Talk:The Beatles/Archive 13

message: In my weekly housekeeping I noticed the "studio years" and "after The Beatles" sections are a bit thin on references. We'd be well served to buck these up a notch. Let's get this article back up to FA! Raymond Arritt 22:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Insert formula here
The only song that was truly written 50/50 was I wanna hold your hand —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blarga2 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And you are really interesting. ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 21:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only song that was truly written 50/50 was I wanna hold your hand. 2, Blarga, "Wikipedia Talk Page Post", 28 February 2007, p666. Retrieved never. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kingboyk (talk • contribs) 22:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Mr. Blarga2 (is there a Blarga1?): Who was there to write down that Lennon wrote 50% of the music and 50% of the lyrics, and that McCartney wrote the other 50% of the music and 50% of the lyrics? Are we saying that Lennon wrote "I", McCartney wrote "wanna" and Lennon wrote "hold", and so on? Did they contribute 50% of the chords each? This is an insane waste of time, as it only fuels tripe like "Who was your favourite Beatle?" Good grief, words fail me... ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 21:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Lighten up Andreasegde it's just a fan page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pipa1 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul filled in as a drummer while in Hamburg 

message: Congrats on keeping the GA status by the way... Anyone know how the GAR can be added to the article milestones box? --kingboyk 13:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did it. --kingboyk 13:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAR in the article milestones box 

message: Someone brought up the question of which recording session was first. Per Lewisohn's "The Complete Beatles Chronicles": From EMI paperwork uncovered in 1991 it is clear that this session [6 June 1962] - now known to have been held in studio two from 7.00 until 10.00 pm - was not only an audition but also a proper recording date, the Beatles' first under their 4 June contract with the company. Raymond Arritt 17:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First recording session 

message: A section about Elvis was removed today with an edit summary that said, "no historical interest." A lot of things happened during and after the career of the Beatles, and so the Elvis incident may not be worthy of inclusion in this article. On the other hand, Elvis is of particular interest in general because (A) he was the prior king of the hill and (B) he was a hero to the Beatles (esp. John and Paul circa 1956-1957). John said he "worshiped [Elvis] the way people worshiped the Beatles." In John's 1980 Playboy interview, Elvis is mentioned on more pages than anyone else except Yoko and the other Beatles, and most of the references to Elvis were positive with the exception of John referring to his "fat Elvis" period. Anyway, I won't restore that information because I don't have a citation for it and I don't feel strongly enough to contest it. I will say that "no historical interest" is an exaggeration. John Cardinal 01:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Elvis was very important to that band from Liverpool. Maybe you should put in a bit about Elvis talking to Richard Nixon and saying that they (that band from Liverpool) should be banned from performing in America because they were a dangerous influence on the nation's youth. This may sound unbelievable, but it's true... ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 17:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A section with that information was removed by an anonymous editor (User:71.252.218.219), and my comment was in response to that. John Cardinal 21:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it should go in. Now... where did I see that reference? Hmmm... (Sound of things in attic being thrown about...) ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 18:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I found the link to the diff. It seems to be properly cited, but I think the best thing to do is condense it and merge it into the relevant section. Backlash and controversy, maybe? ErleGrey 21:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Elvis section 

message: John Lennon officially quit the band in September 1969, so there has to be an argument for saying that is when the band ceased to be active. While 'I Me Mine' was recorded in January 1970 this was just a token act by the rump of the band after John left. Effectively the band split in 1969, as that autumn all four ex-Beatles all started on the first tentative steps in their solo careers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.137.207.185 (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think generally it's accepted that the band "broke-up" when Paul launched the lawsuit (thus, Paul being blamed for the break-up, or rather being one of the classic culprits along with Yoko). You are factually correct (which should ideally be followed in wikipedia), but I'm wondering in this case there needs to be an exception, or at least both bits of info need to be included with some additional text on there being no specific moment of break-up, just a series of events (the popular consciousness version of events, vs. the facts at hand. Lennon rarely gets the blame for ending the Beatles). Freshacconci 21:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Except that Harrison (and Lennon?) had already recorded "solo" albums before then. Where for all intents and purposes Lennon did not work with the band some time before the band ceased activities he was still representing himself as being part of the group until the official split. The rancour which greeted Macca's announcing the split, and subsequent comments by Lennon (mentioned in WP articles), documents this well. LessHeard vanU 22:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This is true! So "official" version it is (sorry Paul). Freshacconci 22:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: They were still the Beatles between tours, recording sessions, rehearsals, and songwriting. The apparatus of the band did not to be immediately functioning for the band to exist, if it was potentially viable then it existed (and all members who had not left were considered part of it) then it only ended with the announcement of the split. Further, both Harrison and Starr had left the band previously and had come back; it was possible that Lennon would have done the same if the circumstances had changed. LessHeard vanU 15:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly! It's only over when the Ref blows his whistle! Bill Shankly
=== Partial Studio Re-union ===
This was covered earlier, and the discussion can be found in Archive 12. To summarise; it was never publicised as a re-union by the surviving members (it seems to be a media invention) and the  Lennon songs used were written post Beatles split and were never considered by him as Beatles songs. The agreement was that Free As A Bird/Real Love should be mentioned in context in the article body, but not as a re-union of any sort in the userbox. Comments, of course, are welcome. LessHeard vanU 22:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, they are Beatles songs as far as all members of the fab four were involved (which some Beatles songs didn't in their active period) but what are the songwriting credits? I assume that they are "Lennon". If it wasn't a cover version then all Beatles songs were credited to Lennon/McCartney. In the end, however, if the (then) three surviving band members and the widow of the deceased member say it is a Beatles record then it is a Beatles record... ;~) LessHeard vanU 00:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Good question. Is it Lennon, Lennon-McCartney, or the Fabs? Who gets the dosh then? andreasegde 12:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Years active 

message: This was covered earlier, and the discussion can be found in Archive 12. To summarise; it was never publicised as a re-union by the surviving members (it seems to be a media invention) and the  Lennon songs used were written post Beatles split and were never considered by him as Beatles songs. The agreement was that Free As A Bird/Real Love should be mentioned in context in the article body, but not as a re-union of any sort in the userbox. Comments, of course, are welcome. LessHeard vanU 22:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they are Beatles songs as far as all members of the fab four were involved (which some Beatles songs didn't in their active period) but what are the songwriting credits? I assume that they are "Lennon". If it wasn't a cover version then all Beatles songs were credited to Lennon/McCartney. In the end, however, if the (then) three surviving band members and the widow of the deceased member say it is a Beatles record then it is a Beatles record... ;~) LessHeard vanU 00:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Good question. Is it Lennon, Lennon-McCartney, or the Fabs? Who gets the dosh then? andreasegde 12:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partial Studio Re-union 

message: Hi all!
Relatively new to Wikipedia, so I just want to follow up on a few changes to the Hamburg section of the Beatles page, sound out a bit exactly what the criteria have been for editing/deleting some bits I added recently on this part of the article.
So, I felt the Hamburg section looked a little thin as far as reflecting its importance in their career (check the "Reeperbahn" entry on Wikipedia - John goes as far as to say that while he was born in Liverpool, he did his growing up in Hamburg). This phase is where they honed their live act in front of ruthlessly critical audiences, and, a little more trivially perhaps, where they picked up the haircut they made famous.
Anyway, a quotation I added from Julian Cope's book Krautrocksampler was deleted a few times. I'm just curious - was the citation not correctly done? My addition seems to have been regarded as a copyright violation... Again, I'm relatively new here, so I'm not insisting, just kinda wondering.
Also, two smaller things that got deleted were the correction of Stu Sutcliffe's girlfriend's name, Astrid "Kirchherr" - a glance at the article I linked it to should clarify that. And the reference to the scene in the Reeperbahn district of Hamburg. This is a district with a widely known reputation for sleaziness and violence. It seems that cutting their teeth on stages in this particular place is kind of an interesting element in their early development. Again, a glance at the "Reeperbahn" entry I linked should verify the general info. -- This is, as it seems to me indeed quite general stuff, hardly the stuff of copyright infringement...
Cheers!
John the revelator 19:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What got removed was the myth that Astrid K was the one that fashioned their hairstyle. While she did indeed cut their hair on occasion it was someone else who gave them the distinctive haircut. The references for this are from various Beatles authorities and Astrid herself. LessHeard vanU 20:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It appears that the material from the Julian Cope book is the problem. It does seem to be Copes opinions and understandings rather than sourced fact and, together with the mistake identified re haircuts, it isn't a good enough authority. However, the German language versions of Beatles songs could be put back in. LessHeard vanU 23:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: World shut your mouth! As far as I'm aware, Cope is something of an authority on Krautrock, and an opinionated rock critic whose site is worth a read. I'm not aware that he's noted for any expertise on the Beatles though... --kingboyk 23:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Read It In) Books. An authority on Krautrock, Scott Walker and leylines, I understand. Opinionated, oh yes, but I prefer facts and I also am not aware of his expertise re the Beatles. The remark regarding Astrid Kirchherr makes me doubt it. LessHeard vanU 21:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hamburg 

message: I've added a link to the above in the "see also" section; I was encouraged to add links from other articles.
Apepper 20:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added link to [[The Beatles' influence on music recording]] 

message: In january's archive there was a section on why skiffle should clearly be mentioned at the top - If I can't find it again I'll have to try and remember its sources.
Lkk8998 08:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Skiffle

message: Amazingly, this article doesn't seem to mention the Stones at all, despite their parallel careers during the 60s and the close association between them (Lennon even said they timed their releases so as not to clash). The Beatles or The Stones, that was the question wasn't it?! :) As an interrim measure I've added them to the See Also list, I think it's as relevant as most other See Also items ever are. --kingboyk 22:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was George Harrison who advised Dick Rowe (the Decca executive who turned down The Beatles) to look at the Stones who became Decca artistes as a result and the Stones' first British hit was a cover of a Beatle song, "I Wanna Be Your Man." Steelbeard1 01:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes indeed. Funnily enough I was listening to Oobu Joobu earlier where Paul recounted the story of "I Wanna Be Your Man" and played the Stones' version. On a side note, good to see you old friend! --kingboyk 01:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel likewise.  I recall a documentary about "British Rock: The First Wave" which included a performance of "I Wanna Be Your Man" by The Rolling Stones in which the narrator said that the Stones' version was 'hardly an imitation.' Steelbeard1 02:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: FWIW, agree the worth of throwing in some stuff about the Stones and other acts with whom the Beatles intertwined. There's a little bit on cross-influences with Dylan and the Beach Boys (which could be expanded a bit) but nought on the Stones. If I remember rightly it was Lennon who asserted (think it was in the 1980 Playboy interview) that Jagger and Richards watched him and McCartney dash of a song in no time flat and decided "if they can do it, so can we". Cheers, Ian Rose 06:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Rolling Stones]]