Talk:Ticket to Ride (song)

Untitled

Is it just me or is this song in A 435 or at least slightly tuned down? AdamBiswanger1 03:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not "just" you. My son and I (musicians, more or less) were doing "Beatles covers," and decided to tackle this. But you can't play along with it at 440. It's like it's a quarter-tone flat. I haven't seen ANY mention of that anywhere. I've entertained various thoughts on that (tape-speed, a bad tuner, etc.), and yours seems like the most logical. But I'm not sure it's been noticed by many others. A bit of trivia that could be pursued.Jororo05 (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Title of the song

What happened to the theory that it was originally called "Ticket to Rye"? Where'd "Ticket to Ryde" come from? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 16:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

God damn I feel young

I'm confused, did albums consist of -multiple- vinyl records? Records appear to only have 2 songs, one on each side, but an album has over a dozen songs.

Albums play music beacuse a needle hits bumbs and ridges along the groove (I'm not exactally an expert). Adding songs to a side is possble simlpy by condensing the space between the grooves, so instead of one song taking up a whole album side, many song (up to 6 or so?) fade into one another with short pauses in between. 24.34.215.160 22:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Albums are called LPs, and are 12" in diameter versus 7" for 45s. LPs also play at 33 RPMs, while 45s play at 45 RPMs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muchachos (talk • contribs) 16:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

First heavy metal song

Yeah, right. There is nothing whatsoever metal-like about the song, even by 1965 standards. The Kinks, for example, did a much heavier song in 1964, "You Really Got Me." I'm pretty sure that when Lennon made this remark, he was kidding. He also may have been expressing his rivalry with McCartney, who did a genuine proto-metal song, "Helter Skelter". marbeh raglaim 15:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I've certainly heard of Helter Skelter being one of the first, if not the first metal song, but as for Ticket to ride, that's ridiculous. And before we even dispute this claim, we should at least find out if Lennon really did say that. AdamBiswanger1 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The article has a pretty specific citation to an interview with Lennon, so I'm pretty sure he did make the remark. I'm not saying it shouldn't be in the article, though I did remove a sentence that claimed Lennon's remark was accurate. (The claim was both POV and false.) marbeh raglaim 18:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

well, we should get our fingers on ozzy, then we would know the answer ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.255.26 (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You guys, I have the Rolling Stones magazine, the one with the 500 top songs in history, and it's written there that John said that... I'm quite sure they have sources 84.108.249.67 (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Lennon, in the infamous two-part Rolling Stone interview at the end of 1970, referred to the song as "heavy", not heavy metal. A lot of music in the late 60s - early 70s was referred to as "heavy", eg 'In-a-Gadda-da-Vida', 'White Room', etc, but that term should not be construed as meaning the same thing as "heavy metal". Radiopathy •talk• 21:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Ticket to Ride sounds nothing like heavy metal. I agree. C.Syde (talk | contribs) 01:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

"The way Ringo played the drums"...

Although I would refer to myself as some sort of Beatles expert, it wasn't until just now I realized what John meant when he used this phrase. At first, I thought it meant that John regarded Paul's contribution to the creative process as being of no greater value than Ringo's(meaning: very small value, indeed.), but what he's doing is crediting Paul with the rhythm pattern(obvious, isn't it?).

Still, McCartney recalls it was co-written, and gives Lennon 60% of it.--84.208.240.143 (talk) 08:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I very much like the way Ringo plays the drums in that song. Someone the Person (talk) 04:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

By 'creative process' I mean writing.--84.208.224.234 (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of "ticket to ride" section

The unsourced entries in this section should be deleted. I'm going to do so but wanted to give some notice here so other editors would have a chance to add citations first. — John Cardinal (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I accept this meaning: "a phrase coined by Lennon about the cards indicating a clean bill of health, handed out to Hamburg prostitutes in the 1960s (Don Short to Steve Turner)[4] (the Beatles played in Hamburg early in their musical career, and "ride/riding" being slang for having sex)." Homecoffee (talk) 03:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

In German the clean bill of health, handed out to prostitutes was called "Bockschein", which means - the more poetic "ticket to ride". Mendox (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Update: I have removed the unsourced entries and edited the content from a list to a paragraph of prose. — John Cardinal (talk) 12:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

paul on lead guitar?????

when was that dicovered, isn't that book years old, and it never appeared here before, i also never heard of that before, and especially since they NEVER played songs live where george hasn't played the lead in the studio, for example on you can't do that lennon played his solo live, and i can't think of this information being right now dsicvoered on a book that is some years old, were the pages glued together or what. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.241.107 (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It's acknowledged in the original liner notes that Paul played guitar on the song while George obviously played his Rickenbacker 12-string on the record.203.221.128.210 (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Top of the Pops performance

The article says that the only footage of the mime performance of Ticket to Ride is a 15 second clip on Doctor Who however YouTube has the full clip of the mime:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBFANonCPpk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.79.178 (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a promo film they made, not the Top of the Pops performance.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

John's guitar

I couldn't find any reference on the wikipedia page for Rickenbacker to a 325 12 string model. If such a thing ever existed and John did play it on this song, the cross reference should exist. Bwanab (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, Rickenbacker made a one-off 12 string version of the 325 for Lennon in 1964; he plays it on 'Every Little Thing', and there is a citation for it out there somewhere, but I can't comment about 'Ticket to Ride'. Radiopathy •talk• 03:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

wrong fact

I know this not a big deal or anything like that just this line "The song features a coda with a different tempo that extends the song's length past three minutes, the first Beatles single ever to do so", She's A Woman was released as a single in late 1964 and it is 3 minutes and 4 seconds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jongudni (talk • contribs) 03:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

UK chart facts

Wikipedia in general follows the OCC (Official Charts Company) chart which is follows Record Retailer. Thus "Please Please Me" was not a number one, making Ticket To Ride their 7th number one (the first 6 being: From Me To You, She Loves You, I Want To Hold Your Hand, Can't Buy Me Love, A Hard Days Night, I Feel Fine). And it was not an "instant" number one, i.e. it did not enter the chart at #1. It entered at #11 and climbed to #1 on its second week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.249.241 (talk) 21:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

August 25/26 edits

Phew! I did some copious editing on this page today - much of it undoing what I'd done! I was thrown by most of the references in the article not being in what I understood to be the standard Wikipedia format, & I made an effort to migrate all of these non-standard references to standard format before cluing in in to how the format I was unfamiliar with operated. I then reverted the article to the edition directly before my first edit, & after replacing new info I'd added earlier - updating the Carpenters' version/ adding Other Versions - I saved the article. As far as I know the references are all now formatted as they were prior to my first edit of the day.--Cherrylimerickey (talk) 03:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Version

I would ask the editor Caden not to keep reverting to his or her preferred way of organizing the page without discussion. If anyone want to justify their preference, then please do it in the discussion page, as well as at the project talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs or here. The background to the song such as composition would apply to all versions, not just the original and/or best-known version. It would be best to keep them as a separate main section. It is how all song articles should be organized, and having a cover would not change the fact. Hzh (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

And I would ask that you stop reverting to your preferred version. I explained myself to you weeks ago but you never explained your preferred version and you never showed any rules or guidelines to support your way. Caden ^cool 23:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid you did not explain anything. The talk page of Song Project is notable by your refusal to contribute or explain. An article needed to be organized in a coherent way. The background of a song, such as its composition, would be applicable to all version, it would make no sense to put it under one version. This is also the point made about this article by another editor JG66. You have chosen not answer the points raised, therefore you cannot now claim that you have answered or explained. The point about discussion is that you should contribute to an on-going discussion. Hzh (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes I did explain to you several times on the "You've Lost That Loving Feeling" talk page, where I also told you that I have nothing more to say to you. Now stop stalking me. I'm sick of it. Caden ^cool 23:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

On Talk:You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin', all you did is to assert that the article should focus on all versions. The point is that the background to the song would be applicable to all versions, not just one. Your organization implies that the background to the song is only valid for one version. You did not answer this point. Please note that per WP:DISPUTE, discussion is integral to any dispute resolution. If you refuse to discuss the issue, and simply keep using revert as a weapon, then nothing will progress, and the issue will be taken up elsewhere. Hzh (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@User:Hzh. Could you please point me to these so called policies and guidelines at WP:SONGCOVER and at WP:SONG that supports your preferred versions on all of the articles you reverted me on, during your busy time of stalking me and my edits? Thanks. Caden ^cool 20:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@User:Hzh why haven't you kicked up a fuss regarding the word “version” over at The Tide Is High and I'll Be There (The Jackson 5 song)? I do not see you at either of those two talk pages nor do I see you edit warring over these two articles over the use of the word “version.” I wonder why? Oh wait, I know why. It's because I never edited those pages and since you are only interested in stalking my edits,harassing me, and reverting my work, you ignored “Tide Is High” and “I'll Be There”. You were aware of both articles as far back as March 13 when I linked both articles in a post on your talk page. Yet you never bothered to be distruptive at those articles, nor did you say a single word on its talk pages either. How interesting. And you claim you are not stalking me? Yeah right! Caden ^cool 16:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The Carpenters' remake

I know that the original single version of The Carpenters' version of "Ticket to Ride" had some subtle differences to the more common mix used on compilations, but for the latter, did they rerecord it from scratch or did they take the existing master to revise certain elements? I know that Karen rerecorded both her lead vocals and drums and Tony Peluso, by then the duo's regular lead guitarist, overdubbed some guitar parts that were not heard on the original, but what was the reason why it was remixed and had certain parts rerecorded or overdubbed? If anyone can provide the reasons with a reliable source, please do so. 203.221.128.210 (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 29 August 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

---

• Ticket to Ride → Ticket to Ride (song)
• Ticket to Ride (disambiguation) → Ticket to Ride

– It's not clear that the song is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC any more. Looking at monthly pageview statistics, the board game has been consistently ahead for a few years, with particular spikes in interest around the holiday season. the wub "?!" 22:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support - I always knew there would come a day when an old, classic song I loved would lose primacy to a very fun and very popular board game. I think I'm gonna be sad; I think it's today. Red Slash 22:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - The difference in views is minimal except for the holiday spikes. Kids want a board game at holiday time and check it out on Wikipedia. Beatles music tends to be timeless. Games come and go. Let's see how it look in a couple of years. Here are the page views starting in 2015: [1]. And that seems to be as far back as we can go, even though the game goes back to 2005. Interesting how the difference seems to disappear as the parameters change. Graphs can be very deceiving if you don't know how the statistics behind them work. As Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics". Sundayclose (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. I've never heard of the board game, but, surprisingly, it's all that comes up when I google "Ticket to Ride", and it's been ahead of the song in terms of the first WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria for years now. In response to Sundayclose, I don't think it looks good for the song that its pageviews are barely different than the board game. What happens if someone searches in "Ticket to Ride" expecting the game and gets the song? It's hard to discern correct statistics for a potentially inaccurate PT. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

That's what a hatnote pointing to a disambig page is for. My issue isn't whether it "looks" good or bad; I think whatever small difference is there likely is temporary. Sundayclose (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

But since the user is not likely seeking this article we should just put the DAB at the base name and let them pick the artile they want. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support - as WP:NOPRIMARY. -- Netoholic @ 04:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support as noted the game gets more views and comes up mainly on Google. I'm in England and have never heard of the song but have played the game. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I agree with adding (song) to this page's title. While the difference in views might be minimal, I think it would make the difference more clear when searching for the page to begin with. QuibbleCod (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Some board game as notable as this iconic song (which I really cannot believe anyone has never heard of) which has been around for 55 years? Oh, please... Long-term significance anyone? -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  @Necrothesp: Actually I had heard the song many times but I didn't know of its name. Most people won't know the name of a song unless they're told it while people playing the game will almost certainly know since they will need to be told how to play it etc and will need to read the rules etc, none of this is needed when listening to music. While the song may have more long-term significance the game is 16 years old (compared to 55 for the song) and I doubt that the game will stop being sold/played anytime soon so I don't see long-term significance being clear enough here. Also note that the game is a level 5 vital article while the song isn't so if anything long-term significance might favour the game. Views[[2]][[3]] show around a ratio of 300 for the song but 400/500 for the other uses (ignoring the spike) is it worth sending more than 50% or readers onto the wrong article in this case. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that the game will lose favor much faster than the song. There are a lot of things that go into what level an article is rated; I don't consider it a valid comparison between articles. And again, the statistics are very deceiving. How the graph looks depends very much on the parameters used. Page views for a few weeks are meaningless when considering long-term significance. If the statistics went back as far as creation of the game, I could easily manipulate the graph to give a different impression. Sundayclose (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Page views since January 2015 show the game got 827,685 views while the song only got 539,689, even the album got 170,956[[4]]. That seems enough time to show that the song isn't primary and if the game does pitter out in a few years we can always re consider but I don't thing that there's sufficient likelihood of that anytime soon. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that's significant. But in any event that's only five years. The game has been out for 16 years but we don't have data that far back. It certainly would be the other way around if we did. And it probably will be the other way around in a few more years. Again, statistics can be deceiving if you don't understand them. Sundayclose (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Greater "long-term significance" does not mean "longer significance", it means "greater significance (of the sort that lasts)". Red Slash 20:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I meant statistically significant. But you're right. It's long term. Are you seriously claiming that Beatles music hasn't lasted and won't last; that argument doesn't have a leg to stand on. And we have no page views for either the game or the song prior to 2015 so there's no basis for comparison during the long stretch from 2004 to 2015. Sundayclose (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes we don't have views for before 2015 but is there reason to believe the views for the game would be significantly lower? Yes Beatles music might have longer lasting significance but WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY says "While long-term significance is a factor, historical age is not determinative." in such case the board game does appear significant enough to prevent this even if its younger. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Is there a reason to believe the views for the game would not be lower? I never said "historical age" (i.e., the song is older) makes it more significant. I said we have no evidence from 2004 to 2015, and I'm certain if we did and displayed a graph it would look a lot different than the last five years. Sundayclose (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

They might well be lower but probably not significantly lower, if we don't have evidence from 2004 to 2015 then we need to mainly look at what we do have which shows an absence of a primary topic. Clearly this topic isn't "much more likely than any other" when a reader searches for this term and its not clear it has substantially greater enduring notability than any other topic. If is was like Monopoly/Monopoly (game) where the game was based on the song there might be a point even though both the game and economical concept are level 4 vital articles and the game gets more views but in this case not only the game isn't based on it its not even named after it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support as surprising but nevertheless clear case of NOPRIMARY. I don’t see any policy basis in the opposition argument. I wouldn’t give it any weight accordingly if I was closing. Ascribing long-term significance to a 1960’s song over a 15 year old song is sketchy. But the page view stats are clear. There is no way users searching with this title are much more likely to be seeking this song than the game. That’s the bottom line. —В²C ☎ 06:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.