Talk:The Beatles/Archive 5

Name theory
I've reverted an unsourced name theory. I'd like to see sourcing for such theories if possible  + + Lar: t/c 22:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think such things need a fairly high level of sourcing. The official story (that they were imitating The Crickets and decided to pun on "beat") is perfectly clear, plausible, and comes from the horse's mouth.  Why do people have a need to hypothesize some other explanation? Carlo 23:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If they didn't, Paul Is Dead would be a pretty slim article! (But isn't it significant that "Beatles" sums up to 666 in counterpunctual gematria? Coincidence: You decide!!) = DavidWBrooks 00:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If by "coincidence" you mean "significance" then.... who cares? The reason for keeping the "Paul is Dead" article is that it has some historical value, not that it may have even the slightest resemblance to fact.LessHeard vanU 10:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I was joking. Where's that emoticon key? - DavidWBrooks 11:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Lol. Thanks for a good belly laugh. Let's not get off-track now. I agree with Carlo. TommyBoy76 21:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76
 * I, too, was being "light hearted" - but I find using the emoticon keys I am used to does funny things to my text.(I usually type "grin" or similar at the end of my message in these instances)*knowing wink*LessHeard vanU 22:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a serious flaw in this theory, namely that The Wild One was banned in the UK 'til 1968. Did Lennon or any other member see it in Germany? Maybe, but by then they were already called The Beatles.
 * Good point. If they had seen it in Germany then we'd be arguing if they were "ve Beatles" or "Ve Beatles", I suppose.*grin*LessHeard vanU 22:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

"The Wild One" was banned until 1968 in the UK? I don´t belive that (a POV, unffortunately). I will check it out.

andreasegde 18:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, THAT IS A FACT. It was not shown in the UK until 1968 - it was banned because it was thought all the British Bikers would start apeing the behaviour of the gang in the film. Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 12:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC) PS.Your own article states that it was banned! Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 12:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)PPS The Wild One - not The Beatles article.

(It´s not my article, it´s our article.) Yes, I believe that it was banned, but why did Paul mention it on The Beatles anthology? He said that he had seen it and he later thought that it was funny that the "Beetles", from the film, was a bunch of girls. Why would he mention that, if he had not seen it? When did he see it?

Have fun andreasegde 14:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The only place he may have seen it would have been in Germany, but by that time they were already called The Beatles. Or he could have gone to John Lennon Airport, jumped on an Easy Jet and saw it in New York in 1959? Or like everyone else, he saw it when it went on general release, but knowing Macca he'll "remember" that he was the founding member of the 59 Club, and was the projectionist at the first preview and wrote the additional music! Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 15:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like "Vera, Chuck & Dave" is being a bit caustic about Paul. Your sign-in name/words was/were written by Paul, after all... Give him a break? Have fun. andreasegde 17:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, those four words were John's contribution to the lyrics.--Crestville 17:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It´s weird that we are debating the origin of the name, when Macca himself may not be sure! I think we should send e-mails to his office and point out this misunderstanding. We might even get a reply! "Straight from the horse´s mouth", as they say...

Who knows, he might start contributing himself.

andreasegde 19:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There really is no need for a debate, "The Wild One Theory" doesn't hold water, as it was dreamt up by some soft lad or other, who had no idea that the the film had been banned in the UK. And it's no good asking Macca as all the names used, came from Lennon. And if you think about it, Lee Marvin only refers to the girl gang as "beetles" a couple of times ( Maybe once) - it's not like it was Brando's catch phrase that would have made the papers like. Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 21:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha, Soft Lad.--Crestville 13:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps too sexy.
George Harrison is looking surprisingly sexy in that group shot at the top of the page. Rowr. (Momus 17:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC))
 * Lol, if you say so. We've been talking about changing the pic anyway, but a better free image hasn't come up yet. --kingboyk 17:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * To each their own. :) EVula 18:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Too sexy? I don´t believe this. Have you ever objected to a photograph of yourself that made you look too sexy? I think not. Good grief; I would treasure one of myself, and I would have it enlarged and framed. Looking like a potato with hair is one of my strong points...

andreasegde 19:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Yesterday"
I have corrected the statements on the authorship of "Yesterday," which was written by both Lennon and McCartney (not McCartney alone) as per the original 1965 sheet music, and its claimed status as the "most-covered song in the history of recorded music," an honor which is held by "White Christmas," by Irving Berlin. I believe the original writer may have wanted to state that only McCartney's voice alone is heard on the recording. 66.108.4.183 21:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

Opening Paragraph
I have some problems with the opening statements here, since they're not quite up to the level of basic rock criticism in my opinion and aren't totally accurate or professional.

''Their earliest compositions were mainly rock ‘n’ roll or R&B-rooted pop songs with the occasional ballad. But they grew increasingly eclectic as composers, arrangers, and performers over the years.'' This isn't inaccurate, however it GREATLY underestimates--in fact, basically ignores--the level of innovation present in their early music. I know early Beatles music isn't particularly hip these days, but their early songs were unprecedented for rock at the time, and were more notable--musically and historically--than simple 'rock or R&B rooted pop songs'; true, they took cues mainly from rock'n'roll and R&B, but those are broad terms that had different meanings in the early 60s than they do now; their early music was exciting because it fused elements from rockabilly, early R&B, blues, girl groups, early motown, traditional pop, etc.--tons of popular music from the 50s and 60s. I think this sentence is sort of POV and dissmissive of their early output--albeit unintentionally.

They composed songs and arranged them in a wide array of musical styles – occasionally fusing genres. Their best, in fact almost all of their music was by it's own nature innovative. Arrangements aren't usually solely indicative of a certain style of music. People are fond of saying that bands "wrote in" certain style, but this is a puzzling and inaccurate characterization. They did not "occasionally fuse genres"--they're music, from Please Please Me on, took cues from a huge number of sources, and that number increased as they developed. In essence, most of their music was pop/rock that fused elements from several or more sources. They're early music was influenced by a ton of 50s and 60s style of rock and R&B (mentioned in passing above) and by Help and Rubber Soul they were absorbing folk, country, mid-60s Soul and R&B, and even vague baroque and classical influences and pushing into folk-rock and psychedelic rock. By Revolver--don't even get me started. So saying they "wrote in a wide array of musical styles" and only "occasionalyl fused genres" is a bizarre sentence. Perhaps "fusing genres" is a strong term, since it implies a clear, audible synthesis of 2 musical styles into a totally new idiom for posterity--but the Beatles by their nature were immensely eclectic and experimental and while a scattering of songs were deliberately written to sound like previous styles of music (especially McCartney--"Oh Darling," "Honey pie," etc.), the vast majority of their music was by nature innovative and was influenced by a huge number of "musical styles." This sentence makes it seem as if their work was mostly derivative, which it was certainly not.

The constant factor in the vast majority of their songs was their focus on melody. Again, not technically untrue--but this is an amateurish inclusion for several reasons. It's trying to express that they Beatles were supremely melodic songwriters and winds up sounding silly. First of all, the focus in virtually ALL music from the 60s and before was melody. Some was more melodic, to be sure--but melody is one of the building blocks of ALL music (excepting certain genres like rap an techno and so on--but even then melody is key--people usually don't just listen to drones). And listen to the way the sentence is constructed-- "focus on melody" was a "factor" in "their songs"; This doesn't make sense-- focus on melody is an action of the songwriter; you could say "melody was a constant factor in their songs"--but this sounds ridiculous since melody is one of the building blocks of music. You could say "The beatles focused on melody in their songs" but so did ALL songwriters during the 60s and before and after. I understand the sentiment behind this poorly constructed sentence--the Beatles were expert songwriters who's songs were very melodically sophisticated or simply sing-a-long-able; but this sentence--perhaps written out of fear of being too POV--doesn't express that sentiment. Keep in mind that saying that the Beatles music was exceptionally melodically sophisticated and so on is NOT POV since you can technically prove this by going over their music and breaking the way the songs are constructed down and compare them to their peers in rock before and after.

Lennon and McCartney often said that they loved Bach´s music. Irrelevant

Despite the wide array of musical styles they utilised, The Beatles´ recordings were readily identifiable because of their distinctive vocals. Again, technically true--but this sounds to me like someone had a weird, personal idea but couldn't quite put it into words. Yes, Lennon and McCartney were expressive, distinctive vocalists, but saying that their recordings were identifiable because of this implies that if their voices had not been distinctive (a troubling and nonsensical prospect in and of it self--everyone's voice is different), then their recordings would not have been readily identifiable--which is ridiculous on it's face. The sentence is also just silly and incongruous in the context of the paragraph. Also, saying someone "utilized" a musical style is weird--you don't USE music, you're influenced or inspired by it. When they wrote "Norwegian Wood," they didn't USE pop and then USE folk and then USE Dylan and then USE indian music by adding a sitar; they instead incorporated elements of each into their own original song. This isn't nitpicking since it's a grammatically and philosophically problematic action--USING music--in this case.

In addition to their core pop and rock styles, The Beatles' catalogue included songs which were flavoured with folk, country, rockabilly, blues, soul, doo-wop and many other musical genres. Once again, not inaccurate, but like a detailed above--MOST of the Beatles music was exceptional or innovative in some way and was influenced by a wide variety of sources. This makes it seem like SOME of their songs were "flavoured" with these sounds--they did not than "flavor" their music with other styles, and this--once again--shortchanges their importance. It's like saying "Bob Dylan flavoured his songs with poetic lyrics"--no, the poetic lyrics were an integral part of his innovations and legacy.

They were also pioneers of new musical directions such as psychedelia (Strawberry Fields Forever) and hard rock (Helter Skelter, Revolution). They definately didn't "pioneer" hard rock--in fact, that's kind of music that you could actually say they dabbled in. They didn't invent psychedelia, but of course they were important in it's development...which leads into...

''Their use of chamber and baroque orchestrations (scored by producer George Martin) on recordings such as Yesterday, Eleanor Rigby, In My Life and For No-One was another first in contemporary popular music.'' Again this sentence is crude and doesn't give the full picture. To start with the obvious, orchestration in "contemporary" (contemporary when, exactly?) popular music was certainly NOT a first by the time of the Beatles (Motown, Spector, Traditional Pop, etc). What you could/should say is that they were instrumental in introducing new recording techniques and more complex studio arrangements specifically into rock--that's accurate; they pioneered more recording techniques than any other group of musicians in the 20th century--and that is onyl hinted at here and reduced to "orchestrations"; more than orchestration, they experimentd with new instruments, effects, overdubs, sounds, amplification, etc.; essentially, using the studio as an instrument in making records.

I don't mean to seem snobby or detail-obssessed, but I honestly think that if you know about the Beatles you'll realize that the complaints I have stated here aren't minor nitpicking over wording. It's musical history and people have tendency to just fudge it--I think because they believe it's all or mostly interpretation; it's not, much of this stuff distorts the Beatles accomplishments for readers and like with any historical document--the way you word even seemingly minor events and overviews is very important. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.91.137.58 (talk • contribs) May 15.


 * Please sign your comments, so there is a date, and place them in the right place, so others can follow the discussion later. Also, please write more tightly ... few people are going to read 10 paragraphs of commentary. - DavidWBrooks 02:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the detailed feedback. Anyone is free to edit the article so if you wish to make some changes please go ahead, your assistance will be most welcome. --kingboyk 08:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is an obviously heartfelt and reasonable critique - and perhaps this correspondent would like to attempt a rewrite on the basis of his/her above comments. Providing it retains core links to the various members and other important figures of the band, the albums, singles and other significant events already mentioned, it may be beneficial to take a new approach to the article. It would be even better if it were rewritten in such a manner as to take up less space as it already does. If User:70.91.137.58 were to do this, then it would also give the rest of us a chance to recreate relevant links to other articles and clean up what is becoming something of a Hydra (even though DavidWBrooks is already working on this.) In the meantime, I guess we should all just continue struggling with the monster we know.LessHeard vanU 19:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hopefully that's humor or sarcasm... it's a featured article. It shouldn't just be rewritten offhand by anyone, let alone an anonymous user who is clearly biased. Kafziel 19:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps posting the proposed new leading para here for people to see, think about, digest, and comment on first might be a good approach, if so desired... but hey, this is a wiki. an anon certainly can rewrite the lead para. If it's good, it will stick, and if it isn't it will get reverted and no harm done. I found the critique a bit heavy going but in general I thought there was a fair bit of merit/truth in it and would welcome an attempt at a rewrite.  + + Lar: t/c 19:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Certainly not sarcasm. As the Wiki mantra is "...that everyone can edit", then if the user is really serious then let them have a go. If it is biased or otherwise unsuitable then it can easily be reverted - but it may also be the basis of a revision of the article. There is also the chance of some important information being imparted.


 * Whilst the bare bones of the featured article doubtless still exists somewhere within the text, it should be said that there has been a lot of padding put upon it since then. Perhaps a new perspective, with all its faults, may help clarify matters.LessHeard vanU 20:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I misunderstood, and I apologize. I thought you advocating a rewrite of the entire article, not just bits and pieces. Of course changes can be made here and there, so long as they don't compromise the previous work.
 * The person who actually posted the critique isn't likely to do much anyway; that was two months ago. Kafziel 20:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, he/she posted it two days ago with no signature; I added the (incorrectly formatted, since fixed by others) anon signature and put "March" instead of "May" - DavidWBrooks 00:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No apology needed, friend. You have every right to your opinion - and you gave it because you care, which is great.LessHeard vanU 12:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: I wrote those original criticisms, but as is evidenced by my erratic contributions to this article, I have neither the consistent time nor desire to overhaul such an important and multi-layered opening statement. I tend to write in bursts, and as for the person who said that "no one will read" such long statements, I'd just respond by saying the people who do are probably more worthy of evaluating the comments anyway. I guess I'll try to get around to (humbly, I guess) changing some things at some point, but I resent the implication that I do not have the right to do so, seeing as I supplied detailed, formal, informed analyses of the introduction's flaws in great depth and detail--in fact exercising enormous caution by not changing a single word of the article before I had submitted my thoughts. I also resent the implication that I am "biased"; wikipedia users are over-fond of the word "biased" so that they fire it at one another as a sort of burning, aggressive editorial absolutism without realising that this word--like so many things--is more complicated than absolutists would like it to be. "It shouldn't just be rewritten offhand by anyone, let alone an anonymous user who is clearly biased. Kafziel" as I believe is made clear by the length of my original comments, I don't think of myself as just "anyone" as far as this entry is concerned--I care about the accuracy this article. And I do mean accuracy, not stylistic quality or whatever; many people seem to think that music criticism is wholly subjective--and while that may be true of popular contemporary rock criticism--it is not true of most authoritative, historical rock criticism, which is in large part, perhaps even mostly, based in fact (and interpretation of facts). To say that I am "clearly biased" is distressingly inaccurate; all of the statements I made above have been made hundreds of times in more grandiose ways by more informed writers in more widely-read media. None of the statements I made even came close to being crass, overly POV, or marginal. Although I expressed great respect and appreciation for the Beatles music (traits that are far from anomalous), virtually 80% of what I wrote there is factually sound from a historical and musical standpoint, whether or not it appears to some readers to be fact. Saying, for example, that they fused elements of certain styles of 50s and 60s rock is more fact than it is interpretation, and greater writers and musicians than myself can attest to this from a technical standpoint. I'd actually assert that those who display greater and more informed appreciation for the eclecticism of the Beatles work are in fact less biased and more qualified to give an accurate portrayal of their achievements for a site such as this; the worst contributions on wikipedia always come from biased people who don't know what they are saying and all of the best articles on Wikipedia are good because of comitted fans who are by their very nature appreciative of their subject (not the same thing as "biased), and even these good have much less subtle traces of POV than the Beatles article in virtually all aspects of their construction. Check out the pages on Prince (artist, Bob Dylan, and Keith Richards for examples of this. Peace. 70.91.137.58 (I don't have the desire to give a name/username, so here is my "IP address" or whatever)

Hello, 70.91.137.58. I have to ask you: do you want to make me go blind? Paragraphs are quite useful, as they split various comments into sections.

I got through about 10-15 lines of your (well-written) comments before I got confused about which line I was on, and I finally gave up. Spare a thought for the sight-challenged editors...

andreasegde 11:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Formation & The early years picture
It seems to me that it's inappropriate to have a picture of John Lennon in 1968 (mid-career) coupled with the section entitled "Formation and the Early Years". Does someone have a picture better suited for that area? (Ngoah89 00:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC))
 * Well, actually, I like it there. All four of The Beatles' pictures are kind of "defined" and I don't see that they are supposed to be in sync with the article itself. By the way, under Influences and Music am I the only who thinks Ringo looks like Allen Covert?TommyBoy76 01:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That bloke is bald!--Crestville 10:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Allen Covert looks like Mel Gibson. andreasegde 04:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The other 3 pictures in the article are perfectly in sync with the content. I think the pictures do look great as they are, just a little misleading.  I was confused enough that I looked up that picture just to make sure that John Lennon didn't look like that in the beginning of his career. (Ngoah89 16:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC))
 * Well, hey, that's just one guy's opinion. If anyone else has one, it can be discussed. Yeah, bald, I know. But pretend he had hair...ehh?? :) TommyBoy76 03:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I just can't do it.--Crestville 14:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Instrumentation
Is it okay with everyone if, over time, I start filling in or adding an instrumentation section for each Beatles song? Example for the Rocky Raccoon page:
 * Instrumentation:
 * Paul McCartney: accoustic guitar, lead vocal
 * John Lennon: harmonica, harmonium, backing vocal
 * Harrison: bass, backing vocal
 * Ringo Starr: Drums
 * George Martin: honky-tonk piano


 * Firstly - please, but not in this article. This article needs to be an overview, and contributions with great detail should ideally be on their own (with links from appropriate other articles) or part of a similiar article.
 * Secondly - have you checked if this has not already been done? I remember someone linked a website which has such details, but this information may already exist (in part) on Wiki/Project.
 * Thirdly - is this from personal knowledge (i.e. you have every record, and the player of each each instrument is noted) or are you using other sources of information. If it is the latter then you must acknowledge your references.
 * Lastly, I've moved your original query to the end of the talk page (per Wiki policy) so it stays when the older stuff is archived.
 * ps. Much of the above is suggestion, I'm just one of the contributors, so wait for a few more responses.LessHeard vanU 20:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)pps. sign your talk by typing tilde(~) four times at the end of your message.


 * Certainly not in this article, which is an overview - and personally, I don't think an exhaustive list belongs in wikipedia at all; it borders on minutia. For important songs that have their own articles, then yes on that article. - DavidWBrooks 21:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the top post; Of course when I say, "an instumentations section for each Beatles song" and "For instance, on the Rocky Raccon page" I mean on the individual song pages. I was disapointed to not already find them. I've actually already started doing it from the chronological beginning. I think the song stubs are sorely needing more info, the instrumentation credits being essential. Some of the cover songs don't even yet have their own page! (Mschonert 21:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC))


 * For existing song articles, and especially for stubs, then I would say "yes, please". You may wish to look at WikiProject The Beatles for a list of songs (and other articles) that has been identified as needing creating or expanding. You may also wish to register as a participant in the Project (same link as above), which would mean you would have a monthly newsletter delivered to your talkpage and the use of some fab templates and all sorts of other stuff.
 * Speaking of templates, are you familiar with creating/using same and do you intend to use them when supplying instrumentation details in the articles?LessHeard vanU 22:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry? You might have to type that question to me a little more clearly. "are you familiar with creating/using same and do you intend to use them when supplying instrumentation details in the articles?". I'm guessing you're asking if I'm familiar with creating and using the same templates as the other Beatles song entries. I think I got it down. All though I might not have the patience to make all the links go to the proper page. For instance I created a Taxman page and stopped before I was done when I realized I was going to have to redirect all the links to Taxman (song) in stead of wherever they are going now. Here, i guess. Taxman. So I might have to depend on my fellow editors to do that. (Mschonert 03:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC))


 * By template I mean a consistant format for every time it is used. I note that for Love Me Do and Please Please Me you list the participants as McCartney, Lennon, Harrison, Starr irrespective of (main) writer/lead vocal. If that is the manner by which you choose to proceed, then that should remain the format for every entry. As The Beatles are understood to have been the four above mentioned members, I would suggest that they are indicated in every article - even if they did not play/sing on the track; just note that they did not participate.
 * Also, with a template you can create the format you wish to use within the templates section (we have one somewhere**help!**) and copy it over to the article you are working on each time, and amend it as required.LessHeard vanU 09:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll help where I can, but then I always say that.--Crestville 23:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This page is longer than the article. Why?
(query raised by User:Andreasegde 14:37 01 June 2006)

(This is not germaine to the article, however...) Wikipedia works by concensus. Concensus is arrived at by discussion. Responsible editors will invite comments before contributing material which is not considered "well established fact". After a few responses and discussion a small paragraph or perhaps a couple of sentences will be added to the text (which may also be parsed or removed by later edits.) Thus a considerable amount of talkpage activity generates a little text in the article; therefore talk pages are larger than most articles.LessHeard vanU 16:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but I have read (and have been involved in, to my horror) some long comments about one single sentence. My comment was whimsical, by they way, but also pertinent. It has to do with the general attitude of a lot of us that translates into in-fighting rather than working together. If these pages are based on "no original research" (which I agree with) then the truth is out there somewhere, as a fact. If we all researched the truth/facts a bit more, then we would have less problems. (These comments are meant to be friendly and encouraging... :)

Have fun.

andreasegde 15:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's the wiki way, but I agree with you. Ideally this article would have every assertion and possibly controversial statement backed up by an inline citation. It's something to think about for a future collaboration, if we all read a book each and added footnotes from that book it would be a great start. There'd also be less arguing - and justifying reverting substandard additions would be easier - because "if you can't cite it, don't write it!" :) --kingboyk 15:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I do agree - I just noted the usual practice. Even in the case put forward by Kingboyk there is much Beatles related information "out there" that many reasonable assertions (such as Paul McCartney has had a succesful post Beatles career) can be countered from cited publications (like the ones that prove he died whilst with The Beatles and that his looky likey continues the charade)! Then there are the debates whether agreed information is noteworthy, which is a different issue entirely.
 * I think it is an aspect of Wiki that will not go away; the editors are human and communication is a vital tool in getting the various contributors to co-produce an article. You also have to consider that, in the case of The Beatles for instance, that there are megabytes of data that is devoted to Policy and the like that effects the articles mainly indirectly. Then there are the gigabytes on Wikipedia Policies, Rules, Sources and Resources...etc. Each word in a Wikipedia article is supported by tens, hundreds, perhaps thousands somewhere else.
 * For me, the end justifies the means. I think Wikipedia is a fantastic resource (and idea) and am pleased to be able to contribute. LessHeard vanU 16:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC) I've interacted with some great people doing so, too.

Nice one, people. Heartwarming; to say the very least. I have just tried to read through 70.91.137.58´s piece above, and I left a comment.

I made my original comment because it looks like we´re mistaking the difference between a comment and a thesis. Have we all really read through every long comment? Is it possible? I have really tried, but the lack of paragraphs seriously affects my vision.

Have fun. andreasegde 11:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Aw, this is nothing. You should look at the talk pages of some conentious articles - they've been collected into four, five or more separate archive articles. I may do that to this page soon; it's getting pretty long. - DavidWBrooks 12:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The Beatles Cartoons
When looking up the animated series The Beatles, I couldn't find the slightest bit on any of the Beatles pages. Shouldn't there be SOME mention, even in passing? At least a link to the entry for the show. CFLeon 23:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

IS there an entry for the show? I don't see one, surprisingly. Carlo 01:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If you have any good information, then get writing! Please stick a "The Beatles" template (open "edit this page" at the top of this page to see the format) on the talk page and make a note on WikiProject The Beatles/Log. Have fun! LessHeard vanU 10:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There was a cartoon? Any good?--Crestville 10:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I had forgotten about it. It was done by an American TV company - the accents were Liverpoolish but a lot of the idioms were typical "How the yanks think we talk like (Dick Van Dyke / Bert)" - and it looked pretty cheap. I only ever saw it in the early days of Channel Four - when it first went 24 hour /Night Network - and it was okay. It would be interesting as an indication of how popular the group was, but it has no real significance beyond that (IMO).LessHeard vanU 10:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I was surprised by the number of hits I got when I Googled for it. The most comprehensive site I found is http://www.beatlefans.com/cartoons.htm, "plot" details and songs for each episode. I'm still not certain if it is worth its own article - it may be good for merging into another? LessHeard vanU 11:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be best as a standalone article I would think. Could live in Category:Tributes to The Beatles, a new category I created for tributes, parodies and other such guff. --kingboyk 11:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll ask CFLeon if they fancy writing it.LessHeard vanU 11:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC) ps. see my comments regarding tribute bands below.

Beatlemania
I was quite surprised to find that the majority of this article was devoted to tribute bands. As I understood it, "Beatlemania" was the term coined to describe the psychological frenzy evidenced in the early days of the band, as they established themselves as a cultural phenomena. It may be that the tribute band text be split out of the "Beatlemania" article, and moved to Category:Tributes to The Beatles, as mentioned by Kingboyk above, and the article devoted to the fans reactions?LessHeard vanU 11:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. The real Beatlemania content would ideally live in the History article/section I think, and the rest either zapped or split out. --kingboyk 11:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Astrid Kirchherr
Kirchherr is wrongly credited for "the moptop". I don't know how accurate the credit is for the collarless suits. Is anyone SURE of the suit design? Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 16:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not CERTAIN, but I believe that it was Epstien who (post Hamburg) put them into suits. I don't know who tailored/chose the collarless style.LessHeard vanU 20:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It is widely quoted that Jürgen Vollmer left his hair down after going swimming, and The Beatles liked it. "We were quite taken with it", said Lennon.

andreasegde 08:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

George and Pete threatened to leave after John and Paul had the cut--Crestville 10:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

That´s typical of Lennon to say "we", isn´t it? :) andreasegde 17:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Current Members?
Since the group split over 35 years ago - not to mention that two in the list are now dead - it makes no sense to have a list of "current members". I can't see how to change this because it's done in some cryptic way, but maybe someone who knows how to can change the text to something more appropriate? (Comment by User:86.142.110.210 22:51 02 June 2006)


 * Good point. Is there an appropriate term for "those remaining at bands demise"? I will have a quick look at other bands pages and see if there is anything worth nicking using. LessHeard vanU 12:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A quick look indicates that the term members apply to the ultimate individuals, and past members for those in previous lineups. I will amend accordingly. LessHeard vanU 12:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It appears that my attempts to change the heading results in the entire caption and listing being "lost". It will have to wait until somebody works out how to alter it without losing it. LessHeard vanU 12:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes - you can't just edit an infobox in the article. It will require some hunting through the tech pages to see how to do it. - DavidWBrooks 13:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, we can can put the Fab Four under, just, Members followed by the years (19XX-19XX) that they played together. And put Pete and Stu under Past Members followed by the years and parenthesis. Or put the bold titles as whatever and do the same thing with the parenthesis. Or we can do that to one and not the other. Or any other weird combination of both (Tommy mumbles on and on about something....) and the worst part is, she turned out to be a he! --TommyBoy76 01:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The infobox gets screwed up when the above revision is made. We need an infobox for defunct musical groups. Steelbeard1 01:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I had a look on a couple of articles regarding now defunct bands of note (The Byrds etc.) and they followed the format of simply noting "Members" and "Previous members". Infoboxes need not have too much detail, since the main body of text should supply that.LessHeard vanU 09:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The Byrds have "infobox band" and the Beatles have "infobox musical 2" or something like that ... a simple switch of the name of the infobox when editing the page will change the format to that of the Byrds' box, if that's what people want. - DavidWBrooks 11:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you tested this infobox style? If so, did all information transfer correctly? LessHeard vanU 12:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's a somewhat different format - it won't carry over all the existing information. - DavidWBrooks 12:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Myspace?
Just asking before I edit, but what is the relevance of the Myspace page that is linked? Obviously it isn't the ACTUAL band, and it doesn't add anything to the article. -- 0zymandias 04:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's gone. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As well it should be! ---Charles 05:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

yay! coola.

the main picture is too small
blow it up, get a better version, or get a new picture, or I will. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.189.99.161 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 6 June 2006.

more pictures!--
 * Please remember that larger images add to server strain and page loading times. Copyright is another important consideration. You will find more information on Images. -- Alias Flood 02:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

nice name.
why beatles? 150.101.101.74 02:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * it's all there in the History of the Beatles Article, and probably in this one too.--Crestville 11:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * PLEASE NOTE; User:150.101.101.74 's talk page is full of requests to stop vandalising. I suggest ignoring this editor.LessHeard vanU 13:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay it says that we still have alot of room for info to put in...
So don't be shy, we need as much info as we can get, lets use the christianity article as a reference, lets put as much info as we can in this article, as there is in the article of christianity, okay people?
 * We don't want everything and the kitchen sink in this article. This article should present a readable, interesting overview for people who don't know much about the band.


 * That said, since we're talking about additions of material: could editors please try wherever possible to use inline citations in new articles and when adding new material? It will make our job easier when we come to fact checking later on. (See The KLF if you have no idea what I mean by inline citations.) --kingboyk 15:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, please don't add more material to the article, unless you remove something of equivalent size. I've trimmed it by about one-sixth over the past several weeks in an attempt to make it actually useful for people seeking basic information about the Beatles, but even if I've done that well there is still a long, badly organized and not always coherent section that needs major work.
 * If you have good stuff that doesn't quite make it to the level of this introductory article, there are a number of secondary articles linked from this one where material can be added! But don't make this article any longer - in this case, size doesn't matter. - DavidWBrooks 18:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Billy Preston "the 5th Beatle" has passed away...
Billy Preston's Sad Passing

June 6th, 2006 BY ROGER FRIEDMAN

'FIFTH BEATLE' BILLY PRESTON DEAD AT AGE 59 The great singer-songwriter and performer Billy Preston, the real "Fifth Beatle" has died after a long illness as a result of malignant hypertension that resulted in kidney failure and other complications. As a result of a medical insult he'd been in a deep coma since last November 21st, but was still struggling to recover. He died at Shea Scottsdale Hospital in Scottsdale, Arizona where he'd lived for the last couple of years.

Billy was called the Fifth Beatle because he played keyboards on Let it Be, The White Album and Abbey Road. He also played on the Rolling Stones's hit song Miss You, and often played with Eric Clapton. He also did the organ work on Sly & the Family Stone's greatest hits. Preston's own hits included "Nothing from Nothing," "Will it Go Round in Circles," and "You Are So Beautiful," which Joe Cocker turned into an international hit.

Preston was actually mentored by Ray Charles, and acts like Little Richard (see below), Mahalia Jackson, and James Cleveland had a huge impact on him at a young age. In the early 60s, Billy went to Europe with Little Richard who playing in Hamburg. The Beatles were the opening act and as the story goes he was the one who made sure they got fed.

His friendship with them lasted through the 1960s and he was the first act signed to Apple Records thanks to George Harrison. The resulting album is called "That's the Way God Planned It." In 1971, Preston played in "The Concert for Bangla Desh." Last year, in one of his final appearances, he performed at a reuion in Los Angeles for the release of the Bangla Desh DVD with Ringo and Harrison's son Dhani on guitar.

More recently, Billy can be heard on the latest albums by Neil Diamond and Red Hot Chili Peppers. He's also featured on the Starbucks soul album "Believe to My Soul" featuring Mavis Staples and Ann Peebles.

I had the good fortune to know Billy the last few years, and saw him perform--as chronicled in this column--last August at the Mohegan Sun Casino in Connecticut and last October at the Atlantis in the Bahamas. He was one of those spectacular performers who put everything into his show even though he had no working kidneys by then and was receiving dialysis. He was a warm, wonderful human being with a mile wide smile. He was also a genius musician, the likes of whom we will not see again.

Rest in peace, Billy. You deserve it.pe

Listen to Billy's final work here.

9.9.1946 -6.6.2006 (info provided by Stephan Koenig)

Reply to my message from Angie McCartney...
De: "Angie McCartney"  Ajouter au carnet d'adresses Objet: Re: RE : McCartney Breaking News Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 15:58:57 -0700 À: "KOENIG Stephan"  Stephan: thank you so much for the beautiful tribute to Billy Preston. We will make sure it is passed on to his family and Joyce, his Manager. Billy had a very special place in our hearts, and it is warming to know that people like you cared so much. Angie McCartney McCartney Multimedia, Inc. www.mccartney.com/company Tel 310 301 8166 xtn 225 Fax: 310 301 8136 email: angie@mccartney.com Office @ 179 Culver Blvd Mailing Address: 322 Culver # 124 Playa del Rey, CA 90293 Need to arrange a meeting? View our online calendar at http://www.mccartney.com/calendar On Jun 6, 2006, at 1:40 PM, KOENIG Stephan wrote:

> What can I say and/or do than more this: > > http://stephan-koenig-the-beatles.skynetblogs.be/ >

Yesterday, Billy Preston passed away...
http://stephan-koenig-the-beatles.skynetblogs.be/

Discography
I couldn't stand seeing the discography section empty, so I've filled it in with a very short summary of the original UK albums, and a few more that were released since 1970. It might be trimmed further, but I don't like seeing empty sections with nothing in them except "main article" - it kind of violates summary style. Morwen - Talk 14:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, this pisses me off too. The main problem is I see it is that seeing anything even partially incomplete, especially in an article like this, will drive certain editors into an editing frenzy which overloads the article. We've already experienced this in the past with the history section. Sigh... Johnleemk | Talk 15:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

A table would look nice, like on the Oasis or Supergrass discography sections.--Crestville 15:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

French-speaking wikipedia
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles%27_Songbook#Classification_-_TOP_40 i did this tremendous work only for my own pleasure :-). Stephan KŒNIG 81.246.221.129 23:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Do I understand correctly that you were including album tracks, and stating the highest chart position from the album? Also, I note that you are using "Radio London" as the source for the UK positions; is this the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), since there was no Radio London in the 60's? I wouldn't mind nicking ... er, having this translated and used in this Project if possible.LessHeard vanU 21:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Possibly it is Wonderful Radio London? However, one of the paper magazines charts from this time are generally preferred these days.  Morwen - Talk 20:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If it was the, or any, pirate radio ship then any "chart" is meaningless, since payola was rife and dj's would further inflate returns of favoured artists. I think that the NME and Melody Maker charts are considered the most legit for that period. However, I should be interested if M. Koenig chose to respond. To Morwen, were you able to translate? I am usually only able to get the gist of written French, and am aware that my understandings can be incorrect.LessHeard vanU 21:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Dates of labels
Could someone add dates next to the labels in the infobox (like in Kylie Minogue and Mariah Carey)? Thank you. CG 15:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Johnny Gentle and Tommy Moore?
What about him? The lads toured as his back-up band on a tour of Scotland, I believe. Will check. Hope it´s not too trivi.... (Don´t say that word ... ouch!)

http://www.johnnygentle.co.uk/

Put him in. Who played drums with them, though? Problem with McCartney asking Pete Best to join in August, when they played with Gentle in May. Hmmmm.....

Got him! Tommy Moore, who went back to work in a bottling factory ´cos his girlfriend told him to.. (Doh!)

Just looked: Tommy Moore is not listed in The Beatles line-ups! Poor bloke; he has been dropped into the bin of unknowns... I would think that he does not believe that he had a trivial part to play in The Beatles, but he seems to be the only one who hasn´t written a book about it... andreasegde 17:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)