Talk:The Beatles/Archive 13

Spitz reference(s)/ "Beatlemania" section
The article currently contains the following passage, attributed to "Spitz 2006":
 * After a press conference (where they first met Murray the K) they were put into individual limousines and driven to New York. McCartney turned on the car radio and heard a running commentary

I just finished watching The Beatles: The First U.S. Visit, by Albert and David Maysles et al, in which the cameramen were given unlimited access to The Beatles after their arrival in New York. In the film, at least 3 of The Beatles (George isn't visible) ride in the same limousine, and McCartney listens to a portable transistor radio.

The biblio for "Spitz" lists the book with a publication date of 2005, but all the ibid refs are labeled "2006". I'm not familiar with the Spitz book, but given the inaccuracy of the aforementioned line, I believe it's worth further research to determine if, and how much, this particular source has misinformed this article.

Beatles sales
I just want to make sure we're all on the same page here. Wikipedia takes the following stance in the List of best-selling music artists:

''The best-selling musical act in history cannot and will probably never be known. U.S. sales data before 1952 are incomplete. International sales, particularly in the developing world, are still often poorly tracked, and much sales data before the 1980s are rare or dubious. The Beatles, Michael Jackson, and Elvis Presley have all been given the title by various sources. Less common claims are made for a number of other artists.''

I have changed the statement in the lead by clarifying that it's for the United States. This also makes sense since the source given is the RIAA, which only tracks sales in the United States, not worldwide.UberCryxic 03:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe the RIAA tracks Sony, EMI, etc., and the source cited wasn't limited to the USA. The comment about 1952 isn't really relevant, is it?


 * You cited another article, which isn't Wikipedia policy. The comment isn't cited, so it's just the opinion of the editor. John Cardinal 05:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's any problem in saying something like "one of the biggest selling musical acts in history" or "often credited with being the biggest selling band", and letting the reader decide. We need citations of course. Also, cultural impact and critical acclaim are rather more important. Whether or not The Beatles sold the most records, they were a cultural phenomenon the likes of which we'll probably not see in our lifetimes (or again in our lifetimes for those of you were there!) --kingboyk 11:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not cite the Wikipedia article to make a claim about the sales of the Beatles. I want Wikipedia to be self-consistent. We can't have one article saying that the greatest selling artist ever is unknown and another claiming that this person or group is the greatest selling ever. The RIAA tracks sales figures only in the United States. If you want to claim that the Beatles are the greatest selling musical act of all time, you would have to find another source besides the RIAA. It makes no sense to make this claim and cite the RIAA. That's all I'm saying on that part of the issue. Beyond that, I still think that there is some controversy over who the greatest selling artist of all time is. The top three seem to be the Beatles, Elvis, and MJ, but as there is no worldwide system for tracking their sales, it's very difficult to make such blatant claims regarding these artists, or any others. Per kinboy, "one of the greatest" would be more appropriate. Until then, I will still qualify the statement in the lead as "in the United States" until another source besides the RIAA is found.UberCryxic 17:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So, we start a discussion then you make the decision? If you are worried about Wikipedia being consistent, you are going to worry a lot. We've got a citation to an American authority who watches national and international sales and they say the Beatles are the top sellers. Meanwhile, the U.S. is the biggest market, and the Beatles were an international act, one of the few with strong popularity around the Globe. The cite is reliable for what I wrote, IMO. Regarding the other article, is it my responsibility to edit those articles, too, and cite/revise what they wrote? I suggest that article ought to cite evidence that sales figures can not be known. What reliable source says that? We don't know. No citation. IMO, again, the editors of those articles who are responsible for backing up their claims.\


 * Meanwhile, hundreds of Beatle-related articles are full of fancruft, speculation, WP:OR, and even the stuff that is probably accurate but not cited., and you fight this one. John Cardinal 19:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed the RIAA article. This is the relevant part: "According to the RIAA, the Beatles have sold more than 106 million albums in the U.S. alone -- more than any other artist in this century." The RIAA actually later revised these figures after the firestorm over Garth Brooks being the greatest selling solo artist in the United States. So the article you're citing now is one that has been recanted by the RIAA itself (the Beatles were taken way higher in the next estimate, still remaining on top in the US). The point is, "more than any other in this century" means in the US....and in this century. The statement in the lead says "of all time." Likewise, you can obviously tell the RIAA is speaking only for America by several of their other statements in the article, like this: "The RIAA also announced today that the Eagles’ “Their Greatest Hits 1971-1975” has reached the 26-million mark, becoming the best-selling album of the 20th century. Michael Jackson’s “Thriller” held the record from 1984, -- when the RIAA introduced Multi-Platinum™ awards -- until January of this year when the Eagles tied his record. “Thriller” remains this century’s best-selling studio album by a solo artist." Now, Thriller is obviously the greatest selling album of all time, but the RIAA doesn't say that because they are only making claims about the United States. The statement as it is right now is inaccurate as well, because it mentions "all time" when the RIAA talks about "Artist of the Century," but that part isn't so worrying.UberCryxic 20:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I would be fine with the following statement: "The Beatles are likely [or probably] the greatest selling musical act of all time." Get rid of the RIAA citation. Not appropriate in this context.UberCryxic 20:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Either that or, of course, that they're the greatest selling band of all time, which is virtually indisputable.UberCryxic 20:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Btw, just in case anyone does not know, Wikipedia has another article besides the list I mentioned that deals precisely with the issue of who is the greating selling artist ever: Best-selling music artist. In that article, the Beatles, Elvis, and MJ are treated as equals. They're not ranked or anything. This is just a heads up for what's motivating my comments here.UberCryxic 20:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The section entitled "Beatlemania" leads the reader to believe that the phenomenon began in the U.S., although the term was coined and the symptoms in effect in the UK for some months prior.--Son of Somebody 23:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That has been fixed. Steelbeard1 02:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Crosses the Atlantic" is a nice improvement. I hope the other factual errors I mentioned are also examined and addressed. "Separate limousines" may be more accurate than "individual limousines", but it seems there is more substantial info than how many limos they took or which radio was listened to, and if such minutiae are included, they should be correct. --Son of Somebody 12:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My mistake regarding 2006/2005. I have changed all of them to 2005, which is correct. The quote from Spitz's book is exactly as follows:

'''But first they had to escape. As Nora Ephron reported in the New York Post, "the Beatles were lifted bodily by two policemen each, and each young man was placed and locked in his own Cadillac limousine."'''

"I remember... getting into the limo and putting on the radio," Paul recalled, "and hearing a running commentary on us:"...

ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 14:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I see the problem here: This video, The Beatles in the USA, shows McCartney listening to a radio, but it does NOT state when it was recorded. It could have been recorded when they were on their way downtown to an engagement after they had arrived in New York, and NOT on their trip from JFK to New York (which was very heavily guarded...) Film-makers want everything to seem seamless, but sometimes they splice things together...

Plus: How and from who did McCartney obtain a portable radio on the way to New York, when the car had its own radio? Did he bring the portable radio with him from England? Did Murray the K give him one? (No pun intended) I think not.

Spitz was right (2005, BTW) as he quoted from a verified source.

ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 21:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * True, editing could fool us, but policemen picking up The Beatles would've made good footage, there were hundreds of cameramen at JFK, yet I've never seen footage or photos of The Beatles being carried by policemen. The radio McCartney holds is a Pepsi promo model, and many accounts state that The Beatles were keen to hear American radio. I'm not sure if there are any accounts of 'who' handed them the radio. Spitz was right to quote from a verified source, but that doesn't make the source's information correct. :) These are trivia anyway, but thanks for your attention.--Son of Somebody 21:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I read that girls were throwing themselves at the cars, and it was pandemonium, apparently. Good on you for spotting it though. Journalists exaggerate the truth to make it good copy (as you know). Could they be arrivng at the Ed Sullivan theatre in the film? ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 10:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's sequenced to appear as their initial arrival, looking like JFK > hotel. In the limo ride, they eagerly listen to the radio's every word/sound. After the hotel, less so.--Son of Somebody 20:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * They stayed at the Plaza hotel, The Plaza's Entrance and photos. The curtains/hangings/decoration in the film around the 'entrance' would be superfluous, as the Plaza has a roof over its entrance. This is a puzzler, and interesting, BTW... ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 20:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Look at the pavement when they get out (It's a bit grotty, which looks like downtown NY). The pavement outside the Plaza would have had something better, as it now has (but maybe not then? Hmmm...). They also appear to be walking into somewhere, and not walking up the stairs which the Plaza has always had. Ho-hum... ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 20:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This photograph confuses it even more... The Beatles on their way to the Plaza ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 21:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That photo is not from the discussed sequence in the film ("JFK to hotel" in the movie has Paul on the left side of the frame, holding a Pepsi transistor radio & John on the right). I'll watch the film again soon with Maysles' commentary to see what he says, though I doubt he adds anything about what we're discussing.--Son of Somebody 23:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Paul filled in as a drummer while in Hamburg
$$Insert formula here$$ The only song that was truly written 50/50 was I wanna hold your hand —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blarga2 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC).


 * And you are really interesting. ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 21:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The only song that was truly written 50/50 was I wanna hold your hand.&lt;ref name="Fact"&gt; 2, Blarga, "Wikipedia Talk Page Post", 28 February 2007, p666. Retrieved never.&lt;/ref&gt; —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kingboyk (talk • contribs) 22:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Dear Mr. Blarga2 (is there a Blarga1?): Who was there to write down that Lennon wrote 50% of the music and 50% of the lyrics, and that McCartney wrote the other 50% of the music and 50% of the lyrics? Are we saying that Lennon wrote "I", McCartney wrote "wanna" and Lennon wrote "hold", and so on? Did they contribute 50% of the chords each? This is an insane waste of time, as it only fuels tripe like "Who was your favourite Beatle?" Good grief, words fail me... ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 21:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Lighten up Andreasegde it's just a fan page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pipa1 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

GAR in the article milestones box
Congrats on keeping the GA status by the way... Anyone know how the GAR can be added to the article milestones box? --kingboyk 13:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I did it. --kingboyk 13:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

First recording session
Someone brought up the question of which recording session was first. Per Lewisohn's "The Complete Beatles Chronicles": From EMI paperwork uncovered in 1991 it is clear that this session [6 June 1962] - now known to have been held in studio two from 7.00 until 10.00 pm - was not only an audition but also a proper recording date, the Beatles' first under their 4 June contract with the company. Raymond Arritt 17:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Elvis section
A section about Elvis was removed today with an edit summary that said, "no historical interest." A lot of things happened during and after the career of the Beatles, and so the Elvis incident may not be worthy of inclusion in this article. On the other hand, Elvis is of particular interest in general because (A) he was the prior king of the hill and (B) he was a hero to the Beatles (esp. John and Paul circa 1956-1957). John said he "worshiped [Elvis] the way people worshiped the Beatles." In John's 1980 Playboy interview, Elvis is mentioned on more pages than anyone else except Yoko and the other Beatles, and most of the references to Elvis were positive with the exception of John referring to his "fat Elvis" period. Anyway, I won't restore that information because I don't have a citation for it and I don't feel strongly enough to contest it. I will say that "no historical interest" is an exaggeration. John Cardinal 01:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Elvis was very important to that band from Liverpool. Maybe you should put in a bit about Elvis talking to Richard Nixon and saying that they (that band from Liverpool) should be banned from performing in America because they were a dangerous influence on the nation's youth. This may sound unbelievable, but it's true... ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 17:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A section with that information was removed by an anonymous editor (User:71.252.218.219), and my comment was in response to that. John Cardinal 21:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Then it should go in. Now... where did I see that reference? Hmmm... (Sound of things in attic being thrown about...) ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 18:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's in stuff that I have at hand. It could be somewhere in the material related to the US vs. John Lennon case, perhaps in the FBI files? I think some of that is online, but I don't know where exactly. John Cardinal 20:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I found the link to the diff. It seems to be properly cited, but I think the best thing to do is condense it and merge it into the relevant section. Backlash and controversy, maybe? ErleGrey 21:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Years active
John Lennon officially quit the band in September 1969, so there has to be an argument for saying that is when the band ceased to be active. While 'I Me Mine' was recorded in January 1970 this was just a token act by the rump of the band after John left. Effectively the band split in 1969, as that autumn all four ex-Beatles all started on the first tentative steps in their solo careers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.137.207.185 (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC).


 * I think generally it's accepted that the band "broke-up" when Paul launched the lawsuit (thus, Paul being blamed for the break-up, or rather being one of the classic culprits along with Yoko). You are factually correct (which should ideally be followed in wikipedia), but I'm wondering in this case there needs to be an exception, or at least both bits of info need to be included with some additional text on there being no specific moment of break-up, just a series of events (the popular consciousness version of events, vs. the facts at hand. Lennon rarely gets the blame for ending the Beatles). Freshacconci 21:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Except that Harrison (and Lennon?) had already recorded "solo" albums before then. Where for all intents and purposes Lennon did not work with the band some time before the band ceased activities he was still representing himself as being part of the group until the official split. The rancour which greeted Macca's announcing the split, and subsequent comments by Lennon (mentioned in WP articles), documents this well. LessHeard vanU 22:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is true! So "official" version it is (sorry Paul). Freshacconci 22:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The accepted date was when Paul announced PUBLICLY that he had left (10 April 1970) and there was no counter announcement by the other 3 that they would continue without him. Lennon's private words in 1969 don't impact this. Davidpatrick 22:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

An interesting one. John indeed did agree not to publicly say he had split the group, but there are interviews from this period late 69-early 70 where he is asked if the Beatles will record together again. His answers were along the lines 'I don't know, we will have to see, we are all busy with our solo projects'. Hardly an emphatic endorsement. While 1970 is the accepted date, I do not think it does justice to the group. Their last recorded output Abbey Road was a reflection of the music happening in 1969. Nothing the group recorded reflects the sounds being made the following year. D Rowley
 * They were still the Beatles between tours, recording sessions, rehearsals, and songwriting. The apparatus of the band did not to be immediately functioning for the band to exist, if it was potentially viable then it existed (and all members who had not left were considered part of it) then it only ended with the announcement of the split. Further, both Harrison and Starr had left the band previously and had come back; it was possible that Lennon would have done the same if the circumstances had changed. LessHeard vanU 15:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly! It's only over when the Ref blows his whistle! Bill Shankly

Partial Studio Re-union
This was covered earlier, and the discussion can be found in Archive 12. To summarise; it was never publicised as a re-union by the surviving members (it seems to be a media invention) and the Lennon songs used were written post Beatles split and were never considered by him as Beatles songs. The agreement was that Free As A Bird/Real Love should be mentioned in context in the article body, but not as a re-union of any sort in the userbox. Comments, of course, are welcome. LessHeard vanU 22:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That's fine by me. I think it WAS a media description or an unofficial description. I only inserted the word "studio" as a qualifier if the word "Reunion" was in the info box. I think it's better not to be there. Davidpatrick 23:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree: You can't have a reunion without John, and John's cassette tapes don't count. There's a fine distinction here; I think Free As A Bird/Real Love count as Beatle releases, partly because all 4 are on them but more because the 3 survivors at that time released them as Beatle songs with Ono's consent. John Cardinal 23:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are Beatles songs as far as all members of the fab four were involved (which some Beatles songs didn't in their active period) but what are the songwriting credits? I assume that they are "Lennon". If it wasn't a cover version then all Beatles songs were credited to Lennon/McCartney. In the end, however, if the (then) three surviving band members and the widow of the deceased member say it is a Beatles record then it is a Beatles record... ;~) LessHeard vanU 00:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Good question. Is it Lennon, Lennon-McCartney, or the Fabs? Who gets the dosh then? andreasegde 12:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hamburg
Hi all!

Relatively new to Wikipedia, so I just want to follow up on a few changes to the Hamburg section of the Beatles page, sound out a bit exactly what the criteria have been for editing/deleting some bits I added recently on this part of the article.

So, I felt the Hamburg section looked a little thin as far as reflecting its importance in their career (check the "Reeperbahn" entry on Wikipedia - John goes as far as to say that while he was born in Liverpool, he did his growing up in Hamburg). This phase is where they honed their live act in front of ruthlessly critical audiences, and, a little more trivially perhaps, where they picked up the haircut they made famous.

Anyway, a quotation I added from Julian Cope's book Krautrocksampler was deleted a few times. I'm just curious - was the citation not correctly done? My addition seems to have been regarded as a copyright violation... Again, I'm relatively new here, so I'm not insisting, just kinda wondering.

Also, two smaller things that got deleted were the correction of Stu Sutcliffe's girlfriend's name, Astrid "Kirchherr" - a glance at the article I linked it to should clarify that. And the reference to the scene in the Reeperbahn district of Hamburg. This is a district with a widely known reputation for sleaziness and violence. It seems that cutting their teeth on stages in this particular place is kind of an interesting element in their early development. Again, a glance at the "Reeperbahn" entry I linked should verify the general info. -- This is, as it seems to me indeed quite general stuff, hardly the stuff of copyright infringement...

Cheers!

John the revelator 19:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What got removed was the myth that Astrid K was the one that fashioned their hairstyle. While she did indeed cut their hair on occasion it was someone else who gave them the distinctive haircut. The references for this are from various Beatles authorities and Astrid herself. LessHeard vanU 20:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Since this "fact" is repeated quite often, perhaps the person with the source that quotes Fraulien Kirchherr could cite it - thus ending the frequent edit reverting over this matter?LessHeard vanU 20:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, on the haircut thing, I thought that Astrid Kirchherr had actually done the cutting, but that can well be false, as you say. In any case, it is sort of a variant of a haircut a lot of guys in Hamburg had then - and still do sometimes! There's no single "inventor" of the moptop style, really. What do you think, though - should Jürgen Vollmer be mentioned in the article? May or may not be crucial...

I was actually wondering more about other stuff that got cut. I mentioned, for example, the tracks "Sie liebt dich" and "Komm gib mir deine Hand" from the Past Master cd's as products of the Hamburg period. I think it's kind of interesting that they actually sang and recorded in German! Maybe it was just cut because it's not crucial information, don't know. Oh, and Klaus Voormann was cut out entirely. Again, I'm not insisting here, it's just unclear to me what the criterion of disapproval was.

John the revelator 21:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears that the material from the Julian Cope book is the problem. It does seem to be Copes opinions and understandings rather than sourced fact and, together with the mistake identified re haircuts, it isn't a good enough authority. However, the German language versions of Beatles songs could be put back in. LessHeard vanU 23:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * World shut your mouth! As far as I'm aware, Cope is something of an authority on Krautrock, and an opinionated rock critic whose site is worth a read. I'm not aware that he's noted for any expertise on the Beatles though... --kingboyk 23:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (Read It In) Books. An authority on Krautrock, Scott Walker and leylines, I understand. Opinionated, oh yes, but I prefer facts and I also am not aware of his expertise re the Beatles. The remark regarding Astrid Kirchherr makes me doubt it. LessHeard vanU 21:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait, hang on - the matter of the haircut has no connection whatsoever with Julian Cope. The quote in question reads: "If they hadn't been great or at least extremely entertaining, then they would have been out on their collective asses" (Krautrocksampler, 1996, p. 6). Has nothing to do with hair! Of course, one could certainly use a completely different source than this. But in any case, the Beatles did a heck of a lot more in Hamburg than just sing for Tony Sheridan! I am also unsure why it was necessary to remove the references I made to Astrid Kirchherr (though she appears passingly earlier in the article) and Klaus Voormann. They aren't major enough figures to need great elaboration, but I think they should really be at least mentioned in any discussion of the Beatles' Hamburg period! (As I've suggested above, Jürgen Vollmer might also be worth linking in, as well). Someone who wants to read more can of course just follow the links - all three of these people have their own entries...

One other thing I'd like to sound out a bit - I'd be inclined to mention the Reeperbahn, the red light district in which they played. It's notorious throughout Germany for it's sleaze and its violence. *This* is where the Beatles got their live act together before goimg back to England and becoming the cute moptops of '64/'65! Once again, this is just a matter of a brief reference, and whoever is so inclined can follow the link to the "Reeperbahn" entry - there, there is in fact a section talking about the Beatles' period there. It is, maybe, like New York's 42nd Street in the 80's. It's known - I assure you that there is no copyright on it!

John the revelator 00:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The Quarrymen
They were and still are The Quarrymen - The Quarry Men comes from the fact that it was not possible to put the letters across the bass drumhead in letters big enough to be seen. Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 00:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you actually done more than five years of research on this, as Bob Spitz has for his biography of The Beatles? Elfred 21:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, a little bit better than that, my Father went to school with Colin Hanton Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 23:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * On the basis of that, Vera wins £5.


 * There again, he is a scouser and every single scouser claims to have been at school with the Beatles--Crestville 10:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Stick the fiver in the post quick, I'm potless! - someone had to go to school with The Beatles, it was better than going to school with ABBA (not sure about that though, that Blonde Bird was better looking than Ringo!) Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 13:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I know three women who would violently disagree with you on that last statement. Freshacconci 16:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh aye, a lorra ladies like our Ringo, an I bet he was a dear little lad runnin round The Dingle in his little short kecks - Our Mam wouldof give im a connie onnie any day of the week! Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 17:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What's a "connie onnie"? The, "Extremely interested in little details that no-one gives a flying [expletive deleted] about" but I do - andreasegde 01:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A Condensed Milk sandwich. Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 01:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

New line - because it makes me eyes go funny:

A Condensed Milk sandwich? Bugger me, you were poor, but not as poor as us. We had HP Brown Sauce sandwiches. andreasegde 01:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oooo! House of Parliament Brown sauce?? Where'd yer get tha then? Fri**in 'Arrods Oxfordshire in London?? Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 01:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It wasn't a full bottle - we fished them out of the bin and smashed 'em to get at the congealing slime that was left, and our Mam used to nail a kipper on the door and we'd all lick it. That was called breakfast in my day, tha' knows... My Dad's poorer than yer Dad 01:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Andrea, STOP IT - ME FACE ERTS! All we need now is for Crestville to come in an start goin on about livin in a shoe box! Yor as mad as me La! Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 15:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Added link to The Beatles' influence on music recording
I've added a link to the above in the "see also" section; I was encouraged to add links from other articles.

Apepper 20:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Rightly, too. It is a very good article. LessHeard vanU 21:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Skiffle
In january's archive there was a section on why skiffle should clearly be mentioned at the top - If I can't find it again I'll have to try and remember its sources.

Lkk8998 08:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Here we are : Skiffle

The two formative influences at the top should definitely be mentioned as both US rock n'roll and British skiffle, and I don't know why this was reverted ( I think possibly because there was an editing browser error that also cut off the bottom of the page, so someone reverted to an earlier edit) ; At the moment it goes against the logic of the article again, with its references to Lennon's beginnings in skiffle and the Quarrymen. This link also provides a fresh angle on this : http://www.beatlesource.com/savage/1950s/1950s.html Lennon covered by the Quarrymen, succession of skiffle groups Ringo was in listed here: http://www.beatlesource.com/savage/notes.html Hu67 09:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Lkk8998 08:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The Rolling Stones
Amazingly, this article doesn't seem to mention the Stones at all, despite their parallel careers during the 60s and the close association between them (Lennon even said they timed their releases so as not to clash). The Beatles or The Stones, that was the question wasn't it?! :) As an interrim measure I've added them to the See Also list, I think it's as relevant as most other See Also items ever are. --kingboyk 22:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It was George Harrison who advised Dick Rowe (the Decca executive who turned down The Beatles) to look at the Stones who became Decca artistes as a result and the Stones' first British hit was a cover of a Beatle song, "I Wanna Be Your Man." Steelbeard1 01:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. Funnily enough I was listening to Oobu Joobu earlier where Paul recounted the story of "I Wanna Be Your Man" and played the Stones' version. On a side note, good to see you old friend! --kingboyk 01:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I feel likewise. I recall a documentary about "British Rock: The First Wave" which included a performance of "I Wanna Be Your Man" by The Rolling Stones in which the narrator said that the Stones' version was 'hardly an imitation.' Steelbeard1 02:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * FWIW, agree the worth of throwing in some stuff about the Stones and other acts with whom the Beatles intertwined. There's a little bit on cross-influences with Dylan and the Beach Boys (which could be expanded a bit) but nought on the Stones. If I remember rightly it was Lennon who asserted (think it was in the 1980 Playboy interview) that Jagger and Richards watched him and McCartney dash of a song in no time flat and decided "if they can do it, so can we". Cheers, Ian Rose 06:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Macca and keyboards
Kingboyk removed keyboards as an instrument played by Macca in a picture featured in the Hamburg section. Whilst this would be true then (as would including rhythm/six string guitar during the Sutcliffe era) it should be noted that Macca did perform most of the recorded keyboard parts of the members of the Beatles (The Long And Winding Road, Let It Be, Hey, Bulldog etc.) in the latter years. Perhaps this fact could be included in any image involving Macca in later years (as would sitar for Harrison)? LessHeard vanU 22:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I did it because it's an image caption and a recent addition to that caption. I think captions ought to be succinct - same as somebody reverted the addition of the boys' full names to another caption. Presumably (hopefully) we mention in the body somewhere that Macca is a talented multi-instrumentalist who played a lot of piano parts? :) --kingboyk 22:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree regarding succinct, although I would suggest that Macca's keyboards were important enough to mention alongside bass and vocals in the latter years of the band including any image caption. Drums and six string guitar and other instruments did not form the major part of his contributions to the band; he certainly composed on the piano which I don't believe Lennon did until post split (although he did compose on guitar...). As far as the "full names" of the individuals, I would have no problem with them being in the captions on images in their own articles.

Critical acclaim section?
Would it be useful to have a short section (6-7 sentences) noting some of the critical acclaim? It's mentioned 3 times in the lead section, but no mention at all in either the rest of the article or the supporting articles. Mainstream Nerd 00:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It most certainly would.
 * Can you tell me, has this issue been raised somewhere else? It's just I've reverted several different editors changing the intro regarding that claim, and it's as if it's an organised campaign :) None so far have taken up the invitation to discuss it here so far as I'm aware. --kingboyk 15:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue of the band being cited as "the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed popular music band in history" has indeed been brought up in previous discussions, and is probably archived. The result was to cite them as "one of the most successful bands", regardless of the reference, which in this case seems to be a biased Rolling Stone bio.ErleGrey 15:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the most commercially successful part of it (anybody have the Guinness Book of Records?) but we ought to be able to become up with hundreds of references for the second part. If the Beatles aren't the most critically acclaimed band in history (not that that equates with "best" mind you) who are?!
 * Anyrode, folks, let's reword that a little bit and come up with some sources as requested. --kingboyk 15:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)