Talk:In My Life

message: The article states that the melody of "In My Life" was inspired by The Miracles' song "The Tears of a Clown." Problem is that the latter song was released two years after "In My Life" was released. Unless a source can be cited which can prove to the contrary of what a logical timeline would dicate then that portion of the article should be removed.
In his(and Barry Miles') book, 'Many Years From Now', McCartney says: 'I said, "Well, you haven't got a tune, let me just go and work on it". And I went down to the half-landing, where John had a mellotron, and I sat there and put together a tune based in my mind on Smokey Robinson and the Miracles. Songs like 'You've really got a hold on me' and 'Tears of a clown' had really been a big influence.'
From this you see that McCartney doesn't necessarily say these two songs SPECIFICALLY influenced him to come up with music for 'In My Life'; he just names a couple of The Miracles' songs of the 60s that were of general inspiration to him and the Beatles.
I don't know 'Tears of a clown', but 'You've really got a hold on me', which The Beatles did cover on 'With the Beatles' in 1963, does sound like something that could inspire a chap to come up with 'In My Life'.
84.208.203.173 16:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tears of a Clown

message: the bridge is listed ending with "IV iv I" - not sure if someone figured the music out or if its' taken from some official source, but the sound doesn't appear to use the IV at this point, just going straight to the minor iv.  Also, just a question if anyone knows as to what actual chord V2-of-IV would be for this particular key (a maj). Thanks. TheHYPO 22:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musical notes 

message: The first line of the song - many sites list "There are places I'll remember", but the track sounds like it's just "I remember". Is there an official source on what the actual lyric is (or other recordings to confirm one or the other?) TheHYPO 22:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lyric? 

message: Somebody added that 'In My Life' was played at Kurt Cobain's funeral, which I've cited. I've read a few books about Kurt Cobain and Nirvana that were written posthumously, and I've never come across this information. It may very well be true, but I'd be interested in seeing a source. --Strawberry Pudding Wings
The fact is in Everett True's Nirvana biography, which I've just cited. - Cakewalking 20:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kurt Cobain's Funeral?

message: This article does not include claims made in the lead, which should have references:
It was ranked 23rd on the Rolling Stone article "The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time", and was placed second on CBC's 50 Tracks. Mojo magazine named it the best song of all time in 2000. These are not in the article. --andreasegde 14:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: The chords of 'In My Life' may be similar to those of 'If I Fell', but as that song, according to McCartney, is also a co-composition(Lennon probably did the intro alone, though); bringing up the chords of 'If I Fell' in this article doesn't support either one of their cases, as to who contributed what to 'In My Life', I mean.
--84.208.227.164 16:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  If I Fell 

message: When John Lennon used the words 'play it like Bach', he used it as an example of what The Beatles would sometimes ask of George Martin.
I don't see any reason to interpret those words as what he told George Martin in this precise case. It seems like wishful thinking to me.
George Martin seems to remember that John didn't know what to fill those eight bars with, and that the whole solo was made on his own while The Beatles had a tea-break..
--84.208.224.234 (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recording 

message: In the "Recording" section, there is a quote by George Martin: "Play it like Bach". This has to be cited immediately after the sentence. I'm not sure which source, 9 or 10, refers to that quote (if either do at all). Could someone please find a source for that quote and cite it. Thanks! Kodster (Willis)  (Look what I can do) 22:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Referencing

message: I can see a source for "pop", but the genres on that page are very generalised (I can find only "rock" and "pop"). If we just write "pop" here the same should be done with songs like God Only Knows also , and Bohemian Rhapsody should be changed to just "rock"  etc. I think it should be "baroque pop" because the piano solo is "something Baroque-sounding". Helpsloose 03:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: this isn't soft rock, it has too much depht and too much baroque stuff in it to be considered soft rock, baroque pop to rock are good phrases.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.250.70 (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is not what we think it is, it's what reliable sources, such as Allmusic, say it is. Rodhullandemu 21:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre 

message: This article doesn't describe the profound impact this song had on the musical industry, at all. Surely we can write something?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.28.233 (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impact 

message: How is this pop? Pop usually carries the definition (and connotation) of being a corny love song. This is anything but corny.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordsurya08 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's "pop" because it falls into the definition of pop when it was written in 1966, i.e. not classical and not jazz. We do not remove soured material without changing consensus, thanks. Rodhullandemu 16:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre 

message: Sundayclose,
I prefer your last version to your previous version. I do not dispute the fact that Lennon was at the origin of the song, McCartney himself stated it but the fact that Lennon would be undoubtedly the main creator of the song. This is why I originally intended to correct the article introduction. Lennon, in particular in his 1970 Rolling Stone interview, at a time when his feud with McCartney and his rejection of the Beatles myth, were very strong, had a tendency to overrate his own contributions. I recall that a few months later John credited the song 'Imagine' to his sole credit while it is so evident that, for the lyrics, he just borrowed the structure of one of Yoko's poem in 'Grapefruit'. So each time when a Lennon's claim is different from one of his collaborators, caution is necessary.
As Martin wrote in his Sgt Pepper book "Summer of Love", most of Lennon songs' vocal lines are based on very few notes (Listen again to A Hard day's night or Strawberry ("Living is easy with eyes closed ...) or Imagine), sometimes even only one single note
because Lennon was not the most imaginative musician and composer. He had other assets : he was a great singer (at least at the beginning of the Beatles) with much personality heard in his voice, he could be (not always) a good lyricist (his Across the Universe lyrics are appealing to me).
But when you listen to In my Life vocal line you hear many different notes therefore you can doubt if this vocal line was a Lennon creation. I am not saying that it is surely a McCartney melody, perhaps Lennon created it but doubtfulness is not forbidden. 
Despite what I have just written,
Lennon is my favourite artist ever. In particular I like much his voice which often moves me
but I am not a blinded fan. If I consider that one of his songs is weak, I won't hide it and I am cautious about any of his own claims.
I also don't think that McCartney has been completely honest about his own songs or contributions. Paul has not always been very fair to George Martin. For instance he said he wrote "In my life" melody but I have never heard him telling that Martin composed the piano solo (and played it at half speed). Certainly the piano solo is a small part of the song's music but such a beautiful piece therefore McCartney didn't write all the music of this song but "only" "most of" the music. That's a small difference but a difference. In Barry Miles's book, McCartney just ignores Martin (and Geoffrey Emerick and others).
If one hears either Lennon or McCartney, Martin's contribution to the Beatles' music is very very low while it isn't the case. Sure Martin is not the main writer of any Beatles's song (except the B-face of the film soundtrack album 'Yellow Submarine')
however 'Strawberry Fields Forever' or 'Eleanor Rigby' would be less beautiful songs without Martin's inputs.
Now I entirely subscribe with the new version of the article. John originated the song but the "motherhood" of the entire song is unknown and can't be attributed mainly to John (as it was in the previous version of this article) without much doubt. Perhaps it is mainly a Lennon song but one can't be adamant about it after McCartney statement in Barry Miles's 'Many Years From Now'.Carlo Colussi (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you acknowledge that the song originated with Lennon. All of your opinions and comments about disagreements about the authorship of other songs and Lennon's talents as a songwriter are entirely irrelevant to discussion of authorship of this song. Please read WP:SYN. Sundayclose (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

text: If you don't think your comments above about authorship of other songs and Lennon's talents as a songwriter are irrelevant, please tell us specifically how those comments could or should change the content about authorship of In My Life. Sundayclose (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

text: You avoided the question. How should anything you write about authorship of other songs change the content of the statement already in the article: "The song originated with John Lennon, but Paul McCartney and Lennon later disagreed over the extent of their respective contribution to that song, specifically the melody". So the article already states that Lennon and McCartney disagreed about authorship of In My Life. Please be very specific as to which words exactly should be changed and how they should be changed as a result of your wall of text above about other songs. What exactly should be changed because of your numerous comments about other songs and Lennon's talents as a songwriter? Sundayclose (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

text: Hold on. Look at the dates and times in the article's edit history and compare that to the date and time of your first post here. You wrote all of your first post above after the article stated: "The song originated with John Lennon, but Paul McCartney and Lennon later disagreed over the extent of their respective contribution to that song, specifically the melody". You even acknowledged that it is the current version as of the time you made your first post above. And that's what the article states right now. So it seems that you wrote the enormous amount of information about the authorship of other songs and Lennon's songwriting abilities because you wanted to change the article, right? And you said that you disagree with me that your comments about other songs and other matters are irrelevant, so by definition you think that your comments are relevant to needed changes in this article. WP:TALK states that the purpose of a talk page "is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article" (bold added). The talk page for In My Life is not a platform for an editor to discuss information that is not relevant to suggested changes in the article. So once again, what do all of your many comments about authorship of other songs and Lennon's songwriting abilities have to do with current changes needed in the article on In My Life? So far you haven't explained the least bit of relevance of your comments to needed changes in this article. And you didn't just write a sentence or two. You wrote a lot about other songs and other matters that don't seem to relate to this article. If your comments above have nothing to do with necessary changes in this article, please just tell us that and we can move on. Sundayclose (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creators of the song 

message: Bag-Of-Words analysis simply can't be used to refute or confirm the idea that Lennon wrote THE MUSIC, and it was puzzling for me to read that it COULD be useful in making that assessment. How? Music isn't words. So I read the source cited, and the source doesn't SAY that. The technique used is a PARALLEL to "bag of words" analysis, but one that counts transitions between notes and transitions between chords instead of counting words. Furthermore, it's not trustworthy until it is evaluated by known controls. Here is how you would do that. Take the complete list of musical works documented beyond doubt to have been composed by any known person who has never been so much as accused of plagiarism. Remove one work of music from that collection. Using all of the remaining works in the collection as the "known" sample to perform the analysis, does the analysis then show the single work that was removed from the collection to have been composed by that person? If yes, put the removed work back in the collection, and remove a different work. Repeat. If the person is known to have written 100 songs, there will be 100 possible sets of 99 songs that can be used as a sampling base to assess the sole omitted song. If these 100 tests confirm composition by that known person, you're on your way. Repeat for other prolific composers. Only if the method has a track record for ACCURATELY answering questions whose answer is known by other means, only then can we trust its answer for a question whose answer is genuinely not otherwise known. Without this kind of testing, "bag-of-words" or "bag-of-music" meets the very definition of junk science. We need to be sensitive to this. Junk science has probably wrongfully convicted as many innocent defendants as false eyewitness identifications. Junk science can defeat our attempts to engineer safer machines, bridges, highways, buildings, and this failure MAKES INNOCENT PEOPLE DIE A DEATH THEY DID NOT DESERVE. Since junk science is, therefore, morally the same as murdering random innocent people, scientific claims should be subject to the strictest scrutiny.74.64.104.99 (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Bewildering and Inaccurate reference to Bag-Of-Words analysis

message: This appears in the section Composition:
:In a 2018 study that used bag-of-words modelling, the melody was analyzed by Mark Glickman, Ryan Song and Jason Brown, and from this study, mathematician Keith Devlin reported a .018% probability of McCartney writing the song.[17] Glickman, Song and Brown themselves stated that: "Our model produces a probability of 18.9% that McCartney wrote the verse, and a 43.5% probability that McCartney wrote the bridge, with a large amount of uncertainty about the latter."
How could Devlin come to a probability of 0.018% of McCartney writing the song while Glickman, Song and Brown say their model produces a probability of 18.9% that McCartney wrote the verse, and a 43.5% probability that McCartney wrote the bridge? Can anyone reconcile that? John Link (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest deleting all of this bullshit posing as science. As Mark Twain said, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics". No one can determine authorship of a Beatles song by statistically analyzing the frequency of individual words. If Lennon and McCartney have different opinions, it's enough just to state that. Sundayclose (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent statements regarding probabilities? 

message: Twiggy sang it on The Muppet Show, does that count? Grassynoel (talk) 09:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cover versions 

message: May we add Judy Collins version here? I believe it should be noted. Turtleshell3 (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judy Collins 

message: Please see Lennon’s ‘Rolling Stone’ interview, where he complained about Martin’s ‘Elizabethan’ (sic) piano solo having been imposed without his entire agreement as the song’s middle eight. Lennon was not sufficiently educated in music to have identified, at the time, this pastiche passage as ‘Baroque’. Martin may have been inspired by the fourth chord of the song, which modulates to a major by sharpening the third, a Baroque ‘fingerprint’. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.209.157.246 (talk • contribs) 
:Are you suggesting an edit? If so, it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source. If you are not suggesting an edit, talk pages are only for discussion of improvements to the article and are not to be used for general discussion of the topic. Sundayclose (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baroque? 

message: Maybe some George Harrison expert can post about George covering the song on his 1974 tour. At one point in the song, George changes the lyrics to "In my life, I love God more." M.mk (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I entered this info on the article itself. M.mk (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I added to External Links a YouTube link to Geo's version. M.mk (talk) 01:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe McCartney attended a show on the tour in disguise (Afro wig?) and later said he would have stuck to the original arrangement. If someone wants to track that down... M.mk (talk) 02:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Harrison cover