Talk:The Beatles/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Jimmy who?

So Pete Best and Sutcliffe performed with the band and were definitely early members. Jimmy Nicol is not. He should probably be put on a list of touring members. You don't list all the substitute teachers you had when you list your teachers, and Jimmy shouldn't be listed here. He was simply a temporary touring member at best. Can we please remove Nicol completely or at most put him as a touring member? Also, Moore exclusively toured with the SILVER Beetles. Wrong spelling of the name and silver before it makes him a member of a previous band, and since the members of the quarrymen aren't on here, neither should Moore. Pete and Stu used to be the only members we listed under other, anf i advicate going back to the Fab Four and Pete and Stu.

But, kudos for putting in the timeline. This page has really needed a timeline for ahwile and despite its FA status it didn't have it till recently. Thanks for adding that. Joshua0228 (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure if much of a case can be made for Jimmie being listed beyond as a tour member. However, I'm curious as to why you went ahead and removed the rest of them. According to Lewisohn in Tune In, the band was known as "The Beatles" since March 1960 (then consisting of John, Paul, George, and Stu). Tommy joined in May. They were known as "the Silver Beatles" (or "Beetles" or "Beatals") for only a few days in May, before reverting back to "the Beatles". However, Alan Williams continued to call them "Silver" (as well as constantly getting their names mixed up), which is where the misconception comes from that they were silver for a long time. So Tommy Moore was a part of "the Beatles", as they called themselves that at the time. Norman Chapman and Chas Newby were members when they were unequivocally called the Beatles (respectively June 1960 and December 1960 - Jan 1961), so I am also curious why you tried to remove them, without giving any reasoning. So to summarize: I agree Jimmie probably shouldn't be listed as a full member. The distinction between "Silver Beetles" and "Beatles" is less distinct than many assume, so Tommy was a member of the Beatles. Norman and Chas were undeniably members of the Beatles. Also, please don't make such a major edit unilaterally without anyone replying to your discussion (but thanks for reversing it after a minute) Seltaeb Eht (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It was a mistake that i reversed. I accidentally applied it when I was just seeing if I could figure out a way to delete them if the time name. I reverted it. I apologize. So are we agreed that Nicol goes or at least becomes a touring member and the rest stay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.149.231 (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Beatles were perceived as agents of change throughout the 60s (decade)...not just later, as heading seems to indicate

I have a slight issue with the wording in the heading that reads; "...they came to be perceived as an embodiment of the ideals shared by the era's sociocultural revolutions," as if to indicate that they came to regarded as such later in their career not at the moment of their first impact. Here in the United States (and I'm sure everywhere else), they were seen as revolutionary the moment their plane touched down at the newly re-named Kennedy airport. To a nation (and world) mourning the loss of a great leader who had brought so much hope to mankind, the Beatles seemed to re-ignite (at least for the young) that infinite sense of hope and idealism that Kennedy had inspired. Right away, everything about them seemed to signify a seismic shift of generational attitudes: their longer hairstyles, mod clothes/boots, irreverent sense of humor, not to mention the wild sound of their music that had this incredible "thrust." Right away parents became concerned about their children's direction. No doubt, the Beatles would evolve their sound and become increasingly more avant-garde and drug-influenced, not to mention more lyrically expressive with the passage of the 60s. But, I would say that their revolutionary quality was intrinsic and immediately apparent day one. A better way of wording it is:

...but the group's music grew in sophistication, led by primary songwriters Lennon and McCartney, and became increasingly experimental. The Beatles are widely regarded as the embodiment of the ideals shared by their generation and its sociocultural changes.

With a slight change of wording, we now hit it on the nail! Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The claim is sourced. Mlpearc (open channel) 01:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

In addition to the sourcing issue, the accuracy of the claim depends on what is meant by "agents of change". Arguably, during their early years and initial megastardom (up to about late 1965) they were "agents of change" in musical style and innovation. But it wasn't until the mid to late sixties that they were perceived as agents of social change ("ideals shared by the era's sociocultural revolutions" -- referring to the counterculture of the 1960s). I don't think we could argue that in their early years they were seen as more than musicians and showmen (albeit incredibly talented). Sundayclose (talk) 01:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I can get out a copy of Time magazine's 50 year anniversary publication on the Beatles' first visit and show you, Sundayclose, that you are partially wrong and show you numerous sources that would validate what I'm saying, and then find a hundred other books that everyone has read and say the pretty much same thing. By the way, I am only proposing slight changes to better serve a point of view that is common knowledge in the whole western Hemisphere. You will note that I do not make the wording micro-time specific to an exact year or part of the 60s (for instance the proposed wording does not mention them being revolutionary in 1964, per se), only general to the whole decade, so why should this be a problem? Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

By all means, please provide sources that unequivocally identify The Beatles as agents of social change (i.e., the counterculture of the 1960s) in the years 1960-64. The information currently in the article is reliably sourced, so you need to provide reliable sources that clearly contradict what I have described here. Sundayclose (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I need to go home and get my copy of the commemorative edition, but I just pulled up an article on CNN's website, "Beatles+Sullivan=Revolution: Why Beatlemania Could not Happen Today," by Todd Leopold, [[1]] with concurs with what I'm saying. If you need sources they can be found there (and a in million other places). Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC) (sorry, forgot to sign at correct Time)

By the way, you in fact do identify the specific time period as "immediately apparent day one". Day one for The Beatles was in 1958. If you intend "day one" to mean their arrival at JFK, you need to provide a source that they were having a major impact on the counterculture of the 60s at that moment. And BTW, the article you link is very much a matter of interpretation that it unequivocally argues that The Beatles had an impact as early as 1964 on issues such as racism, the Vietnam war, drug culture, etc., all part of the counterculture of the 60s. Everyone does not interpret it the way you do. In that situation, you need a clear consensus here to change the statement in the Wikipedia article. Sundayclose (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

You know that by "day one," I meant at "fist impact" (i.e. the moment that they entered the mass consciousness) which I mentioned in the first paragraph. The argument about 1964 was only commentary intended to expand our minds on the topic, but not in the actual changes in text I proposed in the block lettering. If you look at the block lettering, I only speak of the 60s general, not a specific year. The only change in wording I propose is in there. The other comments are only rationale as to why to do that. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The 60s general?? Well of course! The Beatles broke up before the end of the 60s. That doesn't explain anything. You said "day one". That means as early as 1964, not 1969 by the time they broke up. I am not arguing that The Beatles never "came to be perceived as an embodiment of the ideals shared by the era's sociocultural revolutions." Just not as early as 1964 as you are claiming. Sundayclose (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Just read the CNN article and see if my actual proposed changes (in block lettering) are that off base. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, that's a matter of opinion. I disagree. You need a consensus to make the change. It's as simple as that. So let's wait for more opinions. Sundayclose (talk) 02:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Excerpts from CNN article:

"The Beatles were like aliens dropped into the United States of 1964. Kennedy's assassination 10 weeks earlier had left a gloom on the land. Together, the two events created a dividing line between Then and Now.

"A lot of people don't understand why (Sullivan) was a seminal moment in the history of America and, for that matter, the history of the world," former Arkansas governor and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee recalled in a recent speech.

"The country had just gone through a very painful time of mourning. ... There was an extraordinary amount of despair, heartbreak, disappointment," he continued. "I think people forget that we were still grieving as a nation.

"The Beatles brought something to America more than music. They brought hope."

...The United States was a different country. It's somehow appropriate that The Beatles' appearance was in black-and-white. The mod, colorful '60s were partly a result of their handiwork.

"When we got here, you were all walking around in f**kin' bermuda shorts, with Boston crew cuts and stuff on your teeth," recalled John Lennon in 1970. "We just thought, 'what an ugly race.' "

The effect was immediate -- and overwhelming."

This is only CNN. The Time articles delve into the controversy and generational awakening that happened in '64. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

References

No need to quote the CNN article. I can read. You need a consensus. Please read WP:CON. Sundayclose (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Garagepunk66: Please review WP:BURDEN and WP:CONSENSUS as there is none here as of yet. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course I want a consensus. That is why started this thread. I want the quote to be here for the benefit of all readers, for the sake of convenience. You just happened to be the fist people to respond. I ask you to keep an open mind to what is a very slight modest proposed change. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

It's more than "a very slight modest proposed change." You'll need a lot more open minds than ours. This really isn't that complicated, Garagepunk66. This situations plays out many times every day on Wikipedia. But consensus doesn't develop in an hour or two, and in a high traffic article like this one, it doesn't develop from the opinions of one or two editors. Please be patient and wait. Sundayclose (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• The main problem I see with this shift in perspective is that the early excitement surrounding the Beatles was not yet connected with the aforesaid “sociocultural changes“ in any specific way. There’s much said about novelty, strangeness, optimism, &c., but little about the ways in which this spirit might actually manifest itself. As of 1964, the 1960s were not yet “The ’Sixties” as we know the period today—most of such characteristic features as the civil-rights movement, Vietnam, urban riots, post-suffrage feminism, psychedelia, non-traditional families, New Age spirituality, and so on, were still inchoate—it’s only in hindsight that the Beat movement, rock’n‘roll, and the British Invasion can be viewed as harbingers of these revolutions. Nor did the Beatles themselves become associated with Eastern religion, pacifism, drugs, or the artistic avant-garde until later in the decade. So I prefer the “came to be perceived” wording in the context of generational phenomena.—Odysseus1479 19:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not asking that the wording in the heading be changed to say that the Beatles were "change agents in 1964" (per se), but that they embodied change in the 60s as a decade, which is a different proposition altogether (please go back see what I had in the block lettering in my original comments at top), and who would disagree? The kind of statement I propose leaves room for different opinions. But, I recognize that in order to get you to agree to any proposed change of wording, I first have to show you sources that say that The Beatles were change agents earlier than the present wording allows. So I will argue that they were seen as change agents in 1964 as a way to make possibe the "neutral position" wording that I have proposed. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

"So I will argue that they were seen as change agents in 1964 as a way to make possibe the "neutral position" wording that I have proposed." :That's anything but neutral. That is the very idea that the others discussing here oppose. You don't seem to be getting the point. We are saying that The Beatles were not change agents as early as 1964. And as has been pointed out to you several times: you need a consensus to make the change. Now please stop repeating the same argument over and over. Wait for consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Then, kindly, please stop misunderstanding my position. And I am addressing others, not just you. Keep in mind that three years ago, I would have been inclined to agree with you. It was only after reading a bunch of publications that came out after the 50th anniversary of the their first visit to America, that I came to see how revolutionary they were at first impact. I have the Time 50th anniversary of the Beatles first visit publication right in front of me, entitled: The Beatles Invasion. It is written by Bob Spitz, one of the most famous rock biographers, who has done best-selling and critically-acclaimed biographies on The Beatles, John Lennon, and Bob Dylan, as well as others. I believe that he has a book on this very same topic, which the Time publication is probably taken from. I will quote form the Time publication:

• On page 5, in the prologue, Spitz discusses the societal context and effect of their first visit: "a cultural shift had begun to jolt the country's tectonic plates from its glossy surface down to its disenchanted core. Young people were struggling to find a means of self-expression. Traditional values were on their way out, but nobody knew what was coming in. Even so, momentum was clearly building. The buttoned down Eisenhower era, a cushion against postwar uncertainty, was giving way to a ferment of social restlessness and a generation waiting to break loose." Right after that he goes on to dices the civil rights already underway, and the new feminist movement (Betty Freidman, etc.), as well as the cold war. I might add that there was already a "ban the bomb" movement going on in both the USA and UK. I have seen pictures of it where protesters were already carrying peace sings in 1963.
• Then he goes on the discuss the pain after the Kennedy assassination and how the Beatles visit brought healing.

• On page 56, it mentions that, though news anchor, Walter Cronkite brought his daughters backstage to visit the Beatles, he was "offended" but their long (for the time) hair (Keep in mind that in the USA in the 50s and early 60s, men were expected to have crewcuts, or if their hair was slightly longer, to be combed and Brill Creamed back. Absolutely no hair could go over the tops of ears or over the top of an even high shirt collar, nor be over the forehead. To do otherwise would immediately brand someone as a reprobate or even a communist. Then, here come the Beatles wearing these funny suits with their hair flopping around over their faces and collars, wearing these odd Cuban-heeled boots.). The context of what Spitz is saying here is that a generation gap was opening up this very instant.

• Then in his epilogue at the end, he sums up their significance to the 1960s as a decade when he says that they "kick started and era", and then he goes on and I quote:

The Beatles tapped into a revolution that was waiting to happen, releasing a pent-up primal scream, a burst of pure joy, not shaded with all of the conflict that later came with it. They set off an outburst and provided the soundtrack for all that followed--musical, social, and political transformations."

Now read my proposed change of wording and see if it is not congruent with what Spitz is saying:

...but the group's music grew in sophistication, led by primary songwriters Lennon and McCartney, and became increasingly experimental. The Beatles are widely regarded as the embodiment of the ideals shared by their generation and its sociocultural changes.

And, go read any of the books and publications about their first visit and see if my statement is really that off base. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Garagepunk66, I have not misunderstand your position. Let me try to state this as clearly as I can: No one, so far, in this discussion agrees with your position. You need to wait for consensus. I can't state it any more clearly, and I don't plan to respond every time you make the same argument again and again. You're not helping your case by assuming that everyone has to agree with you. This is my last comment until other editors express their opinions.Sundayclose (talk) 03:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I never said you have to respond, but you keep on doing it. It is my obligation to provide sourced material for future editors to see. I don't expect a consensus to be reached right away (that is your assumption). I said yesterday that I would bring in the publication and cite it. You could be more patient yourself. It is your comments, not mine, that are poisoning this discussion. I have finally had a chance to present my sources. Now, let's just both stand back for awhile and let others respond. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

No one has "poisoned this discussion". Watch the personalizing comments. One thing I agree with you on: Let's see what others think. Sundayclose (talk) 03:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Would you be willing to open your mind after we get a chance to hear from other editors, or is your mind already made up? Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Needs Films or Movies section

There is currently no Films or Movies section, to describe the five movies made by The Beatles. The article needs such a section, that would summarize the major article on this topic. How hard can this be to write, for someone who has some time? David Spector (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

It does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dukawalla (talk • contribs) 10:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to check...

If I were to suggest that since the Wikipedia community has (rightly) decided not to capitalise 'the' in the Beatles or other band names...

... presumably for the reason that "the" is part of the band's name only in the same sense it is part of "the White House" or "the United Kingdom"...

... that the article should therefore be renamed Beatles, just like, for example, the Spice Girls article is...

... everyone would would just murder me, right? Popcornduff (talk) 00:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what your point is here. If you want to request a move of the article from "The Beatles" to "Beatles" then do it but expect almost universal opposition. The five goals of a Wikipedia article title are recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency. Both options are precise and concise, but "The Beatles" is much more recognizable and natural as this article's title than "Beatles." And as for consistency, we have The Kinks not "Kinks," The Rolling Stones not "Rolling Stones," etc. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 00:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Consistency and grammar are the goal - Wikipedia is inconsistent in how it titles its band articles - but perhaps that's trumped by recognisability. Popcornduff (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Not being part of the name was not the reason for not capitalizing "the". In fact, about the only defense for "The" was that it was in the official name. The reason for "the" over "The" was simply for more flowing prose, as capitalized articles are distracting.Seltaeb Eht (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

As for consistency, the reason the titles are inconsistent is that the bands' names are inconsistent. Some bands contain the definite article in their name, and some do not. It's as simple as that.Seltaeb Eht (talk) 01:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

OK - so is the logic about the Spice Girls and (for another example) the Pixies that even though both groups are almost universally referred to with the definite article, the "the" is not part of their name... but with the Beatles and Rolling Stones it is? I ask not out of argument (clearly consensus is against me and nothing's going to change), but curiosity. Popcornduff (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

In short, yes. The Spice Girls and the Pixies are referred to with the definite article for clarity but it is not actually part of their bands' names. "The" is part of the names of the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, the Kinks, etc; neither side of the infamous "the" vs "The" debate disputed this. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Then consider me a wholly original thinker. By what criteria is it decided that "the" is formally part of the names of the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, but just a matter of utility for the Spice Girls or the Pixies? It's not the mere presence of plurals in the latter: see Foals, Doves, and Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark, which are never referred to with "the". Popcornduff (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd say this is mainly because for the former, "the" is included in their names on their material (albums, posters etc.), whereas for the latter it is not.--MASHAUNIX 18:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. We look at the official materials and try to determine what the band understands their name to be. Binksternet (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Spoken Wikipedia

@Batwoodman: The first box above is supposed to go on the article page, in the “External Links“ section, as I see you’ve already done. The second box does belong on this page, but near the top with the other WikiProject banners. The version above is actually a redirect to {{WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia}}; see the (minimal) documentation there. And thanks for making the recording.—Odysseus1479 22:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words and the advice!Batwoodman (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2015

Instead of just 1960-70, it shall be 1960-70; 1994-96: The Beatles briefly reunited in the mid 1990's (1994-1996), releasing 2 new singles and even recording, but sadly not releasing, a new composition, "All For Love". (check the page on the anthoLogy, sources are there! :D) 97.104.209.78 (talk) 05:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

 Not done - This has been discussed several times before - try typing "Years active" into the archive search box at the top of this page.
The consensus was "collaboration on the Anthology mini-series and CDs is not sufficient to be considered a "reunion"." - Arjayay (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• I remember the reunion of Paul, George and Ringo was described by many at the time as a "Beatles reunion", but this was largely media/marketing/record company hype. In the words of George Harrison: "As far as I'm concerned, there won't be a Beatles reunion as long as John Lennon remains dead". MFlet1 (talk) 09:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Graphic timeline

A couple of editors seem to feel that the graphic timeline that illustrates when each member of the band was in the group is not important. I personally think it's a useful part of the article. I'd like to know if there are other opinions. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Graphic timelines should be used when there's a confusing interchange of members. The Beatles do not have any kind of confusion in their membership; it's quite straightforward, with only one member change, very early, before fame. Binksternet (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it is not needed here. It's pretty straight forward.--SabreBD (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Great article needs minor changes

This is certainly a very well written article. I really enjoyed reading it. I like its structure, the paragraphs flow and the content is well organized. I made some minor changes and reorganized the images for a better layout. I would like to point out a few things:

1. Regarding the opening chord of A hard day's night, the sound is not primarily the product of Harrison's 12-string guitar. The truth is that that chord is made by Harrison's 12-string Rickenbacker, Lennon's 6-string guitar, Paul's bass guitar along with Martin on the piano. I don't think Harrison can be considered the major contributor of the sound. I have read an article and seen a video that explain how the opening chord in analyzed in its parts with a Fast Fourier Transform. The 12-string guitar is part of the sound.

2. The "Events leading up to final tour" section says "Recognising that their shows were no longer about the music, they decided to make the August tour their last." It's not clear what year that was. Before that, 1964 is mentioned but I think the year in question is 1966. The sentence should clearly state the year to avoid confusion.

3. The "Magical Mystery Tour, the White Album and Yellow Submarine" section says "yielding numerous songs including a majority of the 30 included on the album". I think "a" should be replaced by "the". I think it's more appropriate.

4. The "1990s" section says "The following year, EMI/Capitol settled a decade-long lawsuit filed by the band over royalties, clearing the way to commercially package previously unreleased material". I think the sentence could be rewritten in a more elegant and clearer way.

5. The "In the studio" section says "They also used early electronic instruments such as the Mellotron, with which McCartney supplied the flute voices on the "Strawberry Fields Forever" intro". I'm not sure what "flute voices" means. It's not clear.

6. The "Awards and achievements" section does not explain why the Fab Four earned the MBE title. I think it would be worth explaining it.

7. Newby, Chapman, Moore and Nicol are never mentioned. It would be nice to add them to the text, even with a single sentence.

ICE77 (talk) 07:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

1. The statement currently is reliably sourced. Do you have a reliable source that contradicts it?

2. 1966 is mentioned early in the subsection, but I don't think there's a problem with identifying the year again.

4. The sentence is clear to me. How would you change it?

6. I don't know if the source already cited indicates the specifics. Does anyone else know?

7. They're listed in the "Members" section. Sundayclose (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Sundayclose, here's the reply to your comments.

1. The article is here: Mathematics, Physics and A Hard Day’s Night. Page 4 clearly shows that George is not the only contributor to the sound and that there is much more to it (especially the piano and the bass). The video is here: Officially released Beatles multitracks reveal true Hard Day's Night Chord.

2. 1966 may be mentioned earlier and it may be logic to think of it but it's not restated so it could lead to confusion.

4. I would say "The following year, EMI/Capitol settled a decade-long lawsuit filed by the band over royalties, opening the way to packaging and marketing previously unreleased material".

7. I know the other four members are listed in the "Members" section but not in the text and it would be nice to mention them there as well, even if they were part of the Beatles for a very short stint.

ICE77 (talk) 05:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

1. The source in the article is based on first-hand information. Although your sources might be mentioned briefly because they might be of interest, I don't think we can consider forensic analysis as definitive. It's not an exact science.

4. I see very little difference in the two sentences in terms of elegance and clarity.

7. I personally think listing the names in "Members" is sufficient. Sundayclose (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I just want to add one more comment.

1. I find it hard to believe you dispute the evidence of a study based on an acoustically and mathematically correct method like a Fast Fourier Transform.

ICE77 (talk) 03:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say I dispute it. I said that after-the-fact forensic analysis is an inexact science and cannot be considered definitive. I think it might be worth briefly mentioning the study, but the information based on first hand observations at the time of the recording is compelling and cannot be considered irrelevant. If you want to replace the current information with a forensic analysis, I disagree. If you want to mention an alternative explanation in addition to the current one, and no else here disagrees, I can accept it. Sundayclose (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Was the essay actually published in a peer reviewed journal (or similar publication)? It appears to have gotten some attention, but I'm not sure how much it was "peer-reviewed" on its technical merits. And I did find this: https://sites.google.com/site/ahdnchord/brown.

Also, it is probably too much detail for this article, perhaps it should go to the song's page? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 17:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

It took me a while to review the article by Dr. Brown and the additional link that John/Jwj provided. After reading everything very carefully, I realize that Dr. Brown really didn't tell the truth. In the analysis at this page https://sites.google.com/site/ahdnchord/brown it is clear that there are several misconceptions and wrong conclusions. On the same website at the page https://sites.google.com/site/ahdnchord/notchor it is explained why and how several people came to a wrong conclusion about the opening chord, including Dr. Brown. I truly like the way the work of Dr. Brown was labeled: a "celebrated travesty". After reading the response to his article, it became clear something was not right, including the single note John plays up the neck which is ridiculous. At the page https://sites.google.com/site/ahdnchord/home, the correct interpretation of the chord is advanced. I just read the entry for "A hard day's night (song)" on Wikipedia and lots of the stuff in it is wrong (most of the misconceptions on that page are explained at the second link I provided). If you read the 3 links above you will see what is the true opening chord of the song and this goes back to my first comment that pointed out Harrison is not the major contributor to the opening chord.

ICE77 (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what specifically you are suggesting we do with the article. And, as I look at the article, I don't see anything specifically about the opening chord. I interpret the mention of the 12-string to apply to the general sound of the album itself. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 02:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Lennon's harmonica vs keyboards

Regarding this revert, I would argue that Lennon's harmonica playing, a key and distinct part of their early sound, is more notable than his keyboard playing. McCartney and George Martin played keyboards more often than Lennon on Beatles records.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. Name more than 3 or 4 songs in which Lennon is known to play harmonica and that it's "a key and distinct part". We all know he played harmonica on Love Me Do and Please Please me. Name several others. With a few exceptions (notably Billy Preston on Let It Be (and on rare occasions Ringo or George Martin), Lennon and/or McCartney handled keyboards throughout The Beatles' career, and that's a lot of songs. Sundayclose (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Love Me Do / Please Please Me / From Me To You / There's A Place / Chains / Thank You Girl / I'll Get You / I'm A Loser / I Should Have Known Better / Little Child Patthedog (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd say both are notable. In early years (notably in Help!, and if I recall a few other times), Lennon would identify himself as playing "rhythm guitar and mouth organ". It could even be argued that his harmonica playing is more notable than his keyboards on Beatles records, as McCartney played keyboards far more often. The harmonica was a fundamental part of the Beatles' early sound, due in part to the fact that "Love Me Do" was the first chart record by a British group to feature harmonica. The harmonica is very identifiable as a part of the early Beatles sound, and that makes it notable. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Lennon's harmonica contributions were notable enough over 1962–64 to warrant inclusion. On the point of keyboards, George Harrison probably played a keyboard instrument on their recordings about as often as Lennon played harmonica (Northern Song, Blue Jay Way, Guitar Gently Weeps, Old Brown Shoe, Something, Here Comes the Sun, Because – could be more). The difference is that the harmonica partly defined their sound, which is more important than the numbers, of course. JG66 (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to hold up things and I respect consensus. Since I'm the only one opposed to including harmonica, I'll withdraw my objection. I have reverted my edit. Thanks for the comments. Sundayclose (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Cilla Black

Why is Cilla Black an associated act in the info box? There is explanation for all the others in the article, but not this one. I think there should be at least some mention of her to explan why she appears here. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Per Template:Infobox musical artist#associated acts, the following uses of this field should be avoided:

• Association of groups with members' solo careers.
• Association of producers, managers, etc. (who are themselves acts) with other acts (unless the act essentially belongs to the producer, as in the case of a studio orchestra formed by and working exclusively with a producer).

That would exclude Cilla Black, George Martin, Badfinger and Jackie Lomax. If they are included you might as well include every Nems and Apple artist. The long standing consensus was for the Quarrymen, Billy Preston and the Plastic Ono Band only. Piriczki (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I removed them per consensus. Thanks for pointing that out. Sundayclose (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment: You might want to look at this thread from last year. Perhaps Badfinger falls outside the field, but Jackie Lomax received musical contributions from three of the Beatles – the only time more than two members of the band appeared on a recording (Sour Milk Sea) other than one of their own. Aside from that Harrison-produced single, Harrison, McCartney and Starr participated in other Lomax sessions – in other words, sometimes Harrison produced a session with Starr playing drums, and sometimes McCartney produced a session featuring Harrison on guitar or Starr on drums.

And George Martin: even forgetting his role as the band's producer, his orchestral recordings served as one half of the Beatles' US Help! album (Mark Lewisohn, p. 62) and the Yellow Submarine album. Does that not make him worthy of inclusion as an associated act here?

I appreciate that I'm not adhering to the letter of the law regarding the guidelines on associated acts (and that 2014 discussion shows I'm not the only one who sees them as being too restrictive). But as far as "associations" go, I think it couldn't be stronger with regard to Martin, and similarly, Lomax is the sole example, as far as I can see, of a genuine Beatles/Apple protégé. Any thoughts? JG66 (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of the infobox is to provide the reader with a quick summary about the subject of the article. It is not there for editors to demonstrate their knowledge of every bit of minutiae related to the subject. The average reader would have no way of knowing about the only time more than two members of the band appeared on a recording other than one of their own was on the song "Sour Milk Sea" by Jackie Lomax. They might even wonder who Jackie Lomax is since he's not even mentioned in the article. Piriczki (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm pointing out a fairly recent discussion that you omitted in your comment above. (A link to the longstanding consensus you mention would be useful ...?) And I suggest that this article should have a whole lot more about Apple Records, then. Apart from the operation of the record label playing a major part in the band's break-up, the opportunities it offered McCartney and Harrison to hone their skills as record producers, and Lennon as an outlet for his experimental works with Ono, reflected the band's growth and diversity during the final years of their career. Apple is synonymous with the Beatles, as are its early acts such as Lomax and Preston. I'm not pushing this issue regarding Lomax's inclusion, I'm just raising it again for discussion (hence "Comment"). So a statement such as "[The infobox] is not there for editors to demonstrate their knowledge of every bit of minutiae related to the subject" is just crass and uncalled for. You made no mention of George Martin in your reply … JG66 (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Were/Was

An editor keeps blindly changing the lead to say "The Beatles was" instead of "The Beatles were." I raised this issue with him on his talk page but he showed no interest in responding to my concern and continues to edit war. Calidum 04:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I assume good faith that Calidum is trying his best. Collective nouns (or in this case a collective pronoun) can be treated as singular or plural. for example I may say "Physics is my favorite subject" because Physics is being treated as a singular subject. If "the beatles" or "the alan parson's project" or "the kinks" etc are being treated as a singular unit (in this case a singular band) we would use "was" not were. Bryce Carmony (talk) 04:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The Kinks also uses were. Please note both that article and this are featured articles, meaning they meet the highest standards Wikipedia has. If "were" were wrong in those cases, it wouldn't be used in either article. Calidum 05:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Featured articles can be improved that is why we allow people to edit Feature articles. I support using Was since using Were gives undue weight ( an NPOV violation ) to the notion that the beatles was more than one band. NPOV cannot be circumvented by a consensus. Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawn by proposer, as an american I'm use to American english where we treat singular things as singular. in British English they treat bands as plural. so "Coldplay are" "Muse are" "Po! are" etc. Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, it is "the Beatles were" in American English too (see Comparison of American and British English#Formal and notional agreement Piriczki (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

"Were" is clearly correct grammar in this case because the word "Beatles" is a plural noun. Writing that "The Beatles was" is bad grammar in any form of of English. Band names such as "Coldplay" and "Fleetwood Mac", however, are not plural nouns in themselves, but in traditional British English the names of music groups and some other entities, such as football teams, are often regarded as being plural nouns because they are the names of a plural number of people. Afterwriting (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Rubber Soul

Mark Hertsgard's book A Day In the Life, the Music and Artistry of the Beatles has some observations about the turn from "a collection of singles" to the LP as a work of art itself. Would adding that observation (from George Martin, actually)to the part about Rubber Soul be acceptable?--Daveler16 (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Instruments revisited

I meant to raise this when we were last discussing musical instruments credited to individual band members. In the list at The Beatles#Members, I think drums should be removed after McCartney's name. PITW, if drums do appear there, then "keyboards" belongs under Harrison. (At that discussion linked above, I came up with seven songs on which Harrison plays keys; just realised I forgot one of the most obvious Beatles tracks: It's All Too Much.) JG66 (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree completely. The instrument list is for the primary instruments for which the member is noted. McCartney rarely played drums for The Beatles. Sundayclose (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

According to Lewisohn in Tune In (p 336), Paul served as the Beatles' drummer during the summer of 1960, between Norman Chapman's departure and the recruitment of Pete Best. So drums was actually hid primary instrument for a time. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

But if we look at the overall career of the group, with more emphasis on their superstar years, McCartney is not known for drums any more than Harrison is for keyboards. Sundayclose (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a tricky one. I have read that McCartney played drums on a few dates at that time, but Seltaeb Eht are you sure about that page number in Lewisohn's Tune In? I couldn't find anything there; but he writes on p 335: "'A series of drums came and went and came', John wrote of this period a few months later. History doesn't record all the names and the Beatles never remembered them." I'm surprised Lewisohn doesn't mention Jackie Lomax – he drummed for them at some of their Liverpool gigs that summer.

Personally I favour giving details for the established, superstar period of their career. I don't know how that would work when compared to other band articles, though … To me, it looks wrong including drums for McCartney, because one automatically sees omissions elsewhere (eg keyboards, bass too perhaps, for Harrison). JG66 (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't necessarily arguing for drums to be included , I just wanted that fact to be considered when we made a decision. For the record, on p. 336 (of the standard edition), Lewisohn writes: "While all this was happening, the Beatles lost their drummer. Norman Chapman's call-up arrived and he was off...This time, the bother of looking for a replacement was beyond them: the Beatles just contracted to a four-piece and Paul went on drums, a move that coincided with a delicate moment in his life." He then goes on to describe Paul's kit (scrounged together from Mike McCartney's and some pieces Tommy Moore left behind) and his feelings about being relegated to the back end. However, editors are right pointing out the shortness of his tenure, which probably only lasted about a month until Pete Best was recruited. So yes, Paul was the Beatles drummer, but no, it wasn't for a very significant amount of time. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

McCartney played drums at least as often as Harrison played sitar. To me, sitar for Harrison looks out of place too. I would rather have neither.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Disagree with removing sitar for Harrison. Harrison was the only sitar player for the group. It was a very unusual sound for any group at the time, and Harrison is noteworthy for implementing this trademark sound for the latter part of The Beatles' career, just as Lennon's harmonica was a trademark sound for the early Beatles. Sundayclose (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you're exaggerating that instrument's importance, but I'm not going to fight its inclusion.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2015

Years active = 1994-1995 Gosse72 (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Consensus here runs against it, most recently, see Talk:The_Beatles/Archive_32#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_9_July_2015. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 03:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Article could say more about the Beatles' impact on the worldwide beat boom and garage bands, etc.

This article could better address the Beatles' impact on the worldwide beat group boom that was so much a result of their success. 1) Obviously, they inspired a host of British Invasion groups, and there could be a tad more about that. 2) Here, in the States, their Feb. 9, 1964 performance on the Ed Sullivan Show inspired a whole generation of kids to pick up guitars and drums and start bands by the thousands: we address this well-documented phenomenon in the Garage Rock article and could do so here, not to mention 3) the way they re-energized our country's youth after the Kennedy assassination (another thing that could be touched on here). In the garage rock article we go into the ripple-effect they had upon upon the creation of new bands well-beyond the Anglophonic world: the Uruguayan Invasion, Nederbeat, Group Sounds in Japan, etc. I don't expect us to be able to get into all of those things here. We could make a couple of sourced mentions (perhaps in the British Invasion section? or somewhere else). Once that is done, we could insert some links (i.e. "see British Invasion" and "see Garage rock") under the section title. Would this be agreeable, provided, of course, it is properly sourced and worded? Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

There could also be some mention that guitar sales more than doubled in the United States from 1963 to 1965, generally attributed to the Beatles and the British Invasion. Piriczki (talk) 12:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Sales probably went up even more than that, the same with drums too--the Ludwig factory (thanks to Ringo) went into double-overtime shift production (24 hours a-day for several years). And, where did these instruments go?--into the hands of tens of thousands of kids who started up bands--the largest rock explosion that ever occurred (or that likely will ever be). Garagepunk66 (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Crediting the British Invasion for the rise in guitar sales in 1963? Uhhh how about crediting that to all of the rock groups who gave the genre a jumpstart starting in '62? Can see a lot of "The Beatles invented music"-type stuff coming... --Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the garage genre started earlier--we deal with that in the G,R, article. But, the Beatles gave it a big push and affected some the dynamics of it (as sources indicate, i.e. Greg Shaw, etc.). Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Just so we know what the numbers were, annual U.S. guitar sales by year:

• 1959 - 400,000
• 1960 - 420,000
• 1961 - 400,000
• 1962 - 435,000
• 1963 - 700,000
• 1964 - 1,065,000
• 1965 - 1,500,000
• 1966 - 1,430,000

Some of the rise might be attributed to the folk music movement too. Piriczki (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Well there's already The Beatles' influence on popular culture (soon to be moved to Cultural impact of the Beatles) where you can start applying sourced material to.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. I like the point about folk influence too. Now, as for guitar sales, though we know that these two influential factors are self-evident, let's still first make sure that we find sources which directly attribute the proliferation of sales to these musical entities. The other connections (i.e. to garage and beat boom) have been well-documented, so sources are ample. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I added the sourced material to The Beatles' influence on popular culture article. I'd like to fine-tune and work on it a bit more, but it is now there. Also, I think its mention should end up somewhere in the Beatles' main article, because I think it is part of their vital influence and legacy which should be brought to greater attention. Garagepunk66 (talk) 10:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

re "rock band" or "rock/pop band" in opening sentence

Perhaps it doesn't need a discussion, but @C.Syde65: further to your message on my talk, I thought I'd bring it here anyway. As I said in my revert, all we're looking for in an opening sentence, imo, is something general to describe the subject of the article. It's worth bearing in mind that while the genres in this infobox are just rock and pop, we'd get into a real muddle if there were, say, four genres, and they were then all mentioned in the Lead's opening sentence. I notice the Who and Led Zeppelin each has three or more genres, yet only "rock" appears in the opening sentence in both cases. Same with the Rolling Stones, where there are eight genres in the infobox. Not only that, but every Beatles-related Good Article or Featured Article that I've come across reads "the English rock band the Beatles" – at least, all those that give a genre.

That's my take on this issue, anyway. JG66 (talk) 05:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that The Monkees have rock and pop in the opening sentence of their article, and I was wondering if that should be changed. I've noticed that with The Monkees, there are fewer conflicts with opinions since The Monkees aren't as well known, and thus fewer people - though still a fair number - care about what is said in the opening sentence and whatnot. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 08:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2015

In the following paragraph, 3rd paragraph in "Abbey Road, Let It Be, and break-up":

New strains developed between the band members regarding the appointment of a financial adviser, the need for which had become evident without Epstein to manage business affairs. Lennon, Harrison and Starr favoured Allen Klein, who had managed the Rolling Stones and Sam Cooke; McCartney wanted John Eastman, brother of Linda Eastman, whom McCartney married on 12 March. Agreement could not be reached, so both were temporarily appointed, but further conflict ensued and financial opportunities were lost. On 8 May, Klein was named sole manager of the band.

I think McCartney's father-in-law Lee Eastman should be mentioned in addition to John Eastman since there is ample evidence that McCartney looked to his father-in-law for advice, and Lee Eastman took an active part in negotiations with the Beatles and Klein. See Allen Klein#The Beatles for references. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Specifically, I'm recommending that:

McCartney wanted John Eastman, brother of Linda Eastman,

be changed to:

McCartney wanted Lee and John Eastman, the father and brother of Linda Eastman,

Strawberry4Ever (talk) 03:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Update: It looks like I'm an established user now, so I can make the edit myself. Is there any objection to me making this change? Strawberry4Ever (talk) 11:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Lee Eastman should be mentioned also – he (not his son John) featured in much of the public sparring with Klein during the first half of 1969. John Eastman was present in London on a more regular basis, however – I guess the question is how the source (Bill Harry's book) handles this issue? Peter Doggett's You Never Give Me Your Money covers this angle of the break-up very well (imo), it's a fantastic book. You might want to check there if you can … JG66 (talk) 11:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion about You Never Give Me Your Money. I don't have that book or Bill Harry's The Beatles Encyclopedia but I do have The Beatles Anthology by the Beatles. I could add The Beatles Anthology pages 324-326 as an additional reference to justify including Lee Eastman in the paragraph, or if you make the edit you could add a reference to You Never Give Me Your Money, assuming you have the book handy. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 12:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've reworded using Doggett as the source. Have to say, after recently buying Bill Harry's George Harrison Encyclopedia, which is just riddled with basic errors, I'm slightly alarmed at how much we rely on Harry's various Beatle "encyclopedias" in this article(!). JG66 (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks! Strawberry4Ever (talk) 12:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

One other point has just occurred to me. In the revised paragraph you wrote "so both Klein and the Eastmans were temporarily appointed". I'm currently reading Fred Goodman's new book Allen Klein, The Man Who Bailed Out the Beatles, Made the Stones, and Transformed Rock & Roll. On pages 164, 166, and 174-175 he wrote "Allen suggested that things would go best for the Beatles if he took care of the business and the Eastmans contented themselves being their lawyers, but John Eastman flatly rejected the idea. ... A few days later, [Lee] Eastman and [John] Eastman changed course and agreed to Klein's suggestion that they act as attorneys for the Beatles. ... By May, Allen had been working for the Beatles for over three months without a management agreement. ... The deal they agreed to on May 8 was informal and unusually straightforward: Klein was exclusive business manager for the Beatles ... McCartney, after earlier suggesting to the others that he might agree to have Klein as the manager if his fee was lowered, now said he didn't want to sign with Klein under any conditions ... Lennon, Harrison and Starr had signed as representatives of 'Apple Corps Ltd. on behalf of the Beatles Group of Companies.' The foursome was incorporated as the Beatles and Company, with Apple as its successor; he had the signature of three of the four, and that made him officially and legally the business manager. Allen had won his long-sought prize. Besides, Lennon and Harrison, concluding that the Eastmans wanted only to obstruct and frustrate Klein, had dismissed Eastman and Eastman as the Beatles' attorneys. Allen was firmly in control." Should some of this be incorporated into the Wikipedia article? The main point is that the Eastmans were appointed as the Beatles' attorneys, not as co-managers with Klein. It could also be mentioned that McCartney refused to sign the contract with Klein but was out-voted. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

(editing again so the latest version of the talk page won't be shown as being a minor edit) Strawberry4Ever (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Strawberry4Ever (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• Just noting that I've deactivated the edit request since you are now autoconfirmed and can make changes yourself. Cheers. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Unless someone objects, when I have some free time I'll make the edit described in my latest reply above. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Yep, the Doggett ref I added does support that temporary scenario: Klein as the Beatles' business manager; the Eastmans as their lawyers.

As for the other points you mention, I agree it could be good to say that McCartney was outvoted. With the other details, though, you might want to take it to Break-up of the Beatles#Business quagmire: Allen Klein, Lee and John Eastman, and ATV-Northern Songs. I'd say some detail would be very welcome there. JG66 (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again. I didn't realize that there is a separate Wikipedia article for Break-up of the Beatles. That explains the lack of detail in the main article on the Beatles. It looks like I have a lot of work to do once I finish reading the Allen Klein biography. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Strawberry4Ever: Good job with that recent addition.

Aside from the Break-up article we already have, btw, I've always thought we could do with one dedicated to the legal battles relating to the Beatles and Apple through much of the 1970s. Many times I've been working on a solo Beatle song or album article (or have been planning to), and wished that such an article existed, to link to for background/historical context for the song or album. Perhaps others might think a dedicated article would be excessive, but a) it's not an issue that's covered at Apple Corps, b) the Break-up article has so much to cover already, and c) the 1970–77 lawsuits are certainly as notable as The Beatles' Decca audition, Religious views of the Beatles, Reunions and other subjects featured in Template:The Beatles history (which you'll see appears at the start of this band article). Something to think about anyway! JG66 (talk) 04:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

An article on the various lawsuits is sorely needed. Heck, the Beatles were still suing each other in the 1980s and last sued EMI in 2005. Piriczki (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes absolutely – I was limiting it to just the British High Court suit and the settlement reached with Klein in 1977 because of where this discussion came in. But the late 1980s legal battle with Capitol, for instance, is equally notable. Again, hats off to Doggett, as far as I'm concerned: I'd never been able to follow the Beatles' post-split legal entanglements until reading his book. JG66 (talk) 06:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Notability of streaming their music

Seltaeb Eht added an item (later reverted by Mlpearc) about The Beatles' being one of the last groups whose music has been made available for streaming. I think this information is worthy of further discussion. My personal preference is to leave the information in the article; I'm curious what others think. The Beatles have lots of firsts and lasts (or near lasts), which is another indicator of the power that their music has on culture, even long after they broke up. When CDs first started being sold, they were one of the last groups at the time whose music became available on CD. Their music didn't show up in commercials for a very long time. (I'm not suggesting we add any of that information; right now I don't want to dig up a source). The streaming information is well sourced; I hope we can include it in the article. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

This is their music being released in a new format - as notable as the first CD releases or move to digital download services such as ITunes.Seltaeb Eht (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it should be included. Like Taylor Swift and many others, have decided not to stream their music. Pretty sure it's mentioned in her article. Don't see why it can't be here. It's a notable event. Though AC/DC did it recently as well, and I don't see it mentioned in there. It really just depends on our editorial preference I suppose, and I say yes. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I reverted the edit because it didn't seem to be notable, I have no problem with inclusion, if others think it should be in. I guess I just thought it should be discussed. Mlpearc (open channel) 23:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Associated Acts

I've been reading through the edit history and discussion around the Associated Acts section near the top of the article, and I propose adding Yoko Ono and Ravi Shankar to this section, given that both of these artists were intimately connected with members of the group (Ono being Lennon's lover and future wife; Shankar being Harrison's musical mentor and lifelong friend) and, as such, are an integral part of the band's legacy. Thoughts? Key of Now (talk) 12:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Well the Plastic Ono Band is already listed - doesn't that cover Ono?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Neither Ono or Shankar meet the specific guidelines for associated acts in Template:Infobox musical artist, that's why they are not listed. Piriczki (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thank you both for the clarification, that makes sense. I'll leave it alone. :) Key of Now (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Given the Template:Infobox musical artist criteria, would it not be appropriate to add The Rolling Stones? I base this suggestion on these details of the two bands' relationship: 1) Lennon and McCartney were commissioned to write The Stones' first hit single "I Wanna Be Your Man", which was made to order in The Stones' presence; 2) Jagger, Richards and Jones participated in the making of a promotional film for The Beatles' "A Day in the Life" and the live satellite telecast performance of "All You Need Is Love"; 3) Brian Jones plays saxophone on The Beatles' "You Know My Name (Look Up the Number)"; 4) Lennon and McCartney sing on The Stones' single "We Love You"; 5) Jagger and Richards sing on The Beatles' track "Baby You're a Rich Man", on which Brian Jones also plays mellotron. This is not to mention the public perception of both groups as the twin standard-bearers of the so-called British Invasion, as well as the groups' intertwined business affairs as the two most successful musical acts in the world at the time. Key of Now (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

‘The’ vs. ‘the’ mid-sentence

I originally posted this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music, but I didn't get a response, so…

(Note: edited from original version to a limited extent)

Several years ago, a controversial consensus was reached not to capitalize the definite article in mid-sentence uses of ’The Beatles’ (thus ‘I like the Beatles’ as opposed to ‘I like The Beatles’; see here for arguments for each side), and articles for most rock bands whose names begin with ‘The’ have since been edited accordingly. Although the MoS on music has since been edited to say ‘Mid-sentence, per the MoS, the word "the" should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose’, I would like to revive the issue for a very simple reason: in the Beatles discussion, both sides seem to have completely ignored the fact that ‘The’ is the first word in the band's name and the first word in a proper noun is generally capitalized whenever the proper noun is used (cf. Of Mice and Men and To Kill a Mockingbird). It should thus be capitalized mid-sentence simply for being the first word in a proper noun, and it is thus entirely possible to say that ‘The Beatles’ should be written mid-sentence even though the ‘the’ is generally not capitalized in band names like ‘Echo & the Bunnymen’ and ‘Booker T. & the M.G.s’. If you take that into consideration, some of the external style guides presented in favor of ‘the’ become ambiguous at best (Duke University's, for example, simply says ‘Avoid unnecessary capitals’), and the MoS has changed in two places to support ‘The’: MOS:THECAPS now says, ‘Use the same capitalization as the title of the article’, and although it says this is only for song and album titles, WP:BANDNAME says, ‘capitalize the first and last word [of the song or album title]’, and it would be irrational to draw a distinction between the first word of band names and the first word of song and album titles; they're all proper nouns, after all. What do you think? Should it be ‘the Beatles’ or ‘The Beatles’ mid-sentence? Esszet (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

NOT AGAIN ! Mlpearc (open channel) 02:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Esszet: I don't think this is the right place to debate this issue. WP:THECAPS#Names (definite article) specifically says that "the Beatles" should be used mid-sentence, except in the specific case of the album titled The Beatles. Strawberry4Ever (talk)

Yet another plunge into the lamest edit wars. I personally prefer "The" but I am so sick of this battle being fought every year or two that I oppose any change from the current consensus. For the sake of the reputation of Wikipedia and the sanity of editors interest in T/the Beatles I implore everyone, big "T" and little "t" alike, move on! It's an utter waste if time and not worth the tens of thousands of words and the heated discussions over one measly little letter. And then what do you end up with? What have you accomplished? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Except to set the stage for the same old stale arguments in a year or two. Please everyone. There are so many important things in life and on Wikipedia. Let's be adults. Move on. Sundayclose (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

1) It doesn't look as though much has been said about this since 2012 (at least on this talk page) 2) I get the feeling that, if someone had brought up the fact that ‘The’ is the first word in the band's name, the whole thing would have been a lot less heated; that simple observation makes it much easier to draw additional distinctions about rules of capitalization and thus to make rational arguments in favor of either side instead of getting stuck in logical standoffs and then hurling insults around. Since this does appear to be the wrong place to discuss this, I'll take it over to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music; feel free to join the discussion if you want. Esszet (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure you realize that the 2012 discussion was one of many. Dig through the archives. Every conceivable argument for "t" and "T" have been made, including "The" being the first word in the band's name. In fact, if I remember correctly, there has been a discussion since 2012. As with many of the other discussions, those who argue one side or the other ad infinitum never bother to check the archives and find out it's all been said before ... and before ... and before ... A huge waste of time and resources over such triviality. Sadly, WP:LAME is correct that this argument has gone on longer than the group's existence. This issue is a good example of Sayre's law: the arguments have been so intense because the stakes are so low. No offense to you personally, Esszet, but I hope everyone will ignore this section and move on to more important matters. Sundayclose (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

A prior discussion. Mlpearc (open channel) 04:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Although I was pro "The" back in 2012, I soon got over it once the saga finally ended. Now, I can't think why I was against "the", in fact, and I'd definitely oppose us revisiting this issue now. All that matters, imo, is that we retain "The" in quoted matter where it appears, because there's no getting around the fact that many sources do say "The Beatles" (eg, Ian MacDonald's Revolution in the Head, The Beatles Anthology (book), most of Omnibus Press' (many) Beatles titles, and special issues on the band published by Mojo and Uncut magazines). But hopefully that's pretty obvious – the quote is sacrosanct. JG66 (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see anything about ‘The’ being the first word in the band's name in that discussion, Mlpearc, and Sundayclose, I can't find much of a discussion on it here (after the ‘Beatles RfC’ section from October 2012), here, or here; is the discussion somewhere else? And even if that argument has been made before, it certainly wasn't reflected at all here; otherwise, why would the argument have been made that band names like Echo & the Bunnymen and Booker T. & the M.G.s support ‘the’? I'm not trying to start another shouting match; I really do think the discussion will be much less heated this time around. Esszet (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Years of discussion and everyone just "forgot" to notice this? This is not a "Beatles" issue, it is a manual of style issue. The relevant resources are published manuals of style, not books about the Beatles. To continue pursuing this borders on disruption. Piriczki (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

"The relevant resources are published manuals of style, not books about the Beatles …" Was that further to what I was saying? I was simply talking about when "The Beatles" appears in text we're directly quoting, not whether our decision on the issue of the/The Beatles was or should be made based on those books … JG66 (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

“I really do think the discussion will be much less heated this time around” could be straight out of Blackadder. Sleeping dogs.Patthedog (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

>I really do think the discussion will be much less heated this time around. I admire your faith. I really don't think this is worth reopening, just skim reading the 2006 discussion. My own feeling is that if you ever drop the leading article then it doesn't necessarily need capitalising (but this is only based on an opinion); so: "I like The Streets, they are a great band." "He was a member of The Streets." but "I like the Beatles." "He was a Beatle." or "I like The Beatles." "He was a member of The Beatles." You wouldn't refer to a member of The Streets as a Street, therefore it should always be capitalised. As you can talk about a Beatle, the leading article can be either part of the name (he likes the band) or just a normal definite article as part of the sentence structure (he likes the people who make up the band). So: "I saw two of the Beatles in the pub." "Which of the Beatles do you prefer?" but "When The Beatles played Shay Stadium..." (I know) etc.

Now, rather than going through zillions of articles and checking to see which meaning it intended, which will normally be impossible to tell, I strongly suggest we leave as is. Btljs (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The past consensus should stand as there are no new points introduced here. Binksternet (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Esszet: I realize that the archives about this issue are massive (unfortunately), but you have to read every word to find "The" is in the band's name argument. If you want to stir up this hornet's nest again, that is the least you can do. Trust me, it's in there. Just one example: Talk:The Beatles/Archive 25#the or The? (re-stated proposal). As for your comment “I really do think the discussion will be much less heated this time around”, if you've actually read the entire archives and still believe that, I have some really cheap ocean front property in Arizona to sell you. Sundayclose (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Could we close this discussion and move on? Thanks. Jusdafax 19:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh boy, where do I sign? I realize this issue has been very contentious in the past, but the first word argument is, from a purely stylistic perspective, basically the entire reason ‘The’ should be capitalized mid-sentence (it's the only purely stylistic reason I can think of), and it does not appear to have been given due weight (it appears to have come up a grand total of once in the discussion you linked to, and it doesn't look as though much was said about it). Thus, I think that if it is given due weight, the entire discussion will be much less heated; it then becomes much easier to make rational arguments purely about the topic at hand (as opposed to what the MoS is or isn't or exactly what type of consensus has to be reached). That's why I want to have another discussion about this. Any by the way, where's the discussion been since 2012? I still can't find it. Esszet (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as you clearly can't take a hint, let's have a look: pick one of the several concerning this group, say Abbey Road; Right, so in the first paragraph: "Abbey Road is the 11th studio album by the English rock band the Beatles": clearly this is the title of the band and should be capital T; "final album that the Beatles completed before the band's dissolution": here we're talking about action by the band members and hence lower case t; "Many critics now view the album as the Beatles' best" & "Abbey Road remains the Beatles' best-selling album": ambiguous - could be the band's best or the members working together's best. That's one paragraph on one page and already we've got instances which could raise disagreement. Can you imagine the sheer number of instances we would have to work through? Far better that we plump for one or the other and leave them all the same. Please. Btljs (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Amen to "can't take a hint." @Esszet: "come up a grand total of once"??? I and others here refuse to do the searching for you. First you were saying the issue of "The is in the band's name" hadn't been discussed. When one example is pointed out to you, you try to claim that it is the only one. You search the archives. Because apparently you don't want to believe anyone else. I think we can safely close this discussion under the WP:Snowball clause because of a complete absence of support from numerous editors with the exception of one editor who refuses to get the point. It's time for an uninvolved party to close this discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say it was the only one ever, did I? I said: ‘it appears to have come up a grand total of once in the discussion you linked to’. There really isn't much more I can say about this, so close the discussion if you want, and if anyone wants to discuss this further, the thread is open at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music. Esszet (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2016

For genres, psychedelic rock and psychedelic pop should be in there somewhere, if not baroque pop. 198.72.154.108 (talk) 08:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done genres need reliable sources and, on a page like this, consensus as well - Arjayay (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Profile picture

Do you think if I find a more recent pic of the group, I could put that in the profile picture spot and move the current picture to a different section of the page? Thanks! U2fan01 (talk) 00:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Recent?! ... I guess you mean from later in their career, i.e. 1969 or thereabouts. Personally I think a photo from '64 is perfectly acceptable, though it might be nice to have one of them together as a group rather than individuals. MFlet1 (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the the image added is poor quality and prefer the previous image. More importantly, I also don't think it qualifies for fair use and is a copyright violation because there is a free image of The Beatles available. It fails criterion 1 of WP:Non-free content criteria: No free equivalent. The longstanding image was added 17 June 2008 here because it is in the public domain and there are almost no other free images of The Beatles. This issue was discussed on the talk page in 2008. If we were allowed to use alternate album cover photos under fair use one would have been added long ago. Sundayclose (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, I think it'd just be best if I reverted. U2fan01 (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Beatles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091007072418/http://www.mojo4music.com/blog/2009/09/beatles_remasters_reviewed.html to http://www.mojo4music.com/blog/2009/09/beatles_remasters_reviewed.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

George Martin's death

Shouldn't we add something about George Martin's recent passing? Pink Floyd 1966 (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't see that there's any reason to, just because he was associated with the band. Perhaps if there's an official statement from "the Beatles" (i.e. not just personal tributes from Starr or McCartney, which could sit instead at George Martin, imo). But it's not as if we mention the 2008 death of Neil Aspinall, who, let's face it, actually worked for and represented the Beatles for over 45 years. Perhaps others disagree …? JG66 (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Family Members

Why is their no mention of their wives, children etc on this page, not just on their individual pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bybyaz (talk • contribs) 07:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the individual band member pages are the right places to mention family members, except where the family members are relevant to the band as a whole, such as Linda Eastman's father and brother becoming the Beatles' attorneys. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 12:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Notable omissions: 1) John met Paul at garden fete of St. Peter's Church, Woolton, Liverpool by sheer chance 2) Ed Sullivan was at Heathrow when Beatles returned from Sweden

Hello

Of course this Beatles Wikipedia page has been absolutely excellent for many years, however ....

Two very pivotal and interesting events in the Beatles timeline that have been glossed over in this Beatles article:

1) On the afternoon of 6 July 1957 the Quarrymen skiffle group played at the garden fete of St Peter's Church, Woolton, Liverpool and Paul just happened to show up there with his good friend Ivan Vaughan. If it wasn't for this random event at this Church that day Paul might have never met John and John certainly would never have been introduced at a later date to Paul's friend George. Thank you Ivan Vaughan!

2) That Ed Sullivan was at Heathrow airport when the Beatles returned from Sweden in late 1963 and Ed witnessed himself the first wave of Beatlemania on the tarmac from his plane window. This of course almost immediately piqued his interest for booking this act for his influential New York CBS coast to coast television show.

Of course anyone interested in Beatles yore is already well tuned to both 1) and 2) above however it just seems that their omissions in this article is glaring?

And of course what also seems to be missing from this Wikipedia article was that the main reason they were travelling to the United States in Feb 1964 was that they were already booked on the Ed Sullivan show. Brian Epstein had made that handshake agreement with Sullivan in late 1963. The fact that the I Want To Hold Your Hand record became number 1 in America in Jan 1964 was a very opportune turn of events for the band. However the Beatles were already coming to America to perform on Ed Sullivan regardless of how their new record charted and the Beatles Wikipedia article doesn't specifically mention that fact. Their concerts performed at Washington and Carnegie Hall in Feb 1964 were hastily arranged in between Ed Sullivan Sunday broadcasts after the original Sullivan agreement.

Again there are hundreds of references available for these two omissions that I can provide but anyone can provide those ...

Thanks for my 2 cents and Please Please Me and include the above tid bits in the main article.

Thanks, Mop Top fan Kent

@65.93.70.69: Mop Top fan: You should sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) so other editors know how to reach you. You might want to consider creating an account so you can be known as "MopTopFan" (assuming that's available) instead of 65.93.70.69. Regarding your statement that "the Beatles were already coming to America to perform on Ed Sullivan regardless of how their new record charted", in an interview included in the film version of "The Beatles Anthology", Paul McCartney said that the Beatles had decided that they would not come to the United States until they had a #1 hit here. Of course it's possible that Paul's memory was faulty. If there are conflicting sources it's up to the editors here to resolve the conflict. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Another advantage of creating an account is that once you're auto-confirmed you'll be able to edit the Beatles article yourself instead of suggesting changes for other editors to make. To suggest an edit you should submit an edit request with the exact changes you are asking to be made, including citations to sources which support your proposed statements. I see that the edit request page that I referred to says you should get consensus on the talk page first unless the change is uncontroversial, so you've done the right thing by discussing it here first. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

There has always been some discussion about how much history to put in and how much should be available elsewhere. This information IS in wikipedia: The_Quarrymen#Paul_McCartney_joins_the_group and The_Ed_Sullivan_Show#The_Beatles --John (User:Jwy/talk) 04:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The Beatles and musicology

Hi, 2 people have, with scarce justification, decided to take out my edits in the "musical analysis" segment of the Beatles page. I added a "meta" ref to Beatles and popular music studies, from an important current figure in the field, Olivier Julien (http://www.iremus.cnrs.fr/fr/membres-permanents/olivier-julien), who did his PhD on the Beatles, edited a praised book on Sgt Pepper (https://www.routledge.com/products/9780754667087). How is it irrelevant to introduce a segment on musical analysis with the fact that popular music studies were actually legitimized by the study of the Beatles' music? Or should there be another section dealing with the academic study of the band and its music? Thank you Zamuse (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Zamuse: I think it's good you've taken SC's advice and started a discussion here … There's no question about Julien's credentials – e.g. his book on Pepper appears as a source in the Sgt. Pepper FA. But it is a hefty, grand statement you're wanting to add. One thing I've noticed from the preview I get of Julien's Sgt. Pepper and the Beatles: It Was Forty Years Ago Today: he provides a citation for almost any claim he makes. So, does he do the same in that article "50 ans de Beatles studies‪" perhaps? If there are one or two sources that support his point – meaning it's not just coming from Olivier Julien himself – that could be quite compelling. I've certainly read somewhere that the Beatles' music led to/created the situation that Julien claims, also that, together with Dylan's Blonde on Blonde, their 1965–66 albums created the need for incisive rock music journalism/criticism. So I don't think Julien's statement is inaccurate, but where does he get this information? JG66 (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why we need an additional cite - the text Zamuse added stated that Julien made this claim, and that fact is properly cited. We don't need to back up Julien's claim because we are not trying to prove it, we are merely reporting it. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't disagree with that either – it's a claim, we'd be presenting it as such rather than as a statement of fact, and it's not as if it's such a ridiculous notion. I was coming from the perspective that there had clearly been some opposition to its inclusion. JG66 (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi @JG66: and @Seltaeb Eht:, He doesn't get the information from any source, he is the source: the quoted paper is a look back at 50 years of Beatles studies, a "meta-study" as it is called, a genealogy of popular music/Beatles studies. The bibliography is over 10 pages long. There was opposition to its inclusion, as my edit was reverted 3 times, with, I have to say, scarce justification (and not followed by discussion here…), which is quite disheartening. Does one systematically have to start a discussion to justify any change here? Why don't they do it before reverting - I believe, legitimate - edits? Thanks Zamuse (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I for one completely agree with the inclusion of the edit. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 00:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Seltaeb Eht:. How should I proceed, to avoid being blocked? Zamuse (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Zamuse: You need a consensus before making your edit. Personally I think the original version of it ("The study of popular music began with the musicological analysis of works by the Beatles ...") was overly broad. Your latest revision ("According to Olivier Julien, the musicological analysis of works by the Beatles contributed to legitimize the field of popular music studies ...") is much better, although "legitimize" should be changed to "legitimizing". Strawberry4Ever (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

If any of this information is added (and I'm not ready to agree to that at this point), it needs to be moved to the "Legacy" section (but not necessarily the beginning of that section) because the edit really does not pertain to The Beatles' progression in musical style. It pertains more to their impact on how people in general, not just rock fans at the time, view music. That's legacy and cultural impact, not development of their style. I might be open to adding some of the information from the edit if it is trimmed a bit and another supporting source is added. That shouldn't be hard to find; we're talking about The Beatles, and there are many volumes of information about their impact. And let's remember this has been a featured article, it has a lot of contributors, and it is about a topic that has a vast amount of information to draw from; we can set a higher standard for inclusion of material. But the specifics need to be discussed and resolved here before adding to the article. Sundayclose (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi The Beatles is an object of study, not simply a factual sum of albums and anecdotes. To integrate Beatles studies in an encyclopedia sounds fairly natural, in my eyes. But why not in a "legacy" section, yes. Zamuse (talk) 11:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources, "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." May I suggest The Cambridge Companion to the Beatles by Kenneth Womack as a more appropriate source. Of course that would defeat the purpose of creating Wikipedia links to his employer Volume!. See [2]. Piriczki (talk) 13:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

!! Volume is not my "employer"!! I contribute to the journal, that doesn't make my rare contributions horrible debasements of WP… As two other contributors here have acknowledged, Olivier Julien is a legitimate scholar on the topic, the journal published a full issue on the Beatles with scholars such as Ian Inglis, Sheila Whiteley, other recognized scholars in the field… but if French-language sources are forbidden (what a strange defense of universality), so be it, this process is starting to tire me Zamuse (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Zamuse: Are you able to access this chapter by American musicologist Kate Meehan about mezzo-soprano Cathy Berberian's incorporation of Beatles songs into her work? I've come across it while working on the covers section of "Ticket to Ride". There's some interesting info about classical musicians and composers increasingly recognising, and lauding, the Beatles' music from mid 1965 onwards. It doesn't cover the point that Julien makes about musicologists adopting pop/rock music as a subject worthy of serious study, but it might be useful as a stepping stone to his statement, given his mention of Leonard Bernstein or Luciano Berio (the last of whom arranged some of Berberian's interpretations). As we've established here, some of us do feel that a claim from Julien is sufficient anyway, but perhaps others might find it more credible if it follows a statement from this Meehan essay and something similar. In other words: if it's part of a discussion that provides some foundation for Julien's point. Just an idea … JG66 (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Help!

Can anyone explain to me why in this article the main gener is Rock and not pop, because in wikipedia in spanish the order is the opposite! Please I have been discusing and i would like to know some comments! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.55.160.252 (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2016

Sublimeandbeatlesfan1234 (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC) I Think for Associated Acts, it should include Wings, Eric Clapton, and The Traveling Wilburys

 Not done. To be included as an associated act, the associated act should have collaborated with the group on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with the group as a single collaboration act playing together. Unless those criteria are met, an associated act cannot include a group of one member's solo career or only have one member in common; thus Wings (included only McCartney in common with The Beatles) and The Traveling Wilburys (only Harrison in common) can't be included. Do you have a reliable source that Eric Clapton collaborated with The Beatles on multiple occasions, or on an album, or on a tour? Sundayclose (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Record labels in infobox

There is a related discussion at Template talk:Infobox musical artist#Record labels but I thought I'd start a specific discussion here. The template guideline says to list the "record label or labels to which the act has been signed." Should Swan and Vee-Jay be listed? The Beatles were never signed to those labels, a few of their recordings were only licensed to those labels by EMI for a short time. And should there be some logic behind the order they are listed? Chronological? Alphabetical? Piriczki (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Considering that an infobox is a very brief overview (even briefer than the text of the lead} labels should be restricted to those with recording contracts. Details about other labels can be discussed later in the article if they're important. Sundayclose (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Beatles' contemporaries

• In response to this arbitrary revert:

1. I'm not aware that the Beatles ever took the Stones seriously (I'm reminded of Harrison's remarks about them always being "a day late and a dollar short").
2. I've never read anyone claim that Dylan and the Beatles competed against each other. Huh?
3. Even if all of the above were true, why wouldn't it be within the article's scope? There is a whole paragraph devoted to Dylan's influence (rightfully so). Nothing about the Stones (which may or may not be fine). Three references to the Beach Boys (Martin saying that they were by far the most influential to the Beatles, Lennon describing Wilson as the musician he most admires, and McCartney being "amazed and inspired" by Pet Sounds. So that makes the Beach Boys pretty notable to the Beatles' story, I think). Possibly the only name missing in this article is Harry Nilsson.

That the Beach Boys could endure the British Invasion - and were the only pre-established American band to do so - is highly significant in itself. They were veritable competition. Both bands were very musically conscious of each other and battling it out on the charts between mid '64 and late '66. This fact is not accounted for anywhere in the article. It's a hell of a lot more notable than "It's rumored that Wilson heard 'Strawberry Fields' and proceeded to have a nervous breakdown, or maybe not". How could anyone dispute this?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• We can see here that the Stones/Beach Boys and the Beatles are consistently cited as rivals. Greg Kot believes:

Bob Dylan, the Beach Boys, the Byrds, the Stones, the Beatles, the Who, and the Kinks were all watching one another and trying to outdo whatever band was on top

According to The Beatles A-Z:

The Rolling Stones' bad boy image sharply contrasted with The Beatles' clean-cut persona and the press consistently tried to create a rivalry between the two groups. Nevertheless, the two most successful names in rock music remained personal friends, occasionally appearing on each other's records

From Many Years From Now:

Despite an entirely phoney rivalry between the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, promulgated by music journalists to give themselves something to write about, there was actually no contest between the two groups in anything other than chart positions. The real contender was always Brian Wilson.

Basically, the point I'm trying to demonstrate is that this subject deserves some degree of coverage. The rivalry between the Beach Boys and the Beatles is cited so frequently that it cannot be totally ignored in this article.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, your addition here of the Greg Kot quote answers your own, rather puzzling assertions in 1) and 2), regarding the Stones and Dylan.

In point 3), you refer to the article's "Three references to the Beach Boys (Martin saying that they were by far the most influential to the Beatles, Lennon describing Wilson as the musician he most admires, and McCartney being "amazed and inspired" by Pet Sounds", and you conclude with: "So that makes the Beach Boys pretty notable to the Beatles' story, I think." Well yes, but then you're the one that changed a quote from George Martin about the Beach Boys/Pet Sounds influence on Sgt. Pepper to one where Martin gives far more on the extent of Wilson's influence. And it was you who added the Lennon quote also. I'm sorry, but it's difficult not to see your whole approach here in the same light as what I was pointing to at Talk:Pet Sounds – specifically how you repeatedly edit articles to increase the Beach Boys/Brian Wilson's importance and/or reduce that of the Beatles. So, as at the Sgt. Pepper article, you've ensured that the message regarding Wilson's influence is hammered home, imo, when all that's needed on the subject in this article is the Martin quote – which says everything, surely – following mention of McCartney's reaction to Pet Sounds.

Thing is, I do agree with you're saying about the importance of the Beatles–Beach Boys rivalry. (And, incidentally, I'm a huge fan of '60s-era Beach Boys too; "66" in my username honours my joint favourite albums of all time: Revolver and Pet Sounds.) I'm just very wary after seeing your approach to articles on either of the two bands, and on musical genres.

I wouldn't be averse to the inclusion of a statement covering the Beatles' main commercial rivals such as the Stones and the Beach Boys. There was a rivalry between the Beatles and the Stones insofar as they were competitive – friendly also, though. As far as Miles' Many Years from Now goes, that's very much McCartney's perspective on the Beatles, and it should be seen as such rather than an authoritative or balanced account. Not only that, but the chronology's wrong in places. JG66 (talk) 08:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand why you keep implying that I may be biased — of course I am biased. What difference does it make? My point still stands that the material is significant and warrants inclusion on some level. If you think it doesn't, then make a proper argument against it. I added the Martin quote because it paints a broader stroke than Pepper, and because it is true. Likewise at the Pepper article, I added a couple things which served to "hammer home" the extent that Pet Sounds played in the album's making. Because it strikes me odd when I read statements like "McCartney played Pet Sounds on repeat during recording breaks", "the Beatles listened hard to what the Beach Boys were doing", and "nobody made a bigger impact on the Beatles than Brian Wilson" and only ever find two or three statements on that subject. Seems like there should be at least two paragraphs a lot of the time.

Many sources talk about a Beach Boys/Beatles relationship or rivalry [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. The only question is whether it played a huge part in the overall scheme of things, or if it only applied to a brief, passing moment in each band's history. I personally consider the Pet Sounds–Sgt. Pepper link trivial from this perspective. However, it's not trivial the Beatles generally "watched the record charts and compared their ranking in sales with the Beach Boys and other contemporary groups".

OK, so you are not "averse" to this inclusion — why are you reverting it, again?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see: I'm mistaken in implying you're biased, because "of course" you're biased … Your words. "What difference does it make?" – well, nothing except for all the tendentious editing you've undertaken in articles related to the Beach Boys and the Beatles, their respective legacies, and in music genre articles. I think it's great that someone wants to expand articles covering Brian Wilson's achievements, but I object to how you have taken that mission on to dressing down Wilson's rivals. You're displaying all the traits that the author describes in that last quote: "[Brian Wilson] was both depressed and intimidated by the competition." Wilson continues to be praised to the heavens, and rightly so. But the Beatles continue to be recognised for their innovations and achievements, for revolutionising the music industry – and this is an article about the Beatles. That additional Lennon quote, "describing Wilson as the musician he most admires", is just gratuitous and completely overplays the situation in this context, as far as the Beatles' influences go – after the Martin quote you also added, and particularly in light of quotes that don't appear from the individual Beatles on their opinions of Dylan, Spector, Presley, Carl Perkins, Smokey Robinson and many other artists.

And no, I'm not averse to mentioning the band's main rivals through the 1960s. What I reverted, as you know full well, is a change that simply Brian-ified the article further, without making any mention of the genuine commercial and/or artistic competition offered by the Stones and Dylan. JG66 (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm biased insofar as I don't come across much information that doesn't involve them. Your accusations about me diminishing or downplaying the Beatles is complete nonsense. I've already said everything there is to say about that subject on the Pet Sounds talk page. The burden is on you to demonstrate to what extent Spector, Dylan, Presley, Perkins, Robinson, et. al influenced the Beatles' musical and historical trajectory. For Wilson's influence, I've already done all the work for you.

I would estimate that the Beach Boys' influence on the Beatles is only one degree below Dylan's. And the influence of someone like Buddy Holly is above them all (however, Holly never interfered with the Beatles' career, so it's understandable that he doesn't have as much coverage — this isn't necessarily about "who influenced more" after all). The paragraph about Dylan introducing the Beatles to pot is crucial because it set off a chain of events — one that is not unlike the chain of events that followed "I Get Around" topping the charts in May '64 (leading all the way to Pet Sounds and "Good Vibrations" laying the groundwork for Sgt. Peppers).

Dylan is covered for an entire paragraph. Again, why are two sentences so bad in comparison? Oh, because the Beach Boys are "undue weight". Uh, right.

At present, I have found 9 reliable sources commenting on a "rivalry" or "competition" between the Beatles and the Beach Boys. One even discredits the supposed rivalry between the Beatles and the Stones. Are you ever going to demonstrate when these other artists held anything comparable to the effect the Beach Boys had on the Beatles? Because if not, I'd like opinions on this matter from different editors who have more to say than "you're a big Beach Boys fan; that automatically invalidates whatever you have to add on non-Beach Boys articles". Yes, I'm very much aware that the Beatles were a much more significant group than the Beach Boys. I'm also aware that I happen to like the Beach Boys a little bit more than the Beatles. Can we move on from this ridiculous straw manning?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, for a start, a Google books search reveals twice as many hits (at 1,210) for the Beatles–Stones rivalry as for the Beatles–Beach Boys rivalry you provided above. JG66 (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@JG66: Do you have any other rationale for not including a mention of the BeachBoys/Stones–Beatles rivalry besides "8 times two is 12"? As a reminder, here is the original text

In May, the American rock band the Beach Boys achieved their first number one single with "I Get Around", representing the start of an unofficial rivalry between the Beatles and the Beach Boys' composer-arranger Brian Wilson, principally for McCartney. On a creative level, the Beach Boys would become their most serious competitors, ultimately trailing the Beatles at second for their overall impact on the top 40.
(The music press promulgated a false rivalry between the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, but according to biographer Barry Miles: "there was actually no contest between the two groups in anything other than chart positions. The real contender was always Brian Wilson.")

Note: this text will add a whopping 700 bytes to the article's 156,239.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Significance of Martin/McCartney/Lennon quotes

@JG66:

• Pet Sounds amazed and inspired McCartney
  • What this demonstrates: McCartney was influenced by Pet Sounds. It is well-documented; McCartney has directly commented on the subject.
• In 1966, Lennon named the Beach Boys' Brian Wilson the musical person he most admired.
  • What this demonstrates: Lennon admired the Beach Boys. The reader thus concludes that McCartney was not the odd one out in the group (a common misconception).
• Martin stated, "No one made a greater impact on the Beatles than Brian."
  • What this demonstrates: Martin's opinion of who affected the Beatles the most. As in, the entire group, not just individuals. As in, including Harrison and Starr, who so far had not been accounted for in this relationship.
    • If you asked anybody else who was close to the band, like Geoff Emerick or Neil Aspinall, they may state something like "no one had a greater impact on the group than Bob Dylan/the Everly Brothers/Elvis/etc." That is not to say that their differing opinions are not valuable. They are, and they should be noted whenever found.

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

This is an article on the Beatles – many would say the most influential artists of the 20th century on music and popular culture, some credit them with even more than that. So the article's got a lot of ground to cover, to put it mildly. The Legacy section is certainly concise, but it misses many important details. Compare that to Influences, which is again a brief overview – as mentioned, it omits any mention of Phil Spector, Motown/Smokey Robinson, any expansion on the influence of Carl Perkins or Buddy Holly, and loads more no doubt. The Beatles all worshipped Elvis Presley; we get a single quote from Lennon: "Nothing really affected me until I heard Elvis. If there hadn't been Elvis, there would not have been the Beatles." But you're arguing that three references to Brian Wilson in the same section is vital: so that it's clear that McCartney was inspired by Pet Sounds; that Lennon also admired the Beach Boys (lest anyone thinks McCartney was "the odd one out in the group"); and that Martin considered Wilson to have been the biggest influence on the band (lest any reader be unsure as to whether Harrison and Starr were similarly impressed). How on earth can you say that's not undue weight, to give one influence such a presence in that section? Lennon and McCartney were huge admirers of Shankar also and welcomed the Indian influence, but it's not as if readers need to be assured of that. Put it this way, we don't add any further comments on Shankar, just as we don't include any of the many, many comments the three Beatles other than Lennon made about Presley. JG66 (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

One time member of the Beach Boys, Ricky Fataar, was also a member of The Rutles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.228 (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The influence of Perkins/Spector/Holly/et. al is just as important as Wilson's influence. Yes, there should be more noted for everyone, not just Wilson.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 03:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Split proposal

• Split "song catalogue" to The Beatles' music publishing (WP:SPINOFF)
  The section is buried at the very end - like a giant footnote. I don't think this article needs a seven-paragraph summary of their publishing history. It's currently at 5,778 bytes - this space would be better used to expand upon the "Musical development" section and other less overly-specific aspects of their history, as per the above discussion.

Additional note: there is a lot of overlap between the section and Northern Songs.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe that section should be merged with the Northern Songs article instead of a new article, it's almost the same subject except for a few songs by Harrison and Starr. A side note: McCartney has filed notices of termination with the U.S. Copyright Office for the Beatles' songs he co-wrote so he could begin acquiring the U.S. rights starting in 2019. This will probably merit coverage in the main article in the next couple years. Piriczki (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Billy Preston's Contributions

"Get Back" appears to be the only song attributed in this article to Billy Preston. I was under the impression that Preston contributed to several others, e.g., "Let It Be" and "She's So Heavy," throughout the "Let It Be" and "Abbey Road" albums. However I'm having a hard time recalling any official sources that state this.

I can say that, as a musician, I find the style of the keyboard parts on several songs throughout these two albums to be more consistent with Billy Preston than with George Martin or Paul McCartney.

I really believe Preston is getting short-shrifted here. I also think he should be on the chart of Beatles band members.

Yates (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC) (Randy Yates, yates@ieee.org)

The "Get Back" single was the only official occurrence of the "Beatle with Billy Preston" credit, but there's no dispute that Preston played on several songs recorded during the Get Back sessions. There are many reference books that confirm this, eg. Revolution in the Head. But that doesn't mean it's necessarily worth noting in the main article - I think the individual song articles and the Let It Be album article are more appropriate places.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Pawnkingthree, I see your point: you don't want to clutter the main article with too many details. I just think it would be more accurate, and more honoring to Preston, to at least mention he contributed on the other songs.

By the way, he is mentioned on the wiki page for "I Want You." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Want_You_(She%27s_So_Heavy) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yates (talk • contribs) 15:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Also known as Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

Should there be a line in the band's infobox saying 'Also known as Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band'? This is technically what the band are credited as in the Yellow Submarine film as well as the album. CityFeedback ^talk 08:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)