Talk:All You Need Is Love

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Guests?[edit]

I read somewhere in "The Book of Beatles Lists" (I have forgotten who the author is but will post it up when I find it out) that the recording of "All You Need is Love" featured guests such as Mick Jagger, Keith Moon, Keith Richards, and Patti Harrison (plus some others I also have forgotten). Were these people also present in the "Our World" telecast in which the Beatles performed this song? -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.252.145.157 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 7 August 2005.

In answer to your question, yes the guests were on the live broadcast. (I remember; I saw the show in 1967 - the Summer of Love.) It was rather astounding to see the Rolling Stones there singing the choruses, since rock bands were often portrayed by the media as "rivals" when in fact they often helped each other out, e.g., writing songs for each other. Que-Can 01:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Clapton was present as well —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.237.173 (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gum video[edit]

I have seen a video of "All you need is love" where the Beatles perform together with a small string orchestra in front of some young people sitting around. There you can see John Lennon chewing on a gum while performing. Is this also the actual sound recording or only the video recording? Because you can't hear that he is chewing on a gum while singing, he sounds just normal. If he is chewing on a gum during a original sound recording I would find it noteable.Schenkeli 13:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lennon usually chewed gum while singing.
Actually I saw Jagger in the set, wearing a shirt with a psychodelic portrait of John Lennon behind.

My dad played trumpet, and Lennon spat on his shoe, apparently —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.207.31 (talk) 08:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube links[edit]

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) 04:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The JAMs[edit]

Does the fact that the JAMs' premier single, which has the same title as this song, samples from it, merit mention in the article? Kouban 05:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:08 allyouneedislove.jpg[edit]

Image:08 allyouneedislove.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

"She Loves You" Ad-Lib Note[edit]

re: this sentence: "She Loves You" (spontaneously ad-libbed by Lennon)"

Actually, it was ad-libbed by McCartney....watch the performance...McCartney is the one singing the excerpt of "She Loves You"

- I would say it was them both. If you watch the Youtube Video[1] of the performance (which of course might be out of sync) beginning at 3:27 it clearly shows Lennon singing it, but McCartney also seems to be singing along, really hard to tell though, who was the initiatior. Going by expression, I would say Lennon, McCartney doesn't seem to enthusiastic about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.34.194.150 (talk) 03:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:AllYouNeedIsBlood Beatallica.jpg[edit]

The image File:AllYouNeedIsBlood Beatallica.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. --09:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOVE version[edit]

The guitar riff at the end - are you sure it's Ticket to Ride? I heard elsewhere that it was a slowed-down version of the end of A Hard Day's Night, and that's what it sounds like to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.117.212 (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday[edit]

In one paragraph is says Paul is NOT saying "Yesterday" and in one paragraph it says that he is.

Which is it?

Better yet, why aren't either of these sourced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.162.122.6 (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul is actually saying "Yes, you can" rather than "Yesterday". So Paul is NOT saying "Yesterday". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.55.69.63 (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time signatures?[edit]

Is it accurate to describe this song as alternating between 7/4, 8/4, and 6/4, or would it have been in a more conventional mixture of 3/4, 4/4, and 2/4 (subdivided into more measures)? The effect would be the same, but unless someone has access to George Martin's orchestral score, we can't be certain of the actual time signatures employed. As for John Lennon, it is a bit generous to say he "experimented with mixed time signatures," as if that were a conscious decision on his part. Lennon, like all the Beatles, was unable to read printed music, and he composed his songs in the manner that "felt" right to him -- it was up to Martin to "translate" that into written notes, measures and bars when there were session musicians involved. There are several Lennon-composed Beatles songs that have these sorts of odd constructions, with alternating beats per measure, odd extra beats added or dropped, etc. But Lennon didn't know a time signature from a prune danish -- it was all a very innate, organic process for him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StanislavJ (talk • contribs) 14:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said: As for John Lennon, it is a bit generous to say he "experimented with mixed time signatures," as if that were a conscious decision on his part. [. . . ] But Lennon didn't know a time signature from a prune danish -- it was all a very innate, organic process for him.
Well, certainly John Lennon composed his rhythms according to what felt artistically "right" to him, but I think you're assuming too much musical ignorance on his part, as if he were more idiot savant than "innovative genius". Lennon learned the rules before breaking them (he learned by doing, learning hundreds of cover songs in Hamburg, as a bar band). There's a fair case to be made that Lennon knew perfectly what he was doing. Altering time signatures was a trend with various songwriters simultaneously, in and around 1967. The first Pink Floyd album, Piper at the Gates of Dawn was being recorded at Abbey Road while the Beatles were recording Sgt. Pepper in the same building. If you'll indulge the comparison, Syd Barrett wrote "Bike" with varying beat-lengths for each verse. ("I've got a bike . . . I've got a cloak . . . I know a mouse . . ." -- they all had different time signatures. The only way to learn "Bike" correctly is rote memorization, because there is no interior logic to it. Whereas "All You Need is Love" has its own interior logic, using the same odd time-signature changes in the same sections of his songs.
As long as Beatles/Pink Floyd comparisons are being made, I would say John Lennon's time-signature changes were more influential on Roger Waters (who idolized Lennon) than Syd Barrett. Waters often used odd time signatures, but in a VERY disciplined way. There is a right and a wrong way to play "Mother" from The Wall, or "Two Suns in the Sunset" from The Final Cut. In fact, their time-signature changes were so strict, that drummer Nick Mason handed the drumming role on those songs over to session drummers (Jeff Porcaro and Andy Newmark, respectively).
. . . Which is all my long-winded way of saying, I'm pretty sure John Lennon knew exactly what he was doing, disorienting the listener, and defying expectations deliberately.
I would cite the famous final edit of "Strawberry Fields Forever" as a better example of Lennon being lazy and relying on George Martin too much, but that's not a matter of time signatures.
This is just my two cents on the matter. Thank you for your attention and consideration.
→Ben Culture (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, measures of 7, 8 and 6 beats can be broken down to 3's and 4's and 2's; just like measures of 4's can be broken down into 2's or even 1's. Conversely, pages of measures of 3's (waltz time) can be expanded into 6's and 9's- (see Dave Brubeck Quartet, "Time Out" album below, Side 1 cut 1, "Blue Rondo...")- but it's not a matter of convention or brevity, it's a matter of phrasing. Time signatures explain a piece of music in terms of phrasing and yes, "feel". However, AYNIL is not an "odd construction", or is it missing beats- it's actually very concrete. The verses of AYNIL are comprised of measures of 7 and an 8 and the choruses are 4's and a 6 because the melody and the phrased length dictates the time.


Verse: 

    1        2               3       4        5   6  7
    "There's nothing you can do that can't be done,  ba ba
    1        2                 3         4        5   6 7 
    bum      nothing you can't sing that can't be sung,  ba ba
    1        2               3           4   5        6        7    8
    bum      nothing you can say but you can learn to play the game
          1   2  3  4  5  6  7      1
     it's easy.              ba ba bum etc.

Chorus: 

    1   2    3    4  1       2  3     4             
     All you need is Love...    ba ba ba ba  
    1   2    3    4     1       2  3     4             
  bum   All you need is Love... ba ba ba ba 
    1   2    3    4     1     2 3   4             
  bum   All you need is Love,   Love, 
    1   2       3       4    5  6                    
        Love is all you need.   ba ba 
    1     
    bum etc.

The Dave Brubeck Quartet released an "experimental" album in 1959 called Time Out (album). All the pieces were in mostly odd or multiple odd time signatures. Now, the Beatles certainly would not have have known the album at that time, but a musical maven like George Matin certainly did; it's easy to imagine him playing the album for these very curious musicians. It's funny, but one of the pieces "Three To Get Ready", was completely composed as such: The intro was 12 measures of 3's- the rest was two measures of three, two measures of four. 1 2 3, 1 2 3, 1 2 3 4, 1 2 3 4, 1 2 3, 1 2 3, 1 2 3 4, 1 2 3 4 etc. etc. etc. Sounds so similar (in theory) like the middle of "We Can Work It Out" except that the middle of WCWIO is four measures of four then four measures of three x 2 =16 measures. Is it conceiveable that Lennon heard the song and consciously tried to incorporate the multiple time idea into McCartney's standard time song? True, Lennon and the boys didn't read musical notes but Lennon did go to college for three+ years so I'm assuming that he did know how to count. And who knows, Lennon might also have been an expert on organic prune danish.Dcrasno (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot believe that someone changed the 7/4 measures and an 8 measure re the verse time signatures into little 4's and three's to complicate the issue further. All you need to do is COUNT for criminies sake!! Count! and when you hear the pick-up (the seventh beat) to the next measure, you've got it. And the pick-up (the eighth beat) to the next seven. The eighth beat is not uncommon- do choreographers say 1234 to start a routine? No- it's always been 5678!- because many dance routines run through eight beats! Yipes, again, someone is picking gnat crap out of pepper.Dcrasno (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About the trumpet players[edit]

One of the two trumpeters in the orchestra is David Mason, who played the piccolo trumpet solo on "Penny Lane." I've seen written sources (including, I believe, Lewishon) who claim that Mason used the same piccolo trumpet for "All You Need is Love." But in the video, it is clear that neither musician is playing a piccolo -- from the size of the instruments and what I can make out of the fingerings on a small, low-quality Flash copy, they are most likely playing D trumpets. (The Bach lick at the end would be well within the range of a D, low enough that a Bb/A piccolo is unnecessary, and the parts would involve some awkward fingerings on the latter instrument, but be very simple to play on a D trumpet.)

Also, has anyone else ever noticed the obvious, almost comical "double take" Paul does when the trumpets make their first entrance during the ending? I find that odd -- there were several rehearsal takes done before the live broadcast, so surely Paul knew that the trumpets would suddenly come pealing in at that point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by StanislavJ (talk • contribs) 15:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Psychedelic pop genre?[edit]

There's no evidence in this article to support classifying the song as "psychedelic pop". After reading the articles here about psychedelic genres, the key element appears to be the intent to "replicate and enhance the mind-altering experiences of psychedelic drugs." Nothing in the article mentions that. The genre should be removed. I've removed it once, but it was restored.

The quote above is from Psychedelic rock. The Psychedelic pop article doesn't define any notable characteristics of the music in the genre and isn't very helpful in general (no specific sources). — John Cardinal (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, we should stick to a general rule that we don't post-assign genres. That is, there was no such thing as psychedelic pop as a genre in 1967 and therefore this song can't be of that genre (and, BTW, I'm with you that "psychedelic pop" is a genre at all, seperate from "psychedelic rock" which, okay, maybe). This is a widespread problem as people try to trace their favorite styles backwards and assign meaning where there is none (e. g. as folks try to assign the genre "proto-punk" to anything with 3 chords and an angry vocal, even if it was recorded 10 years before the term "punk" was coined). I'll remove the tag for now pending further discussion here. Jgm (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you there. Musical genres are a way of categorizing traits of the music, not the era; there is strong correlation here, but the two are not the same. For example, Blue Oyster Cult was considered a metal band in their day. By today's standards, they are barely hard rock. They no longer fit the definition of metal, and they shouldn't be included in a category in which they do not fit.
That tangential comment aside, this song certainly is not psychedelic. I also fail to see "elements of classical music" (baroque pop) or jazz/swing influences (big band). This song seems to be nothing but ordinary rock, to me. --Daniel Draco (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Psychedelic Rock is a difficult genre to describe because it is so very broad; you look at bands like Jefferson Airplane and Pink Floyd in the late 60's, who were both very psychedelic rock, but neither of them incorporated too much of the "guidelines" found in the psychedelic rock page on this website, other than "to enhance or compliment the mind-altering effects of psychedelic drugs." By this, one could conclude that if a song is written directly with the intention of affecting the mood of the listener, it may be misconstrued as psychedelic by nature. The things I know for sure about this song are that it has an asymmetrical time signature and "complex" time signature changes, the message of the song is synonymous with "hippie" counter culture of the time as the song encourages "peace and love," and the song has an uplifting sound in a major key, assisting in the mood enhancement of anyone under the influence of a psychedelic drug. With this, do you really think that this song was written with the intention of being "just rock" or "just a pop song?" Styk0n (talk) 02:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rawhide[edit]

You miss one of the songs at the end. I believe Paul(?) is imitating the old TV show themesong, "Rawhide," when he goes "EEEEE-HI!"

Also, I heard when this song first came out that there are close to 20-25 other songs hinted at in "All You Need Is Love." I only came up with 8 or so. But if you listen to the various versions, little bits keep sneaking out.


Surf Florist SurfFlorist (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personnel[edit]

The personnel list in the article seems off; for example, I doubt (but could be wrong) that John played harpsichord and banjo for the song, and I'm certain that George, as talented as he was, was not a violinist. Does anybody have a more accurate list somewhere so that the page can be updated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.195.252 (talk) 19:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The personnel section closely matches the list in Ian MacDonald's Revolution in the Head. MacDonald said Harrison "insisted on playing violin, an instrument he'd never previously touched." — John Cardinal (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George played violin according to various sources, including MacDonald and The Beatles Bible. Several other websites gives this information as well. Since many professional sources indicates that George played violin the article should say so. Anyone who disagrees about that have to bring up some other reliable and relevant sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.107.171 (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Prisoner[edit]

I added this reference as it's been confirmed in the documentary Don't Knock Yourself Out (included in the 2009 DVD/Blu-Ray release of the series) that the Beatles directly gave permission for the song to be used in the last episode of The Prisoner. And while songs like "Ticket to Ride" have had to be removed from home video (DVD, VHS) releases of shows like Doctor Who, all home video versions retain the original All You Need is Love on the soundtrack, which itself is a notable fact. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To create a formal citation, we need more information about the documentary: title of the documentary, the year is was released, the format, the director, the name of the person who described the use of "All You Need Is Love" in the series, etc. You may not have all that, but the more you have, the better. If you don't know how to add a citation, reply with the info here and I'll do it. — John Cardinal (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

changing 12/8 back to 4/4[edit]

Changed 12/8 back to 4/4. I included it in the 12/8 "article" and I'm included here for clarification.

As a trained and educated musician, this is the most absurd thing I have ever heard- this is mathematical, musical minutiamaximus at it's absolute worst. Whomever "wrote" or "inserted" this nonsense is picking gnat sh-t out of pepper, with a shovel; on which all this nonsense belongs on. In AYNIL, the phrasing of the ("All you need is Love) chorus comprises eight beats spread over two measures of 4/4; 1 measure with five notes of lyrical melody, 1 measure of 4/4 with five notes of musical melody in the horn response over three measures (12 beats) of its four measure length- but the fourth measure of the chorus is in 6/4. Or is the last measure of that fabulous and ever-singable chorus is in 3/2, 1/2-3, or perhaps 18/12 or even 36/24 or better still, 1.0/.666 ad-infinte- and/or nause-um. Where's the friggin' 12??Dcrasno (talk) 07:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a late comment, but I have altered the musical structure section of this song to reflect the more probable notation that this song was given; that is, the verse is in 7/4, and the chorus is 4/4 with a single 6/4 bar leading back into the verse. The idea of this song 'switching' between time signatures is absurd, and saying that the verse is "one bar of 4/4 and then one bar of 3/4, repeated" is one of the most ridiculous things I have read in a while. If you imagine trying to write this in sheet music, by this method you would literally be writing the time signature at the start of every single bar. 7/4 isn't a necessarily difficult concept, and in respect to how it would be written on sheet music is the most clear and simple time signature. Styk0n (talk) 10:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I Googled "All You Need Is Love sheet music", and found examples of 7/4, 4/4-3/4, and even 12/8. What do the reliable sources say about the musical structure? GoingBatty (talk) 02:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not part of an album??[edit]

This is the only article from a beatles's single that appears on a studio album (magical mystery tour and yellow submarine ) where that it isn't noted. I've edited that, but the edition has been reversed, arguing that when it was released, the song it wasn't from an album. That's true, but in that case, it should be the same for all the articles from the second side songs from magical mystery tour. Strawberry fields, hello goodbye, peny lane... All that songs where released months before the american album where they were compilated. Today, the american version of Magical Mystery tour is the "official" version, and as an album of the beatles official discography, i think that all we need is love should note that this song is part of that album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustz (talk • contribs) 18:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Singles that were released at or around the same time as the album, which were used to promote the album, are considered to be 'from' that album. 'All You Need is Love' was not on an album in the UK at the time of its release. This has been discussed before, and you are correct that none of the songs on side 2 of the American MMT should be noted as being from that album. Radiopathy •talk• 18:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: Hello, Goodbye was released within days of the MMT LP in the US and should be included. Radiopathy •talk• 20:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

steady four-in-a-bar[edit]

"While the chorus maintains a steady four-in-a-bar" ?????? It does not! Does anybody know how to musically count? It's just like regular counting. The chorus of AYNIL is six measures of 4/4 and a seventh measure of 6 beats (6/4). Count it for criminies sake!Dcrasno (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Song written for the Live broadcast?[edit]

I seem to recall from Geoff Emerick's autobiography that AYNIL was written specifically for the broadcast (or so he remembers). When I find the reference, I'll add Emerick's POV to the section.

--212.172.46.34 (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not informed of the specifics but there was something about a world peace broadcast which was supposed to have been watched by 200,000,000 people and incorporated artists of the time from all over the world to broadcast the message of "peace and love." The Beatles were approached by the British (government, ambassador, someone who had an input on the show, I'm not too sure) to write a song as "the British contribution." The song was first heard on that same broadcast and there were rumors (made by Paul McCartney I think) that the song heard on the LP was recorded directly from that broadcast. Just going to edit my comment, with a link to the video. I don't remember where I got my information from, however. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4p8qxGbpOk Styk0n (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beatles RfC[edit]

You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning the band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Musical structure[edit]

I removed some inaccuracies. The verse melody starts on the triad (B), not the fifth (D), as stated. The chord progression stated is wrong, the correct is I/V/vi (no seventh on the dominant). But I see no reason for mentioning such a mundane chord progression outside of a formal analysis. The bass does not play a lot of non-root-chords, as stated. It does play a lot of conventional passing-notes, however. The statement "notes with the concluding G note corresponding not to the tonic G chord, but acting as a ♭ 3rd of the Em chord; this also introducing the E note of the Em chord as a 6th of the tonic G scale" is absurd, as there is no dominant chord to E minor involved. Sowilō (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you've got a source for all that, you've just wrote OR. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 08:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on All You Need Is Love. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on All You Need Is Love. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery voice at the end of the bootleg version[edit]

I have a bootleg version of the song from the bootleg album Ultra Rare Trax Vol.4. This version is at 5:00 total time and without the fadeout. It's the audio from the TV broadcast. At the beginning of the track is John singing "She Loves You", and George Martin can be heard talking in the control room, and the sound of tape rewind. The song starts at 0:28. At the end of the track, a voice can faintly be heard saying something, could be George Martin. What is he saying. I can hear "Happy new year, everybody". But is he saying that? Wasn't that recorded 14 and 19–25 June? Not on New Years Eve. That's weird. Someone that knows? --NRKfan (talk) 07:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on All You Need Is Love. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate reverts[edit]

Accurate information on the original circumstances of the recording is being continually reverted, for reasons known only to one of the editors involved. There is no record of any other Beatles song with instrumentation such as the acoustic harpsichord ( again and again, the electric harpsichord and clavichord are mistaken for it ) and that is indeed to do with the different conditions at Olympic. The effect of this is to underplay the way in which the Beatles' rare ventures outside Abbey Road affected them - one of the reasons they had come back to Olympic was because they came across a Clavioline that they hadn't used before there on their previous visit there, for "Baby You're a Rich Man", for instance - and to diminish people's understanding of how or why they developed at this time.

86.185.171.71 (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Outside of the specific substance of what you're discussing, I'd recommend familiarizing yourself with both WP:BRD and WP:3RR. What the former means is that while you are encouraged to make a bold edits, if you find it being reverted, your next move should be to come here and discuss matters at the talk page. Because you keep adding the information back only for it to be reverted, you're liable to being blocked for edit warring against the guidance given by WP:3RR. I hope this clears things up a bit. Cheers. Tkbrett (✉) 14:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<edit conflict>You have not supplied a single reliable source that actually supports your contention; you're synthesising points based on your view of a perceived significance. And, at best, you're basing your view on a primary source, Eddie Kramer. The point is made in the article that the harpsichord was unfamiliar to the band members – which goes some way to stating what it is that you think needs to be trumpeted, anyway. Looking at your your contribution history, it's as if you've come from the Olympic Studios article armed with the Guitar World piece focusing on Olympic and Kramer, and you're judging that it's some sort of gospel on the subject of this article. There are no end of reliable, secondary sources dedicated to the Beatles' recording, even to this particular recording, so consider WP:DUE on top of everything else.
You're continually being reverted because of this original research and synthesis. (Also, you're introducing basic errors with each edit you make.) It's only "accurate" and worthy of inclusion because you deem it to be so significant. JG66 (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the comment with this edit and this one, Piggies is the other Beatles track that uses a traditional harpsichord, set up for a classical music session at EMI. Again, it's OR on your part to say, hey, the Olympic session for All You Need Is Love is so significant for this reason. Kramer and the other text in the Guitar World piece does not support it. JG66 (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Electric piano[edit]

I hear an electric piano on this track too. It's more audible at around the 2:10 mark on the Love and 1 remixes, but once you've identified it, you can hear it on the original recording too. The only reference I can find for this so far is this... Jules TH 16 (talk) 10:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jules TH 16, is it the trill you're referring to? (Listen here, skip to 9:08). I flipped through my copy of Walter Everett's The Beatles as Musicians (1999, p. 125), but his listing appears almost the same as the one in article, with no mention of an electric piano. I also saw no mention of an electric piano from John C. Winn (That Magic Feeling, 2009, pp. 110–111), Andy Babiuk (Beatles Gear, 2002, pp. 206–208) or Jean-Michel Guesdon & Philippe Margotin (All the Songs, 2013, pp. 410–413). Tkbrett (✉) 12:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link, yes that's what I was referring to. It may have been a real piano but it seems to have a bit of an unusual timbre, reminding me of a Wurlitzer. Less so on the isolation, though. Perhaps it was dampened?
FWIW, the "All the Songs" book series isn't the most reliable (I have their Pink Floyd book and it's full of guesswork), but at least we have some pretty good documentation of most of the Beatles sessions. Well, oddities like Old Brown Shoe notwithstanding! Jules TH 16 (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

help i fucked some shit up[edit]

im really sorry i keep doing this and idk what to do Ded Meem (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:All_You_Need_Is_Love&oldid=1198434962"