Talk:The Beatles/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Editors who do not have an account

If you do not have an account, then no-one can reply to your comments. You come into Wikipdia, leave your comments, and then float off into no-where land, like a "no-where man".

If you do not believe (or understand) the meaning of discussion, I politely suggest that you look it up.

Please join Wikipedia, and contribute to a growing concensus of human beings that want to produce something that is not biased, and good...

Don´t forget that an account is anonymous.

andreasegde 12:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Trivia, miscellenea and other bits

Any additions of trivia can now be pasted into The Beatles trivia and removed from here. Let's keep this article free of crap - that includes trivia, low grade external links, and "see also" links that are not highly relevant or which could easily be worked into the article text. --kingboyk 15:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The The Beatles trivia could be a bit longer, could it not? It´s hardly worth having if it´s shorter than a pair of short shorts. andreasegde 17:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, NO TRIVIA. A trivia section is a sign of poor writing because it shows you can't find anything better to stick a piece of information than a bullet-point list at the end of an article. It trivialises our content and the subjects of our writing. Johnleemk | Talk 17:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

My understanding (and personal opinion) is trivia is fine so long as it's a separate entity, and therefore not jarring to the article. For example, the comets named after the beatles - noteworth point, but where would it fit in the article? Bang it in the trivia section!--Crestville 20:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Trivia is fine in most articles and in an article this big, it's fine in a separate, linked article - as it now is, in the "see also" list - DavidWBrooks 23:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sticking things that we can find no other use for in the trivia section is an indication that we either stink at writing/organising, or that those things are not worth including in the article. Trivia is not encyclopedic because WP:NOT (and encyclopaedias are not) a collection of indiscriminate facts. It is not sufficiently noteworthy that someone has a comet named after them, unless that comet itself is notable. Most trivia is often easily incorporated either into the article text directly, or into the text of another article. If either of these can't be done, then the trivia is too trivial to be included. Johnleemk | Talk 04:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be entirely possible to write a multi-volume book about The Beatles, and I understand Mark Lewisohn is doing exactly that right now. We need to be very selective of what we include here. Anons and new editors come along and - good naturedly - think "oh, factoid x is missing, they must have forgotten what" whereas it's more likely the editors who took this to FA chose to exclude it. We certainly need a major overhaul of our main articles, but at the present time I know of no better place to put "Trivia" (interesting facts, some of which are significant in other fields but not significant to The Beatles) than in a seperate article. Maybe at a later date we can merge the best stuff into one or more of our other articles and delete the crap, but in the meantime we have a lot of reorganisation work to do. My creation of the spin off Trivia article was designed to ease the pressure on this article and buy us some time. I agree with what you're saying, but I also accept that the tide of Trivia isn't gonna turn just yet. --kingboyk 09:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I was quite impressed when I found out about those comets. I wonder if Bill Haley has one.--Crestville 13:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. I laughed, and then felt very guilty at doing so! :) --kingboyk 14:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Come on! Give me my props!--Crestville 14:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

We're gonna rock around the clock tonight... Johnleemk | Talk 15:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Trivia is normally thought of as trivial - (Doh!) - but whatever the The Beatles did (and I mean whatever) was never considered trivial. You are all totally right (a well-deserved round of applause) that the Trivia section should not be there, because whatever is in it should be included in the main article, if it is important.

But... where do we draw the line? That seems to be the question. The difference between my auntie Maggie having a "quicky", whilst listening to "Love me do" (and later finding out that she was pregnant) is different to the many bands/people that were seriously influenced by the Fab Four. Even Frank Sinatra sang one of George´s songs... Is that Trivia? Hmmm...

Where do we draw the line? This would be very interesting to know (before I forget to do something trivial like forgetting to tie my sholaeces and trip over again.)

andreasegde 17:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

"Where do we draw the line" is the question with everything that's put into wikipedia, not just Beatles trivia. The lack of a clear, definitive, objective separation between yea and nay is no reason to reject the whole idea. - DavidWBrooks 19:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I say keep it. Just because we can't work information into an article doesn't mean it's not noteworthy, it means it doesn't fit neatly with the flow of the article. While we aspire to emulate an encyclopedia, there's no need to be snotty.--Crestville 20:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Where we draw the line seems to be what can be quoted, or proven. Trivia is something that is not directly connected to the subject in question. But... I like trivia, as much as I like "The Book of Lists". I have read that Trivia sections tend to be erased when the article goes up to the Jury, (??) but maybe we should be talking about why they are.

Have fun. andreasegde 15:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: "For the umpteenth time, NO TRIVIA", by "Johnleemk". I have a problem with this statement. It sounds a bit like a frustrated parent. I always thought that Wiki was based on co-operation. Am I wrong on this? andreasegde 15:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Responded on andreasegde's talk. Simply put, there is a consensus that lists of any kind, especially trivia lists, are unencyclopedic and a sign of poor writing. Many FACs have been rejected for having too many lists and not enough prose. An encyclopaedia is built on writing, and throwing together a mishmash list of random info about the Beatles is not writing or prose. It is an indiscriminate collection of information, which is unencyclopedic. Every bit of trivia you can think of either belongs in an article somewhere, or doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia at all. Johnleemk | Talk 16:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing Wikipedia with an almanac of the trivial. It is not - it is an encyclopædia. There is no place for trivialities. If you wish to document a number of trivialities, perhaps MySpace might be more to your liking?

James F. (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I feel that this may be getting silly, so I looked it up :)

"Encyclopedia \En*cy`clo*pe"di*a\, Encyclopaedia\En*cy`clo*p[ae]"di*a\, n. [NL., fr. Gr. ?, for ? ?, instruction in the circle of arts and sciences: cf. F. encyclop['e]die. See Cyclopedia, and Encyclical.] [Formerly written encyclop[ae]dy and encyclopedy.] The circle of arts and sciences; a comprehensive summary of knowledge, or of a branch of knowledge; esp., a work in which the various branches of science or art are discussed separately, and usually in alphabetical order; a cyclopedia."

This explanation does not say that trivia is not allowed. It clearly states that branches of knowledge are included. The Beatles were the tree, but what about the branches? :)

Have fun. andreasegde 17:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say, to be "comprehensive", triva is a must. Jonhleemk, please don't try and use your "greater experience" as an argument. While it may work against andreasedge (albeit in a slightly partonising way), he's still a good editor and his opinion is worthy of note. DavidWBrookes, Kingboyk and myself, however, are all "experienced" and have been knocking around wikipedia for years, and we have all expressed a desire to encorporate triva in some way. We have even catered to your objection by putting it in a separate article. As for "consensus" - you've got one admin and three strong users who disagree with you.--Crestville 17:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

But trivia is neither a "branch" of information (that's the entire point, it's incoherent information without a theme), nor (by virtue of being mere trivia) worth of mention in a summary.

James F. (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree--Crestville 18:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Technically, it's correct, which is why I prefer the title "Miscellany" to "Trivia." The stuff in the Trivia section isn't really trivia. Carlo 19:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree--Crestville 23:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Trivia is a word that “the consensus” (being mainly people that live the real world) understand quite clearly. They know that it has nothing to do with the main work of a band/author etc, but know that it has some connection with the subject in question, albeit “small potatoes”. Here are some examples:

The Lennon/McCartney song “I wanna be your man” was given to The Rolling Stones, but was originally intended for Ringo to sing.

Abbey Road was originally intended to be called Everest.

Revolver, or Rubber Soul, were meant to be called (one or the other) Beatles on Safari.

The White Album was supposed to have been called A Doll’s House.

Q: How could we put these into the Beatles article without it being confusing? They’re not important, but worthy of an inclusion.

A: Under Trivia, I would presume, my dear Watson…

Of course, if one thinks that these facts are too "trivial" to be included, then let´s just write that "The Beatles was a musical group in the 1960s, which sold a lot of records", and leave it at that. (Doh!)

andreasegde 00:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Actaully - and with no intention to shoot my argument in the foot here - but....

The Lennon/McCartney song “I wanna be your man” was given to The Rolling Stones, but was originally intended for Ringo to sing.

There is a section on songs they gave away somewhere - this belongs there

Abbey Road was originally intended to be called Everest

This belongs on Abbey Road (album) page

Revolver, or Rubber Soul, were meant to be called (one or the other) Beatles on Safari.

It was Revolver. This belongs on the Revolver (album) page

The White Album was supposed to have been called A Doll’s House.

The belongs under The Beatles (album) page

Sorry about that, but that doesn't need to go under trivia.--Crestville 00:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly right, but then, what is this trivia thing about, anyway? (I just put the Everest thing on the Abbey Road page, by the way.)

Bugger, maybe we don´t need Trivia, after all... (sound of bullet being shot in foot - Ow!...) but I like the idea that there is something where people can say "Oh! I didn´t know that!" It increases their interest about the article, which is a good thing, is it not?

Are we building the pyramids? Do we like dusty rooms full of dusty books? Are we driving ourselves (at full-speed) down a dead-end street? Just a thought... Kick me in the goolies if I´m wrong.

andreasegde 01:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Posted on the Johnleemk|Talk page....

What do you think about Crestville´s comment that he and three other editors, who have all been working on WP for a long time, disagree with you about your Trivia opinion? Count me in, by they way, but I´m just a beginner... If Trivia is not allowed on The Beatles page, then why have I seen Trivia sections on other pages, with no warning that it is not allowed? Hmmm...

If there is a concensus, then where is it? Who is it? How can we know what the concensus thinks when we´re not told what it thinks, except by your good self, of course :)

This is the problem with WP; a lot of people waste an awful lot of time discussing one little section; as we are doing. Is it really that important? It´s probably trivial, is it not?

I suggest putting "NO TRIVIA" on the Wikipedia main page. Then we would all know. Is that possible? It would save us both of lot of time (laugh...)

andreasegde 11:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought; what are the "Did You Know?" entries on the front page, if not trivia/miscellenea which is considered interesting enough to split from the original article (which is assumed to be fairly common knowledge)? There is an incredible amount of interesting (should that not be the criteria?) information relating to The Beatles, sometimes so much that including every bit in the relevant article can detract from the article. If there is to be an article of Beatles Miscellenea it could quite easily be laid out in a (roughly) chronological order, and each orphan piece of info inserted there. Lastly, and this has been mentioned previously, it may be useful to have a place for all those little pieces that casual editors keep dropping into the main articles. LessHeard vanU 12:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a wonderful idea. The trivia bits/miscellenea/bit and bits usually have a short story with them that can be attached, which I think would make interesting reading, but then, I´m only a beginner and a bit trivial. (Sorry about that last bit - don´t take offence - but I couldn´t resist it... laugh...)

It would also not be just a list, but would be an article by itself. Who´s not interested in everything to do with the Fab Four? Hello? Anybody there?...

andreasegde 17:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have just spotted this on the Marilyn Monroe page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_Monroe#Trivia

Why was that not deleted if it failed to comply with the concensus? Nobody complained about it on the discussion page. Good grief... I´m going grey... andreasegde 18:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Trivia section. Interesting information, it is encyclopedic, and it hurts nothing. --TommyBoy76 02:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Breakup was moved

I moved the Backlash/breakup stuff to nearly the end of the article, as it seems to make more sense. You can´t have their breakup before their innovative studio work and their film work after their breakup, in my humble opinion. Kick me in my wedding tackle if I´m wrong...

andreasegde 17:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

National service

I put a short quote in because of how IMPORTANT it was. National Service was ended in the late 50s. National Service? NO Beatles. Can you imagine that? The mind boggles.... andreasegde 18:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Does the Anthology sessions count as a "reunion"?

See title. Raistuumum 21:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why not. They produced two new singles as "The Beatles", over twenty years after they disbanded. If that's not a reunion, I don't know what is. Powers 00:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It was reunion of the survivng members. A customs official/passport checker(?) said to McCartney that he didn´t think it was a good thing that they were getting together again/recording again, because "John´s not on it". McCartney reportedly lost his temper, and said, "Well, that´s all you know, because he fu**king is on it!"

I believe it was a wonderful thing to do, even if it was a "suspect" reunion. Who didn´t feel happy to watch the "Free as a bird" video? I still get a lump in my throat when I watch it... Don´t you? andreasegde 08:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I haven't seen it. =) And I prefer "Real Love" as a single. But point taken. =) Powers 12:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Get on www.youtube.com. It's genius.--Crestville 13:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

GREAT video. TommyBoy76 20:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

How many song/pop-culture references can you spot though?--Crestville 20:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't notice until it got to the Sgt. Pepper photo shoot. And then it got to Eleanor Rigby, and Abbey Road and I was like "Ohhhh, I get it!" As I look back, though, there were a lot. Some I don't think I understood, however. --TommyBoy76 02:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

How many references? Effin´ Nora, that´s a good question.... andreasegde 10:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

How many can I spot? About 4. *sigh* Powers 14:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the newspaper taxi.--Crestville 13:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I spotted 14 song titles in it (I think)... andreasegde 19:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Note to regular editors

IP troll 67.189.99.161 is the anon sock for User:Dragong4 who is currently blocked from Wikipedia for 6 months for vandalism, personal attacks and constant disruption. The Admins are aware of his actions. Rather than responding to his foolishness, better to just simply rm it and concentrate on positive aspects of Wikipedia. Don't feed the trolls. 216.21.150.44 11:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Didn't know.--Crestville 13:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn´t know either, "Cresty".... (Please don´t hit me... I´m laughing a lot....) I do not like to be referred to as Andy-Pandy, by the way... more laughter... :) Oh, humour is a wonderful thing. andreasegde 14:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Free as a bird video

I have written a “Free as a Bird“ section on the Trivia page. I have listed as many song titles/lyric thingys as I can think of, but I’m sure I missed some. Please feel free to contribute, when you want to while away the hours… I also added an Absolutely Fabulous bit.

I have taken out some of my own contributions, on this page, as I thought they were not needed. Can I do that, I ask? (Ow!) andreasegde 13:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Why put in "Trivia" when it could go in the Free as a Bird article? A deeper analysis of the video might be a good addition to that page. --kingboyk 13:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh... a good idea Kingboyk, but I´m walking on thin ice here.... Have you read it? I tried to make it as prosaic as possible. It definitely needs polishing. Go on, do it - you know you want to... (laugh...) andreasegde 13:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No I haven't read it :P Perhaps I ought to before making recommendations, huh? :) (Goes off to check...) --kingboyk 13:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Geoff Emerick

Good grief, I have just watched some short interviews with Geoff Emerick (sound engineer) Meeting the Beatles.videos and I was blown away, as they say. PLEASE watch it. I am gob-smacked (meaning speechless)... This is the real stuff. andreasegde 14:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"Yesterday"

I have corrected the statements on the authorship of "Yesterday," which was written by both Lennon and McCartney (not McCartney alone) as per the original 1965 sheet music, and its claimed status as the "most-covered song in the history of recorded music," an honor which is held by "White Christmas," by Irving Berlin. I believe the original writer may have wanted to state that McCartney's voice alone is heard on the recording. 66.108.4.183 00:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

Correction...although most Beatle songs are credited to Lennon/McCartney it is a well known fact that the 2 wrote independently...for the most part. Here is a link to a Lennon interview from 1972 where he details just who wrote what...and which ones they wrote together. As for Yesterday...it's a Paul composition. Just thought you'd like to know. 216.21.150.44 00:20, 24 June 2006

Incorrect. Looked at your linked article. Sometimes they wrote separately, sometimes together. The sheet music is the most authoritative source for who wrote what. Memory is faulty. Even as recently as a few years later, John and Paul disagreed on who wrote what for "In My Life," as your linked article shows. Besides not relying on memory (i.e. in an interview, even the authors themselves err frequently, years later), the sheet music determines the distribution of royalties. i.e. When The Beatles wrote and performed their own material, the royalties for the record sales are not the same as for sheet music. Neither Ringo nor George receive (to this day, the Harrison Estate, for example) any royalties whatsoever from sheet music sales of all songs written by John and Paul. Of course, if the rights to the music (not the sound recordings) are sold or assigned, the new owner receives the royalties. But neither Ringo nor George can sell the rights to songs they do not hold copyright. I'm not speaking about money per se, only suggesting that when authorship is questioned, the sheet music is a more reliable guide than even an author's interview some time later. People make mistakes. But at the time of writing, talented individuals usually make certain that credit is assigned truthfully. As far as sourcing facts is concerned, the sheet music and ASCAP or BMI records is dispositive, not even the artist's own interview, recalled 5 years after a drug-enhanced composing session (with all due respect to the artistry of Lennon and McCartney). I am not going to re-correct your edit, as I don't get involved with Edit wars, but you should restore the correction. Check any sheet music store on the Web, or indeed the credit on the LP sleeve itself or CD for authorship if you like. "Yesterday" was composed by both Lennon and McCartney. 66.108.4.183 04:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, neither of you are signed in. Secondly, you are beating each other about the head over something that can be easily explained. All you have to do is to buy "Shout".

Yes, all the songs were credited as Lennon/McCartney, and some of them were written by Lennon alone, and vice-versa. BUT.... McCartney got the melody in a dream and wrote it down when he woke up. He played the melody to loads of people for weeks (very well documented) because he couldn´t believe he had not stolen/found it. Dick Lester once said to him: "Paul, if you play that melody one more time, I´m going to have the piano taken away." (It was originally called "Scrambled eggs, Oh baby how I love your legs"...) None of the other Beatles played on the recording.

John Lennon sang in "How do you sleep?" - "The only thing you done was Yesterday...".

So... Yes, officially a Lennon/McCartney composition. Writer? McCartney. Case closed, M´Lud - anybody fancy a pint?... andreasegde 07:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Correct! In fact, when "Yesterday" was first performed on Britsh TV, George introduced it by saying: "And now for Paul McCartney from Liverpool, Oportunity Knocks! And the other three Beatles left the stage. Mine's a pint of Guinness, and a large Irish! Vera, Chuck & Dave 16:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

As for the most-covered title vs. "White Christmas", Guinness Book of World Records gives the nod to "Yesterday", but lots of other places give it to "White Christmas". I think, though, there is sometimes confusion between number of artists who have recorded a song, and number of total copies sold of all the various versions. It's not always clear what is meant by when sources talk about which is the "most-recorded" song. - DavidWBrooks 13:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, David, but maybe this stuff should be on the Trivia page? What do you think? If I get no reply from anyone I will move it, and be forever damned for doing so.. laugh... andreasegde 15:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello. No, I'm not signed in, as I've never felt the need to create an account, but I almost always sign my comments, as above. Second, despite the Guiness Book, I would say that I find it extraordinarily difficult to believe POV that, even given its enormous popularity, Yesterday has been covered more often than White Christmas.

I do think POV that it should be clear that the number of covers and number of records sold are completely different; I believe POV that it is crystal clear POV that White Christmas has sold more copies than any other song in history, in all its recorded versions. But Christmas was written in the early 1940s, been recorded (sic) by virtually everyone, from Sinatra, Astaire, Crosby, Nat King Cole, to Barbra Streisand and as low as POV Kenny G (apologies for my editorializing). I'll just say that, barring authoritative research which, unlike record sales figures from the RIAA, is not available to the Guiness book, I'd like to see POV something more firm before assigning this dubious POV distinction to either song.

I didn't even think POV that Yesterday was the second most-covered, but in this case, I'll defer to the Guiness book.

Finally, on the issue of authorship: While I do acknowledge that the comments others have made in response to my Edit (now reverted) are reasonably sourced, I would still maintain POV that sheet music (and the LP credit) have the prima facie final say on authorship. Contrary to someone's assertion above, there are songs which the Beatles recorded which have a credit to only Lennon or only McCartney (I can't recall offhand any specifics; I can re-write later). This would indicate that they insured that authorship would be reflected accurately upon publication.

I administer one of the largest privately-held libraries of sheet music in the country, and I believe POV I have seen individual Lennon or McC credits. (Don´t you KNOW? andreasegde 13:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)) This would indicate POV that, when J or P composed a song individually, publication credit was properly assigned. After all--I acknowledge this is not the greatest argument--they had their families' livelihood to consider when insuring that the credit be assigned correctly--and not only an issue of "personal pride" to claiming credit for a song.

Consequently, even interviews by the author(s) themselves would not outweigh the authority of a publication credit. The songs by George and Ringo have individual credit in each case. That, too, seems to POV point to proper authorship accreditation upon publication. I admit that I am hard put to defend this view in face of the link to the Lennon interview links, which ostensibly has both John and Paul agreeing as to who wrote Yesterday, but I must still maintain POV that, while you do present a good case for your view of Paul's authorship, the sheet music credit is dispositive. People's memories are faulty. POV People get into disagreements. If there were a joint interview very closely following the time of publication where there was agreement that someone wrote a piece, and that the credit is incorrect, I think POV that would be dispositive.

But opinions and interviews even 2 years later are in a different class. When 2 partners like J and P wrote scores of songs together, many simultaneously, probably POV more than one in a single day occasionally, memories are clearly unreliable. POV Furthermore, there is the issue of Web Sites as a reliable sorce. I don't know what Wiki's policy is on that, but the Lennon interview cited doesn't have the look of an authoritative source. POV

As we all know, anybody can write anything on a web site, which is another reason I put sheet music credit higher than these web sources. As far as IMdb is concerned, please....I wouldn't rely on them POV if they said that Orson Welles directed Citizen Kane. Lastly, I don't even think POV that this is so important.

I wandered to this article only because a copy of Slow Down (sheet music) was just yesterday (sorry; I couldn't resist that) auctioned on eBay for $527.00, and I thought of reading the Wiki article on the Beatles.

I never even got to read it, because, noticing the error in the first paragraph, I checked the original 1965 sheet and corrected it. Then I somehow (?) went on to other work. This will be my last comment on this "issue."

I don't need to have the last word, especially on the Beatles, or this discussion will never end, as I have frequently observed: "There is no Fan like a Beatles Fan:" I purchased my copy of Slow Down in High School for 75 cents. 66.108.4.183 16:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

A general comment: Nobody is going to wade through two screens of paragraph-free text. Sorry, but if you can't bother to make it readable, nobody will do the work for you. - DavidWBrooks 18:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't say "nobody". I did. Powers 19:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

"Nobody" being Net-speak for "me". - DavidWBrooks 21:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. Also, I can't find any merit in readong something where every sentance is self-admittedly POV. I rock.--Crestville 17:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I have long felt that the question of authorship of the song does not belong in the opening paragraphs of "The Beatles" article. It immediately gives the impression that the piece is about apportioning what member wrote or did what, rather than an examination of the group. Such distinctions should properly be made in the individual members articles, under the "Role In The Beatles" section (for both Macca and Lennon, this would be (co)composer of songs). However, I am not going to remove it - as the article would then need reviewing for other instances of individual promotion.LessHeard vanU 23:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I have just edited User:66.108.4.183´s comments, because I had nothing better to do, and because I was feeling a bit irritated.... Is that allowed? andreasegde 13:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I have an idea about User:66.108.4.183, (if you read this...) Let me guess - You work in publishing, or you are a lawyer - or both. Am I right? Yes, I have just re-read it, and I am half- right. This is a discussion page, and not a platform for speeches, if you don´t mind me saying... I also found it extremely difficult to read your piece, by the way. Anyway;

Who covered Yesterday should be in the Trivia section.

If Yesterday was subjected to a court case over ownership, then the song would certainly be judged as having been written by both Lennon & McCartney. Right, by law, but not the truth.

I agree with LessHeard vanU that it should not be in the opening paragraph. Let´s move it and move on... andreasegde 09:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, I´ve just moved the "most-covered" bit to Trivia. Do I get a choice between being burnt at the stake or thrown to the wolves? (Ouch...) andreasegde 10:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Cake or Death?--Crestville 17:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I don´t like cake (it rots my teeth) I would prefer death, please... andreasegde 17:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. The fact that "Yesterday" is (one of) the worlds most covered songs is fine - it helps define how influential The Beatles were - and could be included in the early paragraphs. It was the matter of who was the 'real' composer which I felt didn't belong there. LessHeard vanU 21:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC) p.s. I hereby sentence andreasegde to death - by cake.

Shouldn't the whole, "Yesterday is the most covered song" be in Yesterday (song)? TommyBoy76 00:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC) Errr, well yes, it already is. But what I meant was: since it is in that page, why does it belong in Beatles' trivia? TommyBoy76 01:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah.... because being covered by other artistes is not directly relevant to the Fabs. If you included it as being the "most covered", you might as well put in all sorts of other stuff as well. Besides, Macca wrote it (ow!...). maybe the Trivia should be called The Beatle´s legacy?

Oh I forgot - The most played song on (not sure if it´s US or the world) radio is? Yesterday....and on and on..... Check this out - it´s absolutely chock-full of stuff about covers. Get ready to rock n´ SCROLL...

http://www2.wmin.ac.uk/clemenr/covers/coversfull.html

I don´t mind at all, it´s just that I wanted to hinder an avalanche of arguments about just one sentence. They´re making me go blind.

There´s loads of other stuff that isn´t in yet. What about those "bendy" BBC microphones they used a lot? Various studios they worked in? Trident.. The big argument/break-up in the studio (which?) about Klein? That argument was a deciding factor in their break-up...

Right... now where´s that cake? Yummy... andreasegde 04:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Edits and one-liners

I have just been reading the article, and there are lots of one-liners/sentences that have a horrible bias. (The cake is going down well, by the way...)

"Lennon started criticising McCartney´s compositions in the mid-60s", was one. No citation, of course... I snipped it out after eating a creamy piece of flour and sugar-based confectionery.

We must look at the whole article and spot any kind of biased comments. Also: Some bits just don´t fit where they are. The Harrison quote about him not getting enough songs on the albums is surely part of the break-up, no? (It´s presently in the studio section.)

Me; scoffing cake ´till I´m fit to burst... andreasegde 12:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The whole section about evolution of style and whatnot needs a major rewrite and reorganization. I have been saying I'll do that for months, but every time I start looking at it, I get tired ... I can't think of what to do except rip that section up entirely and start over. - DavidWBrooks 14:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I saw these: ""However, in recent years - since the deaths of Lennon and Harrison - he has insisted in a number of media interviews that he was far more involved in the London avant garde scene than was Lennon." (My italics)

"Reportedly stung by criticism of "Paperback Writer", The Beatles poured their creative energies into the recording studio".

"to nonsense songs and others defying description."

This is exactly what I mean; little "stab in the back" one-liners that suggest: McCartney waited until Lennon and Harrison had died so they could not reply. (He said it when they were BOTH alive.) And on to no citation (obviously a POV dream), and an out-and-out snide POV comment. It makes my blood boil... grrr... laugh...

andreasegde 11:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The first studio band

Uhh, I am being dangerous here... (It´s not my fault; it´s the sugar content in all this cake...)

I have slightly pushed the "Studio style and evolution" article to be more about studios. After they stopped touring that was all they had to focus on - no? My POV is that once they stopped, they started to write many more songs, and the studio was the only place they could vent their artistic frustration. Watch the Geoff Emerick video (see above) and listen to what he thought. "The studio was their world"... as he says. (Kick me in the place where the sun never shines if I´m wrong...)

andreasegde 17:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Whilst stopping touring and moving into the studio certainly changed things considerably, I'm not certain that they were the first to do so. Forgetting all the bands who were "created" in the studio from an existing combo (I'm thinking Joe Meek and The Tornadoes/"Telstar" type things) wasn't Brian Wilsons incapacity in performing with The Beach Boys the catalyst for their progression from surfing band to the "Pet Sounds" era group (which in itself was a major influence on The Beatles, who were supposedly inspired by what Wilson was doing)? I think the dates of the recording sessions and releases are looked at before giving The Beatles as the very first.LessHeard vanU 20:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Right. I put that header in because I was being a lazy, sleepy sloth, and deserve a good kicking. What about "Beatles: studio band"? "Abbey road as a prison"? "Andreasegde has no idea what this bit should be called"? I have no fixed opinion (or ideas)... Please give a me a paddle, because I seem to be up excrement-creek without one. (I like the section a lot more now, though.) andreasegde 00:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)