Talk:The Beatles

Years active

now that the beatles have released a new track, should the years active be changed to “1960-1970, 2023” 92.11.169.139 (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

They also released new tracks in 1995 and 1996, but consensus up to now has been that was not a fully-fledged reunion and therefore should not be listed. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I think we should change it. I mean they were active again to release the song so I can't see no reason why it should be changed Adavid299 (talk) 06:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The Threetles is not the Beatles. As George Harrison said in 1989, "There will be no Beatles reunion as long as John Lennon remains dead". Tkbrett (✉) 11:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

And 5 years later, Harrison changed his mind. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree. 41.174.50.101 (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that the years active section should be changed to ''1960-1970'', 2023''. PrincessJoey2024 (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense to me. If you're going to add 2023, then why not 1995? Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The Beatles were not active in 2023. Only Paul and Ringo (The Twotles?) were active. WWGB (talk) 10:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

They did use John Lennon's voice from a demo recording, they also used Ai on it. PrincessJoey2024 (talk) 12:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest adding a footnote after the "1960–1970" mentioning the one-off completions of songs in 1995–96 and 2023. While it's probably not enough for direct inclusion, I think it warrants a footnote. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 13:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this is enough for consensus, but I agree with regards to adding 1994-1996 (or whatever the specific dates were) and 2022(-2023?) in a footnote attached to the years active section. These three songs are Beatles songs: all four are on them, and they were recorded and released as Beatles songs. Regarding George's quote, that was before they reunited (regardless of the definition) to work on Anthology in general (and the three reunion songs in particular). (And, theoretically, we could also maybe add 1981 because of "All Those Years Ago" and Ringo's second wedding having the three surviving Beatles on it.) I don't think there's any need to change the timeline, though, even though no one mentioned that here. I'd love to hear other thoughts. Thanks, EPBeatles (talk) 05:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

1981 had three out of the four members playing some music together in a studio not under the Beatles name and privately attending a wedding. It doesn’t come anywhere close to counting. Humbledaisy (talk) 07:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

With 1981, I was just throwing it out there. That is a very good (and obvious) point (that I forgot) about All Those Years Ago, but I still think Ringo's second wedding is possible. I've never read about it in a biography yet (not that it may not be there, but just that I haven't read as many books on the band as I'd like), but it is possible that Ringo or a guest at the wedding (maybe a drunk guest, given the way weddings usually run) referred to the group as The Beatles. For a comparison (that may or may not work well), I believe CCR's uncredited appearances on one of Tom Fogerty's solo albums, plus two reunion by performances by two or all or the surviving members at class reunions or something, are considered to be CCR reunions. So, yeah, maybe it would make more sense to leave All Those Years Ago out, but I still believe strongly that sessions for the three reunion singles should be placed in a footnote (and possibly the band members section in the article). Thanks, EPBeatles (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

What do reliable secondary sources say?

• In the first volume of The Beatles as Musicians (1999), Walter Everett describes the songs as "the first post-1969 recordings involving all four group members" (p. 286), while also describing the group working on the songs as "the three ex-Beatles" and "the Threetles" (p. 286–287).
• Alan W. Pollack refers to the songs as simply "new Beatles songs".
• In the epilogue to the second edition of Tell Me Why (2002), Tim Riley describes the songs as "reunion singles" and he describes the Anthology as a "reunion project" (p. 390).
• In Volume 2 of The Beatles Diary (2001) by Keith Badman, he alternates between calling it a "Beatles reunion" (p. 519) and referring to the group as "The 'Threatles'" (p. 521).
• In Revolution in the Head (1997), Ian MacDonald writes "the ex-Beatles" (p. 377) and "the former Beatles" (p. 378) when describing work on the songs. In the preface to the first revised edition, he places the term "reunion" in scare quotes (p. xv).
• In The Cambridge Companion to the Beatles (2009), different writers provide different takes. John Kimsey describes the '90s songs as "new Beatles song[s]" (p. 236), but Gary Burns is dismissive, often using scare quotes to describe the '90s songs, which he writes "were released under the Beatles' name" (p. 218). He also writes: "A reunion of sorts finally happened in 1995, with the surviving 'Threetles' adding accompaniment to two John Lennon demo tapes. ... A music video was produced and released for each of the 'new' songs." (p. 218). He also refers to it as "the long-anticipated, albeit virtual, reunion" (p. 222).
• In The Beatles In Context (2020), Walter J. Podrazik writes that "Paul, George, and Ringo [got the Beatles back together] with the video of their new song 'Free As A Bird.'" (p. 146), and Joe Rapolla writes "the surviving band members dubbed on top of two Lennon demos to produce the first new Beatles songs in a quarter-century" (p. 319).
• In the third edition of The Rough Guide to the Beatles (2009), Chris Ingham refers to the group as "the 'Threetles'" (p. 73), while using scare quotes to describe the songs as "the Threetles' two tracks" (p. 133), "'new' Beatles music" (p. 73) and "the 'new Beatles single'" (p. 74).

On the whole, I think the above indicates that there is no consensus among Beatles scholarship as to whether "Free As a Bird" and "Real Love" can actually be deemed new Beatles songs. Some describe them as such, while others refer to Paul, George and Ringo as a distinct entity. Tkbrett (✉) 13:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I should also point out that this proposal has been raised quite a bit on this talk page over the last couple decades, and the result has either been no consensus for a change, or a consensus against including anything beyond 1960–1970. Here is a good read. Tkbrett (✉) 02:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, main period of activity is 60-70, but at least a footnote should point out these brief periods of work in the nineties and this decade. Bedivere (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I can't say I agree with adding a complicating note into the infobox. The subsequent collaborations are already covered extensively in the body and in a dedicated article, and there is a sentence mentioning them in the lead. Better to leave the infobox as a simple summary rather than trying to complicate it for new readers. Tkbrett (✉) 13:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

A few points (well, seven actually):

1. Arguments invoking the "Threetles" seem to be based on the proposition that the "Threetles" are something different than the Beatles instead of the "Threetles" being a subset of the Beatles (i.e. still the Beatles).
2. There's no such thing as the "Threetles". I checked Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon, etc. and I cannot find a single song from a band by that name.
3. The Beatles are whatever they say that they are. I checked their website and it says "Now and Then" is a Beatles song.
4. Most of the arguments against Beatles being active in 1995-1996 and 2023 seems be based on the WP:TRUTH: that because not all Beatles truly participated in the new recordings, it shouldn't really count.
5. I applaud Tkbrett's checking what reliable sources say. It's a shame that there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus.
6. This is a WP:Featured article and not counting the Anthology reunion seems to have long-standing article and community consensus. It's up to those wanting to change the years active to convince the other editors of the merits of the change.
7. This dispute seems rather WP:LAME to me.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

This dispute is lame, especially the sentence that started this whole thing. I assume IPs and other editors who have done silly edits like this are young people who had no prior knowledge of the Anthology stuff. The Beatles were active from 1960 to 1970. Period. All other material released under that name were not done with the full band so everything else doesn't apply. If we want to add a footnote explaining "FAaB", "RL", and "NaT" then we can, but the active years should stay 60–70, full stop. – zmbro _(talk)

When Cadbury were sold to Kraft, that was the end of Cadbury in my eyes. But that is not how brands work. Band names are brands. The Beatles brand released albums and singles of new material from 1962-70, 1994-5, and 2023. That is the official word, it is supported by numerous sources posted here and in media reports and press releases. There is no wikipedia-worthy requirement for a band to include all original members. eg, Queen is listed as "1970-present", even though many fans might argue the band ended when Freddie died. ACDC have been active from 1970-present, despite only 1 member featuring on every album. 3 Beatles got together in 1994-5, wrote and recorded together, and released two singles as The Beatles. That is fact, and is mentioned within the main article. That is "being active". For what it's worth, less band activity took place in 1970, where only one song was recorded, also without John (not even a tape). M.T.S.W.A. (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

If we only include time John, Paul, George, and Ringo were together in the studio or on stage, the Beatles were active from 1962-69. If we include all years the band was calling themselves "The Beatles" and were performing or recording, we have "1960-70, 94-95, 22-23". The "2022-23" feels silly for one track, but the recording process did span both years, if we trust Paul's claim to have "just finished" clearing up John's vocals in June 2023. If we consider the release years themselves to be activity, there is no debate that 1970 or 2023 should also be included. M.T.S.W.A. (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

This would cover every instance of performance, recording, or releasing of new material under the name "The Beatles", which is what this Wikipedia page covers. 1960-70, 1994-95, 2022-23.M.T.S.W.A. (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree.New Radicals and Pink Floyd are examples off the top of my head of bands that released two songs without formal reunion announcements and no concerts, and their infoboxes consider them as active years (2024 and 2022, respectively). At least a footnote should be included. Lucafrehley (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

(cont) 19:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The Blackjacks are not The Beatles

It seems the last time this was discussed here was in 2009, but new evidence has come up to pretty much disprove it.

First off, something I find strange is that the citation on Wikipedia to "prove" this is Bob Spitz's 2005 book "The Beatles: The Biography," but this is not the earliest source. The earliest source is from Mark Lewinsohn's 1992 book "The Complete Beatles Chronicle."

This is the first written source of "The Black Jacks" being the original name for The Quarrymen (bottom left of page 12, paragraph starting with "For their first week"). Every article and most books I have read that claim the origin of The Blackjacks cite this Mark Lewinsohn book.

However, in 2013, Mark Lewinsohn released the most comprehensive history of The Beatles called "The Beatles - All These Years: Volume One: Tune In." In this book, Lewinsohn personally interviewed many people who were involved during the early years of The Beatles.

On this page, Pete Shotton, who Lewinsohn originally claimed created the name The Black Jacks with John, now says that he created the name The Quarrymen (left page, starting with "The group lacked a name"). Bill Smith, who was part of the original lineup for The Quarrymen, stated that "as I remember, no other names were suggested."

On the same page, a paragraph lower, Mark Lewinsohn writes, "it’s been written that they were originally the Blackjacks, maybe for a week, but no one can definitively confirm it." If Lewinsohn, the man who originated the story of The Blackjacks, is now claiming that no one he interviewed can confirm it, I think this is pretty solid evidence that The Blackjacks was never the original name for The Quarrymen.

This is all from my own personal research on the internet, so I could easily be missing some crucial information. But, from the information and citations used on The Beatles Wiki page, seeing Lewinsohn change his stance on the matter, and John Lennon never once talking about The Blackjacks name, I believe it is not real.

If anyone has found information to disprove my claims, let me know! Coleypoleyhair (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Coleypoleyhair: Yes, the Blackjacks were an entirely different group. In the "Extended Special" edition of Tune In, Lewisohn writes that the Blackjacks were a four-piece composed of Bill Barlow, Chas Newby, Ken Brown and Pete Best (p. 570). They debuted at the Casbah on December 20, 1959, and they likely broke-up in April 1960 (pp. 570, 609). Lewisohn continues: "How many times they played together will remain vague: Chas and Bill think maybe a dozen, all but two of them at the Casbah, Pete reckons fewer: 'We played a couple of times at the Casbah [and] we did a couple of weddings.' The Blackjacks were only ever low-key: their name never appeared in any [Liverpool] Echo ad, or in the West Derby Reporter or anywhere else; ... (p. 609)" Tkbrett (✉) 01:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

So should we change the sentence on The Beatles Wiki page that says, "They briefly called themselves the Blackjacks before changing their name to the Quarrymen after discovering that another local group was already using the name."? That's the sentence that also cites the Spitz book.

It's under the history section, but it's also on the Wiki page for The Quarrymen, so if we want to remove the claim here since it has little to no evidence supporting it, we should probably change it on The Quarrymen page too.

I know I wrote like a 400-word essay just to change one sentence, but I wanted to provide proof!

I do still wonder how The Blackjacks got tied up with John Lennon and The Beatles origin. I know Pete Best was in the band, but they had nothing to do with The Quarrymen! Coleypoleyhair (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds to me like it does need to be changed. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. Lewisohn is a more reliable source than Spitz, certainly. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2024

Change "They briefly called themselves the Blackjacks, before changing their name to the Quarrymen after discovering that another local group were already using the name." to "They were called The Quarrymen, a reference to their school song "Quarry men old before our birth." Coleypoleyhair (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

References

 Done per consensus generated in above section. Courtesy pings to Pawnkingthree, zmbro, and Tkbrett. —Sirdog (talk) 05:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

New Main Image

Instead of the black-and-white main image, I changed the photo to a colored photograph of the Beatles, taken in the same year. Color photography gives a better depiction of the band. Wcamp9 (talk) 03:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I prefer the previous photo, which is brighter and more cheerful. This one is too dark and sombre. WWGB (talk) 04:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The previous one was better. EttuBach (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

While I think maybe the idea of colour picture isn't the worse, I very much belive this one does not show them in a flattering manner, especially Harrison. Maybe there could be found another nicer picture of the group. Also, btw, since we are in the topic, why isn't there the Beatles logo in the infobox? Does the copyright prevents us from using it there?Artemis Andromeda (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a 1965 colour image that could be considered for the infobox, no head collage needed. The Beatles are facing the camera here for the photo and I think the lack of other people visible in the background is also an improvement on the current image.

To my knowledge band logos aren't typically included in infoboxes because most fall under copyright restrictions, even if the Beatles' might not. It also could be seen as an unnecessary decorative addition, and in my own reasoning I add that many bands actively use several logos. Miklogfeather (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Changing Main Image

I believe we should change the main image to the Beatles arriving at JFK Airport. Rather than four cropped squares of the image, we should just have the original. It is being nominated for featured image and valued image too, so why not? Also, bands such as Queen, Led Zeppelin, and AC/DC with free images use them, not squares of band mates faces. Why not the Beatles, they are no exception. It would be frankly stupid not to use the original image. And also, can we include a band logo in the infobox? Wcamp9 (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the main image is good.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, I still disagree and especially now that it is featured Wcamp9 (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd also be in favor of the uncropped JFK shot personally. Is the objection to it that the folks in the background are distracting?

I also think the JFK shot is better quality than either color images proposed in the section above. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 01:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, since it's Featured now, I'll change it Wcamp9 (talk) 02:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't like the uncropped group photo. All the other faces detract from the subjects of the article. WWGB (talk) 04:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Personally I think the band is the clear focus of the photo (as they are the only figures in the foreground), but I also obviously know who the Beatles are, so I understand the argument. What about a crop just above their heads? Can't produce an example right now but can later. This would cut off Paul and George's wave, but would also remove most of the background figures. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The wide shot is a better picture, but the crop is better for illustrating the individual members' faces. The crop is better suited for the infobox, while the wide shot works better in the body. Tkbrett (✉) 19:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)