# Talk:Strawberry Fields Forever

I think both these sections should be removed. They add nothing and are full of uncited items that have little notability. What do others think?
70.54.124.95 17:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't signed in when I posted the previous comment.
Vytal 17:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree. Most of these "trivia and pop culture" sections translate to "random crap that somebody thought was cool" and this article is no different. Almost all of the "covers and derivations" should be trashed as well (except for the Love version and one or two others). Raymond Arritt 18:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Agree - In general, I am not a fan of trivia sections although I think some trivia items can be integrated in the article body. The trivia items in this article are not worth moving. I think Cultural reference sections can be used to document how a song affected other artists and also reflects the popularity and staying power of the song, both of which are notable. In this specific case, however, I think the Pop culture section is weak. John Cardinal 19:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

How come the videos for Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields aren't as readily available as the records? Lee M 02:46, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Unfortunately for the Beatles, it was released as a "double A sided" single together with "Penny Lane", which meant that both the sales and airplay statistics were split between the two songs, instead of being recorded collectively."
Does anyone have a cite for this? The UK charts are based on sales, not airplay, and as far as I know always have been. I'd have also thought that sales were based on the number of discs sold, and not pro rated between the two sides, and that e therefore there would be only one entry in the charts for the single Varitek 08:26, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I also was confused about this. Unfortunatly - why, exactly? It only got to number 2 because Humperdink sold more.
Yeah, that thing about splitting the sales isn't true.  It is listed in the official charts as 'Strawberry Fileds/Penny Lane', i.e. sales for each track were counted together (if they could even have been separated in the first place, which I doubt).  It was kept off no. 1 because "Release Me" sold phenomenally.  George Martin did later say that he thought the single would have sold better had they only one A-side, which I presume means he felt the promotion was split between the two tracks when it would have been better to concentrate on one.  This has given rise to the idea that is found in Spitz that the tracks were split on the chart (as they would have been in the US), and the record outsold 'Release Me'.  But it's a myth.Tony Keen2 (talk) 12:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
--bands, or producers, or record companies, chose what was an A-side versus a B-side. it had nothing to do with sales, which only were assessed after the release. the released record label would have it noted as A- or B-side. while there were sometimes B-sides put out that became the hit (surfaris 'wipeout', righteous brothers 'unchained melody'), they still were B-sides that djs ignored the A/B status and spun what they wanted to, or what had become the hit.
also, i don't know how the wiki folks don't know this stuff, but all the beatles recording sessions were not "intended" for ANY album (other than 'please please me'). they had recording sessions where they recorded lots of songs, and then Martin would select what was going on 45, EP, or LP. 'strawberry fields forever' was the first song recorded for the sessions that resulted in the Sgt. Pepper album, when there was NO song yet written, or named, "Sgt. Pepper's LHCB". thus, SFF was not recorded for inclusion on any album, but for the SESSIONS that RESULTED in an album, a 45, and a bunch of songs that went onto other records-- "northern song" onto "yellow submarine" for instance. anyway, i bloody give up on trying to keep wiki on point as far as correct info goes. every page i read has flat-out incorrect statements, usually right in the opening sentences, and i just don't have the time, plus it's only the internet, a child's toy, and the real info is in books.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fewerthanzero (talk • contribs) 20:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC) 

Try to assume some good faith here and keep it civil. The source already used in the article explicitly states that "Strawberry Fields" was intended for the album. "Penny Lane" and "Strawberry Fields" were recorded as singles and were intended for the album. I have no idea what you're going on about otherwise. They knew they were recording an album. It just hadn't taken shape yet. freshacconci talktalk 20:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

"Nonetheless, the double A-sided single is widely-regarded as the greatest single in the history of popular music."
I removed that sentence. I wouldn't be surprised if it were so, but claims of such loftiness require references. --bodnotbod 05:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed this paragraph, which, even if probably true, is pure speculation and opinion:
It is likely that the inclusion of "Penny Lane" on the single upset John Lennon.  He saw "Strawberry Fields Forever" as the most innovative pop single ever at the time of its release. 
wikipediatrix 17:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

says in the text that the separate strawberry fields single in the US reached number 8, but in the 'box' it says #1? Bungalowbill 13:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

"Epstein urged Martin to issue the songs on a double A-sided single in order to regain popularity"
What is this supposed to mean?
the beatles stopped touring and had the longest break between a musical release of there career between revolver and strawberry fields forever.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC) 

At the very end of the song (You need to almost blast the volume) John says "I Buried Paul" Which was one of the main reasons people thought Paul was dead. That, and this. The whole thing was caused on April 1st by a DJ.[1]
Some key points (feel free to corect names):

Geroge is at the front dressed like a preist.
Ringo is next dressed up. He was suposedly the under-taker.
Paul isn't wearing shoes (People are never burried with shoes on) and is smoking. Paul never smoked, but a dieing man's last request is often "one last cigarete"
John is last wearing work cloths. As mentionecd above, he suposedly burried Paul.
The beatle's (car) licence plate reads 28 IF. Paul would have been 28 IF he lived till his next birthday.--Labine50 03:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Just one mistake, John is the priest and George is the gravedigger in the back. Also, the license plate reads LMW 281F, which is interpreted as meaning "28 IF" as stated above. LMW is also sometimes said to stand for "Linda McCartney Weeps (or Widow)." John R Murray 17:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and Paul is the only human being who ever walked to his own funeral with no shoes on (they always bury people with shoes on, 'cos I polished my father's) with a priest, a gravedigger (he'll have had to work fast to get that grave dug in time) and an undertaker (which must have saved a lot of money on a hearse). Don't make me laugh and buy a round... :)--andreasegde (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, John doesn't say 'I buried Paul'. He says 'Cranberry sauce'. 'Strawberry Fields Forever' was recorded a little while after Thanksgiving, which is not a festival in the UK but the story goes that the Beatles had been talking about it because it was in the news, and John was calling out random Thanksgiving-related nonsense during the recording of the song. One other thing: Paul did smoke when he was a Beatle, although he may or may not have given up since. Lexo (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I changed the word undoubtedly to most likely when someone put that the song was "undoubtedly" influenced by acid. The word undoubtedly is very strong, and without a reference this word should not be used. andrewlargemanjones

The only Beatles album I have is the 1967-1970 compilation, but the title of the song is listed there as "Strawberry Fields"... Should that be noted? Is it already noted? (Sorry I haven't looked through the article) --Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! • See my edits!) 19:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I honestly think that if there is a good picture that agrees with the article, you shouldn't
replace it. Before the cover you see on the page, there was a higher quality scan.
The current one (no offense to the user who scanned it) looks batterd. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.140.120.221 (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

We don't need any new rules. I thought the original picture looked too pristine; it didn't look like a single cover because you couldn't see any ridges caused by the disc inside the sleeve. Also, it was  42KB (vs. 22KB for the replacement) and the picture is used on other pages with multiple images on them. Anyway, I restored the last version. John Cardinal 15:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The complete removal of the Covers and Pop culture sections does not help the article IMO. Yes, those sections needed to be trimmed, but no covers, and no cultural references, removes credible evidence of the popularity of the song among musicians and other artists, which is a one way to reflect the importance of the song. John Cardinal 01:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

While I have no opinion one way or the other concerning the covers, the cultural references listed did not particularly add to the article.  One could obtain better information by simply clicking "What links here".  The popularity of the song is better reflected by statistics and good references than an exhaustive list of cultural references. -Verdatum (talk) 15:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The "What links here" page is a poor substitute: hundreds of pages listed in random order with no editorial content to prioritize the list or put the (WikiPedia-specific) references in context. I disagree that the "popularity of the song is better reflected by statistics and good references" and I never suggested including "an exhaustive list of cultural references." Cultural references are not about simple popularity, they indicate popularity among other artists. They indicate that other artists were influenced by the song, and specifically, what artists and in which works. Diversity in the list (various artists, various media) and references across a long span of time are much more effective means of conveying the importance of a creative work than dry statistics.
Regarding good references, I fail to see how that pertains to this issue at all. I am in favor of good references and have worked to add them to Beatles articles on WP, but references provide evidence that is used in the article. With no list of cultural references, there is nothing to which to attach references.
John Cardinal (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It says in the LOVE version that "Baby Your A Rich Man" is in it. Where is it? Can anyone confirm it? I always hear it in "All You Need Is Love," but not "Strawberry Fields." 01kkk 23:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I've always heard Baby You're A Rich Man near the end of All You Need Is Love, and I'm thinking the added effects in the chorus of Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds might be the clavioline from BYARM, but I just listened through the LOVE version of Strawberry Fields Forever and could not detect any trace of BYARM. Mellophonius (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've seen sheet music transcriptions that show the song to be in the key of A.  But if (as the article states) Take 7 was already in A, and George Martin had to speed it up, while slowing down Take 26 (in C) to get the two to match, then the key the finished product finally wound up in would have to be at least slightly higher than A=440hz, right?  ("A and a half major"?!?)  Can anyone figure this out?--63.25.23.150 (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ian Macdonald points out that because of all the varispeeding they had to do to speed up the first minute of Take 7 and slow down the rest of Take 26 so that they would sound like they were in the same key, the final mix 'wanders in a microtonal borderland between keys', beginning in an 'untempered A sharp before sliding imperceptibly into orthodox B flat'. That in itself is evidence of how much varispeeding was done, because the Beatles almost never wrote songs in B flat, as it's not a very guitar-friendly key. One of the results of this, as you probably know, is that it's impossible to play guitar along with the song, because either you start out in tune and then by the end of the song you're slightly flat, or else you start out slightly sharp and end up in tune. Having listened to the original mixes of Take 7 and Take 26 (on the well-known bootleg It's Not Too Bad), I think Macdonald gets it slightly wrong: he thinks that in the final mix the Take 7 section sounds sped-up and the Take 26 remainder sounds more natural, but to me, in the finished song, the first 60 seconds (the bit excerpted from Take 7) sound relatively natural, and the rest of the song (the Take 26 section) is dramatically slower and woozier than the original take. When you first hear Take 26 on the bootleg it's immediately noticeable how fast it is, and the timbre of Lennon's voice is much more natural than in the finished mix. I think that this is one of the reasons why the song is so effective; the transition from Take 7 to Take 26 is like sliding inexorably underwater. It's one of the reasons this song used to send me running out of the room screaming when I was a kid. Anyway, to answer your question, 'Strawberry Fields' is more or less in B flat major. Lexo (talk) 13:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The "Musical Structure" section should be rewritten such that the harmonic analysis does not flip-flop between assuming the song is in B flat and A. Atdotde (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

We can only follow the sources on this. Since the finished song is a combination of two versions recorded in different keys and "adjusted", as Lexo says above, it's hard to be too precise. If you have some reliable sources that make a definitive claim you can add it to the structure section, but we can't rewrite it based on what we ourselves hear, no matter how obvious you may think it is (per WP:OR). freshacconci (✉) 14:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
-
Last December, David Bennet posted a video on youtube ("Why is Strawberry Fields Forever in A half-sharp major?", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgtzOafdoOQ ) that may be the final word on this discussion about the keys. He claims that with the help of a chromatic tuner he was able to prove
- take 7 originally being in Bb - 57 cent, only minimally sped up in the final mix,
- take 26 originally being in C, slowed down to Bb - 12 cent in the final mix.
I amended this article accordingly including a link to the video, but JG66 reversed this change and wrote "claim sourced to YouTuber (I'm sure he's right - we just need a reliable source)". I understand the point and certainly would prefer a more attested source. On the other hand, if we say we are "sure he's right", we must consequently say that Mark Cunningham "sure is wrong", with the same probability as Bennet being right. From this realization I think we should not leave Cunningham's questionable "Bb" claim uncommented - at least if we want to keep on being hair-splitting <g>. How about something like
"There are differing opinions as to whether track 7 was in Bb or or even about a quarter tone below Bb",
with either *no* references at all or references to Cunningham *and* Bennet?
[BTW, Cunningham is not to blame: At the time he wrote his book, the original tracks were not yet available (as were chromatic tuners?)] FePo2 (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
FePo2, we need a reliable source – simple as that. And a David Bennet video on YouTube is not RS; I searched, but couldn't see any independent/third party coverage to demonstrate he's any sort of authority in his field.
There are no end of examples, at least in my experience, where authors fail to hear an instrument or sound on a well-known recording (and it drives me crazy). But that doesn't mean we can just add what we feel is "right". I'll take a look in some of the musicological sources used in the article – you'd hope they've spotted this point about the key. JG66 (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
>we need a reliable source - simple as that.
I understand. But we agree that Cunningham is *probably* wrong, which means he's *probably* not a reliable source on this point either, and we shouldn't pretend he is. In order to keep the quality of this article high, shouldn't we at least document our doubts instead of tacitly posting supposedly false "facts"?
BTW, do you consider a BBC youtube video with an interview of George Martin, in which he himself explains the splicing of the tracks, also as an unacceptable source or would that be ok? FePo2 (talk) 08:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
-
JG66, nice to see that you were able to edit the article in a way that brings together the different perspectives.
The "Recording" section has this floating box containing links to youtube videos (Take 1, Take 4 etc.) Would you (or anyone else in here) have any objection to diluting this list with Bennet's (yes, unofficial) video? I find that it depicts the take 7 / take 26 splice in both an instructive and detailed manner and I see no reason why we should withhold this presentation from readers. FePo2 (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
It would be, as you say, a dilution, because the source is clearly not up to the required standard. It's self-published content by someone who's not a recognised expert in the field. So: WP:RSPYT (you might have to scroll down slightly to "YouTube"). I don't know why we're even taking about this. There are so many Beatles experts out there – one or two fan sites/blogs that I've discovered over the years which are far better-informed than some of the recognised authorities on the band – but they can't be used on Wikipedia as sources or even external links, either. JG66 (talk) 05:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, I actually believe that Wikipedia readers are sufficiently sophisticated to realize that the video is just a convincing  illustration of the statements already made verbally in the section. However, I don't want to start an editing war. If no one in here shares my view that the article would benefit from the video (or is there anyone?), I'll refrain. FePo2 (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I've put in as many as I could find.--andreasegde (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't think it goes unappreciated, me friend. All the best, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 03:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I have put some more in. "Brennan, Joseph (12 April 2008). "Strawberry Fields Forever: Putting Together the Pieces" is a really good one, as it takes a lot from Lewisohn's (?) book.--andreasegde (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
You might have a problem with this: "According to AcclaimedMusic.net"...--andreasegde (talk) 18:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If dates are not linked anymore, does this, "began on 24 November 1966 in Abbey Road's Studio Two", mean that commas are now also omitted after dates?--andreasegde (talk) 12:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Are we keeping a covers section out deliberately? Can understand why (wouldn't want it to become a dumping ground for obscure versions), but Candy Flip's cover was a big hit (#3 in the UK).. worth a brief mention perhaps? Pawnkingthree (talk) 09:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It could go in, but you would have to slip somewhere in the article, because having a cover version section quickly turns into a list.--andreasegde (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Added and its well-referenced and formatted, not a list. Hope it doesn't get erased. Sincerely. --Scieberking (talk) 22:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Strawberry Fields Forever/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Lead
"It was written as a reflection of Lennon's childhood, and is named after a Salvation Army house, as Lennon used to play in the wooded garden as a child." Should this be "... where Lennon used to ..."?
done
Recording
"it took forty-five hours," I'd prefer 45 hours per WP:MOSNUM.
done
"The last verse, "Always, no sometimes...", was a 3-part harmony," Conversely three-part harmony.
done
"Take 1" and "take 7" one capitalised the other not. Also as above, it would be better in text.
done
I think all instruments should be wikilinked first time they are mentioned.
done Though the swarmandel doesn't have a Wiki article
General
I realised this may have been written in Am Eng. Is there any specific reason for this? It would be much better in Br Eng since the Beatles were British.
It's because I wrote a lot of it, and I use Am Eng. I'll gladly change it. Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 17:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Others
Some more images would benefit the article, even if it was something just like a picture of Lennon or McCartney to break up the text and improve the look of the article.
I recommend including a screencap from the music video. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking of doing something like that, but no one brought it up, so I thought it would not have been fair use.
Reading some of the talk above, a "Covers" section may be a good idea. However, I think that's something to decide on in the future and not during the GA process. Particularly if you head for FAC, I would suggest some thought / discussion about the benefit of such a section. And has been noted, it would be much better as a prose section, not a list.
It's only essential if there's some really notable covers. I wouldn't suggest adding a covers section at this point, but when this gets closer to FAC range, I suggest Kodster take a look at the covers section in "Smells Like Teen Spirit" for an example of how to create such a section. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll put this on hold for the above points to be addressed or corrected. Secondly I note a peer review process is undergoing, although potentially towards the end of the process. I'll leave it on hold until that is closed, unless it is apparent nothing much else is going to change. Peanut4 (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I closed the Peer Review. Besides the Covers section, which will be dealt with later on as the article slowly makes its way to Featured Article Candidacy (hopefully), every improvement has been dealt with. You may take the appropriate action now. Again, thank you for reviewing this article. :-) Cheers! Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 22:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I've worked very hard on this, and I'll make the improvements that you and WesleyDodds have suggested. Cheers! Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 17:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I hope I haven't stepped on anyone's toes, but I have just gone through this article, and have improved/cleaned a lot of text. Sorry if I have confused the review. :(--andreasegde (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I have just put a photo in of the piano and the paint, and one of Kenwood, as both are mentioned in the article.. :)--andreasegde (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Final review
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Good work. All the best with working this up to FAC. And with that in mind, I've just spotted a slight MOS error in the references - not enough to stop me passing it but something that will need addressing before FAC. p642 etc should be p. 642. Peanut4 (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers!! Thank you so much! Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 15:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The achievements section consists of a whopping 1 sentence. A little playtime in the sandbox might do it some good, no? Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 20:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It says in the article under "Promotion and reception" that "Brian Wilson of The Beach Boys said that "Strawberry Fields Forever" was partially responsible for the shelving of his group's legendary unfinished album, SMiLE.[56]" and that he "first heard the song on his car radio whilst driving, and was so affected that he had to stop and listen to it all the way through.", also refering to [56]. [56] is indeed about SMiLE, but it says nothing about the song.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.99.114 (talk) 12:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC) 

I agree that reference says nothing about SFF. The Smile (The Beach Boys album) article cites a video interview for that information (Beautiful Dreamer: Brian Wilson & the story of Smile). I don't have access to it. — John Cardinal (talk) 12:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Strawberry Fields' intro on the mellotron.
The article states the intro was played by Paul on the Mellotron, and it may well have.
But a video exists of The Beatles' first American tour, in 1964, of them in their New York hotel room.
Brian Epstein's secretary is answering phone calls telling them that "Mr. Epstein is very busy".
John is in the foreground (in 1964) playing the intro to Strawberry Fields on a mellotron.
Scouts' honor.
A terrific insight into the process of songwriting, him playing the intro to a song that wasn't finished and released for three years.
Love,
Brian brianallancobb@hotmail.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.165.237 (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC) 

I've seen the footage that you're talking about (it's from the Maysles brothers documentary of the Beatles first US visit), and not only is John not in the same room as Epstein playing the intro to this song on the Mellotron, he's not playing the Mellotron at all, because he's not in the shot. In fact, he's not in the room. He couldn't have been playing the intro to the song on the Mellotron, for two reasons: 1., he didn't acquire a Mellotron until the summer of 1965 (nobody in British rock had one in '64) and he didn't start writing this song until he was in Spain shooting How I Won The War in 1966. On the assumption that you posted this comment in good faith, I can only assume that you either dreamt this scene or that your memory of the scene is at fault. Otherwise, you are just making it up. Lexo (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone anywhere added why the song fades out and in at the end? On the LOVE DVD, they talk about mixing the album on one of the extras. George Martin said that the reason the song fades in and out at the end is simply because the rythym section got wild at one point, and there was something after it that he wanted to add to the song. 
"Well I faded it in and out, because, of course in those days we had no kick tracks to keep us in sync, and in fact, the rythym went completely haywire at one point, and there was a bit after that I wanted to include, and I couldn't really edit them together, so the only thing I did on the mix was to dip them down to nothing, with the bit that was wobbly, and bring them back again, and everybody said 'what a great idea, fade it and coming back!' I didn't tell them my reason, but now we don't need to do that!" Soundslikealotofhooplah (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone think 'Strawberry Fields Forever' should be listed as progressive rock? Either that or art rock would be rather fitting due to its experimental and progressive qualities such as hazy orchestral use and backwards noises plus a fade-out followed by a fade-in. Who else agrees?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.219.160.114 (talk) 04:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC) 

I'd like to discuss the source given for the psychedelic pop genre. The source says that it was one of the earliest psychedelic pop records, but the fact that song is so un-poppy makes we wonder if the source was really talking about the genre. I'm pretty sure it was just calling it a 'pop record' (popular music, as opposed to classical, blues, jazz etc) that is psychedelic, rather than a record that falls under the genre 'psychedelic pop'. Poppermost2014 (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Strawberry Fields Forever. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110707223610/http://www.benharper.com/music/release/i-am-sam-music-inspired-motion-picture to http://www.benharper.com/music/release/i-am-sam-music-inspired-motion-picture
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140407092119/http://www.billboard.com/charts/1990-09-01/alternative-songs to http://www.billboard.com/charts/1990-09-01/alternative-songs
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere.  Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
? A help request is open: billboard citations needs to be found or replaced. Replace the reason with "helped" to mark as answered.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Today, I was listening to Dave Fanning, Irish rock journalist and radio presenter for 40 years, on RTÉ 2fm radio interviewing Hunter Davies, the Beatles biographer, discussing his writing. When discussing Strawberry Field Forever, Fanning commented that: It's the best song I've ever heard in my entire life. Hopefully we can get a source for this; there might be a podcast of the show or maybe it will get picked up by one of the Irish newspapers. ww2censor (talk) 10:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Currently, but I don't know for how long, the programme is available at: http://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/rteradiowebpage.html#!rii=b1%5F21205372%5F1031%5F16%2D07%2D2017%5F ww2censor (talk) 11:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Strawberry Fields Forever. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070620130649/http://www.mikepinder.com/mellotron.shtml to http://www.mikepinder.com/mellotron.shtml
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100510195807/http://bestbritishsongs.xfm.co.uk/Top100/The-Beatles-Strawberry-Fields-Forever to http://bestbritishsongs.xfm.co.uk/Top100/The-Beatles-Strawberry-Fields-Forever
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111015200514/http://phish.net/sideshows/trey-anastasio-band/?d=2001-03-03 to http://phish.net/sideshows/trey-anastasio-band/?d=2001-03-03
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Strawberry Fields Forever. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080421025857/http://www.centralparknyc.org/site/PageServer?pagename=virtualpark_southend_strawberryfields to http://www.centralparknyc.org/site/PageServer?pagename=virtualpark_southend_strawberryfields
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080508140144/http://www.rock.com.ar/artistas/los-fabulosos-cadillacs to http://www.rock.com.ar/artistas/los-fabulosos-cadillacs/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Keith Richards mentions in his memoir, Life, that "Strawberry Fields" was also a "brand" of high-grade LSD supplied to parties where Lennon was present by David Schneidermann. --Dystopos (talk) 13:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

"...only the sales of the best-selling side of a double A-side..." Huh? How could one side of a single sell better than the other side?—Chowbok ☠ 14:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a misconception that stems from comments made by George Martin where he conflated the practices of the UK charts with the US charts, where the sides were tracked separately. Unfortunately, this has found its way into sources that meet the guidelines for reliability so we are stuck with this nonsense until Mark Lewisohn's All These Years, Volume Three comes out about 10 years from now. Ohnothimagain (talk) 20:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, there are some Wikipedia projects where a (by all means hard-working) contributor is very dedicated to removing everything from "his" garden that he considers weeds. This one here seems to be such a project. Ok so far, but that he or she goes to the extent of discrediting other committed people as "obsessive cretins" (see the article history page) is a bit too much for me personally, so, sorry, I will refrain from further contributions. I wish the rest of you more patience and/or resilience and continued success. FePo2 (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

What's the source for George Martin on cello? Thanks. 79.56.0.170 (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Read that again. Martin didn't play the cello and trumpet – he did the arrangements. The source is Ian MacDonald's book Revolution in the Head: "... [Lennon] and George Martin agreed to start from scratch using different instrumentation: trumpets and cellos. ... [T]he session players, scored by Martin, performed their overdubs" (p. 218). Tkbrett (✉) 19:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

...while Harrison looked equally austere, with his beard and heavy balaclava
Please help me out, here; I do not remember George ever sporting a ski mask.  Is there an alternative definition of "balaclava" I'm not privy to? NapoliRoma (talk) 06:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

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

John Lennon passport photo (cropped).jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2025 (UTC)