Talk:The Beatles/Archive 7

Pictures
Whoever did the pictures of them one-to-a-section with the alternating sides and the captions and the awesome deserves an awesomeness award. Best use of pictures I've seen on the Wiki. Atropos 01:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know who did that but I like it a great deal too. Unfortunately well-meaning people keep coming along and placing images in between those 4, spoiling the effect somewhat :) --kingboyk 10:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well; I put the one in with Klein, because it is right under the paragraph about Olympic studio and the argument they had about him. The whole article was rather long, and I thought a little photo would illustrate it a bit - especially about McCartney pretending to sign. Is that the one you mean?

WHOOPS! I have just seen the "speedy deletion" comment, about the Klein photo. I didn´t know it was unauthorised. (Honest, your lordship, it were not me...) I have sent it to the great trash can in the sky.

The Beatlemania photo should be one showing girls/boys going "ape-excrement"/crazy - which was Beatlemania, was it not?.

I took one out yesterday, which was "The Beatles in 1968", which seemed too large, and out of place.

I know Atropos loved the photos (which are brilliant) but did he read the article? This is the gist of it, after all... no? andreasegde 21:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course I did. :P Atropos 18:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Great, but what do you think about it? Do you think that there should only be the 4 photos (that are wonderful) in the article, or should we add more? Colour, or black and white? How big? I´m being co-operative, by the way, and it´s excellent that someone has said something nice. andreasegde 18:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Using the four photos from Let It Be (these pictures always sadden me anyway as they represent the end of the band) perhaps wastes an opportunity to better illustrate the various themes of the articles. I agree that “Beatlemania” should show (mainly) girls going absolutely bonkers.--Patthedog 09:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * They're from the White Album in 1968, not Let It Be, are they not? Cracks started to show at this time of course but musically they were still going strong. --kingboyk 09:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There's lots of room. My point was that 4 solo pics - which I think are *highly* effective - are best if they run uninterrupted. Other photos can follow them. Just my 2c. --kingboyk 09:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually we do need some more pics don't we... a pre-fame photo, a better representation of Beatlemania (as you say)... perhaps if we could get a list together of eligible pictures and possible captions we could come up with a layout. We could move the 4 portraits down to the bottom, analysis sections... but would that lessen their impact? --kingboyk 09:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Apologies, yes they are from the White Album. My point I think though is that we must try and remember how The Beatles made us feel at these different times. There should be happy smiling Beatles representing the beginning. I know that they got fed up with these sort of pictures themselves in the end, but at the start they were just as amazed as we all were, and their faces showed it. I'm new to Wikipedia, so how do we know if we can use a photo? --Patthedog 10:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A note of caution: Pictures, obviously, really increase the size of a page and its load time. This is a big article already, and we should be cautious about making it much bigger, or it crashes some browsers. We're not making a magazine article here, remember.
 * Personally I do not think this article needs *more* pictures; perhaps better ones, or better-placed ones, but not more. There are a bunch of other Beatles articles that could use photos, though; if you're visually oriented and have some good ideas, take a look at those. - DavidWBrooks 12:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think when we say "more" we mean different. Each picture ought to represent the moment if possible. Also, they in my opinion should be B & W until colour became the norm. --Patthedog 15:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I moved the Ed Sullivan picture further down in the article so as not to interfer with the one-to-a-section-alternating-sides thing, which is pretty neat. If someone wants to put it in a better place, that's fine with me.

i really like the alternating pictures, but i agree that their are some essential photos that get left out because of it. its a dilema for sure. User:roxysmashsir43

Does anbody have any info on.......
what they thought of Martin luther King JR. ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.187.227 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 2 July 2006
 * Please note; an anonymous editor using the above IP address has been admonished for "vandalising" the Martin Luther King article.LessHeard vanU 20:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The anonymous user is likely User:Dragong4 who is blocked for 6 months from editing anywhere on Wikipedia. 216.21.150.44 21:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Experimental?
''McCartney continued to live in the city, first in a house in the centre of town, and then at a larger property in St John's Wood, a short distance from Abbey Road Studios. He was often seen at major cultural events such as the launch party for the International Times at The Roundhouse (which he attended in disguise). He also avidly delved into the visual arts, becoming a close friend of leading art dealers and gallery owners, explored experimental film, and regularly attended movie, theatrical and classical music performances.''

This was taken from McCartney on WP.

Also this:

[] Ian Peel: The Unknown Paul McCartney - Reynolds & Hearn (November 1, 2002)

''“What emerges from Ian Peel´s book is a unique insight into Paul McCartney’s little–known contribution to avant–garde music. Ian Peel is a British music journalist with a special interest in digital dance music and other experimental forms.”''

andreasegde 20:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Changes in their music
The whole first half of "Changes in their music" is only about the individual Beatles, and it could easily go onto their own pages.

To be honest, the whole piece is like wandering through a Beatles museum sideways. It repeats stuff that is available elsewhere (or should be somewhere else) and reads like a talk page. It’s a mess. Kick me in my lunchbox if I’m wrong…

I thought I had taken these out, but it seems that they are still there:

“Reportedly stung by criticism of "Paperback Writer", The Beatles poured their creative energies into the recording studio.” (No citation)

“Throughout their career The Beatles' songs were rarely riff (or ostinato)-driven” (Rock and Roll, anyone?...)

“to nonsense songs and others defying description.” (POV)

andreasegde 20:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Your lunchbox remains unkicked: The section is a mess that needs to be rewritten and reorganized, top to bottom. - DavidWBrooks 21:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.

Right; (sound of heavy machinery being started up...) I will roll up my sleeves... andreasegde 21:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have taken out a lot - but not all - as I am being careful not to look like a vandal. If nobody kicks me in the area that contains my colon I will continue snipping. andreasegde 21:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Any votes for deleting it all together and starting over?

Royalties
I don't want to start messing with the text here, but a) can anybody give citation for "one farthing in the £"? It could be right, but 2 to 4% was the norm in the 60s. and b) as for DJM taking 50% on publishing - that's a standard publishing contract and would pretty much apply to anybody except for established songwriters in a position to negotiate. As for Epstein taking a %age of the songwriting royalties, I would be surprised if there's any managers that didn't take a percentage. Prior to the Beatles, managers often used to take all the money, just paying a fixed wage to the artist. --Richhoncho 22:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

For 1963 they received less than 1 farthing for each member per double-sided disc, and half that on overseas sales. Millions of records were sold under this original Parlophone contract

The EMI/parlophone deal Epstein signed on behalf of the Beatles was pathetic and George Martin was later to describe it as 'pretty awful'. There were no advance payments. A 12-track album would only be counted as six cuts. There were three one-year options with an increase of a quarter of a penny at the end of the first year and an increase of a halfpenny at the end of the second year (Harry. Encyclopedia, p. 118).

http://www.beatlemoney.com/beatles6063management.htm

Northern Songs (publishing) was set up on 22 February 1963: 51% Dick James and Charles Silver, 20% each John and Paul, 9% Brian Epstein. A new 5 year management contract was signed on 1 October 1962 giving NEMS/Epstein 25% commission. http://www.bemuso.com/articles/beatlesbusiness.html

andreasegde 10:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In which case according to Beatmoney article, they were signed at 1% (depending on the actual wording of the contract)with increments of 1 farthing according to sales. As for the publishing contract, I assume the royalties would have been split on a standard 50/50 (50% for the publishing company 50% for the publishers). The fact the John & Paul each owned 20% of the publishing company was extremely generous for the time. I can't think of an earlier example of songwriters owning part of the publishing co (save where they acually set up a commercial publisher and were songwriters as well. Actually the Beatles changed the whole concept of songwriting/publishing, but nobody would have foreseen that in 1963.--Richhoncho 12:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Northern Songs was set up on 22 February 1963: 51% Dick James and Charles Silver, 20% each John and Paul, 9% Brian Epstein.

Don´t forget that Epstein then took 25% of Lennon and McCartney´s publishing earnings.

Maybe 50-50 was common in the fifties - but I think was called 99%-nothing by some artists, but 60-40%, 70-30%, and even 80,20% are accepted as the norm. andreasegde 12:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 50/50 for publishing co/songwriter (for royalties) was and is accepted as the norm in 50s through to this decade. Nothing has changed, With Len & Mac having 20% each of the publishing co issued capital means their income stream from songwriting was 60% between the 2 of them. Very generous for a "new" band. This excludes Epstein's "management" %age which would come out afterwards in any event. Although other %ages do exist, I'd like to see where you get your quotes from. BTW I forgot to mention an "advance" is only record co-speak for "loan against future sales" --Richhoncho 13:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, we can laugh about this "Richhoncho". If you say 50-50 is the norm, then where is your citation? (I am a crap at maths, and I hate calculators, that´s why I have an accountant.) Lennon got 25% - less Eptein´s 25% cut of Lennon´s 25%... Hmmm...

Publishing? I have personally signed three contracts. (This is called original research, no? Ouch!) Two were 60-40, and one was 70-30. This was in the 80s, and 90s. Anyway; who needs publishers today? All you need is a bloodhound to track down the missing loot. andreasegde 14:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Typical publisher percentages vary from as much as 50% (hopefully when the publisher really is actively exploiting your work or has given you a substantial advance on your share) to 5-15% for purely collecting your money from the various collection societies round the world. 50% is the maximum publisher share allowed by the PRS. andreasegde 12:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

There are only three kinds of people in the world: those who can count, and those that can't! Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 15:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, ASCAP, BMI, & PRS pay out 50% to the publisher and 50% to the writers automatically (unless otherwise specifically told) - couldn't find a net quote to confirm 50/50 other than I'll check Donald Passman's book later. BTW Sheet music used to be about 15% for the composer. BTW If I could cite this I would have changed the article! --Richhoncho 15:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That was a little joke:) On a more serious note, I read and old Melody Maker and it said that The Fabs were being taxed at 19/11d in the pound on all their income! Same with the Stones, who before releasing "Beggar's Banquet" were almost broke!! Cheers,Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 16:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the infamous "unearned income" bag of tricks. It´s based on hard labour, and not sitting back on a deckchair and "watching the wheels go round"... There was a point in the early 60s where they made more money by playing live; because they were physically working... and paid less tax. Bugger... andreasegde 18:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that info, Bugger...Indeed Sir!! Cheers Pal, Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 19:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * (ps. It should be known that there in fact only 10 types of people in this world;
 * Those that understand binary code and those that don't!) LessHeard vanU 21:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC) I know this has nothing to do with Royalties, but it has been my joke de jour for over a week now...


 * Then that would be your joke (farce) de la semaine... &mdash; Dave 00:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "Dead Gear"! Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 14:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There are only two people in this world that don´t understand numbers: Me, and my alter-ego - when he´s at home... P.S. What does binary mean? (Doh!) andreasegde 14:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Er..."In our mountain binary, where god paints the signery"? Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 18:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The information about the Beatles publishing (and other royalties) is somewhat misleading. Lennon & McCartney did not get 50% of their publishing once Northern Songs became a public company. The publishing was split 50-50 between Northern Songs and Maclen Ltd (which was owned by Lennon and McCartney) after Dick James took 10% off the top. Lennon and McCartney also each received 15% of the money that went to Northern Songs (not 20%). So, Lennon & McCartney received half of the the 90% left over after Dick James took his cut PLUS 30% (15% + 15%) of the Northern Songs share. Are you following this so far? That works out as 45% plus 30% of 45% (which is 13.5%). So they actually received 58.5%. It's not clear whether Brian Epstein got a percentage of that - he received 25% of the Beatles earnings from performances and recordings but that may not have extended to publishing. The deals negotiated by Epstein and James were considered generous by the standards of the era, according to the book "Those Were The Days". Also the penny a record deal was renegotiated long before Allen Klein got involved. By 1967 Brian Epstein had renegotiated their recording contract so they were getting 10% of wholesale price increasing to 15% after sales of 100,000 singles (and 30,000 albums) in the UK. On U.S. sales it went up to 17%, but even much earlier than that their contract had been renegotiated. --Pinglis 07:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Microphone section
I'm sorry, I'm just a trifle confused about why these two paragraphs don't belong with the other technical information about their studio habits. -MBlume 17:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Current location is most bizarre. I think it should go into "Instrumentation", which ought to be prose. (When The KLF underwent its recent Featured Article Candidacy, we were advised to convert our Instrumentation section into prose, and since this is already a Featured Article I guess the same should happen here). --kingboyk 18:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Which paragraphs do you mean? Kick me in my waste depository, because I moved the mics section a bit lower in the "Studio band" section. I think it made more sense, timeline wise... andreasegde 18:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The stress of controlling everything (without Epstein) marred the troubled Get Back sessions in January of 1969 &mdash; Lennon later denounced them as being the worst recordings of their career &mdash; and the project was made even more stressful by having to get up extremely early in the morning and having the presence of a film crew to capture the rehearsals for a planned movie (which eventually became the Let It Be documentary).

Although they had access to the best microphones available,such as the Neumann U47, they often used the AKG C28, which features a small microphone capsule on the end of a long, curved extension stand, with the mic's preamp located on the floor. (This mic was often used by the BBC.) They often used the AKG C28 mics for vocals, with a small piece of sponge crudely taped over them to prevent "pops"; meaning the sound produced by singing the letters B, and P. (Both types of microphones were taken upstairs to the roof - for the famous roof concert - where second engineer Alan Parsons simply tied a leg of pantyhose over the U47s (which were used as "overhead" mics) to act as windscreens.)

By this time another very significant factor had emerged &mdash; Lennon's passionate affair with Japanese artist Yoko Ono. The couple quickly became inseparable and Lennon further alienated the other Beatles by bringing Ono to almost every recording session; breaking the band's long-standing rule against outsiders at sessions. Lennon even ordered a bed to be installed in the studio so Yoko could recuperate (after their car crash in Scotland). --kingboyk 18:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem with it. It breaks up the prose with a bit of technical/film/interesting stuff about their time in the studio, and the rooftop gig. I have often been asked "What are those mics?" when watching "Anthology" with friends. Putting it into a technical/instrument article would only be of interest to the people that are interested in that kind of thing - but I´m sure that they know that already. Who would (honestly) read it?

I agree that it doesn´t flow very well, but we can fix that, can´t we?

Earlier in the article it is mentioned that they "ping-ponged" 4 tracks to two. Should that go to "technical"? I hope not. I put in the quote about McCartney asking what a guitar would sound like underwater, and there isn´t anything yet about Lennon singing through a "Lesley" keyboard loudspeaker. Is that technical?

This could go on and on. (I sincerely hope not...) andreasegde 18:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The prose went: the stress of being The Beatles after the death of Mr Epstein; microphones; Yoko Ono. Doesn't seem too logical to me :) --kingboyk 18:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn´t flow very well, but we can fix that, can´t we? Hit those keys, guys! Ahhhh.... It´s been moved anyway, and I don´t mind.

Now.... what are we going to do about "Changes in their music"? It´s awful. Does anyone think it´s any good? andreasegde 18:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it has potential, but needs consistancy (it goes from saying they started out played rock and roll to saying they played dance), an nice thread running through to show the changing styles, when they existed and what other styles they co-encided with, contrasting, and their relevance. I'd have a crack at it but the wheather's too nice.--Crestville 12:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Five Beatles?
"The Beatles line up was still changing. In spring 1962 the fifth member of The Beatles bassist Stuart Sutcliffe died of a brain hemorrhage". Sutcliffe wasn't a member in 1962. Cheers Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 23:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Shouldn´t it be ex-member? It´s a piffling mistake, but nothing to write home about... andreasegde 14:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a misleading mistake. It sounds like the lineup changed *because* of his death -MBlume 00:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Nicol
Would it be ok to insert a link to temporary drummer Jimmy Nicol here In mid-1964 the band undertook their first appearances outside of Europe and North America, touring Australia and New Zealand as I think It gets overlooked otherwise.--Patthedog 09:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I should say so. Stick it in and see what happens.--Crestville 11:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sound clips
Sorry, this has nothing to do with pictures but I couldn't find another section to put it in. We should have soundclips from 1962-1964. Some of the most memorable Beatles hits were from these years, and there are no sound clips before 1965. I'd do it, but I have no idea how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.43.124.144 (talk • contribs)
 * I've moved your comment to a new section. You can create a new section by using == This syntax ==, or click the "+" tab next to "edit this page" uptop.  Powers 21:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand that the BBC have made their library of news audio and film clips available to the public and non profit organisations. It could be worth trawling through their archives for all Beatle related material. As it seems to be on a regional basis, for earlier stuff then it would be the Liverpool/North West broadcasting area then London for the later years. I am aware that "my" area (South West) has Beatles related reports - Magical Mystery Tour - but perhaps some of the areas other than London/Liverpool are going to duplicate those and each other. It would be quite a task, and perhaps one to stick in the newsletter requesting help? LessHeard vanU 21:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

George Martin
.....and established the prototype for the "self-contained" rock group; meaning that they did not need songwriters from outside of the band... a lot of credit ought to go to George Martin here as he was then most definitely in a position of influence and for a while considered which Beatle should be the leader, as was the norm with acts at the time (i.e. Cliff and the Shadows). Also, he allowed an enormous amount of leeway with their own song writing, which was just emerging. Another producer could so easily have insisted that John lead the group and just to be safe, use a tin pan alley song or two to try and launch them. He was hugely sympathetic, hard to imagine these days. --Patthedog 20:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is sad, replying to my own thread. Ah well…

I’m going to put this here as I don’t want to keep generating headings..''Her Majesty - was a total accident. An engineer taped the short rehearsal tape on the end of the mixed version of the album, and the whole thing was sent to EMI to be pressed..'' is not accurate. 2nd engineer John Kurlander was told to remove Her Majesty from the medley and throw it away! He couldn’t bring himself to do that so tagged it on the end of 20 seconds of red leader. The medley (including the "thown away" HM) was made into a demo lacquer for the band to hear if it would work. Paul was pleasantly taken by surprise on playback, and so it was saved and put onto the end of the final mixdown. BTW, my original (1969) Abbey Road cover lists it as a track. --Patthedog 18:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Have a look at the Her Majesty (song) page. andreasegde 03:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes, I've seen that and it's more or less accurate. It's The Beatles article that needs changing. Or just remove it as there is no need to go into such detail there. --Patthedog 08:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to change it. You don't always have to consult this page, just do it an maybe make a mention of why in your edit summary. People trust you know what you are doing. BTW, do you have any knowlege of what things are and what they are worth? If not I will give you a shiny sixpence peice (in old money) for your original Abbey Road pressing. I think you will find my offer more than reasonable (fingers crossed!)--Crestville 11:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, from now on I will do whatever I feel is the right thing. I suppose I was waiting for approval. Thirty two and six it cost me! I then went to the pub and bought myself a pint for ninepence and read the cover. Lovely! --Patthedog 15:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh.... the days of buying a real album and reading the liner notes for an eternity. They should supply people with a magnifying glass to read CD liner notes. andreasegde 10:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't actually remeber old money, but am I the only one who thinks Paul McCartney should fork out some cash and re-issue the cd's with more effort put into the covers, inlays and that. Only Sgt. Pepper and The White Album are any good. It's a shambles, really.--Crestville 12:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Pete Best Redundancy
... in more ways than one. There are two paragraphs in the history section that talk about the Pete->Ringo conversion. I'd drop one myself, but thought I'd leave it to those of you who have been focussing on this article more. John (Jwy) 12:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

George Toogood Smith up for deletion
Just to let everyone know, the article on George Smith, John Lennon's uncle, who raised him as his own son, is up for deletion. While I in no way wish for non-notable people to be given articles purely on the basis that they are related to someone famous, Smith was like a father to Lennon and integral but often overlooked key in The Beatles mythology (if that's the right word). He features prominently in any other work on or about Lennon. Vital information that cannot reasonably be included in the Lennon article. The main problem is the unfortunate article title, which highlights close connotations to the fact that he is mainly famous for his relationship to Lennon. Other than that it is a desirable article for anyone wishing to learn about John Lennon. I just thought I'd give anyone interested the opportunity to voice their opinions here:. Ta very much.--Crestville 14:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed the link. andreasegde 12:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Lost tapes
The original "lost tapes" were BBC sessions that had been in their vaults for years. They were recordings of early BBC shows. The "lost tapes" that have recently been in the news were from the Get Back sessions. No connection between the two, apart from the name.

Is someone going to buy me a pint? (Sound of deafening silence...) Oh well... andreasegde 10:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * When you find yourself a buyer of pints - be a pal and send 'em over to me afterwards! Fanx, ta-ra...LessHeard vanU 12:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As nice as you are - LessHeard vanU - if I found "a buyer of pints", I would hold him/her to my bosom and never let them go... Ahhh... beautiful dreams are wonderful things. andreasegde 13:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ringo Starr Redundancy
Does anyone else see the two paragraphs about Ringo Starr under the formation of the band as redundant? Check these out:

Martin did have a problem with Best however, whom he criticised for not being able to keep time. For this and other reasons, The Beatles let Best go on August 16, 1962, although it was left to Brian Epstein to tell him. They immediately asked Starr, whom they had met and even performed with previously, to join the band permanently. Starr had been the drummer for Rory Storm and The Hurricanes, at a time when they had been one of the top Merseybeat groups, a bigger group than The Beatles were. Martin, unaware of this personnel change, hired session drummer Andy White to play drums on The Beatles' first studio session on September 4, 1962. Andy would be the session drummer during their 3rd EMI session on September 11, 1962.

In August 1962 Pete Best was dismissed and replaced by Ringo Starr (real name: Richard Starkey). Starr had been the drummer for rival Liverpool band Rory Storm and the Hurricanes, and had played with The Beatles several times in Hamburg. George Martin was not impressed with Best's playing and privately suggested to Brian Epstien that the band should use another drummer in the studio. Though Best had some popularity and was considered good-looking by many female fans, the three founding members had become increasingly unhappy with his drumming and his moody personality, and Epstein had become exasperated with his refusal to adopt the distinctive hairstyle as part of their unified look.

Omegasnk
 * Well spotted. You can do the necessary edits, if you like. Please leave any detail that is relevant to the section, and remove duplication. Also, after the initial full name individuals should be referred to by surname only (thus "Andy" becomes "White").ps. Please type four tildes (~) after your comment for your username plus time and date to be added to your comment; like this LessHeard vanU 20:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You know what they say... Be bold. =) TommyBoy76 22:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Done on 29th July. Lion King 21:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit
Took out a lot of stuff in Changes in their music, and cut the photo captions down as George (RIP) would not want to be known for only "adding the sitar to their music". andreasegde 12:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

User:JohnEmerald
User:JohnEmerald is inserting false info in the article, reinserting that Magical Mystery Tour was a British LP when it was an American LP. Should he be restricted from posting? Steelbeard1 10:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No. What should happen is you put it back, and rephrase the list heading slightly.  It deserves to be in a list : the mere fact that it was released in on four sides versus two sides is irrelevant.  Morwen - Talk 10:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * NOT in a British LP list which it's in. AGAIN, it was not a British LP until long after The Beatles broke up in 1976.  And NOT considered a standard official LP until the catalogue was issued on CD.  BTW, JohnEmerald did not insert the false info, he added onto the false info by inserted the album cover.  Steelbeard1 10:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll just repeat myself but make it more clear for you: change the definition of the list then. Morwen - Talk 10:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, I've done this myself. It now says "list of original albums and double EPs". See how easy this is!  Morwen - Talk 10:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the MMT double EP sleeve was different. Steelbeard1 10:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's nice, I'll put the correct one there instead, then. Would you like some tea?  You seem to be rather on edge.  Morwen - Talk 10:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikiquette, everyone. C'mon now. --TommyBoy76 17:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't ruin the atmos.--Crestville 20:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)