Talk:The Beatles/Archive 4

message: Malice1982 has edited the paragraph regarding the Wooton ??? Fete meeting by saying that Macca impressed Lennon by playing "20 Flight Rock" (Eddie Cochrane) note for note. My understanding - from the book "Shout...." - was that Lennon was impressed by the fact that Macca was using guitar chords/tunings, rather than the banjo tuning that Lennon (and thus the other Quarrymen) knew. Since Malice82 is so specific I have left the edit in, but does anybody know the source of this claim? LessHeard vanU 08:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see it sourced. I suggest a  tag be added and Malice1982 be notified. If not cited fairly soon, I'd revert the change. ++Lar: t/c 14:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I left a message on his/her talkpage after my comment above - if nothing by the end of the weekend...LessHeard vanU 16:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies for not responding sooner. I read about this in one or other Beatles books that also stated Lennon was impressed by McCartney's ability to use real chords rather than the 4 string chords Lennon played as taught by his Mother on Banjo. It was indeed in the Anthology series also.
I really don't recall the book I first read about it in, but I remember it had some great photos of their journey to Hamburg and some information on lesser known characters in the Beatles history, such as Lord Woodbine. It also contained Lennon in his underpants with a bowler hat on and a newspaper under his arm in the street at night. Well known images now, but new to me at the time. Malice1982 23:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When John met Paul 

message: It would be nice if there was at least one fan created web page in the External Links for those (like myself currently) who are looking for a good Beatles website with lyrics avaliable. Any ideas of which site/s could be added or is this a bad idea?
--Jimmyjrg 08:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't use search engines? Wikipedia's not a link farm, and lyrics pages are almost always massive copyright violators that we'd just as soon not be associated with. - DavidWBrooks 12:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why do we link to them in song articles? I think it'd be fine to have a lyrics page included. Johnleemk | Talk 14:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think if a stunning fan site was known to us then, yes, include it. However, I'm not for adding one just for the sake of it - I'm with David. Wikipedia is not a link repository nor are we Google. If our readers want "Beatles lyrics" may I suggest they type that phrase into Google? --kingboyk 15:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are also a great many very good fansites; if we link one then we would have to link the others. Since there is a link to the "official" website, which is likely to have links to all the good/approved sites, then these sites are accessable from Wikipedia.LessHeard vanU 16:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beatles fan page External Links? 

message: and why did their main pic change? it was PERFECT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.154.192.129 (talk • contribs) 12 May 2006.
:The person who changed it said it had to do with copyright.  As for me, I like both pictures, but strongly feel that having NO picture from the first part of their career, with the Beatle haircuts, has been a serious omission,  and that is rectified with the new picture.  Carlo 21:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer to revert back to the old picture - aesthetically it is definitely better and helps contribute to the image of the page. Mrmaroon25 00:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  why did the page get messed up? 

message: Since a separate, 43-KB article History of The Beatles exists, the history section in this article should be greatly shortened. It's so long that somebody who knows nothing about the group (yes, such folks exist!) will be swamped and give up. 
Just as with happens in main articles about, say, countries or states, this history section should be perhaps a half-dozen paragraphs; folks can follow the link to the history article for more details. Of course, making such cuts is easier said than done; shortening well is much harder than throwing in more details. - DavidWBrooks 14:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're aware of the problem - please see Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/The Beatles history. If you'd like to make a proposal, leave a suggestion or of course actually make a start, please feel free. --kingboyk 14:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right-o ... I'll ponder slashing and burning - er, I mean, making judicious and intelligent trims. - DavidWBrooks 15:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some time back the members of "the project" discussed putting a banner on the edit page (regarding vandalism). Would something similar - suggesting a would-be editor check that the information they are about to contribute already exists, or should be placed, in a more specific article - be worthwhile?LessHeard vanU 19:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I placed an HTML comment there a long time ago asking people not to contribute overly detailed material to the section. Unfortunately, I don't think many heeded that request. Johnleemk | Talk 13:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've cut 7 MB so far, and you can hardly tell! Whoof! I'll pause for a while and make sure nobody objects. - DavidWBrooks 15:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MB? That would mean you've trimmed History of the Beatles 150 times over! Johnleemk | Talk 17:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MB, KB ... what's the difference among friends? - DavidWBrooks 18:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Between friends, just x1000. Anyone else and it's x1024! :P --kingboyk 19:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another 5 terabyes, not wait, petabytes ... oh, somethingbytes of trims. There's also a chunk of reorganization needed; that will require more thought. - DavidWBrooks 00:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History needs to be shortened 

message: Quick question to regular editors of this article. Is it just me or does the "Complete Scores" section sound like and advertisement? Seems to me there are hundreds of Beatles song books. Is this one so unique it warrants it's own section? Just wondering. Cheers! Anger22 11:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, seems spammish to me. I'd remove it. I note that User:Peytonio who the history seems to indicate added it, has added other stuff to the article and not responded to questions about the additions.  ++Lar: t/c 20:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Gone.LessHeard vanU 20:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that it's the only book (to my knowledge) to have the complete scores to all Beatles songs up until the time it was published might be the reason it was included. I own a copy of the book, and I love it. Whether or not it deserves its own section (if there's even enough that could be said about it) is another matter. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I put it on the site because it is the only book that has all of The Beatles' songs in it.  It wasn't meant for advertisement, but I can see how it could be viewed as such. --RPC (Peytonio) 15:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a "Further Reading" section toward the end of the article. Perhaps that would be a good place to note it?LessHeard vanU 15:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''The Beatles Complete Scores''' section

message: As a professional musician and a student of history (Columbia University), I commend all of the writings thus far on the Beatles, especially with respect to giving George Harrison his due as one of the earliest pioneers of that which we now call "World Music."  The Beatles were above all great synthesizers of music genres–––and world cultures. And it cannot be overstated how much the Beatles drew sustanence from African-American, Indian, and other music genres, traditions, and cultures in shaping their oeuvre and, indeed, their identities.  This had profound implications as to racial, ethnic, gender, and class constructs as well. For example, when George Harrison became a student of Ravi Shankar and when the Beatles engaged in a musical dialogue with Motown while retaining their Anglo-Celtic musical backgrounds, the Beatles radically deconstructed meanings of "Whiteness" and "Otherness," a point of which a funky "Got to Get You Into My Life," a bass-drum crunk of "Come Together," a jazzy, urbane "Something" gave melody and meaning to "multicultural" in ways that render academic Critical Race Theory as merely, well, academic.
I do have a number of qualifications, however.  Chief among them is the rather understated appraisal of George Harrison as a guitarist.  As  a professional guitarist, I can attest to the fact that George Harrison is vastly underrated, most often by non-musicians.  It is stated here that George Harrison, though distinctive, shows none of the "virtuosity" of an Eric Clapton or Jimi Hendrix.  Well, Jimi Hendrix is beyond reproach, indeed; Eric, though, is another matter.  Be this as it may, George Harrison's use of diminished and augmented scales, his use of chordal comping, and his sophisticated, idiosyncratic slide guitar–––which clearly resonnates with the influence of Ravi Shankar's sitar tutorials---indicate that Harrison's musical vocabulary was, in many ways, a good deal more complex than many of his supposed "superiors." In short, Harrison had a more sophisticated musical pallette to draw from than many of his rock contemporaries, one that reflected influences from Ravi Shankar (Indian Classical) to Eric Clapton (English Blues Rock), Elmore James (Rural Blues) to Chet Atkins ( Country/Jazz/Rockabilly), to Tal Farlow (Jazz), not to mention numerous rockabilly and R&B guitarists (Urban Soul) as well. This we can hear in his use of augmented ninths to modulating shifts in tones and colours, and in songs ranging from the jangle of "Help" to the urbane sweep of "Something" on up through his jazzy phrasings in his post Beatles, "Pure Smokey," and "Waiting on the Light."
Then again, Harrison's "Old Brown Shoe" anticipates the scintillating funk of a fusion-era Jeff Beck  i.e. Beck's solo on "Come Dancing" off of his "Wired" album (produced by George Martin).  Indeed, "It's All Too Much," shows Harrison's sonic drone playing partner (albeit junior) to the incandenscent Jimi Hendrix.  Harrison's slide guitar work was, is, and will always be singularly distinctive for attaining the sublime ("Something," "Give me Love") to the weird, wily, and wiry, as in his bravura performance in "Back off Bugaloo," not to mention the fanged snarl on "How do You Sleep."
If that's not virtuosity, what is?  
Granted, no rock guitarist can approach the technical sophistication of Classical or Be Bop guitarists.  What Harrison did, though, was to draw from such guitar masters to play masterful guitar, providing an aural bridge between the rather limited rock idiom and the more rarified terrain of formal music genres.  That he did so with immense style and grace ought to be given more due, in my view.
Otherwise, my kudos to all concerned. After all these years, the Beatles still sound like a very weird group of White Blokes with a strange sense of the universal groove and a way with words and melody: that such glorious weirdos as Prince, Outkast, and the more adventurous in Rap (i.e. Danger Mouse's "The Grey Album") openly allude to Fab Four show without doubt that despite having played "all those years ago," the Beatles did indeed carry that weight, so to speak.  And in this contributor's mind, the Beatles very likely attained what John Lennon suggested they aspire to on the rooftop jam on "Get Back":  "I hope we pass the audition." Yeah, yeah, yeah John, Paul, George, and Ringo, indeed you did.
:A couple of comments; if you can find third party/published references to back up your comments then you should have a go at editing the George Harrison article, it could do with a serious appraisal of Georges musical skills - just remember that it is an encyclopedia and not an essay for musicologists. Another is influences and suchlike; my influences and tastes are (IMHO) impeccable, but my guitar playing is lousy as my physio-mechanical and nervous systems are unable to work the instrument proficiently. George was perhaps not as technically talented as some of his peers, however within those "limitations" his work and sound was outstanding. Flash/fast fretwork is often mistaken for virtuosity....
:Lastly, sign your comments!LessHeard vanU 20:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: COMPLIMENTS and QUALIFICATIONS:

message: I removed the following passage from the "History" section, sub "Beatlemania";
:"Capitol Records quickly provided WMCA 570 special "I Want To Hold Your Hand" picture sleeves for their listeners. The sleeves, which contained the WMCA goodguy air personalities on the flip side were provided to thank WMCA in playing "I Want To Hold Your Hand" first on December 26."
since it interrupted the flow of the piece - and was not that crucial to the progression of Beatlemania (being a thank you after the initial event). It is, I feel, worthy of noting in a relevant article, perhaps under a miscellenea heading (I dislike "trivia" as a title) - but where? Perhaps there should be (or is?) an article for "factoids", "inforphans" and the like that need recording? Naturally, there should be the same requirement for references and sources.LessHeard vanU 21:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could put trivia like that in as a footnote using <ref> tagging... ++Lar: t/c 22:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can? Good! ...er, how? Exactly?LessHeard vanU 22:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely WP:FN can help. I don't think it's a good idea, though. IMO, something is either worth mentioning in the body of the article or it isn't. This fits in better in a subpage or the song article. Johnleemk | Talk 05:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miscellenea 

message: ??? -dragong4
:Actually, I couldn't either. I clicked on it, saved it, opened it. But then this box came up and said "Can't open because we don't know who is hosting it." or something along those lines. TommyBoy76 02:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm am curious myself. --TommyBoy76 23:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Am I the only person who can not open the song samples? 

message: What do we think about allowing a "Trivia" section? The new addition is of high quality, but I'm concerned it will become a magnet for, well, trivia! :) The article is long enough already, and we have to exclude important information for the sake of brevity, so can we afford the luxury of letting crap sneak in? --kingboyk 22:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Put it in a separate article perhaps. We're going to get it all the time anyway, maybe channel it off? ++Lar: t/c 22:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did think about that possibility... happy we're on the same track. We maybe ought to go back to the idea of having a subcategory for trivia too, as we discussed before - in which such things as The Beatles Barkers can live (what's the name? the links I try turn red!) --kingboyk 22:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Trivia sections are unencyclopedic. As I said above, something is either worth including in the article body, or it is not. If something deserves to be in the article, putting it in a trivia section is a sign of poor writing. Johnleemk | Talk 06:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with that in general - although I agree that this article doesn't need a trivia section. Trivia sections are valuable additions to many articles that allow pop-culture and other tidbits to be included - connecting a topic to everyday experience for many readers, which is valuable, without cluttering up the body of the article. - DavidWBrooks 10:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: The date format I discovered is inconsistent.  As we follow British format, the date should also follow the British format so the date should be 25 May, 2006 instead of May 25, 2006.  Should we start work on making the dates consistent? Steelbeard1 11:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure... I think there may be a technical issue in that dates maybe get reformatted automatically depending on user settings. Lar? Anyone? If there is no such thing and I just invented it, we should go with British format. If there is such a technical feature we should format in the correct way for the software to understand. Consistency is certainly paramount. --kingboyk 11:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:DATE for more than you probably want to know about this - a full date fully formatted (e.g., October 15, 1955) should automatically show up following your preferences; that's why such dates get formatted. An unformatted date (October 15, 1955) will obviously not change, nor will a partially formatted date (October 15, 1955}. - DavidWBrooks 11:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date format