Talk:The Beatles/Archive 12

message: Many believe that T.B. didn't write ANY of their songs AFTER 1967 Yrgh 20:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is many? Are you a representative of the 'silent majority'? --andreasegde 22:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  After 1967? 

message: There's a lot of murkiness surrounding The Beatles' original contract with EMI.  The contract itself is dated 4 June 1962, before their well-storied first EMI session on 6 June. It's also clear that the 6 June session was a proper recording session and not just an audition. These circumstances suggest Martin signed the group before actually hearing them in the studio - though it's also possible the contract was backdated. (See Lewisohn and other sources for discussion.) How much detail do we want to go into on all this? Raymond Arritt 19:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's interesting, because I'm going over that at the moment. Cynthia says one date, and Barry Miles says another. Hmmm... I will read on... andreasegde 18:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recording contract 

message: [Although they are not so definitive] the American releases may be a welcome addition to this Wiki; they would be for me and perhaps others such as myself who grew up with the American releases ingrained in their heads... 
A specific comparison between the British and American releases would be interesting.
Discussion of the current CD releases and how they compare to the original (widely released?) vinyl records would also be interesting.
Another neat thing for some of the individual wikis, for Revolver for example, would be to also show the back cover if possible. (legal? etc.)
`Sorry I'm too green at Wiki and 'snowed under' here in New Orleans to offer up any of this work myself.
Profound gratitude to all who have put so much dedication into this.
The Beatles: powerful sonic anti-depressant; available without a prescription.
Sgsmith, nola 03:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see you're green, Sgsmith and I welcome you to the gang of Beatles article contributors with open arms.  There's already an extensive American discography in The Beatles discography. Steelbeard1 03:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, Sgsmith - welcome to the Beatles pages and hello to NOLA!  I'm a NY'er, so you are not alone in knowing in your heart that "Beatles VI"  and "Something New" and "Beatles '65"  were (the) true Beatles albums... when I hear a Beatles' song, no matter how many times I've listened to the UK original albums since then, at the end of a song - in my head - I hear the start of the one that followed:  on the American release.  So I wouldn't say "although they are not so definitive", but most of these guys no doubt would, and I can't blame them (ok, they're actually correct).  But "our" Beatles albums are enshrined as Steelbeard said in The Beatles discography, and I've added a note to the "America" section of this album about the US releases.   Again - welcome - this is the friendliest group on Wikipedia, by far. Don't worry about being too green - you can't go too far wrong here. Tvoz | talk 22:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Releases Discography and... 

message: please i hope you discover the possibility that you can sign posts here with four tildes.
Missy1234 21:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Signing your posts

message: The two formative influences at the top should definitely be mentioned as both US rock n'roll and British skiffle, and I don't know why this was reverted ( I think possibly because there was an editing browser error that also cut off the bottom of the page, so someone reverted to an earlier edit) ; At the moment it goes against the logic of the article again, with its references to Lennon's beginnings  in  skiffle and the Quarrymen. 
This link also provides a fresh angle on this : http://www.beatlesource.com/savage/1950s/1950s.html
Lennon covered by the Quarrymen, succession of skiffle groups Ringo was in listed here:
http://www.beatlesource.com/savage/notes.html
Hu67 09:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Skiffle

message: I think that, out of consideration for their length on the page, the audio samples should be moved to a separate page.ErleGrey 14:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't agree more. They are a huge space waster. And while I think they serve an important purpose, I don't see any reason why they must be on the main page to serve that purpose. InnerRevolution7 02:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me three.  They add a lot of length, and since they're in Ogg format (per Wikipedia policy) most readers won't be able to listen to them anyway. Raymond Arritt 02:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Song samples

message: Looking at Wikipedia:Summary style, it would be useful to add brief paragraphs to the "Influence", "On film" and "Other projects" sections, summarising the contents of the  articles. --Nick RTalk 14:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary style for sections 

message: The article doesn't really mention why he left? It only says when he left.--Ihop0 06:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reasons are too complicated to summarize neatly.  Generally the death of Brian Epstein is counted as the beginning of the end, but the descent to the breakup took another two years and there were lots of other contributing factors -- the appearance of Yoko on the scene; George's resentment at lack of musical respect; John's heroin addiction; business conflicts; and on and on, even "boredom" according to John in one interview. Raymond Arritt 04:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: £5? Is that all? God, this man's knowledge knows no bounds! Vera, Chuck & Dave 14:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's tell the truth here: Johnny left the band because he could no longer control it, the other blokes songs were getting better than his, and he found someone (Yoko) who was a combination of Julia and Aunt Mimi. The circle was complete. Best regards, Julia, Mimi, and Yoko.  19:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why did Lennon leave the band? 

message: This article needs a 'drugs' section. Macca has one, and he wasn't the only one to 'inhale'. andreasegde 07:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Drugs

message: Out of interest, I was wondering why the intro gives no mention of the names of the members of the Beatles.  For those who don't know anything about them, this might be something important to know.  I would also think this would be quite a large stumbling point in any FA considerations.  Is there a reason for this?  Has it been discussed before?  Thanks, Mrmaroon25 23:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The information box just to the right of the first paragraph has all of the group's member information. There isn't a need to duplicate the info. InnerRevolution7 01:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, there are links to members within the text. One of the major problems with this particular article is what to leave in the intro without it becoming unweildy - the band did a considerable and varied amount in their lifetime - and what to leave out without it being uninformative. As InnerRevolution7 points out, membership of the band is noted in the nearby info box. LessHeard vanU 13:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have to say, I stumbled on this as well when I read the article freshly - yes, of course it's right there in the infobox, but the intro seems weird to me without mentioning any names.  I see, though, that there is no consistency on a quick view of other bands: Rolling Stones, Grateful Dead, Bee Gees - each does it differently.  This could be questioned by the power-wielders, but I'll leave it as is unless others agree. Tvoz | talk 23:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you could always try it with members name, and revert it yourself if it doesn't look good. The intro has been edited twice by myself and twice again by other editors in the last hour or so. I don't think restraint is required. LessHeard vanU 00:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: The section labeled "America" includes the sentence "Their first American television appearance was a few weeks later on the Ed Sullivan Show on 4 February 1964."  The next section, "Beatlemania", says "A record-breaking seventy-three million viewers — approximately 40% of the U.S. population at the time — tuned in to the first Sullivan appearance on 9 February."  So which is it? Captain Infinity 19:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for catching that. Sometimes obvious mistakes can hide easily from the eyes. The correct date is 9 February, and it has been fixed now. InnerRevolution7 02:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Sullivan appearance -- conflicting information 

message: I have made a few comments at the above place, mostly directly relating to frustrations I have encountered while contributing to this Project and the articles The Beatles and Paul McCartney. My festering resentment has leaked out in the form of WP:FAR and WP:GAR are the enemies of WP:The Encyclopedia That Anyone Can Edit. Please feel free to disassociate yourselves from me... ;~) LessHeard vanU 01:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Let me offer this: As a member of the League of Copyeditors I'll take on The Beatles as a "special project."  Once a week (or as time permits) I'll comb through it and try to fix any new grammatical glitches, punctuation peccadillos, and spelling splodges that may have crept in. That way new folks can contribute, while mistakes will get cleaned up. Sound good? Raymond Arritt 01:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds brilliant. Want any citations? (I'm known for having too many... :)) andreasegde 05:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I have most of the books, but would appreciate the help. And a second opinion is always good. While you're here, we need cites for some of the stuff in the "America", "After The Beatles" and "Musical evolution" sections. Raymond Arritt 05:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Righty-o, I'm on it. There are some good little anecdotes that could go in there as well. andreasegde 07:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you, Noble Sir, for the kind offer. I should say that The Beatles and Paul McCartney were something of an example only (I didn't mention Macca in my rant, but I did Psuedo Bacon) and that I was raising a general issue. The help that you are offering is something that could be applied to any Flagship Article that has been identified as in need. Perhaps that is a comment that could be promoted at the village pump? LessHeard vanU 13:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I'll add a mention at LoCE as well. Over the past couple of days I've worked through Mimi Smith. I'll regularly monitor The Beatles but ping me when something needs special attention (GA review or whatever) otherwise I'll hit articles from time to time as the spirit moves. Raymond Arritt 19:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: hahahahahaha I read the semicolon as a colon just above and did have to wonder about a band named Gerald Ford ...Tvoz | talk 23:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)]] 

message: I have started to put citations in, but have formatted them like the Charles Darwin page (FA article). It might save a lot of trouble with the zealots later. andreasegde 08:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, what you are saying is that your formatting style has evolved, right? LessHeard vanU 13:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's called being 'hassled to death' by the zealots... Just point me in the right direction, and I will follow my nose... andreasegde 11:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: Another editor mentioned that they were unhappy with 'active' as regards the virtual re-union (I cannot find who or where, but I def saw it). I have to say that I am too. It is my understanding that The Beatles (the group) were dissolved in 1974(? or thereabouts), and it is the right to their music/image/legacy etc. that was transferred to Apple et al. Whilst all four members contributed to the "new" tracks, could they have done so as "The Beatle" if that entity was no more (and it couldn't have been relaunched, since a participant was dead - even power of attorney can't get past that fact)? I'm not sure what the legal situation is, many defunct bands have records/compilations re-issued which feature newly discovered/available tracks but they are not regarded as being reformed. I know that the songs were based around Lennon tracks laid down in the 70's and added to by the rest, so they are not from the period 62-70, but that (IMO) compounds the controversy; Lennon didn't write them to be Beatles songs, they were just reworked (with Yoko's approval, of course). I would prefer if the active period referred to was 60-70 and the Free As A Bird/Real Love era was only mentioned in the text. Thoughts? LessHeard vanU 23:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. andreasegde 11:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed; it wasn't really a reunion as such; the band were never marketed as being reunited. CloudNine 16:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Vera, Chuck & Dave 19:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right-ho, I shall remove it! LessHeard vanU 22:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Years Active" in info box 

message: Over 6,400. Yes I know it's boring, but one has to deal with 'powers that be'. Ho-hum. Eric Kirkbride (St. Pancras Trainspotter's Club) 11:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Word count

message: "David Paul Boyle, 2007". I have looked for this book, but have found nothing. Considering that it was supposedly released in 2007, I think this may be a bogus citation........ I have taken it out. andreasegde 02:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also taken out books that have not been used as in-line citations with page numbers. If anyone bought the book it should be easy to put in a reference, and not to just list the book so as to make the References section look bigger. Hit me where it hurts if one feels unhappy about that. andreasegde 03:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved the books not used in the 'References' section to 'Further reading'. andreasegde 03:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bogus citation

message: ErleGrey,
EMI is a record label. Thorn EMI is a parent company. There is a difference.
I have seen plenty of import records from both the Beatles and Radiohead that have the EMI logo prominently displayed on them.
Plus, there is always usually listed on the credits "Original copyright in this sound recording owned by EMI Records Ltd.'.
I would also advise not to send individuals mail about incorrect edits if you decide not to show your own e-mail address for a reply.
And who is "we' that you're referring to ?
Is there some sort of big committee regarding all of this stuff?
-Electrokinesis
>>>>>Please don't add EMI to the list of labels for these two acts, as Parlophone/Capitol/Apple are distributed/owned by Emi. Usually, we don't list both the imprints and the parent company. 
Thank you. ErleGrey 18:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is not signing-in becoming the new trend? andreasegde, Sir Sean de Garde, Mr Hornby, John Bender and Raoul McKnickers. The previous comment was not signed-in by me. Me, that's who... 19:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Electrokinesis, I don't think you fully understood what I said. Parlophone and Capitol are imprints of EMI. Following that, I asked you not to keep on adding "EMI" to the label list, as you would be adding the parent company AND the imprint.
Also, the message you got from me was not email. I posted it on your talk page, the standard form of communication on Wikipedia. Hope that clears this misunderstanding up. 
ErleGrey 20:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be nice, people. If you contribute to The Beatles' pages, you have to obey the first rule, which is: Be nice, funny, intelligent, and nice. Actually, that's three, or four—I'm not sure how many. Are you signed-up for the newsletter, BTW? andreasegde 20:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Label Information 

message: It's becoming clear that the Cynthia Lennon book contains lots of errors.  I suggest it be used as a reference only when confirmed by more reliable sources such as the Lewisohn books. Raymond Arritt 16:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but how many? I found two, but they were about what Lennon said about Epstein after his death, and the leather/suede coat Lennon bought her. Are there other really glaring ones? andreasegde 18:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately I haven't been keeping track, but the latest was an apparent misstatement regarding the first show the reunited Beatles played after returning from Hamburg.  As we saw in the Anthology, even the Fabs themselves don't always have reliable memories of things all those years ago. Raymond Arritt 20:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cynthia Lennon

message: In 1988, The Beatles were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as a group [...] McCartney was inducted as a solo artist a few years later and did appear to accept his award.
In February 1994, the surviving Beatles reunited to produce and record additional music for a few of Lennon's home recordings...
I remember reading in Revolution In The Head that it was actually at McCartney's induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame that Yoko Ono gave him the demos that became the reunion songs. I don't have the book to hand to cite that, but it might be a good way of linking the two paragraphs - could someone with the book add it?
Incidentally, I notice that the comment above this one is also about transitions between paragraphs. :) --Nick RTalk 18:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hall of Fame/"Free As A Bird" link 

message: As per the trade mark discussion at , restored "The Beatles" as that is a registered trade mark. Steelbeard1 17:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Beatles" redux 

message: Just after the sentence about the formation of Apple, someone had written about the Yellow Submarine EP. To the best of my knowledge, this record never existed, and it is not mentioned in any of the reference books I have. There was talk at the time of releasing the 4 new songs from Yellow Submarine on an EP, but this never materialised, and the 4 songs ended up on the album with other previously released songs. Was this deliberate vandalism, trying to hype up a non-existent record for the collectors' market, or was the contributor thinking of the Wall's Ice Cream EP, which certainly did exist? Anyway, I have deleted the sentence. Eyebeeuk 04:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe they were thinking of the Magical Mystery Tour EP? Who knows? But I never heard of a Yellow Submarine EP either. Freshacconci 11:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a Yellow Submarine EP was issued in France. Vera, Chuck & Dave 11:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [Yup.] Raymond Arritt 04:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and it's not music from the soundtrack.  The pre-1967 photo of The Beatles is a dead giveaway.  It contains tracks from the Revolver album. Steelbeard1 12:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A Spanish EP  from '66 as well: http://www.earcandymag.com/beatlesworldwide2-book.htm. Great cover art. Freshacconci 13:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yellow Submarine EP?