard to the content of this article, it may be appropriate to mention Pete Best, and specifically, that the film is the first without him. With evidence or not, I don't think it's the place to discuss whether or not Best originated the "Atomic Beat", whether or not he was the most popular Beatle, or the circumstances of his exit from the band. This isn't an article about Pete Best. There is such an article, and if Pete Best is mentioned here, his name should be a link that leads to the article about him. That article should cover those items: if someone is looking for encyclopedic information about Pete Best, where will they look? Will they search for "Some Other Guy" or "Pete Best"??? On such details, there may be more than one point of view, conflicting evidence, etc., and an article devoted to Best will have multiple editors contributing to that content. Such content here will tend to have a limited point of view because most editors interested in the topic won't be aware of the content because it's out of place. The only link between Best and the film of the Beatles performing SOG is that he wasn't in the band at the time.

John Cardinal (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You win my friend. I've got better things to do than argue with the self appointed eternal guard of Wikipedia over an obscure non hit that SOG was. Keep up the good work. I'm sure you're earning your pay. Don't bother responding, I won't be back. I don't need the headaches that a contribution to this site must surely bring from all guardians of their treasured content. A pure waste of time,energy and extreme POV's.

Unsigned comment above by User:Bmajor98, 20:59, 22 November 2007

I am sorry you feel that way. My posts were sincere efforts to make the case that the lyric-related and Pete Best-related content wasn't up to snuff. When your reply indicated you weren't a WikiPedia veteran, I added some notes about how WP works. (Or, at least, how I think it works.) Also, if you re-read my comments above, you'll see that I restricted my comments to the content, whereas you made personal attacks, including the snide "Rhodes Scholar" comment and most of your post immediately above. I didn't take that bait, and I hope that by pointing it out now, you might reassess what happened. My reply to that is WP:AGF and these notes from the WikiPedia editing page:

• "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."
• "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly ... do not submit it."

John Cardinal (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI: As VP of Leiber/Stoller Productions, I can confirm that Bmajor98's citations of the Leiber/Stoller/Barrett lyrics on Barrett's recording are correct. I'm less certain of the accuracy with which he or others have transcribed what the Beatles sing, let alone the further variations in all other recordings I've heard, from the Big Three to the Sockmonkeys. I would dispute the characterization of the lyrics recorded by Barrett as "clearly heard"; indeed, I think the consistent mangling of them by others indicates that they are anything but, and likewise The Beatles' rendition. That said, Wikipedia is not a lyrics site, and thus not the place where one would publish corrections to the lyrics. It is my plan that the L&S website will eventually have a page for each song, including lyrics, audio snippets, and relevant historical data from the substantive to the trivial. (For example: "Some Other Guy" has two additional verses that have never been recorded.) When "Some Other Guy" gets such a page, Wikipedia will be able to use it for citations and link to it for further reference. But, this may be years away; in the meantime, the current approach of omitting references to lyrical accuracy seems sound and prudent to me.Pstoller (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Rutles song…

To say that Goose Step Mamma is “based on” the Beatles’ version is to open a can of worms which probably needs to be closed. It would be better put that, in the course of the original spoof documentary programme, it performs the function of Some Other Guy, given that it plays over footage designed to look like the Granada recording of The Beatles at The Cavern. This would remove any implication that Neil Innes plagiarised or even parodied the original work in his song, something that he was careful not to do (he has said that he didn’t listen to Beatles recordings prior to writing new material or adapting existing material of his own (as was the case with Blue Suede Schubert)). Innes’s song is in effect a song in the same idiom and style, rather than a parody.Jock123 (talk) 08:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The Big Three

My understanding is that The Big Three are so named; the "The" is part of their title and so needs a capital "T" (see: http://www.merseybeatnostalgia.co.uk/html/the_big_three.html ) It's not like "the Beatles" or "the Rolling Stones", where the definite article is simply a part of speech. Arrivisto (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It's just a convention, with no recognised exceptions (unlike e.g. The Hague). Meaning doesn't enter into it. Rothorpe (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)