Talk:All My Loving

YouTube links
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)

Image copyright problem with Image:Withthebeatlescover.jpg
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 Media copyright questions. --06:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

"JFK/Lennon Bizarre Conspiracy Death Coincidence" Theory
Okay, I've deleted the entire entry concerning this truly odd "section". Reference it any way you want, it's just too damned stupid to be here. Absolutely not for this site... Doc9871 (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagree – Your tone doesn't invite discussion so I'll limit my comments to that. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I’m not keen on the headline, and I agree that the JFK reference could go. But the dark side of me likes the idea that it was one of McCartney’s songs playing in the background in the hospital - Lennon’s last words might have been “Aaaaaarrrrrgggghhhhhhh, that bastaaaaard!!!!!!!!”. Others might find it ironic too. I think it could stay. BTW, Doc9871, before you get out your Butchers knife in future, protocol says that you’re meant to flag up any proposed major changes here first. --Patthedog (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * While both are just coincidences, and I could give up the JFK thing in a heartbeat (The Beatles released 13 other songs that day), I think we should keep the hospital bit. Having "All My Loving" playing on the hospital's music system when Lennon lay there dying is worth mentioning. It certainly made an impression on Alan Weiss, the TV news producer who was quoted in the Daily News article. The author of the story called it "surreal", and I agree. If we can include cover versions, and the dates songs were recorded, and other details about the song, surely we can include this coincidence. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The "headline" is certainly misleading and just plain wrong, as there is absolutely zero plausible "connection" between this song and the deaths of JFK and Lennon - nil. To suggest there is debases this page and really doesn't belong in an encyclopedic entry of any merit.  As you pointed out, there were 13 other songs on the album released that day; but that doesn't even matter.  The release of the album has nothing to do with JFK's murder, and this has no business being on this page.
 * As far as the hospital bit, John Lennon did not "lay there dying", for he was dead on arrival at the hospital, having died in the back of the police car that was taking him there. Sure, maybe it's worth mentioning that a Beatles song was playing when he was pronounced dead, but on the page concerning the Death of John Lennon (although that's a "GA" class article and might not stand).  Why put this on All My Loving?  It's trivial here and makes the page less professional, especially with the JFK nonsense added.
 * My "tone" is what it is, and being aggressive is what get things done. So now we're supposed to wait around while you find a "consensus" among Beatles editors?  Who?  You've already got three people including yourself that agree the JFK reference must go... when's this going to happen?  Rather than squabble with me and fully reinstate a section you admit is flawed, I think it better to improve this "Start" class article into something better.  Entries like this will ensure it never gets above the "Start" phase... Doc9871 (talk) 03:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to discuss this with you. I find your comments insulting. Find someone else to fight with. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

As we have reached consensus then, the hospital story can stay in, and the JFK ref can be taken out. Feels like doing the Hokey Cokey. --Patthedog (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As long as JFK's out, I'm not going to make a federal case out of this. Still think the hospital reference belongs on the Death of John Lennon page (where it would give an even greater impact; someone might try it add it), but I'm not gonna claw tooth and nail over that.  I'm not here to insult or fight, but to improve articles, making them as creditable and professional as possible.  The Beatles pages deserve only the very best.  Peace... Doc9871 (talk) 06:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The genre can not be just rock n roll
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)


 * Agree, Paul Mccartney was not a rock and roller 88.116.133.170 (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Musical Structure Section Deletion
I have re-insrted this piece which was deleted on the basis that it had to be re-written in plain English. This i like making a similar request to a physicist to write a formula in plain english. I would request other editors be consulted before this section is deleted again.NimbusWeb (talk) 02:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The Song is in the key of E major and begins on "Close you eyes..." with a ii-V-I-vi- chord structure which is a variation of the Doo Wop 'three chord trick' (IV-V-I) in which the ii minor (here F#m chord) replaces the IV chord and a vi (here C#m chord) is added by starting the sequence a bar late.Ref Dominic Pedler. The Songwriting Secrets of the Beatles. Music Sales Limited. Omnibus Press. NY. 2003. pp57, 62 and 215 The formula also appears in the Beatles Songs The Fool on the Hill (in the key of D at "Nobody wants to know him, they can see that he's just a fool") and in the middle eight of I Want to Hold Your Hand.Ref Dominic Pedler. The Songwriting Secrets of the Beatles. Music Sales Limited. Omnibus Press. NY. 2003. pp62-63. In the second part of the verse however (beginning "remember I'll miss you") it is a IV (A chord)- ii (F#m chord)- ♭VII (D chord) progression that takes us to the dominant or V7 (B7 chord). 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.Ref Dominic Pedler. The Songwriting Secrets of the Beatles. Music Sales Limited. Omnibus Press. NY. 2003. p216 The chorus ("All my loving...") is notable for the use of an augmented (C#m(maj7)/B#) chord on "I will send" during which McCartney's bass plays a C natural and G# and the voice leading a C, allowing the root of the relative minor to fall into the 5th (B melody note) of the relative major (E chord) on "you." Ref Dominic Pedler. The Songwriting Secrets of the Beatles. Music Sales Limited. Omnibus Press. NY. 2003. p322

I have clarified the first sentence as follows: "The Song is in the key of E major and begins on "Close you eyes..." with a ii-V-I-vi- chord structure which is a variation of the standard pop music Three-chord song (sub-dominant IV- dominant V-tonic I) in which the ii minor (here F#m chord) replaces the sub-dominant IV chord and a minor vi chord (here C#m) is added by starting the sequence a bar late" and added a link to the wiki article on 'three chord song.'NimbusWeb (talk) 05:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Exactly. It reads like an essay on particle physics. Tell me what is the point of reducing the elements of the song in this way? It leads us where? I appreciate that McCartney used some unusual chord changes, and if that is your point then single them out and explain in language that the average reader can understand. Also, you appear (although I don’t have the book) to have quoted extensively, if not entirely, from a single source - perhaps you have lifted entire sections of this book and pasted it here? Let’s see what others think before it goes back. All I’m saying is make it readable! --Patthedog (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia article about a song. Songs are made up of lyrics and music. Music theory explains how the lyrics and music complement each other. This was an intrinsic part of the success of the Beatles songs. Do you understand music theory? If you do, why do you think it is irrelevant to this song? Have you read and understood any of the books on music theory in relation to the Beatles? How do you start building a propose wikipedia article on this song if you start deleting the first effort to start explaining its musical structure. How will thsi article get to good article status without this information?NimbusWeb (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your claim that I have 'lifted entire sections of this book and pasted them is not only incorrect but emotivist and contrary to basic good faith wiki policies.NimbusWeb (talk) 12:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I’m not in total disagreement with you, as you will see if you read again my previous comment. If, by way of illustration, you need to use theory to underline a particular point, then that is totally relevant (for instance Ian MacDonald compliments his writing in this way). I do understand and appreciate music theory, and I play an instrument; but my worry here is that when the reader begins this section they are quickly overwhelmed by descriptions that appear to be there for their own sake. I’m challenging this not because I wish to begin a quarrel, but because I sincerely think that, as it is, this new section does not add anything other than take a whole load of material from Pedler's book and repeat it here. Perhaps you should have floated the idea first? If others would like to comment… --Patthedog (talk) 13:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Can I suggest you read the wikipedia articles on Music Theory and Harmony and also looks at how discussions on music theory benefit an encyclopaedia presentation of complex Beatles songs like Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields Forever. With your background I am surprised you are denying access to this article of a growing area of Beatles scholarship that enriches musical understanding of what is happening on there songs. What makes this song sound pleasant and unusual? Pedler, who I've cited, suggests it is the initial ii minor and vi chord additions then IV (A chord)- ii (F#m chord)- ♭VII (D chord) progression that takes us to the dominant or V7 (B7 chord) and interesting ascending harmonic and an augmented (C#m(maj7)/B#) chord. You are completely blocking this information. It is only a start- other editors will come later and no doubt add more material from other music theory books on the Beatles. Could you please leave the section in.NimbusWeb (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I was asked to comment on this and have done, here. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It appears that this piece will stay in the article at least for the time being, and I have to say that seriously bothers me. Editors might want to consider this though: If, having read through the new section, you actually don’t understand any of it because it’s theory, then you are in the majority, most readers won’t understand, and will have little interest in, music theory. It’s a tool, that’s all. Used sensibly, it’s occasionally useful in describing a section of music that might be of general interest (for instance). If you do understand theory, then you will probably wonder why whole sections of it from one source have been plastered here on Wikipedia (other articles are being seeded in this way too by this user, so this is important) Especially if the book is entitled: The Songwriting Secrets of the Beatles. That source might be biased in some way, and so should be balanced against another. Please use the link above to user Gwen Gale, and then, if inclined to, leave a comment here.--Patthedog (talk) 10:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the section is required for reasons already stated earlier in this discussion. Mr Pyles (talk) 10:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Patthedog also asked me to comment. Although I used to play a few instruments, I guess I lack the necessary music theory knowledge to fully appreciate this section.  I do like the comparison to other Beatles songs, and the attempt to explain what makes this song notable from a music theory point of view.  Do song articles by other artists have such analysis?
 * When adding this information, please follow WP:MOS (I fixed the capitalization and added quotation marks for song titles in this edit) and WP:CITEVAR (I changed the reference style to match the rest of the article in this edit). Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest that the section be removed. It is very technical and I suspect not of interest to 99% of readers.  I have a basic knowledge of music, and have played some guitar in my youth, but have no knowledge of music theory which made this section have no value to me.  Typically I read most Beatle articles all the way through, and learn something from each section, but this "Musical structure" section leaves me with nothing (due to my lack of music theory knowledge).  I don't think this level of analysis and detail is needed in Wikipedia, and is best kept for text books.  We need not describe numerous chord sequences in these articles, that information can be obtained from song books.  If there was some clearly notable aspect of the musical structure, it could be listed briefly in plain English in the "Composition" section.  If consensus is that the section remains, it should be moved towards the end of the article (perhaps after the "Personnel" section as with "Penny Lane"), so as to not alienate the average reader.  I realize the original editor of the section has effort invested, but I suspect most readers do not share the same technical knowledge of music theory to appreciate it.  Curious  Eric  04:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I find it quite remarkable you are having this discussion. Please read Dominic Pedler's and Walter Everett's wonderful books on how the Beatles as musicians used music theory to structure their songs and complement the lyrics. Very often the lyrics themselves refer to these subtle key changes. Are you really saying that all that information has no place is an encyclopaedia article on the Beatles? To do so requires setting a low bar of suitable knowledge that will frustrate the growing body readers wanting to find out why the Beatles music was special. You risk perpetuating a culture in which the phenomenon of the Beatles (their fame, personality etc in the popular imagination) is more important than their music itself.NimbusWeb (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have added the following information from Walter Everett's book. Burying it under "Personnel" "So as not to alienate teh average reader" as one editor suggested makes my point about the risks that this article is losing sight of the fact that it should be primarily about the music--how it works to make the magic of the song.


 * The lowest lines of Harrison's rockabilly guitar solo are played with a plectrum held by thumb and forefinger and the upper parts by his fingertips.ref: Walter Everett. The Beatles as Musicians: The Quarry men Through Rubber Soul. Oxford University Press NY 2001. ISBN 0195141059 p 189 During this solo McCartney's bass line becomes a major scale that descends a ninth supporting II-V7-I harmonies coming directly from the opening 3 bars of the verse. Ref: Walter Everett. The Beatles as Musicians: The Quarry men Through Rubber Soul. Oxford University Press NY 2001. ISBN 0195141059 p 189. Everett states that the song is also notable musically for the way McCartney displays his natural melodic thinking, for example by superimposing a descant part above his own melody in the 3rd verse.Ref: Walter Everett. The Beatles as Musicians: The Quarry men Through Rubber Soul. Oxford University Press NY 2001. ISBN 0195141059 p 190.NimbusWeb (talk) 12:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * While this section may be informative for those readers well-versed in music theory, for other readers equally well-versed in music history it may appear ludicrous considering none of the Beatles could read or write music, and they typically laughed off such anaylses going back to the 1963 article in The Times that noted the "pandiatonic clusters" and "aeolian cadences" in their music. In one of his last interviews in 1980 Lennon said "to this day, I don't have any idea what they [aeolian cadences] are. They sound like exotic birds." Piriczki (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The musical structure section is informative to anyone interested in how the song works musically. "Ludicrous" is an emotive denigration contrary to basic good faith policies. Comments such as that "the Beatles couldn't read music" etc simply display that some of the editors commenting here have not read (or worse, have no interest in reading) excellent books such as those by Dominic Pedler, Walter Everett, Mark Lewishohn's 'The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions', or Wilfred Mellers' excellent book on the music of the Beatles. If they had they would know that not only had the Beatles a natural instinctive feel for harmony (McCartney for example was trained by his father who used to play a wide range of chords on the piano and ask Paul to immediately replicate them on guitar) but they received a thorough grounding in music theory from George Martin and the many other well-trained musicians in their circle of friends and acquaintances. When McCartney sings "very strange" in 'Penny lane' or Lennon sings "Let me take you down" in 'Strawberry Fields' or Harrison sings "the chords are not quite right" in "Only a Northern Song" (as McCartney drops an unusual bass note on top of the chord), they are singing also about what they are doing in the music. These books make that clear. Chapter five of Pedler's book on the Beatles' music is entitled "Exotic Birds...and the Great Aeolian Cadence Mystery". It deals in detail and contradicts much of what has been said above.NimbusWeb (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Lennon also called Mann a "bullshitter." Piriczki (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that's an "argument from authority" logical fallacy that you surely can't be justified as using to exclude a published source, especially since you misquote Lennon and simplify the complexity of his response. In fact the following is a small part of what Pedler writes (p140) about the Lennon dismissal of Mann's theory: "Surely, this short-changes Mann's infamous legacy on a grand scale...Mann (a respected classical critic, remember) put his reputation on the line...to make connections and enhance our understanding and appreciation of music...The Beatles perfected modulations to unrelated keys-those that contain 'new' notes beyond the seven already shared between a major key and that of its relative minor." Lennon might have done this intuitively (and not wished to credit the assistance of McCartney or Martin in teaching him relevant aspects of music theory), but that music theory is richly embedded in the Beatles songs is a fascinating fact, as Pedler testifies. Walter Everett and Lewishohn (who provide a rich mine of evidence about this) are available to peruse on 'Google Books'. NimbusWeb (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I hate to tell you this, NimbusWeb, but the consensus among the editors at this talk page so far really does not seem to support the highly detailed analysis. It's fascinating for sure and excellent work, but at the end of the day it's a community project, and if the majority of editors want it out, it will eventually go. Of course, consensus can change... Doc   talk  10:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Consensus is for this section to be removed. It is generally felt that, as written, it is inaccessible to a high percentage of users. I will also raise this issue again, which will be in the form of a notice of intent as opposed to a vote, to remove all other similarly recently added text on all of the other talk pages belonging to any Beatles articles that have been changed or added to in this way; as the decision here now sets a precedent, subject of course to any comments made there by editors. --Patthedog (talk) 11:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I don't see this becoming something standard on all Beatles song articles. These articles are not music theory classes. Write a separate article on Beatles music theory, or something like that. Doc   talk  11:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that (Something) is a particularly good example of what is happening.--Patthedog (talk) 11:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You have deleted information about how Harrison played his guitar, how McCartney created harmonies, how they Beatles used chord theory to develop their songs and create the effects that made their music memorable. Really this is an example of what happens when under-qualified editors get loose on an area of wikipedia. The worst aspect of this is that you are pretending books like Walter Everett's, Dominic Pedlers, Allan Pollack's on line resource on the web don't exist because you don't understand them. What is the point of a wikipedia article about a song that has no information about the music in the song?NimbusWeb (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's look at Something again. You added, "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...", then you quote Pedler. The sense of hope and love is musically assisted?! This is original research any way you cut it. That is a problem, and it's just not standard to have these sections on Beatles songs. Doc   talk  05:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Revealing, now you've switched criticism from "too detailed" (whatever standard that raises) to "original research", obviously in each case without having read the book in question. In case you ever read the book on p287 fn70 Pedler discusses how the musical structure in the bridge in 'Something', "conveys images of 'hope', love' and freedom'". "Any way you cut it" is just more emotional bombast. "Just not standard" is debatable. Beatles song articles without discussion of the music in those songs, despite a growing volume of publications on that area. Can that really be a credit to wikipedia?NimbusWeb (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I see you've added your preferred version with an edit summary indicating you are "opposing consensus". You realize, of course, that this will not do: it's a collaborative project. Doc   talk  06:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, the fact that four of you have come up with a position that seems to undermine that value of Beatles music to all who love it is something worth opposing. I have a feeling there is a wider community of Beatles editors with musical backgrounds who will find your position to exclude discussion of music in articles about Beatles songs rather peculiarNimbusWeb (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Good luck with that - you should use this template to gain wider opinions. Now if consensus does not change, I think that you will find editing against consensus simply because you don't like the consensus to be an unpleasant experience. Doc   talk  07:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well NW, you had better reach out and garner that support quickly as, unless you do, you are in breach of consensus. Also, it will do you no good insulting editors who happen to disagree with you. --Patthedog (talk) 08:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Neither does assuming another editor's musical ability or understanding, NW. Having played AML on the bass (both with a pick/"plectrum" and without) in front of a live audience, I can safely say I know music. These places weren't Carnegie Halls, mind you; but I would have been disrespectful to the genius of the writers, as well as the audience that also knew the song well, if I didn't have a musical background. There are lots of editors with all sorts of backgrounds in music, from roadies to composers. Jus' sayin'... Doc   talk  09:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Here are the instructions from the Wikipedia project on songs, which this project is a part of:

"Articles about songs should contain information on important musical characteristics such as
 * structure (chorus/verse/bridge)
 * key. For traditional tunes if there is a reliable source indicating that there is a settled key or keys include this information.
 * time signature or signatures for tunes which have alternative versions in this respect, particularly those which may be in 3/4 vs 6/8 and those which have cut time variants which are verifiable.
 * Of lesser importance but possibly notable are recording techniques used, if there is a major recording or an original release for non-traditional songs.

It seems to me you are directly opposing these instructions about how to write a wikipedia song article. Have you read them? I have produced this material with referenced sources and you have deleted it. Have a look at the Hey Jude article in fact I will post a cross reference so editors of that article can consult with you.NimbusWeb (talk) 09:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * NimbusWeb, editors that have contributed to this discussion have expressed reservations regarding this section, and want it removed. It was taken out once, and you put it back against consensus. Even then, we allowed you extra time to summon support. That support has not materialised, and so it will now have to go. Please accept this, and do not go against consensus a second time.--Patthedog (talk) 10:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You will need to explain surely why your 'consensus' (of 4) is not editing against the 'consensus' represented by the guidelines on how to write a song article on wikipedia. Those guidelines seem specifically to require referenced information about musical characteristics and structureNimbusWeb (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. This issue was recently posted at the dispute resolution noticeboard where I am a mediator. I am uninvolved and hope you will accept my attempt to resolve this. After reading the discussion and relevant guidelines, I believe that the consensus formed here is to not include the extensive discussion on musical theory. Although the guidelines at WP:SONG have been cited, they do not go so far to promote the inclusion of detailed musical theory. As consensus and guidelines seem to support the removal of the content, I will go ahead and do so. I shall do this only once; if it continues to be an issue, I suggest that it is raised at WP:MEDCAB or WP:MEDCOM. I would, however, advice that this only be pursued if sufficiently new arguments are brought to the table. My summary on the DRN thread can be found here. If you have any issues, please contact me here, or via my talk page. Thank you. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As you stated, there is consensus not to include NimbusWeb's detailed additions. However, he continues to add them anyway in a very WP:IDHT fashion. Even after having consensus explained to him several times, he refuses to cooperate with other editors on this issue. It's a problem. Doc   talk  21:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message, Doc. Hopefully, having an uninvolved editor reassert the consensus should help to solve this issue. However, if NimbusWeb continues to add these detailed analyses of musical theory without a change in consensus, I'd suggest opening an WP:RFC/U. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, Why can't you be helpful. If the guidelines require information about musical characteristics--they specifically mention, structure, key etc. Just what are you willing to accept?NimbusWeb (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC) You now have a section on 'recording' even though the guidelines say that is of 'lesser importance' that musical characteristics, key, structure etc. Presumably you intend to include that information at some stage as you work this towards Good Article status. How do you propose to do that without any section headed 'Musical Characteristics' or something like that? Why delete the whole section when the guidelines for writing a song on wikipedia say with 'should' be present?NimbusWeb (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * NimbusWeb, the back and forth (edit warring) must stop. I've been asked to watch this over the last few weeks and I'm neutral, given that I never make edits as to musical theory and structure on this website. That said, yes, some sourced content on the music would indeed be handy to some readers, but if it is not carefully weighted, sourced and written, such content can quickly and even woefully mislead. I've commented on this, at my talk page, when asked about it, here and here, please have a look. The pith is, Schencker analysis is more of an academic tool and language for writing and talking about (describing) chord progressions in a relative way. It has its own strengths and bounds. I've seen some fit Schenker analysis of harmony in music and I've also seen a lot of over-reaching and even mistaken codswallop put forth with Schenker's notation. It may be somewhat handier for the harmonies of 19th century German lieder than for those of mid-twentieth century pop songs. I'm not aware of any source that quotes PM or JL as having said they ever wrote songs with any awareness (or care) as to "musical theory," much less that they thought about their chord progressions in Schenkerian harmonic terms. Rather, broadly put (and echoing the most widely cited sources), they wrote/composed, then played/sang what they "heard" in their heads, following years of listening to recorded songs. Schenker is only a means to look back and perhaps glean a bit of insight into only a wee slice of what went into making a hit record that yielded a pop standard "all those years ago." I'll make no further comment on my own thoughts as to how the song might have been written, but I think it's enough to say, given the sources to be had on this topic, claiming PM and JL applied "academic musical theory" as such is like saying a cook thinks of biochemical reactions in the "academic" terms of organic chemistry when making a tasty shepherd's pie. In writing about music, one must ever be wary of muddling the hindsight of theoretical analysis, flawed or not, with the sometimes gifted human imagination ("ear"), foresight and craft which are the means of composers, players and record producers. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As a uninvolved editor (I noticed this discussion at WP:DRN), I find it rather sad that an editor's contribution which is entirely within the guidelines at WP:SONG, is summarily shot down, mainly by editors who profess no knowledge of the matter at hand. How such an unencyclopedic view can prevail is of great concern. I would have expected some collaboration to make the section more fluent and compact. Wikipedia doesn't have to  to the lowest common denominator. It's not paper, is has no space restriction. What exactly is the harm in presenting this material? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking as someone who may have some knowledge on the topic, I think such a section, if keenly written and sourced, would be helpful to readers. That said, I've already posted at length about this. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Michael and Gwen: sourced, detailed analysis in its own section improves the article. The text can often be improved. I hear a bit of "I just don't like it" in a large chorus. jmcw (talk) 10:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For an example of how this section should be properly written, one only has to look at this FA section for guidance. There's not a lot of "Pedler says..." and "Everett states"... there. While there may seem to be a lot of "I don't like it", the editors here have discussed the issue and come to a consensus. Isn't that what we're supposed to do? Maybe we should forget about discussing things and just do what we want. Doc   talk  13:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That section is quite nicely written. jmcw (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't intend on taking a large role in this discussion, I would just like to clarify my position. I removed the musical theory content because the consensus on this page at the time was to leave it out. Aside from my interpretation of the earlier consensus, I currently do not wish to put forward my own opinion. If consensus emerges that something on the musical theory or structure should be in the article, then I will support the implementation of such consensus. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I used to play in various pub rock bands in London during the 70’s and then as a session guitarist late 70’s / 80’s, albeit mainly advertising jingles, which required a certain amount of reading (bluff mainly - as I couldn’t sight read!) I’m not classically trained, although I can find my way around a score, so my background is r&r. I hate snobbery, especially within music. Michael, don’t be sad, at least working with low common denominators means we recognise pretentious bullshit when we see it. I don’t see how extensively citing Pedler et al, at least in the way NW has gone about it, adds any extra weight to this article. Actually, why don’t you read this thread again from the top (including the bits where we suggest discussing it here first) and then read what Gwen Gail has to say on her talk page? Also, jmcw, can you please explain why, as written, you think the removed section improves the article, giving examples? I believe that the deleted section goes far beyond WP:SONG in its present form. Finally, I agree with Doc’s last comment. --Patthedog (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

My take on this all along has been that there could easily be a consensus for such a section. Following the drawn-out edit warring, consensus became wholly lacking only if such a section were carried as had been (mostly) written and sourced by NimbusWeb. This can easily happen with widely sourced topics. There are so many published and cited sources on the Beatles, strong, weak and anything in between, good faith but undue weight can quickly throw a short section way out of whack, to where it begins to nettle editors and even mislead readers, which is what I think happened here. Perhaps sandboxing a new draft here in the talk space would help. Given this is a Beatles topic, it's likely nobody will get spot on what they want, but I'd be mildly startled if willing editors can't get together on writing something which most of them think is at least ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Common ground for a new consensus
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 are all too subjective/un-due weight to be in a general encyclopedia article.
 * "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"

I find much more objective and well cited.
 * "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. 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. "

I think that should not frighten people reading an article about music.
 * "The Song is in the key of E major and begins on "Close you eyes..." with a ii-V-I-vi- chord structure"

I agree with Patthedog ("Exactly. It reads like an essay on particle physics.") that 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.
 * "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."

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)


 * 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)


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

I've just come across this discussion and the lack of music appreciation did make me laugh. Muso's know the flatVII on 'always be true" is a magical moment in this song. You gotta include that stuff in people are going to take you seriously. Seems to me we got some editors here who can't value how music works. If you got guidelines that say the music is more important than the recording why would you put it at the bottom of the article?124.168.23.181 (talk) 08:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * A "magical moment" is certainly up for interpretation: see WP:NPOV. Doc   talk  08:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * I live in Perth, Australia203.206.76.118 (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)

This article should explain more about the music. The more the better. They were great musicians, still much loved here- in Japan.219.127.109.3 (talk) 05:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)

The Beatles weren't the Monkees you Muppets- they wrote and played their own stuff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.127.109.7 (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Muppets? Doc   talk  00:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We could be Statler and Waldorf; I think I'd quite like that.--Patthedog (talk) 08:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link 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 II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Coveer Versions
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)


 * Matt Munro had a cover that was slower in tempo than the Beatle's version, but was very good, worth adding to the article? Very likely the inspitation for the version sang each week here in Australia to close out the show "Young Talent Time" by Johnny Young. - Andrew Walker 2001:8003:1C4D:800:91ED:C4FF:8222:7C58 (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

External links modified
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)

Hatnote template
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)