Talk:Please Please Me/Archive 1

Archive 1

Influence

I changed the paragraph about the Beatles' influence which was horribly written and repetitive, mentioning a bunch of contemporaries and focusing on the Beatles overall musical influence in an article that's supposed to be desbcribing their first album, as well as stating that the beatles harmonizing, bouncy early pop style somehow influenced the development of heavy metal...

Oral sex

Preserving here the theory that the subtext of "Please Please Me" was oral sex, can't be quoted in article because of copyright, but

Last night I said these words to my girl

You know you never even try girl

Come on, come on, come on come on,

Please please me, o yeah, like I please you.

That sly guy, Ortolan88

I think that interpretation says more about the listener than it does about the song. No offense :-). On this theory, then, to what does "there's always rain in my heart" refer?

First number one

I think this article is factualy innacurate. Wasn't the single Please please me the Beatles first NO.1 hit in Britain, my dad thinks it was and he's a Beatles fan.User:G-Man

No, it may have went NO. 1 on some small local charts, but Please Please only charted as high as NO.2 on Britian's national chart. That is way it was not included on Beatles 1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.40.63.122 (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Your Dad's incorrect but he was close. Please Please Me was the Beatles second hit single, but it only reached No 2 in Britain in Jan 63. Their first No 1 was their next single, From Me To You which reached No 1 in April 63. User:Rossrs

If I remember correctly, there were 2 charts in the UK at the time, and PPM topped the less influential of the two? --kingboyk 01:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

At least two. I think NME, Melody Maker and Disc all had their own charts, which were different from the one used by the BBC. Then there was the trade paper, the name of which I can't remember. I'm pretty sure Please Please Me went to number one somewhere in that lot. BTLizard (talk) 09:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Covers

Some of the tracks on the album were not actually composed by the group, but were covers of rock standards of the time and, with the exception of "Twist and Shout", have proved fairly unmemorable and only interesting for the insight they give into the band's own tastes in music at the time.

Maybe it's just me, but that seems remarkably POV. Besides which, proven would fit much better than proved here. - Vague Rant 09:15, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

More POV?

It is amazing to listen to this record and then Abbey Road back to back. The former being the Beatles first album and the latter their last in order of recording, the comparison dramatically demonstrates how much the band's sound changed in just eight years. The Beatles were hard workers, especially when recording this album.

Also seems quite POV...

Twist And Shout

originally performed by The Isley Brothers, recorded on June 2, 1962, released May 7, 1962

That's impossible.

Also, there are inconsistencies with the capitalizing on the first words of bullet points.

Why don´t you fix them? Yeah guys, hit those keys! I just did some BTW. andreasegde

Please de-merge the songs into their own articles

The Beatles' songs are generally considered notable enough to have their own articles, and there are plenty of incoming links. Indeed, some of the songs deconstructed here already have articles. I'm in the middle of a massive Beatles and Apple categorisation drive, so don't have time to do the honours. Would somebody else? --kingboyk 01:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Op Para

Opening paragraph is really turgid. Could do with shortening, and some reorganisation. Badgerpatrol 01:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought the opening section should be more about the album, and it's place in rock history, so I reduced the detail about the singles and added comments from Rolling Stone magazine and All Music Guide. I don't think the opening has to be short, but it should at least be about the album. I hope you think it's better now. John Cardinal 04:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

John, original message was posted a year ago. Quite a few changes have been made since then.--Patthedog 18:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops! Missed the "06". John Cardinal 19:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean - time just seems to fly by!--Patthedog 19:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Lyrics Links

The following discussion was posted on Wikipedia's main Beatles discussion page, and appears to also be relevant here:

Are links to lyrics sites appropriate? I have noticed them in some music articles, and I believe they do add value to the listings. I added one at the bottom of the external links section. In the interest of full disclosure, it is a website I maintain. If the interest is positive, I would likely add lyrics links to other musical articles where appropriate. Shadar 19:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that lyrics sites reprint lyrics in violation of copyright, and that's why we're not supposed to link to them. The relevant guideline to check would be Wikipedia:External links, but that page doesn't directly address this question. I'm going to post a question to the discussion page there, and perhaps someone can tell us whether my idea is correct or mistaken. In the latter case, I'd be happy to restore the link myself. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I posted my question Wikipedia talk:External links#Lyrics sites here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

If the decision is made that lyrics sites are inappropriate due to the copyright violation issue, I would like to delete the links I found. As a newbie, it would give me good practice in editting. Is that an appropriate action for a new user, and is there a FAQ on deletion etiquette? Shadar 19:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, we received an answer, and it refers us to item #2 at Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking. It comes down to whether the lyrics are actually under copyright or in the public domain, and whether or not the site in question has the copyright holder's permission to publish the lyrics. If you'd like to remove links to lyrics sites that are in violation of our copyright policy, then you're welcome to do so. The best way to avoid offense is probably to mention the External links policy (or WP:EL, as we like to call it) in your edit summary. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I can certainly understand that decision. It turns out I violated the self interest clause anyways, since I posted my own site. I should have recommended the change in talk, and then if someone agreed they could make the change. Thanks for the help with this, GTBacchus. Shadar 17:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I notice that there are also links to lyric pages on each of the Wikipedia Beatles album pages. I should have time to fix those tonight. I'll follow the above advice of GTBacchus in mentioning the WP:EL, and refer to this discussion on each album discussion page. InnerRevolution7 02:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I have made the above-stated change. InnerRevolution7 03:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

"Summary"?

The "Summary" section does not seem encyclopedic to me, especially because it says little (if anything) about the album itself or the recording session. I think it should be removed. Comments? John Cardinal 21:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be moved to “Love Me Do”? being as this was The Beatles’ first proper recording session. --Patthedog 13:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I did more editing today, trying to add some color (reviews from reputable critics), and the "Summary" section still sticks out. At best it's misplaced, and so perhaps it should be in "Love Me Do", but wait: it's not about that song (it's even titled summary), it has no citations, it's just not good, IMO. I think some of the material in it could go on the Beatles page, but with citations or not at all. I won't change it until someone else pipes in, but I might try to get some other people to do that. John Cardinal 03:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There is already two articles giving the history of the band, History of the Beatles and The Beatles. The summary is supurflous, a redirect somewhere in the opening paragraph should be sufficient. LessHeard vanU 15:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the point I was trying to make (obviously successfully) was that the Please Please Me LP was a hugely massive turning point for the Beatles. Even then, Parlophone only gave them a single day in the studio. Citations aren’t a problem, and it’s only a few words. Perhaps I should re-phrase it and stick it into the body of the article? --Patthedog 17:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm for that. --Lukobe 01:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not write something in the body like you suggested. I'm in favor of "less is more" here. For example, their recording career didn't start with Please Please Me, or if it did, then it was the sessions for the "Love Me Do" and "Please Please Me" singles, not the marathon on 11 Feb 1963. (I discount all the stuff before that as blips on the road to a real recording career.) Also, Pete Best's ouster was 5 months previous, and if you are going to mention that, why not mention the addition of Paul, and then George? (Not seriously suggesting, that... making a point.) I guess while Please Please Me was a big step, there were lots of other big steps before and after and discussion of them belongs in the history articles mentioned above unless they are directly relevant. The whole comment above is IMO, of course. Thanks for discussing this change, by the way. We may disagree, but I appreciate your willingness to discuss it! John Cardinal 01:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It's "The", not "the" isn't it?

Every now and then someone goes and changes all references to The Beatles to the Beatles. Are we all agreed it is the former? Or are there mitigating circumstances? --Patthedog 18:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a controversy over this. An official choice was made at the beginning of February, but after some more discussion, the matter was re-opened. I don't know where it stands now. John Cardinal 03:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks John, I shall ask around. --Patthedog 09:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Policy is now that it is "the". LessHeard vanU 15:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Pain in the arse is this! Someone ought to write a de-capitalisation / capitalisation program.--Patthedog 18:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

American chart list here?

It seems bizarre to list the US chart performances for this album, considering that this album wasn't even released in its original UK form in the States until 1987. They'd probably be better with Introducing... The Beatles, which is where all those songs were taken from in the US, except for "I Saw Her Standing There," which is an odd case -- it was on both ITB and Meet the Beatles!, but the single was the B-side of "I Want to Hold Your Hand" from the latter album. Cheemo 10:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Firts n.º 1 and "The".

There were three charts in Britain, and "Please, please me hit number one on two of them, that´s why is considered their first number one.

It sould be "The", capital T, is part of their name. How ironic this is, since you english speakers put capitals on every word, and now are trying to decapitalized a proper name(is that a word?). In the album Beatles for sale, i. e., the word "beatles" is no meant to be the name of the group, because doesn´t have the "The", is just like said "cars for sale". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.40.0.34 (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguous citation/Chart position sources

While updating the article's references, I removed the following text from the "macdonald46" reference, due to ambiguity:

"1 on 4 charts: Melody Maker, New Musical Express, Disc, and BBC's Pick of the Pops"

Could someone clarify to which record this is supposed to refer (single or album) and in what context exactly? A knowledgeable editor might not just be able to reinsert this bit back into the article (preferably as part of the the prose, rather than appending it to a citation template), but also add proper references to the Chart positions section. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 14:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be a singles' chart; MM, NME and Disc had both but Pick Of The Pops was a radio programme devoted to singles. BTLizard (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Official title of this album

I just reverted an edit which claimed that the official title of this album is "Please Please Me with Love Me Do and 12 Other Songs". Up to and including Rubber Soul, album titles have always been on the top part of Beatle LP sleeves. If the sleeve design has the title outside the top portion of the sleeve, the official title is repeated on the top margin of the sleeve. This allows albums to be easily found in crowded record racks. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

In addition, the title appears on the spine of the record jacket, the back cover and the label of the record itself. All of them are consistent with the official title being Please Please Me. Radiopathy •talk• 23:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent addition of release details

This edit added a lot of unsourced details about the album, mostly the sort of thing that is of interest to collectors. I think there's too much detail, and whatever is allowed to remain should be sourced. other opinions? — John Cardinal (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Way too much detail with no sourcing. Can't have this sort of thing here... Doc9871 (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Although one or two people might find it interesting, I’m not sure just how useful it would be to the average reader. If there was a way of making it all much smaller, and of course, properly sourced, we could see how it looks? --Patthedog (talk) 09:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I propose user 86.152.126.170 makes the suggested changes soon, or it will be reverted.--Patthedog (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Singles from Please Please Me

Because of issues raised in the talk page of the Magical Mystery Tour article, I have deleted the singles section of the album infobox because two singles were issued prior to their inclusion in this album. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"infamously poor"

"The 2009 remasters replaced the infamously poor quality 1987 remasters."

What makes the 87s "infamously poor" - and doesn't this amount to unsourced opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CNJECulver (talk • contribs) 22:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Not unsourced: see the cited source ("Specifically, all the Beatles CDs have been remastered - good news for fans who have long complained about the poor sound quality"). PL290 (talk) 08:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a source attached to "infamously poor". The preceding (Please Please Me ... 2009.") and following ("A remastered ... box set.") statements are footnoted ([16] and [17], respectively) but not the claim in question. If footnote [17] is also supposed to cover "infamously poor", then it needs to be move closer to it, and the sentence should be reworded to make clear an opinion is being cited, not offered. Something to the effect of, "The 2009 remasters replaced the heavily critized[16b] 1987 remasters" As it stands now, the article appears to be offering its own commentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CNJECulver (talk • contribs) 14:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Our house style is to normally avoid placing inline citations mid-sentence. Doing so becomes an option when material is particularly contentious, but it's not in this case. However, you have a point about the wording, which does come over as the article's own commentary. I've reworded it along the lines you suggest, retaining "quality" to preserve the fact that that's what was criticized. PL290 (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead vocals

Why were the lead vocals section removed from the tracklisting? Isn't that relevant? Was it not sourced? I think that should definitely be there. Baseballfan (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It was unsourced and causing edit-skirmishes. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course, I should have known. Are all the others properly sourced? Surely the (sourced) information is out there. A quick look on Google Books, and I found that "Please Please Me" and "Love Me Do" seem to be correct, not sure about the order, but the vocalists anyway. Baseballfan (talk) 06:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that many of the others are not properly sourced. Should they be there at all? “Follow the sources” is the first consideration, i.e. if quality RSs discussing the albums include lead vocals in their track listings then so may we. I suspect that they rarely do this though but may comment on such things in the article text as they discuss each song. In the table a problem arises when 2 RSs phrase differently, e.g if one says ‘Lennon and McCartney’, the other ‘Lennon with McCartney’, a difference that some editors get very animated about. It is much better to discuss such subtleties in the respective song section/article, along with lead guitarist, lead engineer, and everything else. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 09:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)