Talk:Break-up of the Beatles/Archive 1

Word Choice
I noticed as I read this that the level of vocabulary is extraneously profound, to the point of increasing difficulty in comprehension. It appears as if whomever the writer is is intentionally attempting to use more complex words. I am sure that on Wikipedia more diverse language than "good" and "different" will be permitted, but the usage here is inane. There is no reason to use "contemporaneous" or "incipient" in an article made to inform. There are other ways of saying that, like "simultaneously", "concurrent", or "foolish", "shallow", in pairs, respectively. These would work fine, and in some cases the actual definition of the word does not denote its meaning. It retracts from the overall experience and is overzealous in use, unnecessary.

Arque (talk) 00:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)naturada137


 * I agree that the language sounds silly and deliberately designed to come off as erudite.
 * Though it is more annoying to read than it is difficult to understand. The article should be completely rewritten.
 * I suggest reverting back all the way to early February 2007, before the revisions of this "Rkapla02".
 * Feyre (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, it just sounds forced, somebody should edit it down to English that isnt so aggravating to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.222.237.104 (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It annoyed me to no end. I don't even like the Beatles, I was just curious to read up on their history and I get this drivel.  So I rewrote it a bit, feel free to continue the trend if I missed some post-structuralist postmodern critiques of the borgeouisie social constructivism that dominates our patriarchial paradigm worldview of this article.75.66.101.77 (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge
I do not think it should be merged because it is a separate issue--Wompa99 00:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. The main article covers it adequately. There's certainly plenty of space in either the main Beatles article or the History of the Beatles article to fit in your viewpoint on the breakup. So far this article weighs in at just a few sentences. I don't see it getting substantially larger unless you go into highly detailed description. FunnyYetTasty 19:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I just took a look at the History of the Beatles page and there's really no need for this page. The article completely covers the breakup theories, at excruciating length. I've added the merge statement again. I think your idea is worth incorporating into the history page, b ut if this page were to stand on its own, I would recommend its deletion. FunnyYetTasty 19:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is what the Beatles WikiProject is for. We've already got a problem on our hands sorting out the History article and the History section of the main article, without new forks coming up. We're not adverse to merging/deleting articles, either. However, we need to know about these things so in future if such an issue arises please let us know :) I'll start a thread on the project's talk page. --kingboyk 22:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd think this could be merged too, or be a subarticle of History... that article needs a lot of work, and that is where I think folks should consider spending their time.  + + Lar: t/c 12:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

What broke up the Beatles?
I can accept the final act by Paul, the "broke up" the Beatles. But what ought to be included is what led up to this decision by Paul. Any facts available? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by USPatriot (talk • contribs) 14:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes read the court affadavit from 1971. Paul McCartney's deposition/affadavit was quite detailed. It is also discussed in Barry Miles biography on Paul McCartney as well as the Playboy magazine interview in 1984. (Rkapla02 19:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

Gabstrum (talk) 06:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)GAB 11/10/09Gabstrum (talk) 06:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I cannot accept that paul broke up the beatles. John clearly walked out first, withi george following. they (John and George) were persuaded by Allan Klein to keep it quiet. Paul was the 3rd Beatle to walk out, but only because of his stormy relationship with Klein did he publicly announce his departure from the band. this should be mentioned in the article, because most people assume that it was Paul.

Redirect Removed, Article Added
I think the breakup of the Beatles is complicated and interesting enough to warrant an article dedicated to it, so I've added one. What you see now was typed painstakingly in one go, and I'd appreciate it if everyone could edit it in a way that improves the article. Some of the claims I've made will require citation, but I am not that familiar with wiki-markup, and I don't really know how to do it. Basically, anyone who can improve the article, please do. Notahippie76 21:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Edit: I also made some redirects that made the article easier to reach. Notahippie76 01:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC) Edit: Given the extensive library of books and articles published on matters germane to the break up I have made contributions. I will commence working on the bibliography.Rkapla02 19:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Edit : The last section can be removed. With regard to arbitrarily removing it as a separate listing requires a consensus among all the primary authors and editors on the Beatles' subject matter/articles in Wikipedia. Need I remind you that McCartney's announcement made headlines across the western hemisphere and has been the subject of extensive Beatles' scholars analysis? You enter the slippery slope arguement e.g. well we do not need any subsections. Have all the biographies, history, musicology, records, films under just one article section. I believe your two cents may be put to better use elsewhere because you don't get it. Rkapla02 19:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC))
 * Actually, I don't get it. Despite being a rather huge Beatles fan, I can't see an encyclopedia article being dedicated strictly to the dissolution of a rock group - any rock group. And the end section is pure opinion, not fact. Just m y two cents. -ZincOrbie 19:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Geez, sorry. I didn't realize some people are so sensitive about their obsessions. Enjoy yourself.-ZincOrbie 13:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

A [learned?] "huge Beatle fan" should have enough insight along with FunnyYetTasty's terse and misguided statements that the main article does not go into 'excruciating detail' re: break up. The text describing the break up was not adequately addressed in the major topic review. In addition I have included references that more directcly characterize the time period and utilize original interviews (sources). For those participating in the talk/authorship or editorial section, we should all be sensitive and obsessed with this material. We should all find gratification and enjoyment in contributing meaningful and thoughtful content. If this were not the case the project would not been so productive. Even Robert Spitz made a major mistake in chronologically writing about the break up. John Lennon did not announce in an Apple Board meeting in December 1968 that he was leaving the group. He references Ray Coleman's pseudo-biography on John Lennon for this information. Unfortunately, if you read that chapter carefully (and the book for that matter) his authorship is not strictly chronological. However, it is clear from the Doug Sulpy et al publication that the possibility of the break up was openly discussed in the Twickenham film sessions. A text without a context is a pretext.Rkapla02 00:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Category tags
The current category tags cause "Breakup Of The Beatles" to be listed among bands that are in the Rock'n'Roll hall of fame, and other lists. This just looks sloppy. Recommend that the category tags be cleaned up to avoid this? I.M. 5:23 February 22, 2007

"Overview"
"The breakup of The Beatles was one of the most widely scrutinised and publicised events in the media for the past three decades" - that's a little much, don't you think?


 * 1 ) Who Are You? Sign your posts with four tildes please (shift and hash key, x 4). 2) No, I don't think so, because even though they were "only a band" it's all true. Britmax (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

To the unsigned first comment: It's still being discussed, which is not bad for "A good little Rock 'n Roll band" (as McCartney and Lennon both said).--andreasegde (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Abbey Road
This should have a section about Abbey Road, and how everyone got on with each other in the studio, which then led to the chaos surrounding Let It Be. Even during the recording of Abbey Road, Ringo said, "Nobody was saying, 'OK, last track'".--andreasegde (talk) 10:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, Let It Be was recorded mostly in early 1969. Abbey Road was recorded afterward -- mostly in the summer of 1969. However, Let It Be was released after Abbey Road. So, the bad feelings, etc., of Let It Be actually occurred before the Abbey Road recording sessions. Only a small bit of Let It Be was recorded after the Abbey Road sessions. Famspear (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

See also (?)
I think the current "See also" section is not appropriate for this article --Alexcalamaro (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I removed it. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

\ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.126.16 (talk) 03:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Rename
I see this was just moved from The Beatles' break-up to Disbandment of The Beatles. That strikes me as an inappropriate title; disband is a transitive verb, and also suggests a fairly immediate result, whereas, as the lead states, "It was not a single event but a long transition". I propose returning to The Beatles' break-up, which seems to be a better title. PL290 (talk) 07:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus to move, should be undone immediately.  ~DC  We Can Work It Out 07:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have moved it back for a discussion on the subject. I do not think this page should be moved per the first comment, although I'm unsure what you mean by 'disband' being a transitive verb.  McLerristarr /  Mclay1  07:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

According to Oxford Dictionaries Online, "disband" is synonymous with "break up".  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  21:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Drugs?
The overwhelming impression I came away with after reading Spitz's bio was that Lennon's heroin addiction made him irritable, uncooperative, and self-centred (or maybe made manifest these underlying aspects of his character). As much as pot and lsd may have stimulated creativity, heroin seems to have been a serious factor in the group's, and Lennon's, decline. Worth mentioning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.187.253 (talk) 04:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)