Talk:The Beatles/Archive 11

NPOV
I just read the first section of this article and it definitely sounds like a fan wrote it. It needs cleanup. It overglorifies the band. 207.67.145.222 05:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it does sound very biased. I think this article needs a serious overhaul and remove all point of views from it. Cdscottie 1 December, 2006

New Beatles Album
I included it and call the people who are regulars in this page to expand it and make the article better. Berserkerz Crit 13:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reverted. A compilation, even if it's new, doesn't merit inclusion as a chapter: there have been dozens of these. We only include the "studio albums" and films, as well as the important singles. "Love" is already mentioned in the relevant article: The_Beatles_discography. yandman  13:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok I digress. I see even the Love album has its own comprehensive page already. I just saw it in Yahoo News and thought it might be good to add it. =) Berserkerz Crit 15:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Love" isn't just a compilation. It's George Martin (and his son) remixing Beatles songs, and via "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" it includes what is probably the last time George Martin will ever compose new orchestration for a Beatles song.  I think this is almost as significant as the Anthology. Sir Lemming 05:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The last time George Martin will ever compose new orchestration for a Beatles song? Thank God for That! Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 13:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Vera! You didn't like Love? Not even "Nus Gnik"? Tvoz | talk 20:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hiya Tvoz! Sorry I didn't notice your post until now. Yeah, it's OK, but I feel that Sir George has had more than a good run for his money, to the point where it's getting ridiculous. I mean, like a fortnight ago, his cat was sitting there, and when he came into the room, the cat said "meow, meow," and his son said to him: "You want to get that orchestrated Dad" The poor little bugger shot out the window and hasn't been seen since! Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 12:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Grammys
How many grammys did they win? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.113.131.124 (talk • contribs) 22:35, November 22, 2006 (UTC).


 * Actually, there is a very comprehensive page on the Grammy awards that they have won over the years, updated to 2006. http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/grammy.htm  Hmm, good info there. Could be used a few different ways for Wiki Beatles I suppose. Exhaustively covers the Beatles Grammy wins and nominations, strictly an American award, of course. Does anyone have good info on the British music awards they have won? InnerRevolution7 07:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Audition, first recording and the "tie" joke
While adding a reference for Harrison's joke about George Martin's tie, I noticed something. Hunter Davies' biography (1981 edition) states that he made the joke on the date of their "Love Me Do"/"P.S. I Love You" recording (11 September 1962); the Wikipedia article currently suggests that he said it on the 6 June audition. I don't have time to properly fix this mistake right now, but I'm just bringing it to everyone's attention! -- Nick RTalk 14:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh-oh... having just checked Revolution In The Head, that book implies that the way the article currently describes it is correct. What do other books say? -- Nick RTalk 14:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Mark Lewisohn’s The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions has it being cracked at the 6 June audition, (with Pete Best). George Martin describes the remark as the “ice breaker” that then lead into a riotous twenty minutes of  wise cracking within the group, leaving him, and Ron Richards (his assistant) wiping away tears of laughter. It was their sense of humour initially, Martin has said, that attracted him to them, and not their music. --Patthedog 16:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, so the current article's correct then? From what I hear, Hunter Davies' biography is infamously incorrect about a few things, such as the date of John and Paul's first meeting. Have mistakes like that been corrected in more recent editions of the book? -- Nick RTalk 15:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hunter Davies also declared that Paul McCartney was, in fact, right handed. Surprisingly, this is still a contentious issue. That one is still in the re-print as far as I know. George definitely cracked the tie joke at the audition though. --Patthedog 15:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, It's Philip Normans' Shout that has McCartney as right handed. --Patthedog 15:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But it's still Hunter Davies who went so far as to get Paul's name wrong! Most unforgiveable of all, he misstated "Safe As Milk" to be "Milk is Harmless", so that I did not find out until decades later that there was a connection between two of my favorite musical acts. Raymond Arritt 00:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How did he get Pual’s name wrong? As for Colonel Waspchuff… --Patthedog 18:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In the original edition of the bio he had it as "John Paul McCartney", not "James Paul McCartney." I don't know if it was fixed in later revisions. Raymond Arritt 18:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Uneditable text?
At the end of the 'Breakup' section, this rather opinionated text appears: "Overall, the beatles are the MOST overated band in the history of the world and should not even be capitalized because of it." Yet, if I try to edit the section to remove it, it does not appear as editable text (in fact, it does not appear at all). This is not the only time I have seen text of this 'invisible' nature appear in articles - I wonder if there is some way to hack a wiki article? 80.143.232.71 22:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC) Hmmmm, well, it appears that RickR may have removed the text just as I was trying to remove it.....80.143.232.71 22:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * hahahaha - sorry, this one is funny. Yes, I'm catching up. Tvoz | talk 20:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

George & John/George & Paul
Is While My Guitar Gently Weeps the one instance where only George and Paul had harmony vocals? Is Words of Love the one instance where only George and John had harmony vocals?--Secret Agent Man 03:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC) I don't have the reference books to hand, but All My Loving was jointly sung by Paul and George; my theory is that the superfast triplets played by John made singing the harmony too difficult. Apepper 19:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you about the triplets, but George only sang the melody [with Paul as low harmony] on "All My Loving" live - the album version features double-tracked Paul. In all instances, John and George back Paul up on the chorus. John and Paul sing "Words Of Love" on Beatles For Sale. George sang it with John in the Pre-EMI days on stage. You could note that "She Said She Said" only features the vocals of John and George. Of course, the only "genuine" John / George lead vocal is "You've Really Got A Hold On Me".

Paul is the sole background singer [aside from an over-dubbed George on the titles marked *] on George's "You Like Me Too Much", "Love You To" [deleted, or at least buried in the mix], "Long, Long, Long", "I. Me. Mine.*", "Something" and "Here Comes The Sun*"; similarly, it's only Paul and George singing on "Let It Be", although John contributed backing vocals to the "live" version from January 1969. John M. 00:28, 21 December 2006

First sentence edit war
Regarding the first sentence of the article, there seems to be quite an edit war going on. Could we please settle whether the sentence should be "The Beatles were THE most critically acclaimed band in history" or "ONE OF THE most critically acclaimed bands in history"?
 * I would think that "one of" would be less controversial and easier to cite references for. To support a big statement like "the most", you'd need to reference an awful lot of articles and books. -- Nick RTalk 14:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is that "one of" doesn't mean anything, and is to be avoided per WP:WEASEL. Following WP:Avoid Undue Weight, I think "the" is not a huge risk. yandman  14:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The Beatles were a highly influential English rock band from Liverpool.  ---  Lmcelhiney 19:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC) ---
 * NO, IT WOULD NOT BE "WAS" IN THE US, NOT WITH A PLURALIZED NOUN AS THE SUBJECT. SEE BELOW. Tvoz | talk 22:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

In response to the comments about the use and misuse of "was" and "were" in relation to collective nouns, it must be stated that in the first sentence of the article on 'The Beatles', "The Beatles were a highly influential English rock band", the "were" refers to "The Beatles", and not to "band" - and even if the verb were to refer to the collective noun "band", the sentence would still read - "A highly influential English rock band was 'The Beatles'", not "A highly influential English rock band were 'The Beatles'". "The Beatles" is the name of a band, and when the name of a band is a plural noun, other examples being "The Killers" and "The Rolling Stones", it is entirely up to one's personal preference whether or not it should be treated as a plural. Usually it should be treated in its singular form when it refers to the band as a whole, for example: "'The Beatles' was not the greatest band in history". However, it sounds much more flowing in its plural form when it refers to all four members, such as "'The Beatles' were giving a concert last night". "The band was called 'The Beatles'" - although this is a sentence which should attract no debate for its correctness or appropriateness, there will always be debate about the "The Beatles was/were a famous band". Neither one of them is incorrect. Personally I prefer "was" in this context. 1 p.m., 16/12/2006


 * "The Beatles was a band" would never, ever, be said in the US. Never. "Radiohead is a band"  would.  We understand that you might say "Radiohead are a band" and that sounds odd to our ears but not entirely wrong, but "The Beatles", being a pluralized noun ending in "s", would never be correctly rendered with "was" in the US.  The hidden note was therefore incorrect and confusing and I removed it.  Tvoz | talk 21:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, my dear Tvoz, what about the name "The New York Times" or such? It's only one copy of a newspaper, so would you say that "My 'N.Y. Times' are wrinkled in the corner"? If you are a shopkeeper and you just received your daily box of 50 copies of the N.Y. Times' for reselling and every single one of them are wrinkled in the corner, you would. But as a civilian receiving one copy to which it refers, I think "is" would be more prominent than "are". It's not the actual time in plural that is wrinkled, it's one copy of a newspaper. Back to Beatles, what if it was a music project all done by one man named Mike Smith? Would you say that "The Beatles have released another CD"? Yes? Would you then say "Mike Smith have released another CD", it being the same sentence in content? People do say "was" in the US when referring to one band, not the four band members. And even if they didn't, I'm sure that "Beatles was" wouldn't sound any more odd to an American ear than "Radiohead are". I would vote for "was". --88.112.185.239 19:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Sorry, but you are totally wrong about American usage in all 3 (NY Times, Beatles, and Mike Smith).  See below, my dear 88.112.185.239.  Tvoz | talk 01:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is all getting a bit pedantic. Clearly "the Beatles" is (or should that be "are"?!) plural, whereas Mike Smith (to use the last contributor's example) wouldn't be - this is just common sense.  Also I'm not convinced that people in the US say "The Beatles is....", and in fact it's very easy to find American articles that refer to the Beatles in the plural - see this from CNN.com, for example.  Personally, I just think you should forget all the grammatical arguments and go with what sounds right.  Incidentally, that Mike Smith was a very talented bloke and I think it's very sad that he let that lot from Liverpool take all the credit.  MFlet1 23:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is so silly! We don't!!  Not when the name of the band  is a plural noun ending in "s" which "Beatles" is.   What can I tell you - no native speaker of American English would ever say "The Beatles is a band".  They just wouldn't.  They wouldn't say "The Beatles was great until they broke up."  That sounds illiterate.   I don't know how to convince you, but it is a fact.  "The Beatles" is a plural noun and as such it takes "are". Always.    "The New York Times is a great paper to wrap your fish in" would be the way we would render it, because we don't consider "Times" as a plural noun in this case, even though it seems that it should be one.  It's not used in the sense of being plural for "time", although that is presumably the derivation.  "The Times of London is also great for fish-wrapping"  is what we'd say too.  Always. (And in your example, if I were a shopkeeper, I would say "My copies of The New York Times are all wrinkled.")   I know it may not follow the logical rules that  you ascribe to American English, but we're not that logical -  sometimes life just isn't that neat, especially when it comes to language.  "Radiohead is a damn  good band, but the Beatles are better. The Rolling Stones are not as good as either one  and I don't think Mike Smith is a plural noun."  That is how we say it in the US.  Trust me.  I wouldn't steer you wrong.   MFlet1 is right - go with your ears. Tvoz | talk 01:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz's ear for American English is, to my ears (and I pay pretty close attention to the way language is spoken and written), entirely correct -- no literate person would say "the Beatles is/was." The citation given above to www.learnenglish.org.uk/grammar/archive/collective_nouns.html, offered as evidence that "is/was" is acceptable usage, actually does not support this view at all. Each of the examples given there is of a noun that is singular in contruction (i.e., the noun in question does not have an "s" on the end) but that nonetheless will not necessarily require a plural verb (depending on such things as whether the speaker is English or American, whether the emphasis is on the individuals in the collective or on the collective itself, etc.). By contrast, what we're dealing with here is a noun that is plural in construction ("Beatles" has an "s" on the end), rendering that citation completely irrelevant. It's instructive to do a Google search on "Beatles was" (you have to put it in quotations when you search it, in order to return exactly that character string); although there are many hits, the vast majority of them are occurences like these: (a) "The music of the Beatles was really groovy," in which the subject of the verb is the singular noun "music" (not "Beatles," which is the object of the preposition "of"); and (b) "'The Beatles' was a groovy double album that became know as the White Album," in which "The Beatles" is the name of the album, which is clearly singular. I was surprised by the comment made above that this is a question entirely up to one's own personal preference. Although it is sometimes true that the language hasn't definitively settled on one usage over another (e.g., in American usage you're as likely to see "life-size poltergeist" as "life-sized poltergeist" (notwithstanding the fact that you're not likely ever to see a poltergeist of any description)), this just doesn't seem to be one of those cases. When the language is undecided about a usage, you know it because you see lots of examples of the competing usages. Again, the Google search should have looked very different if the usage weren't settled. As always, I would love to see citation to a contrary authority or other evidence of significant actual usage, but this one seems fairly well settled and I believe most native English speakers would agree.McTavidge 03:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As a "native" English speaker, I agree. "The Beatles were a rock band, John Lennon was a member". Lion King 13:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm so amused that McTavidge completely tries to kill my point with my explanations for my point. He said that "'The Beatles' was a groovy double album that became know as the White Album," in which "The Beatles" is the name of the album, which is clearly singular. The name is clearly still plural: The Beatles. It's one record album, so it's still "The Beatles is". Nobody in the universe that talks proper English would say "'The Beatles' are an double album." It's the same with the band: It's only one band that is being referred to. I would understand if there were 27 bands called "The Beatles" and this was an article of them all, but this is just one band. "Radiohead are" so "The Beatles is". That's my statement. What about this one? Plural name, singluar verbs! Nobody would say "Matrix Revolutions are the worst film in the trilogy" (content aside). Because it's only one film. And Lion King, try and take "The Beatles" out of that sentence. It becomes "were a rock band", just like saying "An apple are usually round" - totally wrong. On rule of thumb, all words in a plural sentence should always be in plural if possible. "A computer are an electronical device" and "Cords is long" are wrong, but "A computer is an electronical device" and "Cords are long" aren't. You just can't mix a plural verb and a singular substantive as an object. From the couple of languages I can read, all The Beatles articles except for English and Simple English use singular verbs. --88.113.115.207 16:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have been reading, writing and speaking English for more years than I care to remember, and I would Never write or say: "The Beatles Was a rock band" under any circumstances - I fink your'e on the wind up, 'avin a bit of a bleedin' larf ain'tcha?:) Lion King 18:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Would any Genuine British PeopleTM care to tell us whether the term taking the piss is applicable to this entire (non) issue? Raymond Arritt 18:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The term taking the piss is indeed applicable. Lion King 18:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * All I can say at this point is: Please cite examples of actual usage of music groups whose names feature plural contructions taking a singular verb or of an authoritative grammar source that supports your usage.McTavidge 01:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Former members/Members section
I think it's very stupid to call "fab four" as former members and displaying pete and stuart among the original fab four. Beatles are FOUR people. There're SIX person on the list; lokks like a funny problem over there. There must NOT be any confusion for wiki users who don't know about Beatles much. There's no FIFTH one. Paul, Ringo, George and John are "members", Stuart, Pete are "former members". If Beatles were not disbanded, then, yes, John & George'd be a former member. But fab four disbanded it themselves and they stay as "members"; NOT former members. Please someone fix this madness —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnEmerald (talk • contribs) 15:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Er...I don't understand this. Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 16:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I rectified the issue by adding the years the individuals were Beatles and moved Ringo up the list. Steelbeard1 17:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah I see! Thank you Steelbeard1. Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 17:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I mean, it seems a little bit wrong to say original fab four are former members. Members are George,JOhn,Ringo,Paul and former members are Pete & Stuart. Pete & Stuart must not be in the same category with the fab four. Original fabfour line-up makes the worldwide known famous Beatles. Not Pete & Stuart. Please seperate them --JohnEmerald 23:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Fab Four is a media invention. Both Stu Sutcliffe and Pete Best were members of The Beatles (they signed contracts as such), and Sutcliffe and Best were in the band at the same time as Lennon, McCartney and Harrison - making the group a five piece.LessHeard vanU 12:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How do we do it within the format constraints of the infobox? Should there be a separate infobox for defunct musical groups?  Defunct groups don't have "current members" and are all "former members." Steelbeard1 23:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree Steelbeard1, they are all "former members" - The Beatles are no more, defunct, kaput, finito benito! Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 00:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The naming convention of John, Paul, George, Ringo should be applied, then Best (as the last member to leave), Sutcliffe (left in Hamburg era) then Jimmy Nichol (or whatever his name) as he was only contracted as a temporary replacement.LessHeard vanU 12:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Let's see if that idea flies.  BTW, the name of Ringo's fill-in in 1964 was Jimmy Nicol. Steelbeard1 13:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about my repeated alteration of the article back to the Infobox guidelines. I don't really think we should deviate from those guidelines just for this one article, but if we do, it should also be mentioned and discussed at Template talk:Infobox musical artist. I'm not really sure how the best way to organise the list should be, but I will bring up one point about the dates: at the moment they all state that they joined 1960 or later. Should they be listed from the time they joined the Quarrymen? (1957 or later) or from the time they began using the name The Beatles? I think the former. -- Nick RTalk 13:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a separate article for The Quarrymen as there were many personnel changes in the lineup for The Quarrymen before other names like Johnny & the Moondog and The Silver Beetles were used. The Beatles lineup should start with 1960, the year the group adopted that name.  Steelbeard1 14:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree, that date being 17 August 1960. Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 14:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You know...wouldn't it make more sense to do away with the current/former member way of listing them? It would save a lot of confusion if we had a temporary member section or something for those who were not part of the fab four.   Discordant  Note  Cntrbtns  20:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * How many times do I have to say that there are NO CURRENT MEMBERS, ONLY FORMER MEMBERS! Steelbeard1 22:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That doesn't mean that current/former members is a good way to organize it. Discordant  Note  Cntrbtns  05:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's pretty obvious that the members most people associate with The Beatles are John, Paul, George, and Ringo. I suggest we put them in the "Members" section and put Best and Sutcliffe in a former members section.  This removes confusion from those who have never met the Beatles before and are trying to learn a little about them from thinking that either Best or Sutcliffe were an integral part of the band.  We wouldn't want to lead an entire generation astray :). Mrmaroon25 01:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The infobox format has been changed so that, template notwithstanding, the heading in question now says "Members" instead of "Current Members". So John, Paul George and Ringo have been moved to "Members" and Pete and Stu stay in "Former Members," Steelbeard1 04:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thankyou. Mrmaroon25 06:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, that does help clarify things a bit...but we're still getting a few people switching everyone to the former category. There's got to be a better way to label that, too...  Discordant  Note  Cntrbtns  11:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Lovable black eyeliner and dyed black hair ??
I was rereading the brief paragraph on the Magical Mystery Tour film, and began to wonder about the following line:

"...instead of showcasing the lovable black eyeliner they had donned up until then, it portrayed them as sensitive superheroes replete with dyed black hair..."

Lovable black eyeliner? I thought this was perhaps a recent vandalism, but looking back into November, I found that it has been there quite a long while. Dyed black hair? In the few sentences alloted for summarizing Magical Mystery Tour and the changing times, is this really the best focus??

Whether or not they had actually donned eyeliner, which you would think you'd notice in photos if they had up until then, has anyone ever heard of eyeliner being referred to as lovable before...? It seems like a very unusual point.

I'd fix it, but I'm kind of new here and still a bit timid for now. I feel I'm possibly stepping on toes just bringing it up, but I'm really just trying to be clear about my reactions as I read it. Anyone for a small rewrite? InnerRevolution7 08:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Nah, I think it's odd too. I'm not sure how you would empirically prove that their eyeliner was 'lovable' (assuming they did wear eyeliner - I've never seen the movie). MGlosenger 09:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Take them out. They're only adjectives/adverbs, and that is the worst crime. I have lovingly written these wonderful words for you. They are nice, are they not? --andreasegde 23:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm still laughing - hey, I think The Beatles in eyeliner is totally lovable, but then I always get them confused with Kiss, so what do I know. Tvoz | talk 20:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Flag Icon
Do we really need a little England Flag on the article? I think it looks childish - anyone else agree? Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 19:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Flag icon appears throughout Wikipedia, why is it childish on this page?--Bilbo B 20:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This should explain things: WP:FLAGCRUFT Steelbeard1 20:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I also think the England Flagicon (that is the correct terminology, I understand) is inappropriate. The Beatles were never touted as an "English" phenomena; Mersey (as in Mersey beat), and British (British Invasion), yes - England, no. I feel the flagicon appears to limit the nature of the band and its members.LessHeard vanU 20:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As Lennon and McCartney both had Irish connections (Macca wrote a song called Give Ireland Back to the Irish, and Lennon once called himself 'Dr. Winston O'Boogie', it would be silly to insist on a purely English flag. Even Liverpool is (jokingly) called 'The Capital of Ireland'. I also agree with Steelbeard1 (WP:FLAGCRUFT) Is a flag really so important? --andreasegde 20:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Not to mention the ever-popular war taht might ensue over whether it should be an "English" flag or a "British" one. Or that fellow who insists that Macca can be called "Scottish", maybe, but never "English".  I agree with VC&D that it is childish and as unnecessary as the little program that converts year of birth into age as if we can't handle simple addition and subtraction. (And in this note, I am not kidding, as much as I ever am not kidding which isn't that much.) Tvoz | talk 20:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The Decca Rejection
The Decca rejection has become mythical over time. However, it seems slightly unfair as it was EMI’s Ron White who originally turned down The Beatles without even giving them an audition. At least Decca showed some initial interest and did almost sign them after a lot of consideration. Brian Epstein was allowed to keep the resulting (recording audition) tapes which, ironically, then got them their contract with EMI’s Parlophone label. Perhaps more should be made of this? Actually, it’s interesting to ponder what form The Beatles would have evolved into under Mike Smith instead of George Martin.--Patthedog 16:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the anonymous "executive at Decca Records" with "Dick Rowe at Decca Records". There are a couple of semi-interesting facts about the rejection; Rowe said in an interview that if he'd known that Brian Epstein would guarantee to buy as many copies of The Beatles first single as he apparently did, then Decca would have been forced to sign the band because of the economies of the business in those days. The other thing was the Rowe said that he was only allowed to sign one band (I think per month); he essentially had to choose between Dave Clark and The Beatles.Apepper 21:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with you regarding the buying power of NEMS. I don’t think that influenced George Martin, who was on holiday when Epstein approached Ron White at EMI and played him “My Bonnie”. White agreed to play it to EMI’s four A&R managers (three heard it - Martin was away) who each turned The Beatles down. Actually, It was Brian Poole & The Tremeloes who were signed by Decca instead of the Fabs. Mike Smith was made (by Rowe) to choose between them, and went for the local band. Their first couple of singles didn’t chart at all (their cover of “Twist & Shout” eventually saving their bacon) and it’s possible that The Beatles might have been forced to record one of them! Dave Clark, on the other hand, was a clever business guy, and was always in control, unusual for those days. Both DC & BP released “Do You Love Me (Now That I Can Dance)”. --Patthedog 08:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a real question on this - which is why I started reading "talk" today: I have always read that the Beatles were turned down by all major British record labels, alternately that they were turned down by  24 record labels, or words to that effect, before the first contract and I don't see that here.  Is it incorrect?  Disputed?   I don't have good source material handy, so can't check - or if this was covered here on talk elsewhere, please point me to the discussion.  Tvoz | talk 20:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll have a look at some likely suspects (Chronicles; Coleman's bio of Epstein; etc) later tonight. Raymond Arritt 20:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, to summarize Coleman, Epstein approached various producers at EMI; Decca (which we know about); Pye; Oriole; and Philips. Coleman includes enough details that these are credible.  I don't know if these were all the major labels that existed in Britain at the time. Raymond Arritt 02:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think those EMI producers were Walter Ridley at HMV and Norman Newell at Columbia Graphophone. Steelbeard1 02:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Norrie Paramor being the Third Man, also at Columbia according to my info. --Patthedog 15:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to add these, but it's late and I have an early meeting tomorrow... Will continue to flesh it out over the next few days. Raymond Arritt 05:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. Well done & thanks.--Patthedog 11:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)