Talk:The Beatles/Archive 6

message: If you do not have an account, then no-one can reply to your comments.
You come into Wikipdia, leave your comments, and then float off into no-where land, like a "no-where man". 
If you do not believe (or understand) the meaning of discussion, I politely suggest that you look it up.
Please join Wikipedia, and contribute to a growing concensus of human beings that want to produce something that is not biased, and good...
Don´t forget that an account is anonymous. 
andreasegde 12:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Editors who do not have an account

message: I moved the Backlash/breakup stuff to nearly the end of the article, as it seems to make more sense.
You can´t have their breakup before their innovative studio work and their film work after their breakup, in my humble opinion. Kick me in my wedding tackle if I´m wrong...
andreasegde 17:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breakup was moved

message: I put a short quote in because of how IMPORTANT it was. National Service was ended in the late 50s. National Service? NO Beatles. Can you imagine that? The mind boggles.... andreasegde 18:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: National service

message: See title. Raistuumum 21:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why not.  They produced two new singles as "The Beatles", over twenty years after they disbanded.  If that's not a reunion, I don't know what is.  Powers 00:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well I haven't seen it.  =)  And I prefer "Real Love" as a single.  But point taken.  =)  Powers 12:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: GREAT video. TommyBoy76 20:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I didn't notice until it got to the Sgt. Pepper photo shoot. And then it got to Eleanor Rigby, and Abbey Road and I was like "Ohhhh, I get it!" As I look back, though, there were a lot. Some I don't think I understood, however. --TommyBoy76 02:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: How many references? Effin´ Nora, that´s a good question.... andreasegde 10:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: How many can I spot?  About 4.  *sigh*  Powers 14:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Does the Anthology sessions count as a "reunion"?

message: IP troll 67.189.99.161 is the anon sock for User:Dragong4 who is currently blocked from Wikipedia for 6 months for vandalism, personal attacks and constant disruption. The Admins are aware of his actions. Rather than responding to his foolishness, better to just simply rm it and concentrate on positive aspects of Wikipedia. Don't feed the trolls. 216.21.150.44 11:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't know.--Crestville 13:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn´t know either, "Cresty".... (Please don´t hit me... I´m laughing a lot....) I do not like to be referred to as Andy-Pandy, by the way... more laughter... :) Oh, humour is a wonderful thing. andreasegde 14:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Note to regular editors

message: I have written a “Free as a Bird“ section on the Trivia page. I have listed as many song titles/lyric thingys as I can think of, but I’m sure I missed some. Please feel free to contribute, when you want to while away the hours… I also added an Absolutely Fabulous bit.
I have taken out some of my own contributions, on this page, as I thought they were not needed. Can I do that, I ask? (Ow!) andreasegde 13:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why put in "Trivia" when it could go in the Free as a Bird article? A deeper analysis of the video might be a good addition to that page. --kingboyk 13:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: No I haven't read it :P Perhaps I ought to before making recommendations, huh? :) (Goes off to check...) --kingboyk 13:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Free as a bird video

message: Good grief, I have just watched some short interviews with Geoff Emerick (sound engineer)   Meeting the Beatles.videos and I was blown away, as they say. PLEASE watch it. I am gob-smacked (meaning speechless)... This is the real stuff. andreasegde 14:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Geoff Emerick]]

message: I have corrected the statements on the authorship of "Yesterday," which was written by both Lennon and McCartney (not McCartney alone) as per the original 1965 sheet music, and its claimed status as the "most-covered song in the history of recorded music," an honor which is held by "White Christmas," by Irving Berlin. I believe the original writer may have wanted to state that McCartney's voice alone is heard on the recording. 66.108.4.183 00:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction...although most Beatle songs are credited to Lennon/McCartney it is a well known fact that the 2 wrote independently...for the most part. Here is a link to a Lennon interview from 1972 where he details just who wrote what...and which ones they wrote together. As for Yesterday...it's a Paul composition. Just thought you'd like to know. 216.21.150.44 00:20, 24 June 2006 
Incorrect. Looked at your linked article. Sometimes they wrote separately, sometimes together. The sheet music is the most authoritative source for who wrote what. Memory is faulty. Even as recently as a few years later, John  and Paul disagreed on who wrote what for "In My Life," as your linked article shows. Besides not relying on memory (i.e. in an interview, even the authors themselves err frequently, years later), the sheet music determines the distribution of royalties. i.e. When The Beatles wrote and performed their own material, the royalties for the record sales are not the same as for sheet music. Neither Ringo nor George receive (to this day, the Harrison Estate, for example) any royalties whatsoever from sheet music sales of all songs written by John and Paul. Of course, if the rights to the music (not the sound recordings) are sold or assigned, the new owner receives the royalties. But neither Ringo nor George can sell the rights to songs they do not hold copyright. I'm not speaking about money per se, only suggesting that when authorship is questioned, the sheet music is a more reliable guide than even an author's interview some time later. People make mistakes. But at the time of writing, talented individuals usually make certain that credit is assigned truthfully. As far as sourcing facts is concerned, the sheet music and ASCAP or BMI records is dispositive, not even the artist's own interview, recalled 5 years after a drug-enhanced composing session (with all due respect to the artistry of Lennon and McCartney). I am not going to re-correct your edit, as I don't get involved with Edit wars, but you should restore the correction. Check any sheet music store on the Web, or indeed the credit on the LP sleeve itself or CD for authorship if you like. "Yesterday" was composed by both Lennon and McCartney. 66.108.4.183 04:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Correct! In fact, when "Yesterday" was first performed on Britsh TV, George introduced it by saying: "And now for Paul McCartney from Liverpool, Oportunity Knocks! And the other three Beatles left the stage. Mine's a pint of Guinness, and a large Irish! Vera, Chuck & Dave 16:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: As for the most-covered title vs. "White Christmas", Guinness Book of World Records gives the nod to "Yesterday", but lots of other places give it to "White Christmas". I think, though, there is sometimes confusion between number of artists who have recorded a song, and number of total copies sold of all the various versions. It's not always clear what is meant by when sources talk about which is the "most-recorded" song. - DavidWBrooks 13:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: A general comment: Nobody is going to wade through two screens of paragraph-free text. Sorry, but if you can't bother to make it readable, nobody will do the work for you. - DavidWBrooks 18:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I wouldn't say "nobody".  I did.  Powers 19:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Nobody" being Net-speak for "me". - DavidWBrooks 21:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have long felt that the question of authorship of the song does not belong in the opening paragraphs of "The Beatles" article. It immediately gives the impression that the piece is about apportioning what member wrote or did what, rather than an examination of the group. Such distinctions should properly be made in the individual members articles, under the "Role In The Beatles" section (for both Macca and Lennon, this would be (co)composer of songs). However, I am not going to remove it - as the article would then need reviewing for other instances of individual promotion.LessHeard vanU 23:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Cake or Death?--Crestville 17:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. The fact that "Yesterday" is (one of) the worlds most covered songs is fine - it helps define how influential The Beatles were - and could be included in the early paragraphs. It was the matter of who was the 'real' composer which I felt didn't belong there. LessHeard vanU 21:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Yesterday"

message: I have just been reading the article, and there are lots of one-liners/sentences that have a horrible bias. (The cake is going down well, by the way...)
"Lennon started criticising McCartney´s compositions in the mid-60s", was one. No citation, of course... I snipped it out after eating a creamy piece of flour and sugar-based confectionery. 
We must look at the whole article and spot any kind of biased comments. Also: Some bits just don´t fit where they are. The Harrison quote about him not getting enough songs on the albums is surely part of the break-up, no? (It´s presently in the studio section.)
Me; scoffing cake ´till I´m fit to burst... andreasegde 12:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole section about evolution of style and whatnot needs a major rewrite and reorganization. I have been saying I'll do that for months, but every time I start looking at it, I get tired ... I can't think of what to do except rip that section up entirely and start over. - DavidWBrooks 14:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits and one-liners

message: Uhh, I am being dangerous here... (It´s not my fault; it´s the sugar content in all this cake...)
I have slightly pushed the "Studio style and evolution" article to be more about studios. After they stopped touring that was all they had to focus on - no? My POV is that once they stopped, they started to write many more songs, and the studio was the only place they could vent their artistic frustration. Watch the Geoff Emerick video (see above) and listen to what he thought. "The studio was their world"... as he says. (Kick me in the place where the sun never shines if I´m wrong...)
andreasegde 17:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst stopping touring and moving into the studio certainly changed things considerably, I'm not certain that they were the first to do so. Forgetting all the bands who were "created" in the studio from an existing combo (I'm thinking Joe Meek and The Tornadoes/"Telstar" type things) wasn't Brian Wilsons incapacity in performing with The Beach Boys the catalyst for their progression from surfing band to the "Pet Sounds" era group (which in itself was a major influence on The Beatles, who were supposedly inspired by what Wilson was doing)? I think the dates of the recording sessions and releases are looked at before giving The Beatles as the very first.LessHeard vanU 20:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The first studio band