Talk:The Beatles/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Folk-rock / Hard rock

I agree with kingboyk (and with previous discussion). Folk-rock and Hard rock categorization is overkill, and probably misleading. / edgarde 17:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"Overkill"? Since psychedelic rock is in the genre, I would assume that they contributed a decent amount of songs in that genre. They also contributed a decent amount of songs in the folk rock and hard rock genres also. Raistuumum 18:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Such as? We don't want a genre war on this page. Of course they did all of these genres in some measure or another, and they're all subgenres of rock and pop. Let's leave it that. --kingboyk 18:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"Beatles for Sale", "Help!", "Rubber Soul" for folk rock, and "Sgt. Pepper", "White Album", and "Abbey Road" for hard rock. And also: "Of course they did all of these genres in some measure or another, and they're all subgenres of rock and pop. Let's leave it that." And yet, psychedelic rock is in the genre category. Raistuumum 18:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The White Album is like early alternative rock imho. Abbey Road is MOR. Pepper is psychedelic. Revolution (single) is hard rock/proto heavy metal. Revolution 9 is avant garde. Much of Beatles for Sale is rock n roll. Please Please Me and She Loves You are pure pop. Need I go on? Not only will we ever agree, but there are too many to sensibly list. --kingboyk 20:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, finding the cites to back each song/style may prove more trouble than any gain is worth. Kingboyk's opinions on what constitutes a style, and which group of songs are examples may be different from somebody else (I think that Pepper has a large element of Music Hall and folk informing the psychedelic montage) and getting one definitive reference for each is highly unlikely. Even with one cite per type of music is going to overweigh the section with little numbers in brackets... As this article is the overview then the few prime style types should suffice, all the sub-types and infrequently used styles should be in the forks/individual articles. LessHeard vanU 20:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

That I do agree with, especially about citations. What I think the styles are is worth diddly squat. --kingboyk 20:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say "cite every genre they experimented on". I believe that the psychedelic, folk, and hard rock sub-genres is where they contributed on the most. Raistuumum 21:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

While they may have had more songs under those style headings than some other categories they were not prime movers or originators in any of these genres, and neither were they true to any of them over the length of an album. For all of your and Kingboyks examples of particular records and styles you will find examples of different styles on the same recording. The major musical headings are those in the original header, and those you have added can be placed under those. Finding one definitive reference for each the existing types is almost impossible, adding sub-types just makes if even more so. Lastly, while the infobox does include these genres I think you will find that they were added in the last 24 hours. They appear to be non-vandal edits, but may not be kept after the protection is lifted. If discussion here holds they are not valid genres then they will be removed. LessHeard vanU 22:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I have gone back through the edit history. You have been adding in 'Folk rock' & 'Hard rock' since 01:59 6 April 2007 (by my time zone, or a little over 40 hours - 8 reverts in that period, a minimum of one WP:3RR!), starting with the explanation "I find this more accurate". This is hardly an arrival at consensus, yet you feel you should be provided with reasons for its removal - although you make your demands in the edit summary when reverting rather than on the talkpage. I can give simple reasons for its removal; Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source. There is nothing you have provided within the text to support the inclusion of these genres. There has been no attempt to discuss or build consensus before acting upon your decision to include these genres. You have disregarded the obvious majority opinion, expressed through subsequent removal of these genres, by other editors. I really cannot see that your position for keeping these genres is tenable. LessHeard vanU 23:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please link the previous discussion on this subject? I skimmed through the archives, but must've missed it. / edgarde 18:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it was discussed on talk, at the wikiproject, or via edit summaries, or if I imagined it, but we can discuss it again. It would be pretty much a waste of time though because, as I said, the Beatles touched so many genres. There's 5 or 10 which could reasonably added, but the result would be ridiculous. --kingboyk 18:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Kingboyk is essentially correct - you can't easily categorize their music into a couple of subgenres because more often than not they created, went in original directions, and the genres and the rest of the music world followed. This is a ridiculous argument. They're not overall any one or two or three genres - certainly not hard rock and folk-rock to the exclusion of others. Either list them all, psychedelic, folk-rock, hard, pop, etc etc or just stop this silliness and call them rock. I can sign onto rock and pop. Anything else is truly absurd. (Don't forget dance-hall and reggae while you're at it.) It's The Beatles, fachrissake - they invented it all. If anyone needs examples of Beatles music in each genre, and then some more that haven't even been mentioned, you probably shouldn't even be editing here. (That was said with a smile, so don't get all offended now.) And by the way, Sgt Pepper is psychedelic, except when it isn't. That's the point. Tvoz |talk 00:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Might be better to responsibly address the point that such subdivisions didn't exist before they came along, but are now important markers within pop -- which is why we're wrestling with this issue now.
• There was rock and R&B, if I recall. And country. Those were the three labels. They changed that, as their work was so diverse that it demanded new categories. BYT 13:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles were innovative in that they took genres and introduced them into the rock and pop (especially the pop) idioms. It would be hard to find a genre they originated, rather than popularised to a wider audience. Generally, their genius was in incorporating styles. I will try to provide examples; Hard rock - that would be the Who (following on the pioneer work of the Kinks) in the UK, or even the Yardbirds. Psychedelia - The Pink Floyd and the entire UFO/Underground scene in the UK and the entire US West Coast "scene". Country Rock - The Byrds, and their predecessors and contemporaries. Folk Rock - Well, Bob Dylan went electric earlier, The Mamas & the Papa's (also falls into country rock) and they even stuck drums and electric guitar on Simon and Garfunkel. Um... Concept albums per "Sgt Pepper" - "SF Sorrow" by the Pretty Things. Reggae/Ska, already present in the UK West Indian Community...

There is precious little in truth in musical styles that the Beatles originated, but there is so much that they brought to a wider audience simply because, being the Beatles, the sheer quantity of people who would listen to it that otherwise would not have. The brilliance in how they incorporated these styles and put them alongside other tracks that displayed other influences was certainly the basis of many other bands careers (The Electric Light Orchestra would not have existed but for McCartney and Martins placing of classical music in rock settings) but they are far too numerous to form part of an introductory paragraph or infobox. About the only music that the band could lay claim to is the few moments when Harrison used Indian melodies and instruments. Can we really say that the Beatles were a Pop/Rock/Indian fusion band? No. They were a Pop & Rock band that stretched the definition of Pop & Rock by the incorporation of many sub-genres and styles. For the introduction and infobox the use of the term Pop/Rock is sufficient. LessHeard vanU 19:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant analysis. I'd support pop/rock (as previously stated) whilst having no objections to a much-trimmed summary along those lines appearing as a footnote. It might help avoid repeating this debate in the future? --kingboyk 19:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but wouldn't it constitute Original Research even as a footnote? LessHeard vanU 19:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure a citation could be found saying how the band crossed genres? --kingboyk 19:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

An early Decca exec (I think) described them (pre-63) as a country-sounding band. And of course there were huge Motown influences we could cite. (They covered the Marvelettes and Smokey Robinson.) Basically what we're saying is that they were magpies, yes? Agree with Less's points above -- they incorporated styles better and more visibly than other artists, but not first, so my genre-creation thing above is off-base. BYT 20:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The The Beatles' influence on popular culture article could easily be expanded to include how their adoption of music styles and genres influenced subsequent artists to work in that field, and introduced the originators and practitioners of that style to a wider audience - which is another way that influence works. If that is done then a link from this article to there should cover the debate on what styles they copied, adapted, borrowed from, etc. and the importance the Beatles had in that field. LessHeard vanU 21:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

There you go. Great idea, by which this (recurrent) discussion can be handled deftly and without weighting down the main article. BYT 21:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been detained elsewhere on WP, but can we agree on pop/rock and ask an admin to go ahead and unprotect the article? I don't think it's good for anyone to keep the article protected longer than necessary. Raymond Arritt 23:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I've unprotected it. I see no reason to continue the protection but should any problems arise another admin can be asked to step in again. --kingboyk 23:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

My Opinion? The Beatles weren't a group of Rock, Pop, Hard-Rock,Folk, or like you want. All this words were invented by press. The Beatles were a Musical Group, It's All. "Baby's in Black" is a waltz with 2 guitars, 1 bass and drums and Lennon/McCartney sings like the Everly's Brother's on this song. With "You Know my name", at this end of this song, it's a JAZZ. "Good night" is a nursery song. "Love you to" india. One day, John Lennon said: "We are a group of Folk Electric." It is unbelievably true. --Roujan (talk) 13:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, call me crazy (and anonymous), but couldn't all your very knowledgeable talk about the Beatle's genre be intergrated into the article? You all clearly know your stuff, and the fact is they are the reason for most of these sub-genre divides nowadays. Maybe it deserves a paragraph, something like 'Musical style/genre', just a quick overview explaining the different directions they took, what influenced them, etc etc. 81.96.160.6 (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Bringin' it back to FA

I will do everything I can to bring The Beatles article back to being a feautured article, I have piles of books that I will read and will convert my knowledge to this article. God Bless Wikipedia!—Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffBongi (talk • contribs) 21:49, 1 May 2007

Infobox: should it really matter that John and George are dead?

Having occurred after the band broke up, their deaths had nothing to do with The Beatles. I think putting "(deceased)" in the infobox should only apply to bands that are still active (i.e. Queen). – Zone46 02:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Is Queen active today? I would have assumed that after the tragic death of Freddie Mercury...?Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kodster! (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Freshacconci 02:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The one complication is: what about Stu? He was a Beatle, but he died before the group became world famous. Steelbeard1 02:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The thing is though, Stu left the Beatles before he died. So it doesn't really matter if he's alive or not. He didn't leave the band because he died. Sam Orchard 12:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

See also Template:Infobox musical artist, which says that such notes should not be included in the infobox. --PEJL 13:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#The Beatles fair use review

Heads up, someone is questioning the number of audio samples in this article per the above... however, it seems that they might actually believe is is too many!!!! LessHeard vanU 00:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how much influence on Western culture of anything like that any band has. Fair use policy states that the number of fair use images and audio files must be used minimally. 25 audio files with no critical text to it, does not quialify as fair use. — Moe ε 01:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Only 25? You would need to double that number to even get close to the various genres that were covered by The Beatle's songs. I would certainly argue that 25 samlples was indeed minimal, if not sadly lacking. Also, and I say this with all due respect, it doesn't matter how much influenece they had on Western Culture.... oh come on! Thanks Vera, Chuck & Dave 14:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Only 25? Fair use policy states: "As little non-free content as possible is used in an article. Short rather than long video and audio excerpts are used. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary." Emphasize added. Policy doesn't care what band or how many genres of music they played. As it may be true that they are short excerpts, they are lacking in the area of "little non-free content as possible" and "multiple items are not used if one will suffice" categories. I'm not saying there should only be one, but maybe some, spread throughout the article, next to critical text where the song is mentioned or next to text about the album it was in. In it's current state, it's just as bad as a fair use gallery of images, which would violate a section 8 in fair use policy. — Moe ε 14:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Tell you what, why don't we just get rid of all sound samples, images, words - why not the whole of Wkipedia itself and turn it into what it is fast becoming - a vehicle for argumentative gets who just keep wanting to tear down the hard work of others, using the guidelines of course - or will that need a Mother's meeting to decide? This place is fast becoming an open air loony bin. Best wishes, Vera, Chuck & Dave 15:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's nonfree content, it can't be used in a gallery as decoration or in a list. Argue all you like, and call me all the names if you choose to, but they don't qualify for fair use. One thing I suggest you do read is User:Durin/Fair use overuse explanation for deeper incite before calling this a loony bin. And so you know, they don't have rationales either. — Moe ε 15:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't called you any names at all pal, I'm just starting to think that I'm wasting my precious time.Vera, Chuck & Dave 16:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I see VC&D is back at his old tricks again. A little disagreement and we're off on a toot.McTavidge 02:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe one is talking about oneself. --andreasegde (talk) 06:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe one is full of it.McTavidge (talk) 06:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

the official live album

hello,I just wanted to suggest that the album "The Beatles at the Hollywood Bowl" should be added in the discography section as the official live album of the band,or maybe as a post-disolution album,because it was released in 1977.(but it was recorded live on 1964 and 1965,some of the songs featured in the album were recorded on august 23 1964 and others on august 30 1965). Being the only official live album of such an important band,it deserves to be added to the discography list,despite the fact that it was never officialy re-released on cd. (it's avaialbe on vinyl and casette).

190.64.101.161 03:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Pelger.

ps: the bbc album doesn't count,only 3 of the 69 tracks are recorded live (as in,in front of an audience).

Hollywood Bowl actually topped the UK album charts! Also, there is another live album officially released, but only in Italy. It's called (not surprisingly) The Beatles Live! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.161.52 (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That Italian album is not a live album, it's in fact a re package of the "For Sale" material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.16.193 (talk) 07:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Achievements

I’ve added back in the list of Beatles’ achievements. It seems (to me at least) that this section was swapped out in 2005 by a vandal and replaced with a simple “fuck you!”. That insightful remark was removed, but, amazingly, no one reverted the achievements sections. (This list of achievements actually crops up all over the place when you google it, almost always credited back to Wikipedia.) I think it really belongs in this article given that the Beatles’ achievements were so monumental and, encyclopaedically, really sum up the importance of the band. Netsinque 16:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not fond of these disjointed lists; they lower the tone of an otherwise well-written narrative. Raymond Arritt 01:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This section has been gone since 2005, and some of those achievements (as well as the article) have changed since then. It sticks out as pretty badly written compared with the rest of the article now. – Zone46 20:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Look this document. All this worldwide records were appropriate by The Beatles for the 20th century. (Until December 31, 1999). And on Dec. 31, 1999, nobody could compete against the Beatles. I'm Serious. You can verify. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_record_sales,_worldwide_charts —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roujan (talk • contribs) 00:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC) --Roujan (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

A search for beatle directs strait to "The beatles"

There Needs to be a Link for the disambiguation of beatle. I was simply needing info on the insect and had to use google to get to it.

please!

: Beetle is spelt differently. Zazaban 19:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes - "Beatle" can only be used in connection with the group The Beatles - the insect (and all other uses such as the Volks Wagon car) is Beetle with a double E. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MegdalePlace (talk • contribs) 22:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

there should be a 'contributions to orthography' section. i always spell the insect with an a, and so do most others i know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Spelling mistakes cannot justify a redirect and/or link. Booglamay (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Banned to visit USA???

Is it truth that Beatles were banned from visiting USA after their protests against Vietnam war, and the ban lasts till now? ellol (talk) 12:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

In a word, no. Who could ban them? There is no crime against protesting. They could be deported if they committed a sufficient crime, and one or more of them may have been subject to deportation (for drug possesion, for example) at a particular time, but they have not been permanently "banned". Each of The Beatles has resided and owned property in the United States since the Vietnam war. Ward3001 (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Plus if such a ban existed until now, then I guess the Super Bowl didn't take place in the United States last year. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose John Lennon didn't die in the U.S., either. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)