Talk:The Beatles/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Lead sentence awkwardness?

Seems strange that this should be oddly phrased considering the extensive work done on this article over the years, but does anyone find this, the second sentence, confusing? "The line-up of John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr led them to be regarded as the most influential band of all time." (emphasis mine) It makes it sound like the primary reason they are regarded as the "most influential band of all time" is BECAUSE of the fact that the band consisted of J, P, G and R. Obviously the reasons they are regarded as such are because of their songwriting, innovation, etc. etc. etc. Right now the sentence implies an odd cause-and-effect. Would it be simpler (and logically make more sense) to split the two thoughts up? Like: "The line-up consisted of John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr, and they are regarded as the most influential band of all time." (assuming everyone's cool with the encyclopedic properness of the second part, which I assume has been properly cited and all that).

Another way to think of it is that, taken on it's own, there's no reason why you couldn't rearrange that sentence to read "The Beatles are regarded as the most influential band of all time because of the line-up of John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr." Putting it that way clearly doesn't make much sense, but that's basically what the sentence is saying now. Thoughts? 70.91.35.27 (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)TF

Yes, totally agree. Perhaps it could be something like: "With a line-up comprising John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr, they are regarded as the most influential band of all time." That way, the information's attached, but without the cause-and-effect aspect.JG66 (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the JG66 improvement should be adopted at once. Jusdafax (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good to me!70.91.35.27 (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)TF

I agree. Incidentally, does anyone apart from me find the initial reference to them as a "rock band" extremely jarring? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I support the revised wording. I would prefer "rock and roll" to "rock". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Meh. Not that either. They were initially a beat group, who performed a wide range of popular music, and in the process contributed hugely to the development of rock music - a term which really did not exist at the start of their career (though obviously "rock and roll music" did). I'd call the Rolling Stones, the Who, the Yardbirds, the Seeds, maybe even the Byrds, "rock bands".... but the Beatles, not really. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

They certainly didn't begin as a rock band, and that static snapshot description of their music has always jarred with me as well. Trouble is, they didn't remain still long enough to pin a sign on them. Patthedog (talk) 12:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

What do people think about: "The Beatles were an English popular music group formed in Liverpool in 1960. With a line-up comprising John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr, they are regarded as the most influential band of all time. With a sound rooted in skiffle, beat and 1950s rock and roll, the group were integral to the evolution of pop and rock music into an art form, and to the development of the counterculture of the 1960s." Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I really don't think the description "rock band" is at all problematic. Yes, they started as a beat group, but the Merseybeat aspect was gone from their sound by late 1964. Any progressive act became a "rock" act by 1966–67, and the Beatles are recognised as having spearheaded the development of pop into rock (even though "rock" was used before then, of course). Put it this way, at the height of their influence, they were a rock band, and they remained so until their break-up in 1970 – so that's a good few years when they were both recognised as a rock band, in the sense of the rock aesthetic, and playing rock music. I find "rock band" more puzzling when it's used to describe the Beach Boys, but that's only because I don't think of the BBs as making rock music. JG66 (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The Beatles were an English popular music group formed in Liverpool in 1960 is fine with me (it gets around the "rock group" tag) although I suspect others might object. Patthedog (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

My point is that the Beatles in large part created the idea of the "rock band" and rock music - but they started out as something different (because the concept didn't exist in that way), and it is the simplistic definition of them as simply a "rock band" that I find unnecessarily jarring. The third sentence of the lead is fine, but I think the opening sentence is an over-simplification. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

No, I get it, I'm with you entirely. All things flowed from them - including the latter concept of a rock band Patthedog (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The Beatles were most definitely a rock band - as some others have said, the idea of what a "rock band" is became accepted while they were together, and they were one of the foremost progenitors. They are a rock band who made pop music, like most famous rock bands... Fleetwood Mac, Queen, Jimi Hendrix Experience, The Kinks, The Who, The Rolling Stones, U2, Blur, Oasis, The Doors etc. I personally feel it would be a very strange decision to not name them as such in the lead. - Humbledaisy

Yeah, but they weren't just a rock band.Patthedog (talk) 13:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Quite so. It's obviously correct that "the idea of what a "rock band" is became accepted while they were together, and they were one of the foremost progenitors". The logic from that is that, when they started, they were something else. The term "popular music group" encompasses both the "rock band" that they became, and what they were when they started and first became popular. So far as we're concerned here, though, we should describe them in the way that most authoritative and reliable sources describe them. Here we have "rock 'n' roll singing group". Here it's "internationally famous British pop group". Here it's "British rock group". "Legendary rock group". "the most influential popular music group of the rock era". "British musical quartet". Etc., etc.. I'm not sure there's any consensus over "rock band". Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Hmm I think 'rock' fits, though I can understand wanting both of them together ("were a rock and pop band"..) Describing them as simply a popular music group in the lead seems to distract from the band's central role as a rock band. A lead calling an artist 'popular music' or 'pop' off the bat but not rock would in Wikipedia terms place the Beatles closer to Cliff Richard than to 'rock' bands like the Who, Stones etc. Calling them a rock band and then the lead later explaining that 'rock' didn't exist as such when they first became popular and how they brought about that change would be a better way about it. I think the lead is fine at the moment, calling them a rock band and then explaining that they explored a lot of styles and that "the group were integral to the evolution of pop music into an art form".--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

"Describing them as simply a popular music group in the lead seems to distract from the band's central role as a rock band" - No it doesn't (with respect) it actually liberates them. Patthedog (talk) 15:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I like the phrase "the most influential popular music group of the rock era." Another suggestion: "The Beatles were the most influential popular music group of the rock era. Formed in Liverpool, England in 1960, they became globally successful with a line-up comprising John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr. With a sound rooted in skiffle, beat and 1950s rock and roll, the group were integral to the evolution of pop and rock music into an art form, and to the development of the counterculture of the 1960s...." Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

"The Beatles were the most influential popular music group of the rock era" ought to satisfy both camps. Patthedog (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree completely with Ghmyrtle and Patthedog. This wording is a clear improvement, and if there is no objection I suggest we adopt it in the next day or two. Jusdafax (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

How about Fleetwood Mac then, or Blur, U2, Roxy Music, Oasis, Eric Clapton, Kinks, or the many other successful rock acts that are described as such in their leads but have undeniably have made a lot of music in the pop genre, amongst others. I really do feel the Beatles are best described as a rock band, even early on - A Hard Day's Night, Can't Buy Me Love, I Saw Her Standing There - as far as I am concerned these are rock songs. The fact that the Beatles dabbled in various genres from their inception to their end doesn't negate them being a rock group in the same way it doesn't for the other acts I mentioned - Roxy Music's output has less to do with rock music than the Beatles's but I feel perhaps the Beatles can be the victims of over-analysis in instances like this. Apologies if I sound rash but I feel very strongly about this.

If you are to make the change, I think "With a sound rooted in skiffle, beat and 1950s rock and roll" would be better if beat was swapped for rhythm and blues. Beat is a genre with foggy origins and, before the Beatles, not a known genre with any known defining sound. R&B was a huge influence on the band members from their formation through their career. - Humbledaisy

I agree it shouldn't be changed. Aside from the reasons given being unconvincing, imo, it creates no end of problems in the Beatles album and song articles. Right now, they all (the developed ones, that is) refer to the Beatles as "the English rock band". So, do we change all those mentions as well? Or is Please Please Me "the debut album by the English popular music group the Beatles" – because "rock" wasn't yet coined as a term in 1963 – but Abbey Road "the eleventh studio album by the English rock band the Beatles", because it had been coined by then? (Or were the Beatles never a rock band?) And what about the Kinks, the Rolling Stones, the Who, etc, and all their album & song articles too. Should they be treated in the same way because those bands also started just before pop and beat music was elevated to rock music?

Not only that but, in the case of the Beatles, an argument could be that they originated as a skiffle band, were an out-and-out rock 'n' roll band in Hamburg, then morphed into a beat/pop group in Liverpool with Epstein-inspired professional polish, and then became a rock band. So I don't see "popular music" as an adequate term at all. JG66 (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

My answer to the question: "So, do we change all those mentions as well?", is, simply, no. My suggestion only relates to the Beatles, not other bands, and only specifically to this article. In other articles, there is no need to refer to the Beatles as anything at all - "rock band", "popular music group", etc. - as there will simply be a link to this article. The Beatles were essentially sui generis, and it is somewhat disparaging to refer to them simply as a "rock band". Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I can't understand that at all. The idea that this only need apply to the Beatles and not to any of their contemporaries makes no sense in terms of the encyclopedia – the reason for the proposed change relates to a development that affected the whole of Western pop music and defined the era. And the song and album articles do need a description with the artist's name, for the simple reason that readers shouldn't have to click on a link in the very first sentence just to get the most basic information. Although I never did it originally, I've found reviewers insist on including a descriptor (nationality, nature of the act) in the first sentence of an article lead. Any song or album article that's Featured will have it – New York Dolls (album), Are You Experienced, The Dark Side of the Moon, Hey Jude, The World Is Not Enough (song) ... JG66 (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree, I really don't feel that's a strong argument for making this page so inconsistent with the rest of this site - singling them out because of an opinion isn't right. There's nothing disparaging about calling them a rock band. They were diverse, yes, but so are many rock groups. There are plenty of very unique bands with a great deal of diversity in their output that are still best described as rock bands. - Humbledaisy

Important discussion though, because it's something worth reconsidering occasionally and testing, as we are / or have done here. I believe to simply dismiss or brand the Beatles as a rock band out of laziness does them a disservice for the reasons Ghmyrtle has already stated, and maybe some of you are missing the point. I hope that doesn't sound arrogant - I don't mean to be. I think the article as a whole is first class but does get off to poor start with this.Patthedog (talk) 08:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The issue of trying to force musical acts into ever-tighter genre categories is a systemic problem across Wikipedia, but in most cases it's relatively trivial and can be ignored. No-one is suggesting that, for example, Jimi Hendrix or Pink Floyd were not rock acts. But, the Beatles were different simply because they, to a large extent, created the idea of the "rock band", and their work was wider. (Is "Yesterday" a rock song?) It is therefore an oversimplification to describe them as one. A wider-ranging description in the opening sentence would be less misleading. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Nobody said those artists are not rock acts. My argument is that making music in various popular styles doesn't negate a band being a rock band, and as special as the Beatles were, so many popular rock bands made music that spans genres - it is often part of what a rock band is. Are Pink Floyd's songs like When the Tigers Broke Free, The Gnome or It Would Be So Nice rock songs? No, perhaps not, but they are certainly a rock band. The phrase 'rock band' is not imposing a tight, constraining music genre - I see it simply as shorthand for a group with a traditional rock setup and who's influences will usually encompass rock 'n' roll, blues, R&B etc . To call the Beatles a popular music act in the lead would make it inconsistent and not as concise - they didn't sound like Des O'Connor. - Humbledaisy

I think we're going round in circles. My point, whether you agree or not, is that the Beatles transcend all other groups. Patthedog (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Great conversation, but it is going down a rabbit hole separate from the original question...while this all gets sorted would someone be able to change the sentence to minimally eliminate the awkward cause-and-effect meaning that it implies? 70.91.35.27 (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)TF

Ah yes, of course(!). Seeing as my suggested wording received a few supports, I've just gone ahead and made the change. Slight problem now is we have two consecutive sentences beginning with the same "With ..." construction. JG66 (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

How bout The line up consisting of.... Hotcop2 (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I've got the impression in the past that shorter and better-flowing phrasing is usually preferred – so "Comprising" rather than "Consisting of". I'm not too bothered in this instance. JG66 (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

An opinion that "The Beatles transcend all other groups" is not a factual source for an encyclopedia. I might even agree with it but that's totally besides the point. - Humbledaisy (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The eventual line-up comprising John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr are regarded as the most influential band of all time? (avoids double "with") Patthedog (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but this original post has still to be addressed as it reads poorly. To avoid the double use of "with" it ought to be something like my previous post above or even just "The line up comprising John Lennon etc..." It's easily fixed. If nobody objects I'll do it. Patthedog (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, as I mentioned above, we are left with two sentences beginning with "With ..." The construction is needed in the first instance, imo, because the sentence is combining two important items of information: a list of the four band members, and the statement that the group are recognised as the most influential of all time. So I think it's the next sentence ("With a sound rooted in skiffle, beat and 1950s rock and roll ...") that needs tweaking. JG66 (talk) 04:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

That's tougher. They both sound perfect on their own but we can't have them both together. I can't think of a simple fix for the second one? It would be a shame to alter it too much though... Anyone? Patthedog (talk) 07:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

How about? Their sound, which was rooted in skiffle, beat and 1950s rock and roll, was integral to the evolution of pop music into an art form, and to the development of the counterculture of the 1960s. although I know it changes the emphasis slightly. Patthedog (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Patthedog - Sorry, but no. It was not their original rooted "sound" that was integral... etc.... , it was their development, style, adoption over time of a wider range of genres, etc. How about a slight change in order?: "..The group were integral to the evolution of pop music into an art form, and to the development of the counterculture of the 1960s. With a sound rooted in skiffle, beat and 1950s rock and roll, they often incorporated elements of classical music, older pop, and unconventional recording techniques in innovative ways, and they experimented with a number of musical styles in later years, ranging from pop ballads and Indian music to psychedelia and hard rock...." I'd be happy with splitting that last sentence if it's felt to be too long. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I think that suggestion's more in the right direction. An option might be to take mention of their sound being "rooted in skiffle, beat and 1950s rock and roll" down to early in the second paragraph. But I appreciate that may cause other problems by leaving the music development-related point(s) incomplete in para one. JG66 (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I know what you mean JG66 although I believe Ghmyrtle's suggestion now fixes it. Patthedog (talk) 09:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure about "older pop" now either and suggest maybe "pastiche" instead? Also broke last sentence in half as suggested. So what about this:  "..The group were integral to the evolution of pop music into an art form, and to the development of the counterculture of the 1960s. With a sound rooted in skiffle, beat and 1950s rock and roll, they often incorporated elements of classical music, pastiche pop, and utilised unconventional recording techniques in innovative ways. In later years they experimented with a number of musical styles, ranging from pop ballads and Indian music to psychedelia and hard rock…." No? Patthedog (talk) 14:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't like "pastiche pop" - it's a made-up term. We could use "traditional pop" though. Your second sentence as written is ungrammatical - it needs another "and" - so I'd prefer "...With a sound rooted in skiffle, beat and 1950s rock and roll, they often incorporated elements of classical music, traditional pop, and unconventional recording techniques in innovative ways...." Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

(I’m reminded of the suicide scene from Airplane!) Ok, let’s go with “traditional pop” in that case and apologies for my appalling grammar. Can we bring down the hammer now? Patthedog (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll make the change and see what happens. I hope this hasn't been boring for you?.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm just going to run this up the flagpole and then finally go. It eliminates the second instance of “with” further down and reads:

The Beatles were an English rock band formed in Liverpool in 1960. With a line-up comprising John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr, they are regarded as the most influential band of all time. The group were integral to the evolution of pop music into an art form, and to the development of the counterculture of the 1960s. Their sound, rooted in skiffle, beat and 1950s rock and roll, often incorporated elements of classical music, traditional pop, and used unconventional recording techniques in innovative ways. In later years they experimented with a number of musical styles, ranging from pop ballads and Indian music to psychedelia and hard rock. As they continued to draw influences from a variety of cultural sources, their musical and lyrical sophistication grew, and they came to be seen as embodying the era's socio-cultural movements.

Happy to be told it's grammatically bollocks, if it is. Patthedog (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The only problem is the lack of an "and" between "classical music" and "traditional pop", because they relate to the verb "incorporated" and the sentence then goes on to include a different verb, "used". But, if you put the "and" in where it should be, grammatically, it does not read well... (i.e. "...incorporated elements of classical music and traditional pop, and used...."). So, I don't think we're there yet. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Learning from failure ought to have made me a bloody genius. Sounds like you're the person for the job though? Patthedog (talk) 07:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

"... Their sound was rooted in skiffle, beat and 1950s rock and roll, but they incorporated elements of classical music and traditional pop, and used unconventional and innovative recording techniques..." How is that?. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

That gets a thumbs-up from me. Patthedog (talk) 08:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made that change - happy to discuss further here if necessary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• The newest wording (prior to my edit) lost the fact that they innovated with their style synthesis and adds an unwarranted "but". ilil (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow - I can't believe you've just gone ahead with major surgery without discussing it here first. Patthedog (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

IMO it was absolutely fine, and much better, before. The wording now is more clunky and I don't think there is any need at all for 'in later years' - they started their recording experiments in earnest in the middle of their career, not towards the end, and there's even some unique and experimental production touches on the early records - varispeeded piano (just like on In My Life a few years later) on Misery from Please Please Me, feedback on I Feel Fine. Humbledaisy (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Allen Klein-with beatles.jpg

File:Allen Klein-with beatles.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Sutcliffe and Harrison.jpg

File:Sutcliffe and Harrison.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.-- Marchjuly (talk) 04:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

"more popular than jesus"

This article confusingly omits the most notable part of this famous quote in the 'controversy/revolver' section? I think this creates more confusion than necessary, I actually began to wonder if that aspect of the quote was urban legend but no, it does appear to be verifiable so really...if any part of that quote is present, the 'more popular than jesus' line should be included. Can't edit as unregistered. 204.50.172.132 (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

It's in a quote box in the Controversy section. WWGB (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

OK...but why isn't it in the main text as well? I didn't notice or look for the quote box. From a reader standpoint, it didn't work. Either include it in both places, or just put it in the main part of the text and remove the quote box if duplication is some sort of big issue??? 204.50.172.132 (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Estimated world sales (again)

I think we need to revisit this issue – or rather, how we present the information. We've currently got a figure of "more than 800 million physical and digital albums" but it's sourced to a Universal press release. Previously, we had a figure of 600 million, which has been recognised by several third-party sources, eg CNN, BBC News and Newsweek. At List of best-selling music artists, the 600 mill estimate is given, although it should be noted that the methodology imposed by Wikipedia editors there favours certain sources over others. As at Elvis Presley#Achievements, I don't think we need to adhere to the most conservative estimate in this article; we can give an idea of the range of estimated sales figures. I've recently added, tucked away in a footnote here, an estimate of 1 billion. That 2001 figure again originated from a company close to the subject of the article (EMI), but at least it's supported and recognised by a third party (Guinness World Records), not to mention a few Beatles biographies.

So, the problem as I see it, is we're presenting the 800 million sales figure as fact – in the lead ("The Beatles are the best-selling band in history, with estimated sales of over 800 million albums worldwide") and under Awards and achievements ("the Beatles have sold more than 800 million physical and digital albums as of 2013"). Yet the figure is only supported by a press release and, apparently, it's yet to be recognised by a third-party source. JG66 (talk) 04:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The 600 million and more recent 800 million figures come from Apple. They are in the standard bio included in every Apple press release.

The 2001 date refers to the US sales of 163 million. That was the RIAA total as of 2001. Guinness has been claiming one billion, and attributing it to EMI, since 1985. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohnothimagain (talk • contribs) 14:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, but the question I asked was about how the 800 mill figure should be presented. It's given here as fact, when all we have to support it is an Apple-related press release. By comparison, several news sources report the 600 mill figure, which gives it credibility; ie, we can state that one as fact. In the case of the 1 billion estimate, what the source says is that the date for that figure is 19 March 2001, specifically:

Who: THE BEATLES What: 1000000000 UNIT(S) SOLD

Where: (WORLD-WIDE) When: 19 March 2001

The source is Guinness World Records, so in an article like this, it seems inconceivable (to me) that it wouldn't get mentioned. JG66 (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The one billion figure according to EMI has been in the Guinness book since 1985, not 2001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohnothimagain (talk • contribs) 14:51, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Magical Mystery Tour is a double EP; but Wiki guidelines say not to include EPs on a band's main page

The guidelines for musician pages state: "Live and compilation albums, EPs, singles, etc. should generally not be included." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Musicians/Article_guidelines

According to the page for [Mystery Tour], this was released as a double EP. Also, the track listings include Strawberry Fields Forever and Penny Lane, which were produced during the recording sessions for Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. So, Magical Mystery Tour is also partly a compilation of previously released material. Under the guidelines, then, shouldn't this be cut from the brief discography on the Beatles' main page?2019sci-fi-fan (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

1. The guideline states "generally" so that implies there can be exceptions.
2. MMT in the UK was a double EP, so strictly not an EP
3. MMT in the USA was an LP, which alone qualifies it for inclusion.
4. The inclusion of a couple of earlier releases does not make an album a compilation, otherwise Help! would be considered a compilation. WWGB (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. This sounds reasonable, but I think there is some inconsistency with how other editors have advised me in other instances. A few thoughts on your points:

1. I agree with this - but other Wiki editors have undone edits of mine based on an absolute interpretation of this rule. I defer to the more experienced editors, and they seem to treat the word "generally" to mean applies across the board, rather than applying in most cases. But again, I agree that should be just a general rule.
2. I don't know of other double EP examples to see how they are treated in articles, but this could be a good point.
3. The discography include only the UK albums, not the USA albums, so I think this should stick to the UK versions for consistency on what is an album
4. That sounds reasonable. I just don't know how to classify the album, since it is not considered a "studio" album. 2019sci-fi-fan (talk) 04:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Support for an article about Beatles, Stones, Dylan, ... ?

In 2017 there as an attempt to cover the rivalry between the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. I believe this topic is worthy of an article, but even better would be an article of a larger scope, spun out from Cultural impact of the Beatles#Competition. I'm requesting opinions as I realize such an article might draw accusations of WP:FANCRUFT. Here are additional web sources I found with 5 minutes of Googling:

Sources

References

Similar existing articles: Jeff Lynne and the Beatles, East Coast–West Coast hip hop rivalry, Beethoven and Mozart ilil (talk) 13:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

"Rivalry" is the wrong word. There were many debates, between fans and in the media, as to who was "best", and without looking at them too closely, that seems to be what those sources are about. There are always debates about who is the best artist at any given time. That's not rivalry. I'm not sure what happened at that time in history was markedly different from any other time. HiLo48 (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The focus of the article would not necessarily be a stack of critics debating whether Beatles were better than the Stones, but about the Beatles' "competition, interaction and influence" with other key acts of the 1960s. There is a boatload of literature discussing the topic:

Sources (emphasis added)

• The Beatles, Dylan, and the Rolling Stones have long been viewed as the Holy Trinity of 1960s rock, from whom every important development and innovation flowed.
  — Rodriguez, Robert (2012). Revolver: How the Beatles Reimagined Rock 'n' Roll. Milwaukee, WI: Backbeat Books. p. 45. ISBN 978-1-61713-009-0.
• The strongest circle of influence involve the artists of the 1960s, and competition, interaction and influence between Bob Dylan, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, and the Beach Boys are central to histories of rock. Tales abound of how Dylan (in)famously influenced the Beatles and, in the words of John Harris, 'goaded them towards a new maturity like a frazzled Moses.' ... Another of the most prominent stories in rock is the interplay of influence between the Beach Boys and the Beatles around the time of the release of Pet Sounds.
  — Jones, Carys Wyn (2008). The Rock Canon. Ashgate. p. 56. ISBN 978-0-7546-6244-0.
• Creative rivalries of the sort that were common among jazz and classical musicians were rare in the popular field—not least because a lack of artistic pretensions was felt to be part of pop’s appeal. ... This situation began to change with the arrival of the Beatles ... Intense creative rivalries developed. (The Beach Boys went so far as to hold prayer meetings in the studio, at which they asked the Creator to give them the inspiration to make a better album than Rubber Soul).
  — Gould, Jonathan (2007). Can't Buy Me Love: The Beatles, Britain and America. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press. ISBN 978-0-307-35338-2.

The article would summarize how these musicians related to each other and how their interplay imprinted itself into pop culture, whether it was stories of Dylan introducing the Beatles to pot, the Beatles going folk-rock after the Byrds covered Dylan, Brian Wilson freaking out over Rubber Soul, Derek Taylor getting hired as publicist for the Beach Boys and the Byrds, and so on. ilil (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it's just advanced fancruft. It's of no encyclopedic value at all, mostly just an invitation to compile a mass of author's opinions and journalists' exaggeration. Both of those appear in album and music artist articles already, yes, but there's no need to dedicate an article to what is a pretty wooly subject. And I've got sources that identify the Who, the Kinks, Holland–Dozier–Holland and others as potential candidates for the "competition, interaction and influence" club, but ... well, so what? That is and was the 1960s music scene. (Besides, given the nature of your contributions to this article and other Beatles articles, it's very difficult not to view the idea as being motivated to extend the coverage of Musicianship of Brian Wilson, Brian Wilson is a genius, Don't fuck with the formula, etc.)

And two of those existing articles are bad examples. Jeff Lynne and the Beatles just should not exist at all, imo; there's nothing significant in its own right about Lynne's collaborative relationship with the three former Beatles apart from the fact that the collaborations took place. I can't see why it's not merged into Jeff Lynne. And there's no comparison between the proposed article and East Coast–West Coast hip hop rivalry – that's about a genuine social/topical issue and a series of murders. JG66 (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

What are your sources that identify the Beatles, the Who, the Kinks and Holland-Dozier-Holland as the "holy quaternity of 60s rock", "central to histories of rock", or anything similar? ilil (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• After some thought I'm beginning to agree that such an article might be too large of a scope and would run into WP:REDUNDANTFORK issues, and that it's best to start with Beatles and Rolling Stones rivalry and figure it out from there. There's no reason why that article wouldn't merit some coverage of the Beatles' other most frequently noted rivalries (Dylan and Beach Boys), especially since they're sometimes compared and contrasted with the Beatles-Stones rivalry. ilil (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I would still suggest that "rivalry" is not the right word for what is being proposed here. HiLo48 (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Didn't The Beatles reunite in 1994?

It says on the Wiki page that The Beatles never reunited after 1970. In fact, they actually did to complete unfinished recordings by John Lennon for the "Anthology" project; "Free As A Bird" and "Real Love" to be precise. So shouldn't it say; 1960-1970, 1994 in the profile box? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASDJHSAIUDHSAUID (talk • contribs) 19:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Been there: Talk:The_Beatles/Archive_20#reunion_or_not?

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2019

The following change is suggested for clarity. Change 'then aged sixteen' to 'at the age of sixteen'. The current sentence reads: In March 1957, John Lennon, then aged sixteen, formed a skiffle group with several friends from Quarry Bank High School in Liverpool. The suggested edit reads: In March 1957, at the age of sixteen, John Lennon, formed a skiffle group with several friends from Quarry Bank High School in Liverpool. Taostlt (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how that is an improvement. WWGB (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

Can anyone please remove Magical Mystery Tour in the discography list because all 12 albums are studio albums except Magical Mystery Tour. Magical Mystery Tour is a (EP) extended play, not a studio album. ColorfulSmoke (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

MMT is not an EP. It was a double EP (UK) and an LP (USA). Sufficient for inclusion in the discography. WWGB (talk) 10:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Magical Mystery Tour section

I created a new section for the Magical Mystery Tour as I consider it to be very different in style and content from The Beatles (White Album) and I thought it was better to keep the two albums in separate paragraphs. Both the Magical Mystery Tour film and album came from the same "psychedelic era" of Sgt. Pepper (the Beatles started developing the idea of the MMT project already in April 1967, before the release of Sgt. Pepper), so it is closer to its predecessor than to the White Album. Also The Beatles were in the positive mood of Revolver and Sgt. Pepper rather than in the conflictual one that will characterize their subsequent releases. Moreover the LP includes music recorded all over 1967, making the album strongly rooted in that period. I wanted to discuss whether it should be better to merge this section with the previous one, regarding Sgt. Pepper (like in the case of Abbey Road and Let it Be), or instead to move it back with the White Album, or to leave it on its own as it is now (this last one being in my opinion the best solution). FilBenLeafBoy (Let's Talk!) 22:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

FilBenLeafBoy I honestly commend you for bringing this decision to the talk page, I know some editors will appreciate it. I think it's a good idea since MMT is vastly different from the White Album. I think another idea would be to combine Sgt. Pepper and MMT since they were both of the Beatles' psychedelic period and immediately following MMT, they recorded "Lady Madonna" and "The Inner Light" and headed for India, beginning the White Album era. Again, that's just my opinion, I know some will disagree because "Sgt. Pepper is more important" or whatever but to a reader, I think it's at least an idea... – zmbro _(talk) 00:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

zmbro thanks for taking part in the discussion, I completely agree with your point of view. Now that the MMT section has been combined with Sgt. Pepper's, everything makes much more sense! FilBenLeafBoy (Let's Talk!) 17:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Classical

Shouldn't classical also be in the genres? Isaacsorry (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The Beatles were a ROCK band.

The Beatles were a ROCK band, correct? Any comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.136.239.179 (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's what the article says. HiLo48 (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

So is that what makes it true? No one else thinks there is another term that would be more valid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.136.239.179 (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, have a good read of the History section of the article. Secondly, this being a long-established article, there have naturally been discussions on this matter in the past. Up above on this Talk page is a place where you can search the talk page archives. You might want to stick "Rock" in there, or other genres you think might be relevant. Thirdly, we go by what reliable sources say. HiLo48 (talk) 03:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Which reliable sources? McCartney? Harrison? Starr? Lennon? I'm new at using this part of Wikipedia. I will try and maneuver through this new to me area as best I can. And I do thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.136.239.179 (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Read WP:RS for information about what is considered a reliable source. As noted by HiLo48, the issue of genre has had extensive discussion. The genres identified in the article have a solid consensus. To make any changes there needs to be a new consensus. Click the links and read the policies. Sundayclose (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Then we get into "The Beatles" mid sentence vs "the Beatles" mid sentence. Must not be a "consensus" across the board with Wikipedia on all bands that start with the word "The" as Wikipedia article for the band "The The" doesn't adhere to that rule. Oh well.

Please take the time to read the archives of this talk page. This issue has been discussed ad nauseam with a clear consensus to use "the" on this particular article. It is listed among lamest edit wars on Wikipedia. A lot of your concerns can be resolved if you'll take the time to click and read the blue links that are provided here and read the archives. If you have concerns about "the" vs. "The" for other articles, you'll need to discuss on the talk pages of those articles. Sundayclose (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

if you're going to add facts, at least explain them

In the section entitled: 1963–1966: Beatlemania and touring years / Please Please Me and With the Beatles

It says:

Released in March 1963, the album initiated a run during which eleven of their twelve studio albums released in the United Kingdom through to 1970 reached number one

Can it be mentioned as fact that out of the "eleven of their twelve studio albums" reached Number 1, it was Yellow Submarine that did not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.60.180 (talk) 11:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2020

Change to Beatles Discography needed. Both Magical Mystery Tour and Yellow Submarine should preferably be removed from the list. They are not studio albums. They are compilation and soundtrack albums, released by American music company in the USA. The Beatles created 11 studio albums. If they are not removed, a parenthesis should be added to them explaining what they are. Plumpenmarran (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This has been an issue of discussion at Talk:The Beatles discography#Studio albums in first sentence. Feel free to make any comments there. Note that in The Beatles article there is nothing stating that compilation and soundtrack albums are not included, although it is possible this could change with consensus here. Sundayclose (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Deceased members

Yes, several members of the Roman senate, signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Beatles are dead. Per the parameters of the infoboxes, we do not mark them as dead.

In general, unless the person's death is in some way related to the content, it doesn't belong anywhere in the article. "Author(s): Thomas Jefferson† et al. (also deceased); Signatories: 56 delegates to the Second Continental Congress (all as dead as Julius Caesar)." - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Reconciliation of dates

The Background information section near the top of the article says "Years active 1960–1970", while the Personnel section says "1960-1969" for John, "1960-1970" for Paul and George, and "1962-1970" for Ringo. Shouldn't it say "1960-1970" for John?

In Abbey Road, Let It Be and separation I see the following: "On 20 September, Lennon announced his departure to the rest of the group but agreed to withhold a public announcement to avoid undermining sales of the forthcoming album." Is that the reason for John's "1960-1969"? If so, is it a sufficient reason? John Link (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Lennon quit the band in 1969 but didn't immediately make it public. The band continued to exist, without Lennon, but did not do any more recordings as a group of four. When someone permanently quits, that's sufficient reason. Sundayclose (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I find it strange to think that for a short time the Fab Four was a trio, but technically that's correct. John Link (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

First two sentences need to be rewritten

The sentences: "The Beatles were an English rock band formed in Liverpool in 1960. With a line-up comprising John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr, they are regarded as the most influential band of all time."[1]

In the second sentence, the two clauses are a textbook example of some common fault I can't name. An exemplar is "Polly, being born with ginger hair, is thought of as the best Chancellor of the Exchequer of all time." These are unrelated ideas that should at least be two sentences. Better, the first clause in the article should be joined to the first sentence: "The Beatles were an English rock band formed in Liverpool in 1960 comprising John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr. And, no, I didn't put a comma in the middle.

I would also suggest "...made up of..." to the Latinate "comprising."

The highly debatable claim of the second clause of the second sentence can be defused by identifying the one person making the claim, and by using an active verb: "Nick Hasted has called them the most influential band of all time."[1]

Bookman1968 (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Clearly a band's lineup is much more relevant to its legacy than a politician's hair color is to theirs. Calidum 17:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Their famous four-piece lineup wasn't established in 1960, and I feel putting the two in the same sentence would imply that.Humbledaisy (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

<edit conflict>You're not wrong about the unrelated ideas and it needs improving, but it's hardly an awful example. Your suggested first sentence wouldn't work, or could well be queried again, because the band that formed in 1960 did not include Ringo Starr.

You misunderstand what it is that Hasted is being used to support. It's not necessarily his view; he presumably (I don't know, I didn't add the text) mentions that the Beatles are widely recognised as the most influential band of all time.

And if you find that a highly debatable claim, I wonder how well you know pop culture history – it's not included here unless the majority of music editors see it as credible. Other authors credit the Beatles as the most influential act of all time. It's difficult to argue with that contention after researching this subject – not just the band, but the 1960s, pop music's evolution from the mid 20th century to the present day, etc. There are hundreds of books that cover their cultural impact. JG66 (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

How about this: "The Beatles were an English rock band formed in Liverpool in 1960, with a final lineup of John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr. They are regarded as the most influential band of all time."[1] Bookman1968 (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Officially Lennon wasn't in the "final" lineup. He quit the band, but the band continued to exist. Sundayclose (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh please. When Lennon quit, there was no more lineup. The hour before, there was still a lineup with him in it.

"The Beatles were an English rock band formed in Liverpool in 1960; by their first number one hit, the lineup was: John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr. They are regarded as the most influential band of all time."[1] The first clause in the second sentence of the article belongs with the first sentence, not the second. Otherwise they should be three sentences. Please improve on my effort to fix the opening of this article if you have a better way. Bookman1968 (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

"When Lennon quit, there was no more lineup" – so which band was it that recorded "I Me Mine" in January 1970 and completed "Let It Be" ...?!

I don't think your suggestion is very elegant at all – but I appreciate it is a suggestion. As mentioned previously, I take your point but don't see the incongruity between the phrases as they currently stand as such a jarring, unforgivable example. As this page states above, though, the article is Featured content because it "has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community" – so we should strive to improve it and eradicate the issue you raise. (I noticed it a while back when the opening sentences were the topic of discussion here; just didn't think it was such a big deal.) Perhaps the way to do it, because it's important to state the four band members very early on, is to introduce the "Fab Four" moniker here, then give their names. That should make a break-off sentence more substantial, or at least gives us more options to work with. JG66 (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

"The Beatles were an English rock band formed in Liverpool in 1960. Because of their incredible popularity, John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr were dubbed "The Fab Four." They are regarded as the most influential band of all time."[1] I don't know how to do footnotes, but the reference is https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/17/arts/music/tony-barrow-beatles-publicist-who-coined-the-term-fab-four-dies-at-80.html Bookman1968 (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree that the second sentence is awkwardly written. It does not coherently link two ideas (their long standing lineup, their wide reaching influence), nor does it do so with the proper verb tense. It currently sounds reads like "their current lineup of John, Paul, George, and Ringo is the most influential band". I have a number of modifications I would recommend over the current version:

• With their long-running/long-standing lineup of John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr, they became regarded as the most influential band of all time.
• With their lineup comprising John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr, they became the most influential band of all time.
• The band, long consisting of John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr, is regarded as the most influential of all time.
• The band, whose best-known lineup comprised John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr, is regarded as the most influential of all time.

Any of the above options (or combination of pieces of them) would be better and more coherent than the current version. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I quite like your first and third suggestion. "Best-known lineup" maybe places unnecessary focus on the fact that there were other lineups (but perhaps that's not an unnecessary fact). – Thjarkur (talk) 09:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, "most influential band of all time" is unnecessarily imprecise. Were they the most influential band of the 1950s? Obviously not. Were they influential in the 19th Century? I don't think so. So why say, "of all time", when what you mean is "since 1960? Mtmoore321 (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

"Most influential band of all time" is clear. "Of all time" means most influential compared to any band from any decade, including past decades. To say they were "the most influential" from the 1960s would change the meaning. The century is not really relevant since there were no rock bands before the twentieth century. Sundayclose (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I understand what the writer is trying to say but it just sounds like hyperbole. And "most influential" is a vague concept anyway. Why not go with the best-selling group of all time, as this is quantifiable, verifiable and notable? Mtmoore321 (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Take the group members' names out of the second sentence and it reads: The group are regarded as the most influential band of all time." - I think "The group is regarded..." is better here From the BBC

https://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/b10bbbfc-cf9e-42e0-be17-e2c3e1d2600d "The band was formed in Liverpool during the 1950s explosion of both rock ‘n’ roll and skiffle" As I mention below, when you are speaking of a group or band as a unit as opposed to its individual memebrs, then it sounds better to use the singular verb, as the BBC does.

Or tell me, how this sounds to your ears: The group were comprised of John, Paul, Ringo and George. ??

Mtmoore321 (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not hearing a lot of argument. I guess consensus is to keep the wrong grammar because it's consistent, am I right? Mtmoore321 (talk) 11:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Er, yes, that's right. JG66 (talk) 11:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that saying "The group were regarded" does sound odd and before I knew Brit English I was wondering why it was written like that too. But the fact is, it is Brit English to refer to bands as plural as just because one source like the BBC refers to the band as non-plural doesn't make it right. On top of that, almost every web-based article that's written about them writes a capital "The" when writing the "The Beatles" mid-sentence even though that's against MOS:THEMUSIC on this site. I've always been fine with the opening sentences personally, but imo the whole article could use some prose editing, especially since it became an FA back in 2009, and most hardcore Beatle editors have long since left this site. – zmbro _(talk) 22:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The group were inducted

How are people claiming this is correct English? The group as a whole was inducted to the Hall of Fame. The group was inducted, not the group were inducted.

I understand in British English one can say "Arsenal are doing well this season" (well, maybe not this season) but you would say "The team is on the bus" when you are talking about the team as a unit. You would not say "The team are on the bus" unless you wanted to distinguish between the team members e.g. "The team are arguing amongst themselves about tactics on the bus."

The individual members of the group were inducted later, but the group was inducted, and anything else sounds daft.

Mtmoore321 (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

and also here, consistency over correctness? I was just kind of surprised how badly some parts of this article were written, considering it's an important page, but I understand there is no point in trying to change things, even if they're patently incorrect, without consensus. Mtmoore321 (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Taking your example of a football team, I'd argue that in British English you/one very rarely refers to a team in the singular form. I believe you would say "The team are on the bus", just as you would "Liverpool are doing well this season", because we never stop thinking of them as many individuals. If we were talking about a team in terms of financial standing or legal position in a court case, then we'd use the singular form because we're no longer viewing them as players but as a club and an institution.

It's the same with the Beatles here – I don't believe we ever depart from the notion of four musicians. Which is why we say "they" each time not "it" when we're not using the bandname or terms like the group or the band. And even in (I'd say very rare) instances where the meaning might suggest an institution rather than multiple musicians, reverting to the singular form is potentially jarring, at least to Brit English speakers, given that the plural form dominates. (Which is perhaps what Pawnkingthree was referring to.) I had a book that explained this issue; will try to dig it up. JG66 (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't find this in WP:MOS, but the sources I did find are clear for BE and AE: "Group is" when it's referred to as a whole or a unit (that band is playing loudly, the team is known for winning), "Group are" when individuals are emphasized (The Beatles are not all alive, the squad are in disagreement). I propose consistency in applying this, with ambiguous instances deferring to BE. ЄlєvєN єvєN||иэvэ иэvэlэ 09:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Thank you for those sources, but I don't agree they are all clear about this issue.

• The Lexico page states "In British English, most collective nouns can be treated as singular or plural" and provides examples of nouns taking singular and plural agreement, without committing to one approach. As Wikipedia's article states, Lexico is created by Oxford University Press, the publishing house for the (English) University of Oxford.
• Dictionary.com states "In British English, however, collective nouns are often treated as plural in form and so take plural verbs, e.g., The government are intervening in the crisis." The point is made that the choice can be dependent on context. Examples then favour the singular form, yes, but – aside from the page's only specific reference to BE – Dictionary.com would seem to reflect a more AE perspective in that its primary text is Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, an American dictionary, even if it also sources Collins English Dictionary.
• Grammarly states "In British English, collective nouns can take is or are." Again, examples provided then support the singular form, but Grammarly is American, so it's difficult not to view their recommendations as being AE-based with a brief nod to BE.

The English style book I referred to above (which unfortunately I've yet to unearth) is by Cambridge University Press, another UK-based academic source. What I remember of the advice there is that it supports the idea of either form being acceptable and the decision rests on the writer's meaning, whether the collective noun (group/team/government) is to be perceived as a single, perhaps faceless, entity or a collection of individuals. It's this last point that grabs me: outside of the sentence raised here ("The group were/was inducted"), are we to say that "The group recorded its fifth album after completing the tour ... The band continued to enjoy commercial success. It released two further singles that year ..."?

Lexico's association with OUP make that the most qualified of the three sources to follow with regard to Brit English usage, surely, yet Lexico does not advocate one form over the other. I'm quite happy to be proved wrong and personally learn something new along the way (my approach is perhaps overly influenced by what I read and hear; references above to Premier League teams). We should be correct in the lead, and throughout the article, but I'd want to be sure that "correctness" is governed by UK sources on British English, rather than US sources, and that the decision is based on what the majority of those sources support. JG66 (talk) 08:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

As above, it is very common to treat group nouns as plural in British English. I would argue that it makes more sense as any pronoun you could substitute would be plural. The group were inducted. They were inducted. The group's style is (something). Their style is (something). It may sound incorrect from your POV, but singular sounds incorrect to me. M.Clay1 (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Logos problem

Official “Drop-T” logo from thebeatles.com

Version currently used in the article created by Inductiveload

The logo currently used in this article is not accurate. I offer replacing it with the official version.--Libron (talk) 05:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

... at least it's an upper case T. lol. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

800 million sales figure

Surely we can do better than a press release for this figure? I'm minded to delete it as it's not an independent source.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Glad you said that, P-K3. Mixed in with the recent changes (and reverts), I'd tried to raise divert attention to a past discussion on this: Talk:The Beatles/Archive 34#Estimated world sales (again). Looking further back in the archives, there should be part one of the discussion, if I remember right.

Perhaps the lead can mention the range of estimates, rather than committing to one, and most importantly, attribute the figure each time – that is, unless there is something approaching a confirmed sales figure. I've always thought we should follow the estimated total given at List of best-selling music artists, or at least ensure it's given prime place if we provide other, higher figures. JG66 (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for linking to that discussion, a shame it didn't get more of a response. My view is that we should revert to the 600 million figure if that is the one that appears most often in reliable sources. Apple Corps and Universal Music Group are not independent sources and cannot be used. This would also match the figure at List_of_best-selling_music_artists#250_million_or_more_records. I'm familiar with the "1 billion" claim as it was repeated every year in the Guinness Book of Records, so no issue with including that as a footnote.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The point I was making (in the linked discussion) about the Guinness figure is that, as wildly optimistic as it may be, at least it's recognised by a notable third-party source. But as far as what we state as fact, especially in the lead – yes, it should be the same figure that appears at List of best-selling music artists. JG66 (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I've changed it to 600 million, using the BBC source.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Michael Jackson give back

I recall Michael Jackson gave the catalogue he owned back, free of charge, to the remaining 2 Beatles just before his death.

98.164.71.229 (talk) 10:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia depends on reliable sourcing for its content. I'm afraid your recollection doesn't satisfy that requirement. If you can find an appropriate written source, please present it here. HiLo48 (talk) 11:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Musical Influences

I think the Lovin Spoonful didn't influence the Beatles at all. The contemporaries who influenced the Beatles were, of course, Bob Dylan, the Who, Frank Zappa, the Byrds and the Beach Boys, whose 1966 album Pet Sounds amazed and inspired McCartney.[377][378][379][380] But you should include Syd Barrett's Pink Floyd (I am the Walrus, Blue Jay Way, What's the new Mary Jane?), Arthur Lee's Love and Jefferson Airplane (Strawberry Fields Forever), Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band (Obladi Oblada), The Velvet Understand (My Imagination and some Get Back sessions ), The Kinks (especially for the song Rain) and Jimi Hendrix (Helter Skelter's riff was inspirated by Purple Haze).

Thank you Marcodicaprio90 (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedia does not allow edits based on personal opinions of editors. Reliable sources are required. Sundayclose (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• The Beatles magical mystery tour.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Past Masters...?

Was there any discussion to include Past Masters under Discography? I can understand Magical Mystery Tour, as although that was an EP (initially), it was treated equal to the other studio albums.

However, Past Masters looks like a simple compilation, a re-release of previously-available songs, similar to many other compilations. I don't think it was equal to the other albums on release. Nobody was saying "Here's a new major release by The Beatles!" in 1988...

Note: As an example, Led Zeppelin has a compilation in their Discography, called Coda. In contrast, Coda contained songs that were either exclusive b-sides, or never even released to begin with, unlike Past Masters. Xanarki (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Funny you ask that – I was thinking a day or two back that the discography here had mushroomed out over the last year or two. There certainly shouldn't be any reference to "see also" or any of that commentary ("rarities compilation, focused on recordings from 1958–1964"). I'd say Past Masters is the only extra one that does belong.

Of course any major artist is going to have more than what's listed in the Discography section, but the section is meant to be the essential works – the Anthology albums and everything else should go. (Compare with Bob Dylan#Discography, for instance, where there's no mention at all of his ever-expanding Bootleg Series.) JG66 (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that those extra releases shouldn't be there to begin with, and I don't remember them being there in the past. But, I disagree with Past Masters though...if they all get deleted, that one should, too. Especially because some of the songs on Past Masters are included on those other compilations, too.

It certainly shouldn't be listed alongside the proper studio albums, at least. Xanarki (talk) 22:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Past Masters is part of the so-called core catalogue. I don't know what you mean by "those other compilations", but PM completes the catalogue beside the 13 studio albums. The only overlap is that there are alt versions or alt overdubbed tracks (eg, "Across the Universe" is unrecognisable vs the Let It Be version), but it is a standalone album that mops up the rest of their officially released EMI recordings. That was the whole reason for the two Past Masters volumes – so that it was possible to have the entire Beatles catalogue on CD. JG66 (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I did some research, and you are correct, Past Masters is considered equal to the other studio albums and is a part of the core catalogue. Which leads me back to the other compilations under Discography. I think that they should be deleted, as they're not crucial releases, and aren't equal to the main albums. It seems like someone pick-and-chose which compilations/re-releases/remix albums to include, and from an outside perspective (as I'm not a huge Beatles fan), it seems unnecessary. Xanarki (talk) 04:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Yep, agreed. I'll remove all the non-"core" titles. JG66 (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me. By the way, in order to prevent further confusion, you may want to edit the actual page of Past Masters, somewhere in the article (brief mention in the heading + possibly more details in the body) how it's considered a major release and part of the core line-up...it sounds like you're more knowledgeable about The Beatles than me, and can back it up/word it better. Just a suggestion. Thanks! Xanarki (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Yep, Past Masters is considered part of the official core catalogue so should be included. The rest can go. P-K3 (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2020

The following sentence is incorrect and the source is flaky, and of no real consequence. The date below clashes with the Global Beatles Day Wikipedia page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Beatles_Day

On 16 January each year, beginning in 2001, people celebrate World Beatles Day under UNESCO. This date has direct relation to the opening of The Cavern Club in 1957.[434][435]

Please change On 16 January each year, beginning in 2001, people celebrate World Beatles Day under UNESCO. This date has direct relation to the opening of The Cavern Club in 1957.[434][435] to On 25 June each year, beginning in 2009, people celebrate World Beatles Day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Beatles_Day Carlomiller (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

We do not reference Wikipedia to itself. WWGB (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Album era undue weight

I take issue with including this sentence in the lead:

Heralding the album era, their success led to the massive sales increase and popularity of the album format, which eventually replaced singles as the dominant form of recorded music

It's true that their effect on the album era is one of the notable points of their cultural impact. However, I fail to see why we're sparing so much of the lead space for this single point. Per MOS:LEADREL: According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources.

To balance this, I've changed the wording to...

Their cultural impact extended to fashion, British identity, rock groups, albums as the dominant form of recorded music, interest in psychedelic drugs and Eastern spirituality, world concert tours, electronic music, record sleeves and music videos.

I hope that other editors find this to be an improvement, and if not, that an argument can be made for why it's necessary that we include 30 extra words devoted to a really specific subject, and why we aren't affording the same level of detail to equally notable subjects like psychedelia, '60s counterculture, and fashion. ili (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

You removed the information three times without discussion. And please don't try to argue that it was only twice because you started this discussion. For anyone interested look at the time stamps. It's unacceptable to revert (even twice) and then start the discussion. Please stop and wait for consensus here. I disagree with you. The movement from singles to albums was a major shift in how music was sold at that time, very much like the shift from LPs to CDs more recently. It's fine that you disagree, but you do not WP:OWN this article, and you must respect the consensus process. Sundayclose (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Sundayclose: No, I actually agree with you that the move from singles to albums was a big deal and that it deserves some mention in the lead. But you haven't explained why the subject is more notable than anything else discussed at the Cultural impact of the Beatles article that we could also cover in greater detail in the lead of the main Beatles article. I'd also argue that your edits are more disruptive since I'm actually proposing compromises and explaining myself through edit rationales and the talk page, which is perfectly fine per WP:BOLD, whereas you're carelessly executing blanket reverts that introduce sentence structure errors and remove minor, uncontroversial additions that another editor had suggested. ili (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Don't even try the straw-man diversion of claiming that your three reverts without discussion is not disruptive, and that my calling you out on it is more disruptive. That's utter drivel, and anyone who looks at your edit history knows that. Trying to dress it up as a compromise is another evasive tactic; you didn't suggest anything here, compromise or otherwise, until after you reverted three times. Your first revert was WP:BOLD. The other two were WP:DISRUPTIVE. It doesn't help your case to try to twist Wikipedia policies to justify inappropriate behavior. Now, if you have additional concerns about me personally, take it up on my talk page, not here. Yes, I've explained my position as well or better than you have explained yours. As has been stated by isento below, your selections of cultural influences are generally selected at random (guided only by your own personal preferences) without regard to the relative impact of each one as discussed in the article. But the bottom line here: You need consensus, and you should have sought consensus before making your last two reverts, and you don't have it. Sundayclose (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Keeping it relevant to the disputed content — "your selections of cultural influences are generally selected at random (guided only by your own personal preferences) without regard to the relative impact of each one as discussed in the article" —— congratulations, you've summarized exactly the issue I'm concerned about! The emphasis on "album era" is seemingly random, based on personal preference, and included without regard for the relative impact of every other facet of culture that the Beatles affected. The list I've given below is just a quick illustration of how many other things we could potentially afford greater detail in the lead. ili (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Right back atcha! You keep it relevant to the content. Yet another attempt to divert discussion away from your disruptive editing. Now what you need is consensus that your personal preferences for what belongs in the lead are more notable than what you edit warred to try to remove. So far, your arguments are not compelling, so if it looks like you have some support here we'll have more to discuss. Sundayclose (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, they were recording artists first and foremost, particularly album artists. And your replacement revision is just listing things off without rhyme or reason or insight into the impact. isento (talk) 03:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Isento: Whether they were "recording artists first and foremost" is debatable, but for the sake of argument, they certainly weren't dedicated recording artists until halfway into their career. And per MOS:LEAD, greater detail is supposed to be reserved for the body. Would you really expect that we should be filling the lead with "average-length sentences" that each explain the group's impact on:

• civil rights
• Western fashion
• British identity
• recreational drug culture
• music journalism
• serious recognition of popular music
• '60s idealism and flower power philosophy
• electronically-produced sounds and recording techniques
• the bridge between the counterculture and the mainstream
• the proliferation of young musical artists and inventing the "rock group" archetype
• world tours and stadium concerts
• the United States losing its hold as the dominant source of entertainment culture
• prog, metal, psychedelia, and countless other music genres?

If you believe their influence on the album format had a more profound impact on worldwide pop culture than most of these other points of influence, then can you explain why in objective terms? If you can't, then affording greater coverage to the album era is undoubtedly an issue of undue weight. I appreciate your hard work in expanding the Album era article, and also noting it in this article's lead, but I find it absurd that the band's impact on album sales takes up more space here than the group inspiring folks to drop acid, advance civil rights, copy the British, start music careers, and so on. I hope this makes sense. ili (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for appreciating my work at Album era... The bulk of the lead talks about them as a recording act, their recordings, their musical career, etc. So the impression given is that. You're listing subsections from another article. Doesn't "weight" apply, particular for the lead, to this article? Shouldn't we be harmonizing coverage between the lead and the body of this article? (MOS:LEADREL) I'm not against reducing the sentence, and I'm sure there's a way of keeping a contexualized mention of "album era". A number of those cultural impacts (from looking at that article) are tied to their heralding the album era -- sales records, album artwork, artistic competition and pop's legitimization, concept albums, even music videos. I am sure there is a superior revision out there to stringing together these ideas in a more concise form for this article's lead. But these are not compelling arguments to me for eliminating the current sentence altogether. I will reserve judgement upon seeing what others have to say here. isento (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

There are many more high-quality sources connecting the album era with the Beatles. Do we really need to add and summarize them in the body just to justify one average-length sentence in the lead? isento (talk) 03:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, speaking of undue weight, this article makes one brief mention of music videos, and no mention of "Eastern spirituality". isento (talk) 04:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Isento: Coverage of the Beatles, Eastern spirituality and music videos can be found on Cultural impact of the Beatles#Spirituality and Transcendental Meditation, The Beatles in Bangor#Aftermath and cultural influence, The Beatles in India#Legacy and Cultural impact of the Beatles#Film and music videos. ili (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Ringo Starr - Keyboards contributions not recognised

There were several occasions where Ringo played either Hammond Organ or Piano - these though rare, should still be listed alongside his name as instruments he played in the band

No, they shouldn't. The field is for instruments that the player is primarily known for. (And his alleged keyboard playing ability is not even mentioned in the musicianship section of our Featured Article on Starr.)-- P-K3 (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• The Beatles magical mystery tour.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The band name is a pun

It is probably obvious (certainly to most English speakers) but I think the pun should be explained somewhere in the article - the beetle insect, music having a beat, etc.

That's a good point. I thought it had been explained, but possibly lost during various editing. Maybe you could put something here first? Patthedog (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2021

Remove deceased indicator from Paul McCartney and add deceased indicator to George Harrison in the information panel at the top of the page 195.188.83.4 (talk) 10:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. How long has it been like that!? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

 Removed. They were added today. The inclusion of Christian death symbols needs consensus. WWGB (talk) 10:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Is the word "deceased" acceptable? What's the advice at the infobox template? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I have yet to find the use of any death indicators against the Past Members in the infobox of any contemporaneous bands. Cannot see any mention of death indicators at the template notes. WWGB (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I also can't find any. So just not needed, it seems Martinevans123 (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2021

In the line | title1 = [[List of awards and nominations received by the Beatles|Awards for the Beatles]], please replace title1 with title ("title1" is an undefined parameter and fails to work as expected; the template keeps its generic title "Links to related articles" and the article is listed in the "Category:Pages_using_navboxes_with_unknown_parameters"). Thank you. 84.69.182.103 (talk) 21:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2021

Change the picture profile of The Beatles to be an better picture, change the placement of Ringo and George, this would fit more with the placing of the Let It Be album that this picture is clearly referencing with the 4 cropping. So in short, change the picture of The Beatles featured on the article to a the same photo just changing the placement of George and Ringo to be more in line with Let It Be Cover Toknowheristoloveher (talk) 12:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done To comply with our non-free content criteria we have to use a free image if one is available. This is the best we have. The cropping of the original was just done to make the faces easier to see; any similarity to the Let It Be cover is coincidental. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The Beatles vs. Beatles

Anyone know why the articles for the albums like revolver, let it be and 1 are called ...(Beatles album) and not called ...(the beatles album) DanTheMusicMan2 (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

There was a decision made to lose the definite article, and I assume that might have applied to all bands. Up till then, the articles were titled with "(The Beatles album/song)". We have Aftermath (Rolling Stones album) and the like for the Stones articles. JG66 (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Imo it makes sense, but then you have others such as Friends (The Beach Boys album), Disintegration (The Cure album) and Tattoo (The Who song) so who knows. – zmbro _(talk) 16:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh. Well, I know I've seen examples of "(Beach Boys album)", so maybe they've been changed back quite recently.

Just realised: this discussion should really be taking place on one of the relevant album talk pages, shouldn't it, not here at the band article? JG66 (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• The other article titles were recently reverted by @Amakuru: who disputed the consensus ruling. ili (talk) 10:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

  The consensus I disputed was one that took place some time ago at WP:NCMUSIC, and the eventual conclusion was that there was no consensus to remove The from the numerous titles where they've always been present. As far as I'm aware, the Beatles articles were a special case because editors had specifically chosen to remove the definite article from those articles. It does seem that it would be preferable to bring them back into line with wider guideline though, for consistency. Note that omitting "The" brings problems for certain cases such as The Who and The 1975, which is why overall it's better to just include it everywhere.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

  The discussion was here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music/Archive 8#RfC: using "The" in song/album article titles  — Amakuru (talk) 10:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I think we should expand the genres a little bit.

Personally I feel it would make sense to include Psychedelic Rock and Rock n’ Roll.

Considering the Beatles in their earliest years would play the music of Early Pioneers of Rock n Roll such as Chuck Berry, Little Richard, and The Supremes. This would go from Please Please me up until Beatles for Sale.

The Beatles also pioneered psychedelic rock, with Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band and Magical Mystery Tour, being prominent examples. Spongehog (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this on the talk page instead of changing it without discussion. Generally I oppose. The current genres of rock and pop are very broad and can include psychedelic rock and rock n' roll. The number of genres in the infobox should be limited. The Beatles were so diverse that many genres are possible, even country-western, but we can't add all of them. More specific genres for individual songs and albums can be used in other articles. Sundayclose (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with Sundayclose. Psychedelic rock is a subgenre of Rock music. As are many other rock genres that The Beatles have covered, including Art rock, Blues-rock, Experimental rock, Folk rock, Hard rock, Power pop, Progressive rock, Proto-metal, Raga rock, and Surf rock. While Baroque pop, Jangle pop, Psychedelic pop, Soft rock, Sunshine pop, and Swamp pop are all subgenres of Pop music.

It's generally best to get straight to the point and only list their core genres. While I do feel that perhaps Rock and Roll should be added to the template, I also feel that that can easily be covered by Rock music. Even though I'm not entirely sure whether I consider Rock and Roll to be a subgenre of Rock music, or just an associated genre. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 02:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• Should we make this an official consensus? The subject has resurfaced repeatedly over the years. ili (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

There's already an WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, which is official. Unless a new consensus emerges, nothing else needs to be done. Sundayclose (talk) 04:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I've long thought we should add psychedelia – not psychedelic rock, btw, because psychedelia is the term most commonly applied to the Beatles (same with Pink Floyd and other English groups from the period). Authors like Nicholas Schaffner, Russell Reising (the chapter "Magical Mystery Tours, and Other Trips: Yellow submarines, newspaper taxis, and the Beatles' psychedelic years" in The Cambridge Companion to the Beatles) and Rob Chapman (Psychedelia and Other Colours) recognise a distinct period or "phase" when the band embraced this style.

The only other possible addition would be beat. That terms was and is widely used to describe their early sound. JG66 (talk) 04:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew about Beat music. But I deliberately chose not to mention it. Because I wasn't sure what I considered it to be a subgenre of. I've always considered it to be somewhere between Pop rock and Rock and Roll. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 04:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I personally think just adding Psychedelia would be important and more accurate, that is not to say i disagree with the consensus I think the idea of keeping it short is fine, but i view that adding in Psychedelia on its own makes a ton of sense considering songs such as "Ob-la-di Ob-La-Da", "I am The Walrus", "Within you Without you", "Lucy in the sky with Diamonds", and "I'm only Sleeping" being great examples of it being a major catelog of their later music. Spongehog (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Not trying to go too off-topic here, but personally I don't think that 'Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da' is psychedelic. The only Beatles songs from 1968 that I consider to be psychedelic are 'The Inner Light', 'Across the Universe', 'Glass Onion', and 'Long, Long, Long'. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 22:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree Ob-La is not psychedelic. It's article says pop and ska, which makes sense. But I would agree that Walrus, Within You (although the article doesn't indicate psychedelic), and Lucy in the Sky are psychedelic, as well as those mentioned by C.Syde65. Considering this discussion, I could agree that psychedelic could be added to the infobox. Sundayclose (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

On the point about individual songs, "Rain", most of Revolver ("Tomorrow Never Knows", obviously), "Strawberry Fields", "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds", "Blue Jay Way", "It's All Too Much" are widely viewed as heavily psychedelic. A good few critics and music historians have described Rubber Soul as either marking the start of psychedelia or signposting what was just up ahead (eg, second and third paragraphs at Rubber Soul#Development of subgenres). So, there's no shortage of examples of the Beatles making psychedelic music.

For our purposes here at the band article, what's relevant is that writers recognise a period in the Beatles' career when they were fully immersed in psychedelia: anything 1966 through to the Yellow Submarine film and its soundtrack songs. I still think beat might be worth including. I was looking at some other band articles for comparison. The Beach Boys includes surf and psychedelia, for instance; I think beat and psychedelia apply in the Beatles' case – each of those terms defined the band's music at various points. Of course, they also made folk rock, country rock, electronic rock, avant-garde and what later came to be known as progressive rock, but the Beatles were labelled a beat group, certainly until early 1965, and a large portion of their eight-year recording career serves as a distinct psychedelic period. JG66 (talk) 01:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a really good point – they were primarily called a "beat" group at the time. I don't think we should be adding "psychedelia" if we're not also adding "beat". ili (talk) 12:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm thinking it is best for us now to consider adding Psychedelic music, Because Wikipedia does not recognise psychedelia as its own genre, if we can come to an agreement on that I believe it is important enough to contribute to the conversation and make it more encyclopedically accurate. Spongehog (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

"Because Wikipedia does not recognise psychedelia as its own genre" – Preposterous. Where on this website is it stated that psychedelia isn't a genre? ili (talk) 12:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

The comment probably relates to a fairly abstract discussion between editors as to the differences between psychedelia, psychedelic music, and psychedelic rock. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Most of these genres didn't exist of course when the Beatles were writing their songs and Lennon considered the band to be a Rock and Roll combo. In the UK they were a pop group. I don't particularly care one way or the other except it might be over complicating things. Are these labels helpful to the reader? If so, then fine.Patthedog (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• I would also oppose any additional genres. The granularity of genres isn't useful, listing 1-2 predominant top-level genres is usually sufficient for a broad pop act like The Beatles. If people want to learn more, they can read the text of the article, but the infobox is most useful using only the most relevant genre and not being a comprehensive list. --Jayron32 14:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2021

I'd like to add a genre besides rock. Considering that they were very ahead of their time with albums like Revolver (1966) and Sgt Pepper (1967) they should be considered as an experimental group. So like experimental rock or something genre-wise. ErikFelik (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

So, do you propose experimental rock? If so, do you have any good source(s) that support that genre? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Active years

Says they were active from 1960-1970 but does not say 1996, which is a year in which they were active (they obviously did the anthology project but also put out a couple of new singles that year). I think it should say that they were active during that year, because they were working together and releasing new material. Cboi Sandlin (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, consensus is not to include. The three surviving members were quite clear at the time that this was not a reunion. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

But they still recorded new and released new material at this time. Even if they didn't perform public shows or do promotions or anything, that's still them being active together as a band. - K-popguardian (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Pawnkingthree, Paul, George, and Ringo, by their own statements, did not reunite as the Beatles to release the two new songs. It would be inappropriate for us to disagree with their own statement on the matter. --Jayron32 19:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

but the song was still credited to The Beatles. Besides, this wouldn't be the first time Wikipedia didn't acknowledge a euphemism. - K-popguardian (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

The most credence rests with the former members of the Beatles as to whether they were reuniting and performing as the Beatles rather than the marketing moguls who knew that the name "Beatles" would sell better than naming each member. I'm not sure what you mean by "acknowledge a euphemism". Sundayclose (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Unless there's anything new since these discussions, probably should stay as is. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 20:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Euphemisms such as "We're not really a disbanded group, we're on a hiatus while we pursue solo careers." Yet Wikipedia will still mark said acts to have disbanded. - K-popguardian (talk) 05:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Savage Young Beatles?

I stumbled across the term "Savage Young Beatles", and it seemed not only related to a bootleg album but perhaps to The Beatles themselves, or to their name. Neither idea, nor even the phrase itself, is mentioned in the article here. Misty MH (talk) 08:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC) I also did not find it by searching the Talk archive here. Misty MH (talk) 08:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but I'm surprised that the album does not seem to be mentioned in the article on The Beatles bootleg recordings. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

The Tony Sheridan sessions have been repackaged countless times, the "Savage Young Beatles" is just one of them. It's not mentioned in the article or the talk page archives because they were never actually known as the Savage Young Beatles at any point. (On the original issue they were "The Beat Brothers.") Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed Patthedog (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

"best-known line-up"

That's ridiculous.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it’s a farcical statement for the lead. It makes the group sound like a revolving door band. The Beatles always was, always will be, JPGR. WWGB (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Not so. Pete Best was a Beatle for their most crucially formative two and a half years and certainly shouldn't be overlooked. His fantastic bass-drum driven style was instrumental (so to speak) in concatenating that unique sound during their Hamburg period. All Ringo had to do was slip into Best's seat and play likewise, which is evident if you've studied the early recordings. Just because the Beatles have gone to extremes to erase Pete Best doesn't mean Wikipedia must comply. Too bad Wikimedia doesn't have any photos of Best with the band considering how many exist, or do they get quickly yanked down if they appear? Racing Forward (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. That said, I'm struggling to think of another way to phrase it that doesn't give the impression Pete and Stu weren't members of the Beatles.Humbledaisy (talk) 12:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I found a similar issue when writing their song list a few years ago. I originally had "Throughout their career, every band member contributed to songwriting," but somehow at FLC pointed out Stu and Pete were officially members, so I changed it to "Following their signing with EMI in 1962, each member of the "Fab Four" contributed to songwriting.", although now it's "...each member of the Beatles contributed to songwriting". I agree using the phrase "best-known lineup" for the Beatles is rather preposterous. It's a similar equivalent to Rush or Beastie Boys, who made records with other members besides Alex, Geddy, and Neil or Mike D, Ad-Rock, and MCA, but really to most people those are the only members; and for the Beatles, it'll always be JPGR like WWGB said. We definitely should find another way to word it. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• I don't understand the issue. The Beatles had many different line-ups, but most people only know the "Fab Four". It's an immutable fact; not something that can be debated or interpreted another way. Are we afraid of confusing readers who don't know that the Beatles weren't always JPGR? WP:OVERSIMPLIFY: "It is important not to oversimplify material in the effort to make it more understandable." ili (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the issue was neatly resolved with this change back on Jan 15 --John (User:Jwy/talk) 23:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Not an improvement IMO, if only because it makes the second sentence a run-on. Another good reason was noted in 2020 by @Bookman1968:

In the second sentence, the two clauses are a textbook example of some common fault I can't name. An exemplar is "Polly, being born with ginger hair, is thought of as the best Chancellor of the Exchequer of all time." These are unrelated ideas that should at least be two sentences.

I agreed with the editor and thought that the simple solution was to move the mention of the four members by name into the first sentence. ili (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

What I liked about the Jan 15 edit is that avoided the "best-known lineup" bit by saying it was the four that were famous and had a big impact on music, avoiding "membership" issues. I had missed the grammar problems. If we can resolve the grammar issue and use that idea, I think we have improvement. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 03:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't and don't agree that listing the four in the same sentence as saying the Beatles are "regarded as the most influential band of all time" is such a "textbook example", as Bookman1968 defined it. For a band to achieve any sort of standing, it does require individuals (and it's often said that the Beatles were more than the sum of their parts). But for an individual to become the best Chancellor of the Exchequer of all time, they don't need a head of hair, either at birth or while in office. The Polly example therefore makes no sense at all; I don't know if "non sequitur" would best describe the illogical effect.

Not saying that the wording to which Bookman1968 was opposed was ideal, by any means, but come on, it was nowhere near the glaring error ("textbook example") that was suggested. JG66 (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Rockers Island, Ringo Usher

This island was purchased by Ringo Usher is 1987. Guityrocks (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2022

2A02:C7C:5A04:4E00:B413:5C4F:A9E7:2B42 (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Should read ‘British’ group rather than ‘English’ as at least one founding member ‘Stuart Sutcliffe’ was Scottish, so you have him as being part of an English band? Needs to be amended. Thanks.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Short description

I’m wondering why the short description reads 1962-1970 rather than 1960-1970. Surely it should be the latter? Humbledaisy (talk)

Someone's mistake, presumably. ili (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Kolya Vasin

Please link this Russian guy into the article. He used to be a huge Beetles fun until his death. Link: Kolya Vasin Regards. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Lead improvements?

Hi,

With regards to your recent improvements to the lead you need to tighten things a little more please. The success of Love Me Do led to them releasing a second single, Please Please Me. And the success of that single prompted EMI to push for the album of the same name. Atm it just jars. And besides, I did prefer it as it was but if you feel the need then please get it right. Thanks Patthedog (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

That's why I changed it to "was followed by". We probably don't need every single listed, but noting the first two albums is sufficient. --Jayron32 17:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Except PPL (single) was even more successful than LMD (number 1). It was that event that led to the album, so what happens if you try and tweak stuff it then gets complicated. That's why it was fine before - don't try and blame me when you get called out.Patthedog (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I've copied the above from Jayron's talk page as I think it ought to be on the record here. Patthedog (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• The idea behind expanding the lead seems to be, "We need to devote more detail to all the albums they recorded, including the Capitol releases." What we end up with is a passing reference to Sgt. Pepper and three or four sentences devoted to Let It Be – and a length to rival the history of Italy. Insanity. ili (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
• To add, if we must include any extraordinary/important details about the Beatles' pre-1965 albums, then I would suggest the fact that they were self-contained affairs with an emphasis on original material. See: Cultural impact of the Beatles#Cultural legitimisation of pop music. Also, it is probably lead-worthy that the U.S. received a different set of albums between 1964–66. ili (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for your changes. It looks much better now. --Jayron32 18:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  I've incorporated the extra details I mentioned, even though it ends up breaking the fourth paragraph rule. MOS:LEADLENGTH states that the rule can be broken in some case. I think if there ever was a band who deserved more than four paragraphs, it would be this one. If this expansion is not seen as an improvement then I would not object to a revert. ili (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  I'd just like to reiterate that I preferred the lead as it was and it's getting flabby again. It was concise and punchy before and the risk is by adding more and more information the reader is put off going any further. If these additions aren't already in the main article then maybe put them there? Just my thoughts. Patthedog (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  I also preferred the lead as it was, it was concise and I don't think the details about Love Me Do and Capitol's albums are necessary for it. Also - "the first pop act since Buddy Holly to issue an album of all-original compositions" is not mentioned in the article, nor is it true. Billy Fury wrote all of the songs on The Sound of Fury (1960). The same goes for the descriptively-named All My Own Work by Jerry Lordan (1960). Additionally, there are no all-original Buddy Holly albums. Humbledaisy (talk) 09:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. I've reverted it back to a four-paragraph format. The only major difference now is a sentence about the retirement from live performances, which I strongly believe should have been in the lead long ago, but for whatever reason wasn't. ili (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks Patthedog (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)