Talk:The Beatles
Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles.
Cleanup
Yes, I am the person who put on the Cleanup. I believe that the article uses language that implies that they were the best band of the sixties. Eg. "critical acclaim perhaps unequaled in the 20th century". I also think that the front section before the contents is far too long, and the section on Beatlemania could be moved or even given a new article. Also, the sections deal too heavily with "trimmings" of articles. I believe that more technical information about the music would be useful. Sorry to all who may be offended by my opinions on this page. Remember that these are only suggestions on how to make this page better.,=
Photos
There are two things about this page that immediately strike me. First of all there are no pictures of The Beatles together as a group, and secondly, the photo of John Lennon just doesn't do him justice. If I get enough time then I'll make some extensive changes.
ChicXulub 12:33, 25 Mar 2004
Yes. For the love of God, correct that. I was shocked to find naught a header picture: this is the BEATLES! I understand there's the whole copyright issue - whatever. Get pictures of The Beatles up there now. Please. Featured community... 6.25 pm; Jan 26 2005
Repetition
The Beatles are among the most influential popular music artists of modern times, affecting the culture of Britain and America, the postwar baby boom generation, and the entire English-speaking world, especially during the 1960s and early 1970s. Certainly they're the most successful, with global sales exceeding 1.3 billion albums (as of 2004). Their influences on popular culture extended far beyond their roles as recording artists, as they branched out into film and even semi-willingly became spokesmen for their generation. The members of the group were John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr (Richard Starkey), all from Liverpool, England. The effect of the Beatles on Western culture (and by extension) on the rest of the world has been immeasurable.
I'm not about to go in and completely rewrite this opening paragraph, but there are some comments I thought might be worth considering:
- The best way to convey that X is true is to provide evidence and examples of why X is true. This is much more effective than simply saying, "X is true." The opening paragraph repeats itself many times by saying the Beatles are influential or affected culture, etc., but really doesn't say WHY or HOW, (beyond commercial success, and some ventures into film and spokesmanship). It should be enough to say "The Beatles are among the most influential popular music artists of modern times [although I don't like this phrase, since 'modern' is time-specific]" and then instead of repeating this claim, tell us why. "The Beatles affected the culture of Britain and America, the postwar baby boom generation, and the entire English-speaking world, esp. during the 60s and 70s" takes up a lot of verbal space, but really expresses almost nothing. Instead of having this sentence, it would be better to have a sentence that spells out the specific reasons why the Beatles were influential in the English-speaking world, and specifically what ways they affected the culture. If you do this, then the sentence that you replaced is no longer missing, because the reader will infer it from the evidence and information you've just given. This is just a specific instance of a general rule that's it's better to tell someone why you believe a claim is true, instead of repeating it many times.
As I said, I'm not going to go in and do a complete rewrite, or even partial, because the paragraph that's there has developed over a long period of time from many people. So, I just want to make these comments on the talk page.
Revolver 02:58, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I decided to dive in and try to re-write the introduction, because I'm afraid it had the look of something written by a lot of people, with the seams on a lot of the patches showing. My goal wasn't to change it (much), but to eliminate redundancies and get it to flow a little better. My apologies if it seems like I've over done it. (I was really trying not to gush about it, but the Beatles really were a pretty extreme phenomena that's not easy to describe accurately without a bunch of superlatives...) -- Doom 08:06, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
Instruments
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 [1] , 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)
Splitting?
"....the band was on the verge of splitting by the release of [/The White Album]?, with many tracks recorded by the band members individually." This was not the way I remember it described in a biography I read of John Lennon, or in a book I skimmed through which had the lyrics in English on one page and in Spanish on the opposite page, with bits of trivia scattered throughout. Each of those said that by that time, most of the tracks were recorded with two of the four, and none of them with only Lennon and McCartney. The biography said that Lennon and McCartney did record together, along with George and Ringo, when Eric Clapton came in to perform lead guitar for "While My Guitar Gently Weeps"--the other Beatles weren't taking the song seriously, and Harrison brought Clapton in so they'd shape up. (Clapton performed a similar trick for The Cream's "Badge.") This avoidance of each other was continued through the rest of the recording, but by the time of Abbey Road it was done by each member recording his part individually and the bits being tracked together at the end. Anyway I would just put all this in the main entry except I can't find those two books to verify (I read them in 1994). If someone else can (or can verify by some other source), then by all means go ahead. --KQ
- Even if they did record together for the White Album, there is a definite sense that the album is musically disconnected, in the sense that you can tell which songs are "John's", "Paul's", etc. in the sense of songwriting. There doesn't seem to be any coherent connection between songs, they're kind of slapped together in a random order and called an "album" but the cohesion of the songs as a collective isn't really present as in previous albums. I know that Lennon said as much along these lines, although I can't remember where I read the quote.
BIgger than Jesus
What was the quote John Lennon's about Jesus? I'm pretty sure it was "bigger than Jesus," not "more popular." I can't track it down, however.... -- PaulDrye
- It was "more popular" but a paper wrote "Lennon says Beatles bigger than Jesus".Ericd 00:07 Sep 7, 2002 (UCT)
- Taken way the hell out of context, I might add. -- goatasaur
- Wouldn't you think calling the disciples thick and ordinary would be more offensive? I guess I'll never understand what sets fundamentalists off. Kingturtle 22:37 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)
- Taken way the hell out of context, I might add. -- goatasaur
The full quote is:
Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn't argue about that, I'm right and will be proved right. We're more popular than Jesus Christ now. I don't know which will go first, rock n roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right, but his disciples were thick and ordinary. Its them twisting it that ruins it for me. (London Evening Standard, March 4, 1966) GWO
Mono and stereo?
"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
"I'm looking through you" has rhythm guitar, Paul's lower registers on vocals, drums, tambourines, and bass on the left; Paul's higher registers and John are on the right, as well as the handclaps and lead guitar; the bass is there too but not loudly. So but since maybe you don't consider Rubber Soul an early album (and certainly no one thinks Sgt. Pepper's and Abbey Road are), I've put on Please Please Me. I'm seeing the same thing there but to a much lesser extent; it's still the case that it's in artificial stereo: the lower registers are on the left; the higher are on the right, though it's not as dramatic as on the other, with certain instruments only being on one side. I think that statement about restoration to mono should be greatly qualified. That is, it is the case that at least some early printings of the CDs had the grievously artificial stereo, and that after complaint it was reduced to a moderately bad stereo. Maybe that's what you meant all along? --KQ
I can't speak for other countries, but the UK CDs are now actual, genuine mono. Maybe elsewhere they still use the reprocessed masters GWO
Do you consider Help! an early one? "It's Only Love" has the bass on the left but not the right and the lead guitar on the right but not the left. I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just trying to understand. Maybe I should leave the revision of it in your hands; I'm becoming a bit confused about how to phrase it both accurately and concisely. --Koyaanis Qatsi
The Beatles were not digitally remastered as in was made for a lot of late seventies/early eighty record that were in fact totally remixed (and sometime did not sound really better than the ealy ones IMHO). The main reason is that there is not much to remix on a album like Sgt Peppers the premaster tapes 3 or 4 tracks not more even if the Beatles (and George Martin) did a lot of takes they assembled it with re-recording and cut and paste there is no way back possible on this work. It's to notice that the analogue studio recorder evolved very fast from 3/4 tracks to 24/48 in the 1970s in relationship with the developpement of hi-fi market and the trend of the bands to record albums with more and more studio work.
My vinyls of the Beatles are mainly stereo. There were buyed in middle seventies at this time all the Beatles records sold in France were stereo. In fact most of the vinyl were issued in mono version and stereo version please have look at http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/kirkland/266/btls/uk/uklp.htm It was before "stereo compatible" records I mean stereo records that could also be played in mono (if someone know much about stereo compatible vs stereo incomptaible vinyl can he write an article this question is still a bit obscure for me). I never heard a original mono LP (or maybe twenty years ago on a poor turntable. Some experts say there is a significative the mono record and the stereo record played in mono. I can't say more about it as I don't what was exactly done to issue the 2 versions. Some say the mono is much better, I have no personnal advice about it. Ericd 18:39 Sep 7, 2002 (UTC)
The first four albums ("Please Please Me", "With The Beatles", "A Hard Days Night", and "Rubber Soul") were all originally mixed in mono. Stereo phonographs were not common in England at the time. The "stereo" mixes of these first four were created very quickly from the original mono mixes, as an after thought, for the US audience primarily (possibly other countries too). After these first four albums, the Beatles mixed each album in stereo first - then created an easy mono mix for mono releases.
The CDs of the first four albums, released by Capital/EMI, are all mono, because the CDs are modeled after the original UK versions of each album - which are the albums the way the Beatles intended them to be. (Aside from being fake stereo, the American releases had mixed up track listings, alternate titles, etc). For this reason, Capital has never officially released the first four albums in stereo on CD. There are japanese bootlegs of the first four albums out there - that look and sound official - that include the original US fake stereo mix. But, so far, Capital/EMI has not realsed them that way. jazz77
Missing content?
This article doesn't mention much about the actual music and why it was such a popular and critical success. A few comments on the Beatles' charismatic nature (particularly on television), "Beatlemania", their innovative videoclips would be good. Not to mention, of course, their catchy early material (compare "Please Please Me" to other stuff in the pop charts at the time) and the musical experimentation (particularly their use of non-conventional rock instruments and studio trickery with the help of George Martin) of their later works. What do people think?
Add it all in. :-) --KQ
Echoes?
I changed the following sentence: "(a largely accidental echo of later boy bands in which members were selected for their ability to project a particular personality and image),"
1: any "echo" of something that comes later will be entirely accidental, not largely so.
2: you can't "echo" something that comes later, only something that came before.
Cultural and musical signifigance
I added some paragraphs in an attempt to explain the cultural and musical significance of the Beatles. If someone thinks I am giving too much credit to them for some of the changes that I attributed to them, they can offer a correction, but I felt like the Beatles had a great significance that needed some exposition.
- No, from my (admittedly historical, I wasn't there at the time) perspective, I think you make some good points. However, they were by no means the first self-contained rock band. Perhaps their example established it as the norm, though. --Robert Merkel
Spelling
I'm fairly sure they were initially "The Silver Beetles". I'm not sure if the change in spelling coincided with the shortening of the name. I also heard it was one of Lennon's quirks. Tarquin
Why must we link to the Monkees? -Tubby
According to the "Anthology".. the guys say they were originally "The Be(a/e)tles" (named after the Crickets, etc). They had to change it for a gig - John wanted "Long John and the Silver Be(e/a)tles".. The others didn't like it, so they shortened it to just Silver Be(e/a)tles - then there's a quote about "doing anything for a gig", which gives the impression that they weren't using the name exclusively. I've heard other variations on the name for that time period too.. I forget what they were at the moment. Good question about the Monkees... it would make sense to link the Beatles from the Monkees page, but not the other way around - since the Monkees were a copy of the Beatles. -- jazz77
- It should be possible to mention the Monkees somewhere in the "Influences" section. Then we can delete the odd-looking "see also" at the end of the article. --Camembert
Yes please. Also, I've heard it said that John had a dream in which a man on a flaming pie told him to put the 'a' in Beetles. He woke up and insisted. -Tubby
- that was a joke story John told to reporters... Yoko thought it actually
- happened. The other Beatles didn't. -jazz77
- Rock and roll was called beat music in England at the time, thus Crickets>beat music>Beatles. Probably went over Yoko's head. Ortolan88
There already is a link to the monkees in the body, so i'm nixing the see also link. Good riddance. -Tubby
They do appear
- Yellow Submarine (animated film, artwork by Peter Max, featuring songs by the Beatles but with dialogue voiced by actors)
The Beatles themselves do appear at the end of the film, and look quite unhappy about it. Even Ringo looks a bit glum. 'ey, I've a hole in me pocket. KQ
Weak points
IMHO there is 2 major weak points in this article : - no reference to Brian Epstein death, - the word "Beatlemania" doesn't appear in the article. Ericd
Nonsense
"Born from a four-headed billy goat"? Peeps? The nonsense some people write! Arno 07:21 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)
Missing years
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) Dominus 04:07, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Beatles song list?
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)
Jerryb's edit
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)
i agree with ChicXulub......
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)
- 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)
History Split-off
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)
-Wouldn't "The Studio Years" or "The Psychedelic Years" or "The Later Years" or something be more appropriate for the last of the three history headlines than "The Beginning of the End"? Seems kinda strange to just jump from Beatlemania straight to the collapse of the band. Just a thought, great work on the History of the Beatles article. -Cyopardi
Rollback
I rolled back the most recent set of changes because they were highly POV. RickK 04:49, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
Removed U2 Comment
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)
Something I'm noticing that is missing is a proto-Beatles album, In The Beginning by Tony Sheridan and The Beatles. Though not a part of the "official" discography, it merits mention as the first recording to feature The Beatles as a band. However, I don't know enough about the album to include it on the main page. If somebody could include some discussion of this part of the early stage of the band's performance, it would be nice.
"The Beatles" or "the Beatles"?
Recently people have been changing "the Beatles" to "The Beatles" and back again. What should they be called in the article? Let's get a consensus now to avoid wasting everyone's time with these trivial changes. Johnleemk | Talk 08:44, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- The title should be "The Beatles", and the T should be capitalized if it begins a sentence, but not in other places. For example: "The Beatles made great music." and "Lenin never liked the Beatles." -- ke4roh 19:49, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC) (whose mother taught English for 30+ years)
- It should be 'The Beatles' because the definite article is part of the name. Imagine for a moment that they were called The Beetles. There is then a distinct difference between the sentences "Lenin never liked the beetles." and "Lenin never liked The Beetles.". If they were simple 'Beetles' rather than The Beetles then it would be "Lenin never liked the Beetles." Mintguy (T)
- The Beatles deserve every capital letter they can get. I would vote for "THE BEATLES!!!". :-) I have always seen "The" written with a capital T, "t" looks pretty strange to me. It is a part of the name, as Mintguy write, I totally agree. -- Sunny256 2004-06-28T18:46Z
- I belive the proper way is 'the Beatles,' unless it begins a sentence. The 'the' is generally included because it is a part of the name, but it need not be capitalized. (Consider a band like "Cake", you do not even put a "the" in front, because it is not part of the name). —siroχo 18:49, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)
- The alternative to using capital "T" for "the", would be to always use italics. Consider The Who. Mintguy (T) 19:21, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- "The" is part of their name, though. There is no question to that. The t should always be capitalized in my opinion. Their albums were titled "The Beatles" as the artist. I agree that "the Beatles" looks silly. Slugmaster 23:21, 10 Nov 2004
Redundant intro
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)
Captions
Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing Captions for why I am adding captions to this page and rolling back Cantus' last edit. And btw, I think having all the pictures in a table like that makes the rest of the page look sparse. Of course, the version I'm reverting to is little better, but captions are good. Can somebody else give an opinion? Thanks. Johnleemk | Talk 11:06, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I like the idea of having captions for each Beatle, and spacing the pictures out. At the moment I've moved the stamp to the top—an introductory picture for the beatles. However if someone is able to find a fair use picture of all four together as YOUNG beatles (Ed Sullivan era), that would be the best intro picture, as there would be pictures of them as young popstars and older artists. Then we can find a better place for the stamp, and add in the stamps caption again. Also, If we space out the members pictures I think they should alternate sides, or all stay on one side (rather than 3 and 1), for continuity of the page. A few more tweaks and we'll work this out. —siroχo 07:29, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
Is it true?
I have received the following two info sometimes ago. Just curious to know, if it is true or hoax. TIA. --Rrjanbiah 07:48, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- In 1962, four nervous young musicians played their first record audition for the executives of the Decca recording Company. The executives were not impressed. While turning down this group of musicians, one executive said, "We don't like their sound. Groups of guitars are on the way out." The group was called The Beatles.
- Beatle is devil worshippers. The since 1969 in Hotel California song refers the year they started devil worshipping.
- The first is true. The second...I have absolutely no idea. Johnleemk | Talk 08:14, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. --Rrjanbiah 05:04, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Hotel California is by The Eagles and it is indeed alleged that the song has references to Satan and also that the band members were part of a Satanic cult. No idea about any such allegations against The Beatles. Chancemill 16:54, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was confused. However, I did find some reference that The Eagles are *not* devil worshippers [2] and The Beatles is freemasons. --Rrjanbiah 05:17, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Some things too complicated to fix by simple editing
Concerning the following sentence: "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.": This is almost completely backwards. I'm willing to acknowledge that the Beatles were influenced to some degree by Dylan during the mid 1960s. However, the influence of Chuck Berry, the Everly Brothers, and Goffin and King (plus Buddy Holly, Little Richard, Carl Perkins, Smokey Robinson, Elvis, Wilson Pickett, Fats Domino, Ricky Nelson, Bo Diddley, et al.) came from the beginning of their careers, not the middle or the end. They grew up on a steady diet of rock and roll, soul, country, and other various styles of music, both popular and obscure, and spent most of their early years covering other people's songs in their act. You can get a sense of what that was like by listening to "The Beatles at the BBC"--most of their live radio performances, and perfomances recorded solely for broadcast, revisited their eariest favorites. "Progressing" for the Beatles was not a matter of modifying their style by borrowing from others, it was a matter of modifying their style away from early influences and toward something uniquely theirs.
Another point: the article suggests that the adoption of the name "Beatles" coincided with obtaining their recording contract, whereas they had been the Beatles for several years by that time. By the way, capitalizing "The" in their name is a marketing trick, not a grammatical inevitability. Also by the way, someone referred to "The" Cream! Yikes! Just "Cream" please (no sugar).
Part of the problem is that most of the people old enough to know anything about the Beatles are not geek enough to find their way into these discussions.
- Well, actually, I kinda resent that. I was never alive when the Beatles were active, but I never put anything like the above idiocies into my early drafts of this article. (Which has got considerably worse over time). Ho hum GWO 10:03, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- No offense to anyone who cares about the Beatles. I am willing to admit that most of the trivia I have in my head was gained through reading long after the breakup of the group. In the 1960s, I knew very little except the music itself. I had never heard most of the people who influenced the Beatles. erorie 13:35, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
When I got my first Beatles album, there was only one available in the United States. It took me many years to find out that the real albums were not the ones I had been listening to. I still hate the fact that I have a hard time remembering which songs are on which official album and in what order...that is, until Sgt. Pepper, of which I bought my first copy at K-Mart in 1967 (mono). That's when Capitol realized they could no longer get away with canibalizing the albums. But the Capitol records were also lower quality than the Parlophone discs. I never heard the bongos on "You're Going To Lose That Girl" until I got my hands on the British LP.
erorie 19:44, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Since youv'e explained it here, try fixing the influence sentence to your lieking and put (see talk) in the edit summary. God points though. —siroχo 20:59, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Well,maybe. I am a little unsure of this process at the moment, but maybe I will try when I get a small block of time. Somethng else I might try to do, which would be easier, isto add to the further reading list. There are a number of really good books about the Beatles. The ones in the list so far may be fine, but I have never seen them. The more obvious choices are missing from the list. I don't have the info in front of me right now. erorie 13:35, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I see now that the paragraph on influence has been revised, and it is much closer to reality now. erorie 13:53, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1.3 Billion
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)
Too many articles on the Beatles??
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)
lyrics? before/after touring?
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)
touring/lyrics edit - done
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 :-)
...I'm having the queasy leemies about it now. Some of it is clearly true, but the dates the tracks were recorded need checking. Did Happy Birthday get recorded before or after Its All Too Much? And its too sweeping to say Yellow Submarine was complex - how about the perfunctory All Together Now? This needs revisiting and if nobody else has in the meantime I intend having a further go at it when I get time
sb
...Have now redone that section. Its All Too Much and Only a Northern Song were actually left over from 1967, the latter apparently a Sgt Pepper offcut, and hence belong to that period stylistically. The white album did indeed represent a simpler style. I've also remarked that there had been a trend towards greater complexity even before touring stopped. Hopefully this is now straight. It is difficult to discuss music without wandering too far into describing what was happening at the time but hopefully I've done that.
sb