Talk:The Beatles/Archive 2

message: This has been created by an anon, but it's a bit orphaned at the moment - it could probably do with some cleanup too. sjorford →•← 08:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Breakup of The beatles]] 

message: Quoth the article: It focused on their hectic touring lifestyle and was directed in a black-and-white documentary style by an up-and-coming Richard Lester, who was already known for directing the television version of the Goon Show.
Now, I'm no Goons or Lester expert, but surely the only television version of the Goons (aside from the filmed recordings of some of the radio shows) was The Telegoons, which was a puppet show? I believe this has been confused with Lester's direction of The Running, Jumping, Standing Still Film, a short the Goons made in the late fifties.
I could be wrong though - as I said, I'm no expert. Thought I'd flag it up for attention from those who know more about these things. Angmering 19:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Richard Lester

message: It's a good idea, but I find the pictures to be of rather low quality. Besides, my personal opinion is that all Wikipedia pictures should be surrounded by boxes and have a caption (but that's probably just me). I propose we either get rid of them or find new ones that haven't been manipulated. Perhaps they could be repalced with pictures of each Beatle actually playing something?--Deadworm222 18:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I think the article may be a bit too heavy with pictures, anyway. Furthermore, the captions of some pictures are not up to par with the standards set by Wikipedia:Captions. Johnleemk | Talk 13:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images of the instruments 

message: I recently changed places where the beatles were reffered to by their first names to their last names. (See ). After doing so User:Wahkeenah wrote on my talk page:
:Not to quibble too much... but in their glory years the Beatles were commonly referred to in the media by their first names. You've done some possibly-excessive changing to last names. Presumably trying to make it sound more encyclopedic. Not worth getting into an edit-war about, but worth discussing, maybe. :) Wahkeenah 10:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I cringe whenever I see the first names used because it makes the article sound like something out of a fanzine. Johnleemk | Talk 12:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's the Internet, I'm neither "he" nor "her", I'm "it". :) But here's another clue for you all: The walrus's "Paw". OK, moving right along, you've got a point. Being a teen in the 1960s, if anyone said "John" or "Paul" or "George" or certainly "Ringo" in a musical context, it was understood. To the current generation it must seem kind of silly. It's hard for you all to totally comprehend Beatlemania. They were just all over the place, it seemed. I think at one point they had all 5 songs in the top 5 on Billboard, which is mind-boggling. However, other performers are also called by their first names. "Elvis" is an obvious example. Wikipedia goes to the Elvis Presley page if you enter just Elvis. And I lost count after at least 25 first-name-without-last-name references in the article. However, maybe that's arguably a different situation, because (1) he has been called by his first name almost universally from Day 1, in part because (2) it's an unusual name that is instantly recognizable. It's like in the 50s, if you said "Ike", that meant the President. And in the 40s if you said "Frankie", that meant Sinatra. However, with the obvious exception of Ringo, the Beatles' first names are common. And when strong rival rock groups such as the Rolling Stones are mentioned, you might call them "The Stones" for short, but I don't think "Mick" would be used frequently the way "John", "Paul", "George" and "Ringo" were. This would seem to be a judgment call. Wahkeenah 16:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing to last names 

message: Would the breakup section that was recently added fit better in the History of the Beatles article? Because, to me it seems oddly out of place here. Akamad 09:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold. (Caution: I support your proposal. Coming from me, this advice may not be considered wise by one or two borderline freaks.) Johnleemk | Talk 11:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I figure I should wait a while before any moves. As it turns out, the text was moved here from Breakup of the Beatles, which now redirects to this article. It was suggested on the article that the page should be merged with this one , but it appears no discussion occurred. Akamad 22:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breakup section 

message: Okay, this subsection is a mess. It had the link as the section title! I put in a main article thing below it, and expanded it a couple sentaces. bu it needs serious work. Help! HereToHelp 13:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, there was mention of the low quality of that section in it's talk page when it was a seperate article. Akamad 21:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yoko Ono 

message: KHM03 11:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  For use on your user pages 

message: In the Scotsman today 
"THE Beatles' enduring appeal was confirmed today when they were named the most important entertainers of the past 100 years.
John, Paul, George and Ringo beat the challenge of stars ranging from Elvis to Lassie to be crowned Icons of the Century by entertainment bible Variety."
Wyss 23:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Variety Magazine...

message: I am working on a school project and planned to print out the first few paragraphs of this article; I found two bits of obscene vandalism.  Can someone proofread it and check accuracy of the first three paragraphs?  Thanks. --εγώ 19:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, everything works. You can compare different revisions of the article by looking at the page history. Thanks for helping out. Johnleemk | Talk 19:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

text: methinks that history is being re-written here! Before the "A" was added the Beatles were the SILVER BEETLES, at present, i'm relying on my memory,'til a find a better source than the web.Lion King 01:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Thought so! "Johnny and The Moondogs," "The Silver Beetles," then "The Beatles." this can be verified at, bbc.co.uk/radio1/johnpeel/artists/t/thebeatles Lion King 04:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Vandalism

message: I work as an Information Clerk in a National Recreation Area.  I meet people from around the globe.  Once this couple from London were visiting with us and I told them that I'm a HUGE Beatles fan.  The gentleman looked at his wife and smiled really big and said, "Tell Him".  His wife has been at an early Beatles show before they hit the big time.  In fact she said they were still wearing their leathers.  I had to shake hands with them both for sharing that with me.  The woman got the biggest kick out of me considering her as sort of a celebrity just because she saw The Beatles in their early years.  So I thought all here would really enjoy this story.
Oh.  Numerous years ago I jammed with a soldier from Fort Campbell, Kentucky.  He was from New York City.  When he was thirteen he saw The Beatles at Shea Stadium in 1965.  Then a few years after that I got acquainted with a guy who is a saxophone player in Nashville, Tennessee and who was a session musician at MoTown in the 60's.  He jammed with The Beatles when they visited MoTown.  Isn't life a blast!
User: bumpusmills1  14 December 2005 10:58 PM CST
==The Quarrymen== Who was, or is, Ken Brown? Lion King 01:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Friendly FYI 

message: The Beatles will never be topped!  Many have tried and have fallen short of the mark.  There are other music groups/artists who are really great, but they are not The Beatles.  --Bumpusmills1 23:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Beatles #1 Forever! 

message: Larry Williams' name was deleted by mistake in the quest to delete the vanity insertion vandalism that has been been occuring in Wiki. Someone may want to correct that correction! ;) --Cjmarsicano 21:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Larry Williams]] 

message: Didn't notice it in the article, so let me mention it: first rock group to do a command performance for QE2.  Trekphiler 15:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: In command 

message: This movie was banned in the UK until 1968. How did Sutcliffe know Lee Marvin refered to the female members of the gang as "beetles?" He may have seen it in Germany, but by this time they were already The Beatles. Lion King 17:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Wild One?

message: How many songs did Ringo write/compose for The Beatles ?
I find only two ,Don't pass me by and Octopus's Garden,and one he has co-written with John and another member of the band.
MrGater 12:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ringo credited ? 

message: There is no doubt that the early Elvis Presley was an important influence on the early Beatles.  Both in respect of the music he performed - and in terms of his stage persona and "attitude".  Lennon and McCartney both referenced him a lot.  George and Ringo - a little  less so.  But that influence was not the only early influence.  Many others followed - including Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Gene Vincent, Eddie Cochran, Carl Perkins, etc etc.  To some degree Holly, Berry and co. started to impress them more because those artists (unlike Elvis) were also writing their own material.  And after Elvis went in the army - and then re-emerged in his more family entertainer style - his impact on the Beatles lessened further. 
I mention this because the article has had additions which I think overstate the significance of Presley on the Beatles.  The initial impact (from April 1956) was huge. Presley came out of a void for them (Bill Haley excepted.)  But by 1958 - there were all of those other artists also influencing the Beatles.  One of the helpful barometers is to analyze the songs heard on the "Live At BBC" album.  The tracks come from BBC radio sessions (1963-65) where the Beatles had the freedom to indulge their passions for the songs they most liked.  Many more Berry and Little Richard songs than Elvis.
I think that the Beatles-Elvis paragraph should be modified to reflect the above facts.  And there should also be some reference to the two key postscripts to the Beatles' relationship with Elvis.  Their dismay (particularly Lennon's) on finally meeting Elvis in 1965 (and seeing what he'd become by then) - and their feelings (articulated in "Anthology") on discovering how Presley had denounced them in his exchanges with Richard Nixon in 1970.  The Beatles never retracted the fact of their early appreciation of Elvis.  But they did put those feelings in perspective in their overall conclusions about him.   Davidpatrick 07:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influence of Elvis Presley 

message: In the history section I changed:
"The Beatles to this day stand as one of the most innovative art rock bands of all time, and while they are considered by many to be the pioneers of progressive music, new generations seem to think of them as nothing more than a british pop band, but they were so much more. Sadly many of today's music fans seem to forget that without The Beatles, rock music would not be the same."
into:
"The Beatles to this day are regarded as one of the most innovative rock bands of all time."
The original section was quite obviously POV, and i also think that the references to 'art rock' and the Beatles being the 'pioneers of progressive music' are in essence meaningless. I would say the term 'art rock' is meaningless as rock is music is art, which renders the term 'art rock' meaningless. The term 'pioneers of progressive music' is meaningless in my opinion as what is progressive depends per definition on the time of conception of the music. You can't pioneer progressive music because all music was progressive at some point. --Vunzmstr 11:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV, art rock, progressive music 

message: This was just added today :
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8f/Beatles29ra.jpeg/300px-Beatles29ra.jpeg
I think it's a magnificient piece of art.Do you know who is the artist ? Where does it come from ?
Thank you.
MrGater 20:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's from 1, I think. Johnleemk | Talk 12:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the pop-art Beatles picture