# Talk:Rain (Beatles song)

How can this song have been recorded in late 1966 when it was released in June of that year? --Moochocoogle 00:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

watching the video of rain, after seeing Paul's chipped tooth doesn't that kinda prove ALL evidence saying paul is dead is false?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.34.165 (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC) 

Noel not Liam Gallagher changed the name of from The Rain to Oasis, Oasis were called Rain after Liam Gallagher's John Lennon fanaticsm.
And it's interesting that they Oasis were originally called Rain when Oasis seemed to base the whole of their career/sound on this one track.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.98.80.38 (talk) 11:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC) 

From the second paragraph: "It is notable for being the first song to contain backwards vocals". Please disambiguate. First song ever or first Beatles song? Mattbrundage 00:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

First song.  If anyone can document an earlier one, I'll stand corrected. St. Jimmy 17:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
They're Coming to Take Me Away Ha-Haaa! came out less than one month later, which obviously means it was conceived, recorded and manufactured well before anyone had heard Rain. 80.4.202.8 (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
"They're Coming ..." does not contain any backward vocals or instruments: what you're thinking of is the flipside of the 45 single which was called "!Aaah-Ah Yawa Em Ekat Ot Gnimoc Er'yeht!" It's a gimmick, a one-note joke: it's simply the entire song played in reverse, which is clearly not the same concept. SteveStrummer (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Well known fact. First song ever. The Beatles (albeit sometimes inadvertently) created several now well established recording techniques.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.242.90 (talk) 06:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC) 

Was Rain an A-Side single or a B-Side to Paperback Writer?

Looks like a B-Side on the Album coverZzz345zzZ
Everyone agrees that "Paperback Writer" was technically the A-Side, but the picture of the single lists "Rain" first. Anyone have any information on this? jstohler  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Look at the version of the single cover for the "Paperback Writer" article. "Paperback Writer" is on top there. In any case, many verifiable sources say that "Paperback Writer" was the A-side (discography in Lewisohn's Sessions, for example), and I've see none that say "Rain" was the A-side. John Cardinal 17:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Capitol listed the songs A-side/B-side on the front, and B-side/A-side on the back, but otherwise front and back sleeves are identical. The picture on the "Rain" article is simply the rear sleeve design. --Jd204 22:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if that's why the images of George and John are mirror-backwards on the sleeve, but it turns out they're the same way on the A-side as well. Andrewvit (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The article on the book doesnt mention it being one of the songs Hornsby wrote about

Image:Rain-Paperback Writer US aa sleeve.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have put a fair use rationale in.--andreasegde (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

*Put references at the end of sentences (it looks better and doesn't interrupt the flow of a sentence.) 

The Lead needs to be longer. Put in stuff like "ATOC", the promo film, and the tape being played backwards.
*Revolver mentioned twice in the Lead, but not in the article.
*Where was it recorded? (Silly question, but it should be in.)

The quotations fill up the Recording section. Might be good to paraphrase one or two (the engineer's comments, maybe.)
*Some commas missing after years 8 December 2007, was my birthday....
*"Starr was pleased with his drumming on "Rain", - not really needed, or re-worded.

Too many two-sentence paragraphs. I know it fills it out more, but reviewers pounce on them like a mad dog. (Sorry, reviewers :)
*"live in concert during The Beatles' last tour in 1966, "Rain" was not not". Too choppy, and seems unnecessary, unless you can find a reason.

"early precursors of music videos". This could be expanded and clarified. (We know when they started, but some kid in Arizona might not know and should be told.)
"Ready Steady Go!" , 'which was a pop programme in the 1960s', perhaps?
*Cover versions: definitely a no-go. It's a list (ouch!) and has to be converted to prose. Try grouping them in genres, or decades.
*Personnel: Seems a bit obvious and unnecessary. It could go in the Lead.
*"In the CD era" - I would reword this.
*"shows The Beatles walking and performing in a garden" - I've read somewhere where that was; it would be good to put it in. I found it: Chiswick House, London. Google map location...

There you go - just a few pointers to help you along. --andreasegde (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Off to see an (American) football game, with cold rain in the forecast. Podgy and I will huddle around the unlit fire to keep warm. Upon my return postage, isle editorial eyes. :) John Cardinal (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Podgy? Funnily enough I call my better-half "Pervy" (nothing to do with her carnal thoughts, but part of her name... :)) --andreasegde (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Podgy is the name of a character in a hilarious short skit on the 1966 Christmas Fan Club recording. I assume Lennon wrote it, it's very In His Own Write. — John Cardinal (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

A GA review looks mostly like the one I did above. If anyone is working on this article it would be best to go through them all step by step. I have just loked at the article and can still see references in the middle of sentences. These should be fixed first. Revolver is now in but linked twice.--andreasegde (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The decades being listed as they are is a good idea, but a reviewer will complain they are too much like a list, as there is not enough info in them. (Is it really that important that these people covered the song?)--andreasegde (talk) 11:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
There should be no references in the Lead, as they should be mentioned in the article. The Lead is only a summary of the article.--andreasegde (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Move all references to the end of a sentence; putting them in the middle stops the flow.--andreasegde (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Leave the Lead until the end; put everything in the article and then make a summary of it in the Lead at the end. This is strange, but you will save yourself a lot of time before the nomination deleting double links, and being asked why something in the Lead is not mentioned in the article.--andreasegde (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

ATOC needs to be explained, as Emerick's reference is not online. Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
ATOC is already explained at the end of the "Recording" section. Do you mean that I should explain it further? I really cannot find a thing on it on the Internet. Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kodster! (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
My gut feeling is that it shouldn't be in the lead, as it's a technical detail & somewhat irrelevant to the song itself. Would have been different if it had been ADT or Dolby, but this seems to have been a local technique & perhaps mentioning there it doesn't help the reader's understanding up front. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
So there's no more need for details for ATOC? Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kodster! (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks good the way it is now; says what it is & what it does, and is obviously a prototype of more modern digital compression & gating techniques. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I added a "musical structure" section. Is it appropriate and well-done? Please improve as you see fit. Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kodster! (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The Musical Structure section is good. No, it's great. Well done. :)--andreasegde (talk) 13:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have the DVDs, so I could put in the exact time the comments were made, if you would like. (It's always better to have definite references, and not just referencing a whole DVD.)--andreasegde (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It's the Kodster. I took out the previous picture of John Lennon, and added it with another picture of Paul McCartney that I got of the internet (specifically, here. Click the image for a fair-use summary. Please post here on whether this is fair-use and acceptable for the article. 
Thanks. Ringo Starkison McLennon (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Kodster (again!). I took out the Paul McCartney picture, and added a Paul-John picture instead (from the same source). It has the same fair-use rights as the other picture. Have a great day on Wikipedia! Kodster (Talk) 19:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 01:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Boy, is it hard to find some ACTUAL meaty info on this song. Info-wise, I think that's all I can do. If there's anything else that anyone thinks should be done, comment below or on my talk page. Have a great day, Editors and/or Readers! Ringo Starkison McLennon (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

After a good read-through for obvious mistakes (there are always one or two) I think this article should be nominated for GA. --andreasegde (talk) 06:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

To be totally honest, the actual recording of this song is bloody awful. The tempo fluctuates al over the place and Starr sounds like a beginner. The mix is too loud on the right and too quiet on the left. Lennon is dragging the lyrics across the too slow beat as best he could. I think they were on something when they recorded it.--andreasegde (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. After listening intently to the song, I believe that Starr sounded like a professional in "Rain" and the tempo was perfect. They might have been on something when they recorded it, but I think they did a good job. Regardless, we're looking for a good article, not a good song. :) Kodster (Talk) 22:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm only talking about the recording, Kodster. I used to be a drummer, and I am a musician, but even though I love a lot of The Beatles work, I think this is the only one that shocks me, because it is so lazy. This article is great, but I have no idea why Starr says it was his best drumming. His drum fills on Hello Goodbye were brilliant, and ground-breaking, because he did drum fills in the verse. :)--andreasegde (talk) 00:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, John Lennon wrote the song. He's not the best at writing drum parts, if you know what I mean. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I know, I know. I play the drums, but not in a band. Just for fun. Anyway, I think the recording was very well-done. I think that Starr's best drumming was in this song, but honestly, that's not saying much. Starr was talented, but he wasn't exactly a "starr" drummer (pun intended, like it or not :)). He was okay, but Roger Taylor of Queen was much better! Again, this wasn't a superb work by any standards, but comparing it to his work alone, it's pretty good. That's all. There are a hell of a lot of better songs (which is why this is a B-side), but it in my view it isn't really that bad. You're entitled to your own opinion. In the words of Macca, "Everyone's entitled to two, aren't they?" :) Kodster (Talk) 02:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Roger Taylor was/is a better drummer? Uhhh... it's handbags at 10 paces for that one. :) Taylor is a better singer. --andreasegde (talk) 11:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a small thing, but make sure that when 2 references are together they should be like this: [18][21], and not [15][4].--andreasegde (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Kodster (Talk) 23:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... what kind of Barnstar? :)--andreasegde (talk) 00:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The Red Barnstar of Courage. Kodster (Talk) 02:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a book... What about an Audie Murphy?--andreasegde (talk) 11:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not really "decorated". This is my first, assuming that this will get pass as a good article. But that's a great idea. BTW, I told you that I'd pop in now and then. Kodster (Talk) 10:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone back in July of 2006 edited the genre to psychedelic rock. My friend is a music major and has listened to all of the Beatles' songs, and doesn't believe that it's psychedelic rock. I think I'll need clarification as to what the real genre is. To me, I would say that it's Rock and Roll music. SchfiftyThree 23:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, ask your friend what genre this is, and say why. Until then, it stays the same. Just give some good reasons, and we'll change it. Thanks! Kodster (Talk) 10:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree.--andreasegde (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll probably also find a source and list it in the edit summary next time I edit the page. SchfiftyThree 22:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Looking at Psychedelic, it's clear that this definition does not necessarily involve the use of drugs. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
My friend has stated the following about "Rain":
"I call this the genre Rock and Roll because:
1. The harmonies stick with a conventional 'Western Hemisphere' key signature.
2. There is no strong use of chordal mixture.
3. The words make sense when not in a drug-induced state.
4. The backwards music at the end of the piece is a result of a sleepy recording artist inserting the tape backwards late one night and then discovering this the next day.
5. As heard in many psychedelic rock songs, such as Pink Floyd's "Echoes" and Jimi Hendrix's "Are You Experienced", there are often ambiguities behind the meanings of the lyrics and/or musical structure. I do not find this to be the case in "Rain".
If I were to categorise Rain as psychedelic rock, it would be nowhere near the songs of Pink Floyd, The Doors, Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, and the like."
This is what my friend has said about the Rain song. SchfiftyThree 03:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well my friend says that Hitler was Welsh. Should I put that into Adolf Hitler? Seeriously, though, this needs to published as a reliable source so it can be verified. We only use sources of known reliability, published independently of Wikipedia. What your fiend says above, even if true (and, having studied music, I take issue with most of it), fails this test and is, in fact original research. Thanks, but we can't use it. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 11:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

In reviewing the artice, there were a few pointers I would recommend:

Establish quickly (maybe through a parenthetical note) who Herb Bowie so we care why his song interp matters.
Change the Critical reception section to just Reception, since this is a mix of critical, commercial and cover information.
Despite these minor issues, I did not hesitate to pass the article.  Good job to all invloved.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"Paul McCartney also plays a complex bassline throughout the recorded performance." That's it? Was anybody else in pop music playing bass with such full-frontal abandon at the time? I would think that a comment about this being one of the first bass-driven pop songs would be fitting... it's almost as if the bass is the lead guitar here, with the guitars just sort of chiming in. - Spokesman from the Paul Was a Great Bassist Appreciation Committee  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.242.4 (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC) 

Corrected to use song infobox per WP:WikiProject Songs: “Use {{Infobox song}} for album tracks and B-sides” (and on which WP:WikiProject The Beatles is silent). — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 09:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The description at WP:WikiProject Songs is not a Wikipedia policy, and consistency across Beatles articles trump a more general guideline.  Using {{Infobox single}} is consistent with the other Beatle B-side articles and that template is suggested on the WP:WikiProject The Beatles page, {{Infobox song}} is not even mentioned.  Apparently {{Infobox single}} is acceptable to many editors as it has been in place in these articles for quite some time.
"Single" is defined as "(45rpm vinyl record)", both A- and B-sides qualify under that description.  Single (music) does not differentiate between A- and B-sides either.  The {{Infobox single}} fields A-side, Last single and Next single links are useful for B-side song articles to easily navigate the chronology.  Using {{Infobox song}} only serves to remove this information, as well as the cover image which is also appropriate for the B-side of a 45.  {{Infobox song}} contains the fields prev_no, track_no, and next_no, which are specific to albums, and inappropriate for 45s.  Perhaps the guideline at WP:WikiProject Songs should instead be revised for {{Infobox song}} to be used with albums only, and not 45 RPM B-sides. CuriousEricTalk 20:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
“consistency across Beatles articles trump a more general guideline”—I've not found a WP guideline that includes this statement. WP:WikiProject The Beatles is a child project of WP:WikiProject Music which includes WP:WikiProject Songs.  WP:WikiProject The Beatles is basically a project plan, it contains no guidelines—it doesn't need them, it inherits all the guidelines it needs from WP:WikiProject Music and WP generally.  The fact that several Beatles articles have the same mistake doesn't somehow make it not-a-mistake.  If you want to try to change WP:WikiProject Songs then please discuss that there, but in the mean time, the Music project and its guidelines seem clear. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I have started a discussion there. CuriousEricTalk 22:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, i have a 4th Promotional film in a video called "Chronology 1", i think that the section of the promotional films has to be edited.
--189.216.115.195 (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

You've given us almost nothing. Are you asking for a change in the article? Please give a complete and specific description of any requested change. Specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. The request must be of the form "please change X to Y". And most importantly give us reliable sources. We can't do anything just from your personal opinions. Sundayclose (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rain (Beatles song). 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/20090427102924/http://www.beatlesmovies.co.uk/beatles-videography.asp to http://www.beatlesmovies.co.uk/beatles-videography.asp
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) 05:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

This article has been tagged for a GAR request. It needs some work with the prose and a few tags need to be dealt with. There may be some other issues, but I thought i would wait to see if anyone was interested in fixing the article up before starting a formal reassessment. {@Kodster, Andreasegde,  and John Cardinal:. AIRcorn (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Greetings! I've added a reference to the claim that Dan Ar Braz performed a cover of the song. In addition, I've noted in the page that the said cover was initially released on one of Dan Ar Braz's previous albums - I cannot find any journalistic references for this, but the connection is clearly marked on various music databases (such as this one) and on the back of the vinyl disc itself. Seabass-labrax (talk) 12:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

How is there no chart section? – zmbro (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I added some weekly charts. As far as I can tell, the only place in Europe it charted was Wallonia. I scanned through Canada's RPM archive, but couldn't find anything. I'm not sure if it did anything in Australia, New Zealand or Asia. Tkbrett (✉) 23:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Since the band is called The Beatles, not Beatles, shouldn't the article be titled Rain (The Beatles song)? --Jameboy (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)