Talk:Peace of Mind/The Candle Burns

POV title?
There are a number of Beatles experts who would make the case that this is indeed a Beatles song, and I think naming the page "Fake Beatles Song" it POV in and of itself. Hahawhat 22:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Paul, Ringo, and George Martin have all been asked about "Peace Of Mind" and/or "The Candle Burns" and it didn't ring a bell with any of them. --Humanoidboogie 03:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've heard the song; anyone without a tin ear can tell it's not Lennon, and he would never write lyrics that cliche 207.127.128.2 22:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. First half of the lyrics bear some resemblance with "Strawberry Fiels" and other Beatle songs of that period. But talking about last verses... Whatever the сase may be Len-Mac used to write surreal or humorous innuendo type of songs, not nonsence gubberish, like "He'll whistle in the wind's yellow mirror message. "

Pat Jackman an expert on the Beatles? I think not. No Beatles expert would be so foolish as to think this is a Beatles song. The title of his blog "Peace Of Mind":- Blatant Forgery or Undiscovered Beatles Song" omits the most likely possibility, that it was an demo sent into Apple some time in the late sixties or even seventies, from the beginning. Apple was receiving thousands of demos at that time because of John and Paul's naivete about the music business. There's an interview with them where they publicly soilicit anyone and everyone interested in getting signed to submit music to Apple. It's amazing that there's not more "Beatle trash" out there. This blog article is easy to debunk.

-For example, he argues that the track must be from 1966 entirely on the basis of the lyric "and lead you to a brand new world that lately has been banned." He says:

"There is one line in the lyrics that has always caught my ear; “And lead you to a brand new world that lately has been banned.” Acid was certainly new, in terms of its more common use in the mid Sixties. And in 1966 the use of it recreationally was banned in the UK. That, assuming that this was recorded in the Sixties, would place it very firmly in 1966, and not in 1967 as had been conjectured. So we can quickly discount the 1967 recording session idea because, if this is indeed a Beatles song, they would not have held onto this song for over a year, they usually moved far too fast to do that."

There are so many things wrong with this paragraph I will only point out the obvious: 1. The falacy of assuming that even bad poetry is to be taken literally. 2. Even if it is literally about drugs specifically, it's far-fetched to conclude it's about LSD, and that "lately" must mean within the past few months. 3. Jackman reasons it's about LSD because the Beatles did LSD, then uses this to place the track very firmly in 1966. Then later uses this point to say that it's a Beatles track because only the Beatles were doing that kind of music back then:

"That leaves us with the two final options, The Beatles wrote this song or someone else did. To that I would say, if you can find me a group of people in the year 1966 who were familiar with varispeed, backwards recording techniques, who had at least two tape machines and mikes at home..." 4. (I admit) I don't even understand the last sentence (discount the idea of 1967 because they would not have held onto this song for over a year?)

-We also have assertions that it could not be Syd Barrett because it does not sound like the Pink Floyd album "More" (an album Barrett is not on.)

"Comparisons between this and Syd Barrett are a little harder to disprove. Certainly listening to Pink Floyds album ‘More’ found no songs that were lyrically even remotely similar to this song..."

It's probably not Barrett or Floyd, but if anything "Piece of Mind" resembles the sound of the post-Barrett early Pink Floyd singles like "Point Me at the Sky." It's too pedestrian to have been a Barrett track (and doesn't sound like him anyway.) The idea that Pink Floyd couldn't do 3-part harmony is laughable. Not that an intelligent person would conclude that this is a Floyd track with no evidence regardless- it hardly sounds like them either.

-I'm from the States, and even I can hear that the accent is not Liverpool.

-Lyrically, "Piece" would be a regression from Lennon/McCartney's psychedellic writings. I'm not tempted to believe they are throw-away lines from Harrison, either, although that's closer to the mark.

-The idea that this song "became" "Dear Prudence" is ridiculous, they are 2 different songs. Likewise with Tommorrow Never Knows: it's well documented on Anthology in an interview with McCartney (early takes of TNK were called "Mark One." The song was written by John.) This doesn't stop Jackman from asserting (in the case of Dear Prudence) that-

"It wouldn’t have been the first time that Lennon would discard an idea only to return to it later in another form, look at “Child Of Nature”/”Jealous Guy” for example."

-which is an example of changing the lyrics and arrangement in a song (like cutting a song from a demo, it's pretty much the same song), not making a totally different song.

I actually thought the blog article was a joke at first. This is a clear-cut case of using conjecture to support a belief, in leau of actual evidence, and it serves no one. Regular wiki editors could probably go further in discrediting this source.

Fair use rationale for Image:20x4beatles.jpg
Image:20x4beatles.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.

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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Peaceofmindcover.jpg
Image:Peaceofmindcover.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.

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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Re-write
I came across this article with a fleeting interest in the song, and ended up spending far too much time looking into it. The article seemed somewhat unfocused and low on actual references, so I decided to re-write the whole article rather than tweak it. I tried to incorporate all verifiable info from the previous version, though it may be redistributed among the sections. I apologize to previous contributors if I didn't give your words a fair shake. Mainstream Nerd (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Does this really merit it's own article?
Is this article really necessary? It certainly deserves a mention on The Beatles bootleg recordings page, but I am wondering if it really needs it's own article? If we're going to have this article, then shouldn't Penny O' Dell, Lonely Like A Rainbow, We are the moles, Relax In Bed, Shake Up Your Engines, Try and Get You Back Again, So Fine, The Girl I Love, True To You, Take Out The Hudson etc also have their own articles? This article just seems unnecessary.

--User:Isshii 03:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Silly question
I remember hearing a very old like a traditional pop song that's melodically similar to this one. Anyone happen to know it? --80.221.222.185 (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The Knickerbockers?
I wrote on my personal blog that the song, musically and lyrically, sounds a lot like the Knickerbockers' 1966 song "High On Love" (a song mentioned in The Knickerbockers article). Anyone think there could be a connection, like it was an early draft?


 * http://danq.co/2014/03/06/the-candle-burnspeace-of-mind-my-guess-the-knickerbockers/
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3eFUGgU2DA

-75.97.65.134 (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

English
Peace of mind 49.144.106.22 (talk) 08:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

David Hunter and Walton Jones Section Revert
I reverted the revert/edit by Zeltzamer. The source for that material was a wordpress blog.. That's not determinative of whether it's a reliable source but according to WP:BLOG blogs should be cited with great caution. The blog post offers very little evidence, other than (1) it appeared suddenly and there's nothing out there other than the bootlegs (fair point), (2) this isn't worthy of the Beatles (but What's The New Mary Jane? is hardly high art), and (3) "Someone named John Roberts" and "Someone Named Walton Jones" said something online (YMMV). Besides that, by my count, we have two more sources (a) someone who posted on the internet, and (b) someone who posted on YouTube. I'm not convinced this is the Beatles, but Wikipedians need to strive for quality sourcing, and this is not what reliable sourcing looks like. If you disagree, let's discuss here. Oblivy (talk) 05:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I’ll concede that if it were only the WordPress blogpost I wouldn’t think much of it. But this page is filed under “Low-importance Beatles articles” and that’s probably the same level it’d take in someone’s life. So the chances of at least two people going to the trouble of recording and editing together a phony broadcast complete with the radio hiss and the station call sign are effectively zero. Combine that with the vividness of their accounts and I think it at least warrants a mention on the page. It’s almost certainly the best and most detailed lead out there so far. Zeltzamer (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You need to start from the principle that everything added to Wikipedia needs to be based on a reliable source. Occasionally an article is diminished by not including a claim made in a blog or by a random website commenter, in which case I suggest two possible approaches:
 * report on the assertion rather than the fact, that is, to present the blog comments as something that happened. Although this is to some extent the approach taken in the reverted text, no effort was made to establish the credibility/notability/authoritativeness of the blog/commenter (which IMHO aren't very high here);
 * it may be possible to add to the article based on the sources from the blog, if those can be tracked down; these sources seem sketchy but I'll admit I haven't tried to track down "someone named John Roberts" or the Soundcloud account etc.
 * Hope this is helpful. Oblivy (talk) 08:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)