Talk:The Beatles/Archive 9

message: Hi.  These sentences make it unclear who it was that wasn't talking to the rest of the band:
"McCartney could not dissolve his business with The Beatles easily, so this led to him suing the others so as to cut off all of his business interests with the group. Not speaking with the other band members until 1973, Lennon admitted to McCartney that they should have gone with the Eastmans' management"
I suspect that it was McCartney, but the sentence reads as though it was Lennon.  Can we confirm the details, and then ensure that we match up our adjectival clauses with our subject nouns?  In other words, don't fall into this mistake: "Found guilty of murder, the judge sentenced Smith to life imprisonment"Leeborkman 23:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found guilty of muder? andreasegde 17:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed now for clarity Leeborkman 11:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is interesting, Leeborkman. (Not an attack - I´m genuinely interested, honest guv...) How would you phrase the sentence? andreasegde 17:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, if it was Paul who didn't speak to the rest of the band, then something like this: "McCartney could not dissolve his business with The Beatles easily, so he took the matter to court, thus ending his business interests with the group. As a result, he was not on speaking terms with the other Beatles until 1973, when Lennon admitted to McCartney that they should have gone with the Eastmans' management".  If it was John who wasn't speaking to the others, then perhaps this: "McCartney could not dissolve his business with The Beatles easily, so he took the matter to court, thus ending his business interests with the group. Lennon did not speak about this until 1973, when he admitted to McCartney that they should have gone with the Eastmans' management".  I'd be happy to re-write this, but I actually don't know the details of the story, and I can't figure them out from reading what the article as it stands.  In fact, I think the best solution in the short term is to remove the part about "not speaking".  I'm going to do that right now.  Thanks.  Leeborkman 00:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "I'm going to do that right now", is a wonderful thing to say. Go, go, go... andreasegde 16:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breakup and Aftermath - poor grammar makes meaning unclear 

message: Okay dudes, we HAVE to put this thing in here. I mean if it's going to be an international holiday, like Martin Luther King Jr. Day then we HAVE to put this in here, you guys got three days to do it, or I'll put it in here myself. -The Bird —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.189.97.150 (talk • contribs) .
:For some reason, the article (John Lennon Day) has been deleted. See discussion here. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 05:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a rule, giving an ultimatum just makes people even less inclined to do something. Is it actually going to be an international holiday and do you have any proof?--Crestville 16:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Right, as I suspected it's a load of old nonsense (less than 4000 verified signatures since 2005). Thanks for clearing that up. --kingboyk 17:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it´s a clever ruse to have more holidays (which I totally agree with, BTW). Why not have a George Harrison Day, Mal Evans Day, Brian Epstein Day, The Cavern Day, Hamburg Day, Liverpool & Everton Day (ouch, Vera, Chuck and Dave!) The Beatles Day, "She/He loves you" Day (instead of St. Valentines day) Anymore...?  andreasegde 23:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's OK, we'll share a holiday with 'em, even if they do wear leather shorts and eat sausages! Vera, Chuck & Dave 16:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And what's wrong with wearing leather shorts and eating sausages?! :) Don't forget the beer also, mmm... --kingboyk 16:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You kinky swine! And you an Admin as well! Vera, Chuck & Dave 16:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I em liking ze fact zat Herr King-Bonking is like-ink ze good bier what vee are drinkin (Burp) and ze long, fat, wurstels. (Leder shorties are verry good for ze farting, I hope you are knowing. Please not answering...) I em Englander, so I am, but I heff picked up a teensy-weensy bit of a acck-cent. Sir Chumley-Warner 17:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: A Day In the Life Day, Good Sunshine Day, Tripper's Day (hmm....), the Week of Eight Days (with two Saturdays, natch), everyone's Birthday will be a legal holiday, Hard Night's Day, the list goes on and on Raymond Arritt 00:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhhh... I like that "everyone's Birthday will be a legal holiday" (for the person concerned). Now THAT´S a brilliant idea. My vote´s for that. andreasegde 11:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that one's a winner! --kingboyk 16:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It was yesterday, and the day before. You missed it :) andreasegde 18:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Lennon Day 

message: I've done a two-level reversion to correct several errors.  First, while SFF did not end up on Pepper, it's well attested that at the time of recording it had been intended for the next album (which eventually became Pepper).  Second, they returned to the studio on 24 Nov; the edit makes it appear that they returned to the studio on 6 Dec -- yes, I know the intent was to state that this was the first date they worked on a song that later appeared on Pepper, but that's not how it reads.  Finally, someone else's comments on drug are not needed because drugs already are mentioned (and there are other problems with the comments -- e.g., other insiders confirm that Lucy was indeed inspired by Julian's picture, not just "claimed" by John as if he were excusing away the drug influence).  Raymond Arritt 18:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert 

message: I edited out some details on the Let It Be video, such as where to find bootlegged versions and speculations on why it isn't available.   This is just one example of a problem that the article as a whole tends toward: it includes too many details and tangents that aren't central to the Beatles' story.  I think the article would be better (and maybe a contender for FA) if it was tightened up to be more concise and focused.  Raymond Arritt 02:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that it was an FA article. (See archive, or this page). andreasegde 16:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Let it Be video (and tangents generally)

message: I have noticed that the album Magical Mystery Tour did not appear on Rolling Stone's list of greatest albums despite that it contains some of the best and most beloved songs. Also it seems that Mystery Tour wasn't released in Britain. If so, was there a British counterpart that had these songs, or were they just singles there?–Clpalmore 3:41, 07 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Magical Mystery Tour was released in the UK as a double EP which is two 45 rpm records with three tracks on each record.  Capitol Records in the US chose to add The Beatles' 1967 singles and B-sides to make MMT an album.  If you would have truly read the article, Clpalmore, I wouldn't have needed to write the message I'm replying to. Steelbeard1 12:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is ''Mystery Tour'' considered an album? 

message: and much improvement. Nice work with the pictures too. Terrific. I was just wondering what had happened to the lovely White Album portraits though? --kingboyk 08:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They were taken out - then I put them back in - then they were lined up as one photo, and they´ve gone again. I looked through the history but I couldn´t find out who did it. What do you say that someone puts them back in again, and then waits with a large axe in a dark alleyway for unwelcome visitors? (I´m coming over all literary, like...) andreasegde 16:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have put them back in, although they may not be in exactly the right positions. --andreasegde 17:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job! I thought I was looking at the top of a Fabs fans user page! Vera, Chuck & Dave 17:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good.  The contrast between the early and later pics is nice. I especially like the fact that the early ones are in B&W while the later ones are in color.  That's probably metaphorical or something (never was too sure about them literary-type words). Raymond Arritt 18:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put them on one line a week or so ago, but some nerd removed them complaining of copyright breach and all the usual shit. Anyways , I hope they'll stay this time MrGater 17:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow, I see citations 

message: I beleive it should be mentioned that the Beatles played a concert at the Royal Albert Hall, especially since they mention it in one of their songs, "A Day in the Life".  I think that knowing that they played a concert at the Albert Hall is essential to understanding the meaning of that line. Also, it should definatley be included in the list of concerts played in the Albert Hall.  To back up my claim, go to "thebeatles.com" and click on "64' Beatlemania UK" under "The Beatles" at the bottom of the screen.
--I Am The Walrus 02:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. The Beatles did indeed play this venue on the 18th. April 1963 in “Swinging Sound ‘63”. Also featuring Del Shannon, Shane Fenton, Kenny Lynch, Rolf Harris and The Vernons Girls, it was a live radio broadcast that had a talented young actress called Jane Asher in the audience. Introduced later backstage to The Beatles the rest is history. Incidentally, there was an argument between Lennon and the BBC production team about the volume the band wanted to play at. Paul told John to be careful as they might not play their records. Del Shannon insisted on going on after The Beatles and got his way. The Beatles played a second date on 15th. September ’63 for the Great Pop Proms hosted by Alan Freeman. I don’t think that this is necessarily connected to understanding A Day In The Life.--Patthedog 19:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concert at Albert Hall 

message: Hi, I deleted this phrase a few days ago, but it has now re-surfaced, so I won't get into a revert-war ;-)  I have added a "citation needed", because this seems to be complete POV.  I certainly have never thought of the Beatles as creating a hybrid distinctly their own (certainly not "frequently"), and "came to be regarded" is a little slippery.  I guess I'm really looking for expert commentary that describes examples of the Beatles' "hybrid of multiple influences".  It's not obvious to me that they frequently created hybrids, ie that they mixed multiple influences in individual songs.  It seems more to me that they moved easily from style to style, without particularly hybridising them.  While the claim may be true, it is not obvious, and therefore needs references.  Thanks.  Leeborkman 07:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite well written, if you ask me. --212.241.67.98 18:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, just what is it that you consider "quite well written"?  Thanks for your response. Leeborkman 23:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "frequently distilling their multiple influences into a hybrid that came to be regarded as distinctly their own"? 

message: Recently, whilst working on the Please Please Me album, it occurred to me that they may be a better way of organizing The Beatles song titles. At the moment if you type in an album track you will (usually) arrive at an article dedicated exclusively to that song. Would it be better presented as part of the album it originally came from? That way the reader would be able to see it in context and would probably choose stroll around and hopefully enjoy a better understanding. It would need to be based on UK releases, but that was how they were recorded, and I think the purist would accept this as the template.  What do you think? --Patthedog 09:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the whole, yes, I think it would. Some songs have so much material they deserve to be chronicled seperately, but certainly I'd support losing many of the stubs we have about album tracks. --kingboyk 19:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do feel that The Beatles album tracks are in a bit of a mess. Some are just stubs as you say, and some articles are poorly written. I want to try (or we could try) and take one album to begin with (perhaps Beatles For Sale) and incorporate all of the track info that is currently stand alone, to within that article. That way all interested editors would be able to view the current state of affairs, and exercise quality control where necessary. I definitely think that by grouping the songs into their relevant (British) albums would improve quality. But, I’m not sure how to technically go about it. It would mean deleting existing articles once any useful information from it has been cut and pasted into the album article. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. BTW, this would be only be an experiment restricted to one album to see if is successful. Thanks.--Patthedog 11:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys, if I can offer another perspective... While I don't contribute a great deal to Beatles articles (Bowie, Roxy Music, Iggy Pop and the New Wave are more my scene) I do revert vandalism and make the odd gnomic update in this space every so often, so hopefully this'll be fairly objective... I think you have to consider the detail and flow you want in an album article before going for incorporating all song info there. Given The Beatles' perceived importance in the rock scheme of things I don't think it's unusual that practically every one of their songs has a wiki article. Pretty well every Bowie song has one and many are not (yet) to the standard of The Beatles' song articles (however they include a lot of live and cover version info that would clutter up the parent album articles if it were to be merged). Killing a lot of the individual song articles and throwing their details into the album articles might not necessarily improve overall quality. For instance, looking at the Beatles for Sale article mentioned earlier, I think it has a pretty decent amount of 'album context' song info already, with links to further data on the tracks if people are interested. On the other hand Please Please Me, also mentioned above, doesn't IMO have the mix right because there's subsections on each song with as much copy as the song articles themselves. In the case of Please Please Me the project has to decide whether the album track subsections are to be merged into the song articles or vice versa to provide the 'definitive' song info repository - my suggestion, contrary to what appears to be the prevailing mood in this thread, would be move most of the track subsection data from the album article to the song articles, lose the album subsections and only retain as much song detail in the album article as is really pertinent to a discussion of the record as a whole. Cheers, Ian Rose 15:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well written, Ian Rose, and some very good points. How about a few paragraphs? --andreasegde 21:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the Beatles For Sale album is well written. That is my point. It’s when you open any of the song titles (presumably written by someone else) that things get depressing. The thing is this: if you were to type in No Reply from the Wiki home page you wouldn’t even see any of the album context material (actually, I’ve just tried that, and it does direct you to the album. Bollocks!) Nevertheless, you might just want specific information about a single song, and the reader would be entitled to see (hopefully) a  well written factually accurate piece on that title. The way things are at the moment, the reader would be disappointed and even misinformed. Pull in all of the tracks, get them up to a reasonable standard, and then set them free. I’m not suggesting that it ought to be a permanent arrangement, but it would be one way of seeing what needs to be done all under one roof. I’m ranting aren’t I? --Patthedog 16:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, Patthedog, but there´s one thing that signifies (I corrected this for Patthedog - Bless him) a comment that a lot of people don´t read; no paragraphs. It´s hard on the eyes, and the thread of sometimes well-written comments are lost in the maze of black and white. How´s that for a bit of nice advice? Have fun. --andreasegde 08:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Andrea, nice to hear from you! Our cheerleader. Not sure what you’re on about, but it’s “signifies”. How’s that for a bit of advice. --Patthedog 16:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bugger - you caught me. How could I make a mistake like that? (Probably had a bit too much "fire-water"...) I shall make myself wear a hair shirt for the next week. (Ouch!) Well done. It´s 1-0 to you. Have fun. (P.S. I´m not a girl...)  --andreasegde 20:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonetheless you can still be the project cheerleader ;) --kingboyk 15:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What, me in a tutu with a pair of pom-poms? Not on your nelly. I´d get arrested before you could say Antidisestablishmentarianism. --andreasegde 15:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had to throw people in similar attire over me shoulder before- very fetching is tutu's and pom poms! Vera, Chuck & Dave 00:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album Tracks 

message: More citations/references. It won´t take long, and it will get rid of those annoying "No citations" headers. --andreasegde 15:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: We all do know of the existence of the project page and its corresponding talk page, right? I'm seeing a lot of discussion here that is not directly related to The Beatles (the article, not the band), but to the project itself. Please keep project-wide discussion on the project talk page. Thanks. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 02:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. Discussion here should be about the article. Chit chat and general project discussion should be over at (and is very welcome at) that current wilderness of a project talk page :) --kingboyk 15:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually there's no reason at all why you can't move misplaced threads to the correct page - just leave behind a link. That's perfectly acceptable. --kingboyk 15:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project page 

message: The current organisation of the article isn't that great, I must say.
Contents
[hide]
    * 1 History
          o 1.1 Formation and early years
          o 1.2 Hamburg
          o 1.3 Record contract
          o 1.4 America
          o 1.5 Beatlemania
          o 1.6 Backlash and controversy
          o 1.7 Studio band
    * 2 Changes in their music
    * 3 On film
          o 3.1 A Hard Day's Night and Help!
          o 3.2 Magical Mystery Tour and Yellow Submarine
          o 3.3 Let It Be
          o 3.4 Anthology
    * 4 Early Influences
    * 5 Later Influences
    * 6 The Beatles line-ups
    * 7 Instrumentation
          o 7.1 Microphones
    * 8 Discography
          o 8.1 Studio albums
          o 8.2 Official CD catalogue
          o 8.3 Song catalogue
          o 8.4 Song samples
                + 8.4.1 1965
                + 8.4.2 1966
                + 8.4.3 1967
                + 8.4.4 1968
                + 8.4.5 1969
    * 9 See also
    * 10 Notes
    * 11 References
    * 12 Further reading
    * 13 External links
Maybe we should try to integrate some sections in another. Early Influences , Later influences and Changes in their music should belong in a same section "Evolution of their music" or whatever.I think separating some parts from the "History" section into a new section could also be useful, as we have basically three parts :"History" "Music" and "Movies", which are quite light.
Of course this is only my opinion, maybe wikipedian experts have another ;)
MrGater 15:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion would be to fatten-up the articles as they are (with references, of course).--andreasegde 21:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganisation 

message: The Beatles trivia article was up for deletion a short time ago, and it survived. (16 July 2006
) It is now under threat of deletion again... The John Lennon article was also recently nominated for "speedy deletion" - which is unbelievable. Have the vandals learned how to be a Trojan Horse? --andreasegde 17:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Situation saved, thanks to Kingboyk. --andreasegde 19:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion

message: Can anyone verify for certain whether the Beatles actually used a Wurlitzer electric piano? I have never seen a studio photo of the band showing such an instrument, and Paul is reported as having been disappointed that the Fender Rhodes piano(s) given to the band in 1968 didn't have "the" sound. 
At the time, Wurlitzer pianos were not officially exported to the UK; the only well-known British player to use one at the time was Ian MacLagan, who bought a 1950s model second-hand, possibly imported by its original owner. 
Apart from the lack of a sustain pedal, the Hohner Pianet can sound remarkably close to a Wurlitzer; certainly all the "HELP!"-period electric piano tracks used a Pianet. The recordings which MAY feature a Wurlitzer seem to be "Getting Better", "I Am the Walrus", "Revolution" (single version) and "Come Together". The later electric piano recordings ("Get Back", "Don't Let Me Down", "The Long and Winding Road", "Dig a Pony", I've Got a Feeling", One After 909" and "She Came In Through the Bathroom Window") use Fender Rhodes, apart from Pianet on "For You Blue" and brief Pianet overdubs on "Let It Be". If the Beatles DID use a Wurlitzer, it must be the most elusive of all Beatles instruments...
User:butterfingersbeck 28-9-2006
:I have only found a reference to a Wurlitzer organ.  --andreasegde 08:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also never seen any solid evidence that they used a Wurlitzer electric piano.  During the Get Back / Let It Be sessions they complained that the electric piano at Abbey Road was old and unreliable, so it's plausible they could have rented a Wurlitzer at some point out of dissatisfaction with what was on hand. But that's just speculation. Raymond Arritt 06:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Instrumentation

message: There is an audio clip available of Hendrix playing Day Tripper, with lead vocals from what sounds like The Beatles, . Could have been a "Mine´s a scotch and coke" evening in the studio... Sources say that it was Noel Redding, but there are two voices on it, and the other one is not Hendrix. What´s the verdict? --andreasegde 07:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hendrix and The Beatles?