Talk:Love Me Do/Archive 1

Songwriting Timeframe
The edits of this article contain different songwriting timeframes. The current edit (28 October 2006) states: whereas an earlier edit stated "1961-2".
 * "Love Me Do" is an early Lennon-McCartney song, principally written by Paul McCartney in 1958.

According to Lennon's quotation listed at :
 * "Paul wrote the main structure of this when he was sixteen, or even earlier. I think I had something to do with the middle."

Unless there is a precise year from another citation, "late 1950s" may be the most appropriate.

Zakko 19:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Zakko. I was referencing Paul's "Many Years From Now" page 37. Paul was born 1942, so age sixteen would place it '58. If however you think it's safer to say late 50's then ok. I would dispute ' 61/' 62 however. --Patthedog 20:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Patthedog,
 * Thank you for the reference. I agree with you that "1961-2" doesn't seem to be correct because Many Years From Now and Lennon's quotation (shown above) states that the song was mainly written when McCartney was 16 "or even earlier" (to quote Lennon). That what would set the timeframe for McCartney's main structure of "Love Me Do" at between 18 June 1956 and 17 June 1959 because he wrote his first song ("I Lost My Little Girl") when he was 14, and his 17th birthday was 18 June 1959 (he would be classed as being 16 years of age up to 17 June 1959). (Lennon thought that he had "something to do with the middle", and it's possible that some parts of the song were written between 1959 and 6 June 1962, when The Beatles recorded the song at their Parlophone audition.)
 * I think it's fair to say, on the basis of the references, that McCartney probably wrote the main structure before his 17th birthday, so either "late 1950s" would be appropriate, or maybe "1958-9" if we accept that it was mainly written when has was 16. I'll put "1958-9" in the article, and include the Many Years From Now and Lennon interview references. I hope that's OK with you.


 * Zakko. It’s probably fair to say that McCartney had the basis of this song already in his head when they apparently, according to McCartney, composed it together “eyeball to eyeball”. Certainly Lennon remembered it differently though, playing down his role. The middle eight “Someone to love” bit always sticks out as being added somehow, possibly Lennon? Anyway, I agree with you so that’s fine with me. --Patthedog 12:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Paul doesn't use the phrase 'eyeball to eyeball' on this one, although he might have done, since he actually credits it being a 50/50 composition -- another proof that Paul's book isn't ALL about taking credit from John. Paul doesn't mention himself having composed the main structure of this song years before it was recorded. He says it may have been his original IDEA, but that the two of them sat down and wrote the actual song together. So, attributing the chorus to McCartney, and the middle eight to Lennon therefore seems a bit simplistic to me. --84.208.224.234 (talk) 07:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Prevalence of Ringo version
"Most issues of the single contain the Andy White version of the track, which can also be heard on several albums (including Please Please Me) and the The Beatles' Hits EP. The initial issues of the UK single, however, featured the Ringo Starr version, which is also included on the compilation album Past Masters, Volume One. All singles printed with the red Parlophone label contain the Ringo Starr version, whereas the singles having a black Parlophone label are the Andy White version."

If the most recent Record Collector Rare Record Price Guide is anything to go by, this is untrue. The Ringo masters were used for black label pressings of the single until as late as 1964.

The evidence suggests that ALL 1960s UK Parlophone pressings of "Love Me Do", both red and black, are of the Ringo version. It appears that the Andy White version didn't surface on a British 45 until 1976 (!) -

What evidence would that be? - EVC


 * RRPG as noted above. 217.155.20.163 (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

although it was presumably used for overseas issues of the single. The red label reissue from 1982, confusingly enough, also features the Andy White version - you must get an original 1960s pressing in order to get the Ringo version.

Don't the post-1987 issues of the single (on vinyl and CD) use the Ringo version? One example was the thirtieth anniversary disc, released in 1992. - EVC

In summary (someone correct me if I'm wrong):

1962-3 red label = Ringo version

1963-4 black label = Ringo version

1976 black label = Andy version

1982 red label = Andy version

217.155.20.163 17:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. Both versions were made in the early '60s. First pressings on the red label have Ringo on drums and no tambourine. I have a black Parlophone 45 from the early '60s with Ringo on drums and no tambourine (7XCE 17144-1N). Matrix ending in -2N has Andy White on drums and Ringo on tambourine. Refer to www.jpgr.co.uk/r4949.html. The two versions are radically different to anyone strongly familiar with the tune.70.27.145.245 (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

'UTC' is unfortunately wrong. There is no evidence to support any Andy White version singles pre 1976. I have seen/heard several copies of the Four black label genuine pressings and ALL have the 1N matrix and Ringo on Drums. There is much assumed about this change but no evidence to support it. It appears that all information has been misinterpreted from the same source, but there is very little new investigations, I have identified FOUR black label variation, not the three normally discussed. Has any one ever seen this 2N matrix version or even one auctioned? To clarify Andy White did not appear on UK pressings until 6 March 1976 and can clearly be identified with the new master matrix 7XCE  17144-2 or just listen to the song. It is one of the easiest variations to spot. If there is a Tambourine being played it is the Andy White version. [MTP] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.205.82 (talk) 08:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I take issue with the dates, although that's a very minor point. The Andy White version replaced the first pressing [red label], after a couple of months. The 12-inch commemorative single [also a red label] contained both versions (as well as "PS I Love You"). I haven't checked which version was on the 1982 7-inch. What is anyone worried about? On the kind of record players that most Beatles' fans had in 1962, the two versions sound pretty much the same! [Hehehe]

EVC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evieconrad (talk • contribs) 16:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The RRPG (2008 edition) indicates that there were three different pressing runs of the Love Me Do single during the 1960s - the original 1962 red label pressing, a 1963 black label pressing, and a 1964 black label pressing - all featuring the Ringo version. The guide doesn't list any 1960s UK pressings featuring the Andy White version, and anecdotal evidence from web forums and other sites suggests that such pressings do not exist (i.e. no collector has yet found one).


 * You're right to say that the difference probably doesn't matter for the average listener, as the takes do sound very similar, but if the article is to include this info at all it should at least be correct! The 1982 7-inch has the White version on it, while the 12-inch (as you say) has both versions. 217.155.20.163 (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Harmonica
"It was on the 4 September session that Martin suggested using a harmonica, presumably replacing a guitar phrase."

Actually, the "audition session" version with Pete Best, which was recorded I believe in June and released on Anthology 1, also has harmonica. So the idea to use the harmonica, whether Martin's or Lennon's or whoever, was made well before the single version with Ringo.--216.165.62.139 14:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Will look into and amend. --Patthedog 16:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If I remember my Lewisohn correctly, Martin's suggestion was for Paul to sing "Love me do, wo-oh, love me do" solo as John played the harmonica, rather than have John interrupt himself in the middle of the phrase to do so. Cheemo 04:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem seems to be aging minds! McCartney says that Martin suggested using the harmonica to replace a (guitar) phrase. That then meant that Lennon's vocal became compromised, and so McCartney was given the big line to sing. However, Martin thinks that the harmonica was already a part of the song when he first heard it. Trouble is, I can't find any other references to this from anyone else i.e. Lennon / Harrison / Starr. Perhaps others could help? Anyway, both versions appear.--Patthedog 10:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

George singing?
I was not aware that George sings in this, as the article states. I'm 99% sure that it's just Paul and John. tacotank10 19:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Just looked on YouTube and George just stands in the background. But, none of the clips show them singing the "someone to love" bridge. If we can eliminate that, then we can amend. BTW, MacDonald credits Harrison as a vocal. Cheers,--Patthedog 20:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't hear a part for him. It should be changed. 141.161.53.143 17:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What editors hear is WP:OR. What do the sources say? MacDonald credits Harrison. Do any other sources agree? Do other sources disagree? Article content must be based on verifiable source material. John Cardinal 17:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Knew this would happen! I think MacDonald is mistaken. I don’t see any reference to Harrison anywhere else from other reliable sources. But, obviously, put it back in if his opinion alone overrides the absence of any mention of Harrison elsewhere.--Patthedog 21:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the absence of any mention of George singing qualifies as evidence, but I don't have any other source that spells out the credits. If someone does, the source should be cited and perhaps a note can be added that MacDonald shows Harrison on vocals but he's the lone source who has it. (I only suggest that because MacDonald is cited in lots of other Beatle song articles and omitting it without mention is not consistent, IMO.)
 * There is one bit of evidence that is interesting. In a photograph on page 19 of Lewisohn's Recording Sessions, Paul, John, and George are shown singing around a single mic. The picture was taken 4 September 1962, when the first version of "Love Me Do" was recorded. They also performed "How Do You Do It" that day, and for that and other reasons the photo is not compelling evidence... &mdash; John Cardinal 21:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * They also rehearsed Please Please Me during that session. MacDonald even says (with regards to Love Me Do) “only Harrison stayed in the background strumming diffidently”. I think it’s a typo, but, unless it can be resolved one way or the other, then perhaps the discrepancy ought to be pointed out. --Patthedog 22:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The following comment by John Cardinal was made on my talk page, and I have put it here as it sums up this predicament very well:


 * "One aspect of citing sources that people don't like is citing evidence they believe to be incorrect. (I believe it stems from a desire to record facts as opposed to evidence.) People don't understand why evidence they believe to be incorrect should be added. We have a great example with "Love Me Do" and MacDonald's vocal credit for Harrison: not including it will devalue every other citation to MacDonald in all other song articles! If it is not included, it basically says that we (Wikipedia editors) only cite MacDonald when we agree with him. It's far better to cite evidence, and let the reader draw conclusions. A simple, evidence-based observation that MacDonald is the lone source for that vocal credit, or that n other sources do not include Harrison, or something similar, will acknowledge that we did the research and reported what we found.
 * Clearly, it takes judgement to determine what to include and what to exclude. If one blogger says that Harrison sang lead, we are not under obligation to include that in the article; the hypothetical blogger is not an expert and is not cited elsewhere in Wikipedia. In this case, though, Wikipedia editors have cited MacDonald extensively and he is considered an expert. It would be a POV-based exclusion to omit it".

I have amended the credits to reflect the situation.--Patthedog 11:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Beatles.lovemedo.single.jpg
Image:Beatles.lovemedo.single.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 Wikipedia articles 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.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at 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 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 02:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Added/updated FU rationale. &mdash; John Cardinal 03:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ownership of the song
Later, Lennon and McCartney were able to buy back ownership of these two titles which have always remained separate from Lennon & McCartney's main catalogue of material.

The article implies that Lennon & McCartney bought back the rights together before John died. However, the song is owned by MPL Communications (it's listed on the MPL website), which I suppose means that Paul alone owns it? One of the articles in a book I was reading the other day (Mojo magazine's The Beatles: Ten Years that Shook the World) says that McCartney owns the song, and gives John's share of the royalties to Yoko. I'm mostly just posting this to remind myself to check it and add it to the article at some point. :-) -- Nick RTalk 17:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do, it needs clarifying. Thanks --Patthedog (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions.
A banner has been posted on the article relating to miscellanea; I agree in principle that the information contained within could be either re-located or deleted. Also, the Ron Richards section now looks to me to ramble on a bit? I wouldn’t mind this being revised or preferably deleted altogether as well (I put most of it there in the first place – it seemed a good idea at the time!) So, get rid of two headings - what do others think? --Patthedog (talk) 11:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Pruned, but not deleted.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  15:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't see how Ron Richards could be pruned (sounds awfully painful anyway); it's all or nothing - and as I can't really see its point anymore, I'm leaning towards nothing. The trivia section could be broken up and inserted elsewhere, if relevant. --Patthedog (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Beatles "The/the" Issue Mediation Input Request
Please note that request for input by email was made on the talk page, *not* on the page mentioned above. Email must be submitted to be considered as your input to this matter. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 11:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Best's Firing
The norm in those days was to have a studio drummer who was familiar with studio techniques, hence Andy White was used, ignoring both drummers. Martin never said fire Best. He said he was OK for live gigs as no one would notice. Pete Best never went to an audition at Abbey Rd, it was the real thing as recording contract was signed. The norm was with new bands was to have a session to see what they are capable of.94.193.166.247 (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Very Close

 * close to issuing "How Do You Do It?"

No. And a study of ML's work shows this clearly. The group deliberately recorded as badly as they could.

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)