Talk:The Beatles/Archive 1

message: Is there a list of instruments that each member played?  I have been looking all over for one and haven't found any yet.  HELP, I'm interested!  User: ClareS
*The answers you need are in an awesome book  , which lays out who plays what on each track, and gives terrific analysis and insight. Kingturtle 21:49 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)
*But you could basically say John-rhythm guitar; Paul-bass guitar; George-lead guitar; and Ringo-drums.  I believe there are some sites that offer details on every single individual guitar and such...or at least there used to be. --Lora 21:38, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: John also plays bass in "Back in the USSR", "Hey Jude" and "The Long and Winding Road," in which, if you listen closely, you can hear a few mistakes. You can even hear McCartney smile at him in one moment.
My hearing's never been that good... :) CaseyBennetto 13:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: You can hear him smile because he sings at the moment, so you can hear slight shift in his voice. I would never notice this trivia but I remember to read it in some book than checked it out and I must say it is true. But as I now checked it again I must say it is not notable enough so I will remove the mention from wiki. If anyone interested the exact moment in song is 2:59 i believe --Josef Sábl cz 08:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Instruments

message: "Also note: The early Beatles albums were originally released as monaural recordings. They were later remastered as artificial stereo with vocals on one side and music on the other side, much to the disgust of fans. The CD's of those early albums restored the original mono."
--None of mine did, including Sgt Pepper's and Abbey Road; I had them all except Beatles for Sale and The Yellow Submarine, but I bought them in the early 90s so the mastering on them may have changed.  It wasn't obvious when listening to them on a small CD player, but it was on one with the speakers on separate sides of the room.  I'm not sure I felt disgust so much as incomprehension.
Listening to "Baby you can drive my car" off Rubber Soul now, I hear Paul, rhythm guitar, the bass, and the drum set and tambourines (but not the cowbell) on the left, and John, George, piano, a cowbell, and lead guitar on the right.  Oh, and the bass is on the right too, but not nearly as loudly as on the left.
----
 Rubber Soul was recorded in stereo, and I don't count it as an early album
----
:::Rubber Soul is generally considered as "the bridge" between their earlier and later periods... Wyss 16:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure when the above was written, and I agree with the general gist, but the last statement is no longer true:  . . . and I'm also not sure about the statement about mixed in stereo first, then "an easy mono mix"; several histories indicate that right through Sgt. Pepper, the main effort was in the mono mix with the stereo mix left as a quick afterthought. Jgm 11:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mono and stereo?

message: 1971-1979 seems to be missing. Surely something of interest happened
after the release of Let it Be and before John Lennon's death?
Dominus 04:07, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing years

message: Is there no listing of beatles songs somewhere?  Usually Wikipedia has the most useful of list articles for different things, some fan here want to help edit one?  I created the link... The_Beatles_song_list to start. --ShaunMacPherson 12:24, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Beatles song list?

message: rv to last edit by TUF-KAT. If any of jerryb's stuff was meant to be usable it's a pity, but given that he or she was messing around with the joke stuff about the Rutles it's easier to just revert the whole lot. If you use an article as your personal playground and joke book it badly diminishes your credibility when trying to add serious data - people do not have time to sort your amusing pranks out from real life. So, it;s all reverted. Try again with a more serious attitude perhaps? 82.35.17.203 07:41, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Jerryb's edit

message: ----
what ChicXulub said was right...there are no pictures of the beatles together! so, how about this picture?
it would also be great if you COULD rewrite the page ChicXulub. ok, i gotta go.
--Libra girl 00:37, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have anything to comment about the portrayal of the Beatles therein, but:
# BMPs are very large. Perhaps you could upload a JPEG version of the image? The quality lost is very minimal.
# Is that image in the public domain? If not, is it copyrighted? If it's copyrighted, are we allowed to claim usage of it as fair use? We're in trouble as it is with one particular album cover that posed enough problems for the Beatles' record label. I'm not too sure if using even more copyrighted images would be such a good idea.
Just some thoughts. Johnleemk 14:49, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  i agree with ChicXulub...... 

message: Just FYI, to cut down the article size, I've split off much of the history from this article and put it at History of the Beatles. Johnleemk 08:20, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then use your own judgement. Be bold. ;-) Johnleemk 13:27, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: History Split-off

message: Someone dropped in:
Certainly they are one of the most successful, with global sales exceeding 1.3 billion albums (as of 2004), however the wildly popular-Irish band, U2 has proven to only recently supercede their global popularity.
I don't know about you, but I fail to see the relevance of this. We don't comment that Madonna has outsold Frank Sinatra in his article. Johnleemk | Talk 09:49, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed U2 Comment

message: The following text (it is below the members' photographs) seems to be repeating information expressed earlier:
:Originally a high-energy pop band (typified by the early singles "Twist and Shout" and "Please Please Me"), the Beatles, as they progressed, modified their style, influenced by Bob Dylan, Chuck Berry, the Everly Brothers, Goffin and King, and the pop-music world in general. Their popularity, very high in the UK after their return from Hamburg, Germany (where they played long hours, added muscle to their delivery, and honed their sound) was aided by their attractive looks, distinctive personalities, and natural charisma; they came across particularly well on television, as evidenced by their thunderous reception when they appeared on The Ed Sullivan Show and others.
I hope someone can edit it, merge it, or something. Thanks.
--Cantus 09:16, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundant intro

message: It's Elvis that has sold 1.3 billion records world wide, The Beatles have sold 1.1 billion, MadonnaFan 17:31, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 1.3 Billion

message: There appear to be a number of articles about the Beatles, and I get the distinct impression that too many people have set out to write new articles about them instead of amending existing ones. I don't think we should duplicate material, and one article or another needs cutting hard to avoid it. In particular this one should not have history information which already appears elsewhere. I am going to suggest that any information appearing in other articles should be replaced here by links to them, not summarised, repeated etc. This will mean a lot of cutting and scandalise a lot of people, but we really can't go down the line of being knee deep in Beatle articles all rehasing substantially the same information. Anyone who objects to this article being edited as suggested, speak now???
:That is how Wikipedia works — we don't centralise information. Pages share the information. The idea is that we summarise the key facts and include a link to the main article if people want to know more; that is what was done with the History section here. You can see this concept being used in articles like Malaysia and Battle of the Somme, just to name two. And very few articles on the Beatles restate information, from what I can see. And in any case, most of our articles on them contain information that would be too troublesome to merge. Johnleemk | Talk 14:41, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many articles on the Beatles??

message: I don't see anything in the music section about the obvious shift in lyrical content, and the general change in style before and after touring, first evident on Revolver in 1966. Early lyrics were full of me, you, love, simple themes very similar for example to the work of The Hollies around 1963-4. It does appear that not having live performances to prepare and tours to go on left The Beatles putting their full energies into the recording studio which inevitably had an impact on the music. It also appears that from around late 1968 there was something of a reversion to earlier patterns (for example Happy Birthday on the white album).
I very nearly wrote some of this on the page, but I gather there is particular sensitivity about altering this article, so I am posting it here as a suggestion instead. How about some comments on the lyrics, and on how touring affected the music before and afterwards??
:Sure. There's nothing to eb afraid of, even if this is a featured article. Be bold. Johnleemk | Talk 13:52, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: lyrics? before/after touring?

message: OK guys, as suggested have now had a go at this. I'm very conscious of not being able to write wonderfully learned stuff about major seventh chords, but it did seem to me that nothing had been said about this area and I thought it needed saying. I resisted any temptation to include links. If well-up musical people who have obviously been working on this can improve on what I've written that would be very nice :-)
:Nice work. Looks great. :-D Johnleemk | Talk 12:50, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: touring/lyrics edit - done

message: Someone changed "the most influential" to "probably the most influential" in the lead.  To which I say pshaw.  Are there really other candidates?  Adding words like "probably" to an article is the worst possible way to approach NPOV because it serves no purpose other than to water down statements that are being made anyway and reduce the usefulness of the article as a reference to anyone.  I could see adding a qualifier -- perhaps they were "the most influential popular music group", or "the most influential western music group" (actually I think the original statement is more true than either of these but it's at least worth discussing), but not "probably", please.  I've reverted for now, will be watching here for discussion. Jgm 14:45, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influence 

message: I think wikipedia could use an article on Beatlemania, rather than the current redirect here. Between the phenomenon and the band "BeatleMania" (probably the most famous tribute band in the world) there's certainly enough for an article, if not two separate ones. -R. fiend 18:07, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Johnleemk | Talk 06:53, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Beatlemania

message: I merged an article on the Beatles catalogue with this article and someone has reverted it to the original rather folksy style.  It needs some cleanup if someone else would like to volunteer--I won't simply revert because I don't fancy getting involved in an edit war on my own. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:32, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The catalogue

message: Am I the only one who thinks all those recently added song samples look a bit out of place on the main Beatles' page?  --DaveGorman 22:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are a few too many samples in the list. Perhaps they can be added into the main article? ~~Shiri —  Talk~~ 21:08, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
So is anyone going to object if I remove them? --DaveGorman 17:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Song samples 

message: Although that edit had me laughing at first, it's just not accurate.  That sentence was a cumbersome run-on to begin with so I tried to make it flow a bit better.  Ringo Starr has writing credits on six published Beatles songs (Dig it, Don't Pass Me By, Flying, Maggie Mae, Octopus's Garden, What Goes On) as well as a myriad of other unpublished tunes from the Get Back sessions that are available on film or bootleg.The Bob Talbot 03:48, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ringo Starr's "one song"

message: According to Manual of Style article, song titles should be written like this: "Yesterday"; not Yesterday --Josef Sábl cz 12:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, It took 10 secs with text editor, just search and replace ;-) Anyway, thanks for revising an article, it now looks really nicer --Josef Sábl cz 15:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Song titles 

message: It's not clear in the aricle onThe Beatles 1 whether the sales figues quoted are for the U.S. or the whole world. Could someone clarify it please? 82.35.34.11 00:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sales of "1"

message: Substituted at 20:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment