Talk:All My Loving

message: This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it.  Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed.  I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy.  In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright.  If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally.  Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 04:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube links 

message: The image :Image:Withthebeatlescover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Withthebeatlescover.jpg

message: the musical moves and chords don't fit the to the genre at all, it is probably simpley rock or pop rock  Pilmccartney (talk) 07:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, Paul Mccartney was not a rock and roller 88.116.133.170 (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The genre can not be just rock n roll 

message: In order to find some common ground for a new consensus by addressing above concerns, I would offer some personal opinions and welcome discussion.
I think some music/composition analysis is suitable for Beatles music. The end of the article would be a good place.
As a personal comment to Beatles compositions, I find the base-line contrasting the chordal structure interesting. I believe that this fits "Articles about songs should contain information on important musical characteristics such as *structure (chorus/verse/bridge)".
I find
*"pandiatonic clusters",
*"aeolian cadences"
*"The sense of hope and love is musically assisted by a 8-7-6-5 (A-C#/G#-F#m7-A/E) root movement and a IV-♭VII-I cadence that, as Pedler puts it..."\
*"Simon Leng said the song's theme is doubt and uncertainty."
*"an unabashedly straightforward and sentimental love song" at a time "when most of the Beatles' songs were dealing with non-romantic topics or presenting cryptic and allusive lyrics even when they were writing about love"
are all too subjective/un-due weight to be in a general encyclopedia article.
I find
*"The lead vocalist for "Something" was Harrison. The song runs at a speed of about sixty-six beats per minute and is in common time throughout. The melody begins in the key of C major. It continues in this key throughout the intro and the first two verses, until the eight-measure-long bridge, which is in the key of A major. After the bridge, the melody returns to C Major for the guitar solo, the third verse, and the outro.Pollack, Alan W. (1999). "Notes on 'Something. Retrieved 27 August 2009. Although The Beatles had initially attempted an edgier acoustic version of the song, this was dropped along with the counter-melody. A demo of the acoustic version with the counter-melody included was later released as part of Anthology 3. On the final release, the counter-melody was replaced by an instrumental break, and the song was given a softer tone with the introduction of a string arrangement by George Martin, the Beatles' producer."
much more objective and well cited.
I think that
*"The Song is in the key of E major and begins on "Close you eyes..." with a ii-V-I-vi- chord structure"
should not frighten people reading an article about music.
I agree with Patthedog ("Exactly. It reads like an essay on particle physics.") that
*"The additional ♭VII (D chord) converts the vocal melody notes on 'always be true" (C#, D, D#) into a three-semitone ascending harmonic (being respectively a 5th, root and major 3rd of the simultaneous ii (F#m), ♭VII (D) and V7 (B7) chords."
although referenced, it is beyond what is readable in a general encyclopedia. In the rare case when this type of information might be useful, it could be in a footnote.
So, in summary, yes to a brief, cited, objective music/composition analysis section at the end of the article. jmcw (talk) 12:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that’s good, I agree with all of the above, and It could form the basis of some basic ground rules.--Patthedog (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with everything except the placement of the section; and I feel we should again look to the FA example for guidance on that. On the other side, if NimbusWeb cannot accept this latest good-faith attempt at consensus-building (and their most recent edit indicates that they may not), then that would be unfortunate. Claims of having too small of a consensus are not in line with the options for outside opinions that were plainly pointed out and not followed, and those options should still be exercised by NimbusWeb if they desire to do that. I hope NW will come around and work with the many others that watch and contribute to this article. Doc talk 00:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

text: I am still hoping for input from NW. jmcw (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's what we are all waiting for now.--Patthedog (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

text: A "magical moment" is certainly up for interpretation: see WP:NPOV. Doc talk 08:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I liked parts of the deleted section. I learnt something new- about the guitar solo or the harmonies in the 3rd verse, cool to pick up on that when I listened to the song again203.206.76.118 (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I’m no expert at this, but aren’t those last two anonymous posts ip related? Perhaps they could just declare so we can better gauge it in terms of overall numbers.--Patthedog (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: They are both from the same IP provider: iiNet Limited, 502 Hay Street,Subiaco WA 6008, AU. Warmer than where I am too! jmcw (talk) 09:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

text: I live in Perth, Australia203.206.76.118 (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clearing that up for me, and thanks for your input. Right now I wish I lived in Perth, it’s literally freezing here! Cheers --Patthedog (talk) 07:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Mmm…why don’t you all create accounts for yourselves instead of leaving these anonymous comments - which could arouse suspicion - and that way you could genuinely become part of the discussion? --Patthedog (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Muppets? Doc talk 00:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We could be Statler and Waldorf; I think I'd quite like that.--Patthedog (talk) 08:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common ground for a new consensus 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on All My Loving. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130819100555/http://www.billboard.com/charts/1964-07-04/hot-100 to http://www.billboard.com/charts/1964-07-04/hot-100
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It seems to me there was a single released in the U.S. in 1965 or maybe 66.  Never a hit - not as good as the Beatles, and everyone had THAT one by then.  But it did chart.  Can't remember who it was by - sure it's not Matt Munro.  Anyone? --Daveler16 (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coveer Versions 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on All My Loving. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930014351/http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/tm_objectid%3D16451061%26method%3Dfull%26siteid%3D66633%26headline%3Dour-part-in-the-death-of-legend-john-lennon-name_page.html to http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/tm_objectid%3D16451061%26method%3Dfull%26siteid%3D66633%26headline%3Dour-part-in-the-death-of-legend-john-lennon-name_page.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I shortened the About hatnote template because it was getting a bit crowded. I put the links in a DAB page and linked it to the hatnote template, only leaving the info about The Beatles' song itself (i.e. the subject of this WP article) in the hatnote template 
There were three additional links: two were links that had about 25 views each in the past 30 days, and the other was the All My Loving EP (also by The Beatles), which had about 12% of the views that this article did (~561 vs ~4441 in the past 30 days). It's not a lot, but it's not insignificant. If anybody wants it added back, or has any additional comments, please drop a line here. Thanks! Big universe (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Hatnote template