Talk:The Beatles/Archive 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Did The Beatles do LSD, marijuana, etc.?

This is becoming a pet peeve of mine. Did the Beatles actually do these drugs, or what? If they did, it should be mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.7.190.52 (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and so did everybody and all their brothers in the 60s. Zazaban (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Drug use hardly sets The Beatles apart from other performers in the 60s. Ward3001 (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
What did Robin Williams say? If you actually remember the '60s, you weren't really there? Drugs are part of the Beatles' story: the early use of amphetamines; Dylan introducing them to pot; Paul's public admission of LSD use; the influence on their music. However, the Beatles' use was not unique for the time. I'll need to go through the article again since I can't remember what is actually written about this, but addressing the drug use, within context, has a place, but not in a moralizing tone. There's plenty written about their drug use and the impact on the music, so sourcing is not an issue. freshacconcispeaktome 15:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
One thing that has to be understood also, is that "recreational drugs" were not freely available in the UK in the early 60s, high grade grass in particlar, you had to be rich to lay your hands on them. Keith Richards reports paying £20 for one hit of heroin (the weekly wage of a Bank Manager) "Joe Public" contary to popular belief were not off their heads on drugs during the '60s. Recreational drugs for ordinary people were booze, pep pills and downers that they conned from their GPs, they did not have the access or the money to class A drugs like The Beatles and the Stones which was the reason a special task force from Scotland Yard targeted them. A lot of ordinary people were there, and remember the '60s! Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Their drug use is mentioned in the McCartney and Lennon articles, so it should be here. "Got to Get You into My Life" being one clear example. --andreasegde (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If it is, it should be well-sourced, limited to one or two sentences, and confined to the time frame when The Beatles were active, not their post-Beatles drug use. Ward3001 (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Very true, as it seems that most of their drug use was when they were together. Prellies, cocaine, LSD, heroin - they had the lot, and weren't afraid to talk about it. --andreasegde (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
In fact, thinking about this leads me to think that there could be a whole article for it; the songs they wrote about drugs (numerous) the incidents (Abbey Road rooftop with George Martin for one) arrests, and interviews (McCartney and his LSD use). Opinions?... --andreasegde (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I reckon we could, I mean they had a task force from 1212 Scottish Place target them and wasn't there a bent bizzie from it caught plantng drugs on them? Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and he (Pilcher?) copped/served a few years for planting evidence... --andreasegde (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
That's the blighter alright! Sargent Norman Pilchard of the Yard! Pity he didn't have better things to do, like run around after feckin Cockneys puting out their skips that their little scally kids set fire to - probley be another soon - anyone would think we were at their beck an 999 call! Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Love - double Grammy winner

There should be mention of the Beatles' Grammy winners, including Love, which won two awards last night. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Then put it in, why don'tcha ya? --andreasegde (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
In case you haven't noticed, the article is protected, and my work computer rejects cookies. But since you've volunteered me, you're welcome to do it in my stead. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BanglaDeshCover.jpg

Image:BanglaDeshCover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Liverpudlian/Liverpool

  • They were from Liverpool, and as it is jokingly called, "The Capital of Ireland", the decent thing seems to be to say that they were a band from Liverpool, England. None of them were born in Scotland or Wales (Britain) or born in Northern Ireland (The UK, plus the rest). --andreasegde (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe I'm missing your point, but isn't "England" part of Britain? Scotland, Wales and England are Britain, and Britain plus Northern Ireland is the United Kingdom? (Or, better put: Northern Ireland is not in Britain, but Britain and Northern Ireland make up the UK). Oh, geographic, national and ethnic semantics. My brain hurts. Why can't you people just come up with one name like we did in Canada?!? freshacconcispeaktome 20:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Because the UK is not made up of Provinces or States. The UK is made up of four Constituent Countries. Cheers, Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you trying to confuse us even further? Actually, it's not that different in North America. Ask a Quebecer or Texan where they're from. freshacconcispeaktome 21:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

A new "Beatles' drug use" (or whatever) article

The Beatles and drugs, The Fabs and naughty substances :) Any thoughts? --andreasegde (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously not... :)--andreasegde (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

British

It might be fine to lump everything as being British, but that would also mean that Canadians and Mexicans are USA Americans (which both countries would violently disagree with). I have quite a few friends who are Scottish and Welsh, and they would disagree with being treated in such a way. When you are born in a country, then that is what you are. I may be European, but I am English, as my mother can testify. :) --andreasegde (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think I see what you mean. "Britain" is a geographic term for the island, but the political entity is the United Kingdom (if I'm not mistaken), much like North America is a geographic place, made up of three (well, actually more) national entities. Geographically I'm North American, but nationally I'm Canadian. To bring it to this discussion: Groundskeeper Willy is from Scotland, which is in Britain, part of the United Kingdom. But he is Scottish presumably first, British second (since you can't be a United Kingdomer). (Forget that he currently lives in the US, and that, well, he's fictional, which I've always felt that Scots really are). So: what you're saying is that the Beatles are, properly put, English, because they are born in England, which just happens to be in Britain, which is part of the UK. Do you think this is the general feeling of all the Isles? English, Scottish, et al first? freshacconcispeaktome 21:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Without a doubt, I could never imgagine (nor have I heard) A Scottish or a Welsh Person describe themselves as "British", and the vast majority of people born in England would most certainly refer to themselves as being English, rather than British, irrespective of "British Nationality Law". Cheers, Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
When someone shows me an English or Scottish passport I'll agree that is the way to go. Until then whatever you think about the way England has changed or home rule for Scotland etc, the choice of descriptor must be British.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)--Egghead06 (talk) 08:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
So your'e saying that English people or Scottish people don't exist because there isn't an English or Scots passport? Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 09:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC) BTW, West Ham and Led Zeppelin are British too then? Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 10:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually quite a few people who live in Scotland regard themselves as British according to an ICM poll conducted in 2007. 24% thought they were equally Scottish and British; 5% "more British than Scottish" and 10% "British". Similarly, the vast majority of people in England (who were polled) don't identify themselves as English rather than British (only about 25% were more to the English end of the spectrum. Bluewave (talk) 10:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
So, English people and Scottish people don't exsist then, it's all a pigment of me amalgamation? Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • One could never write that The Beatles were from Liverpool, Britain. You mention the city they were born in, and the country that city belongs to. (To be pendantic one could say Liverpool, England, The United Kingdom of Great Gritain and Northern Ireland, but I don't think anyone wants that, do they?)
  • You could say that they were a British band from Liverpool, England, but that confuses the situation somewhat.
  • I suspect that the surviving Beatles themselves would disagree with being called an English group (as Lennon and McCartney have Irish family roots).
  • The Beatles were a pop/rock band from Liverpool, England, and that's all one can say.--andreasegde (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • In my experiences, at least here in Canada, we refer to your country as the UK, so Liverpool, UK. freshacconcispeaktome 15:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I hear what both of you are saying and technically, you are correct (and you should know). However, and this is the big sticking point that's making this so complicated, in the rest of the world, at least the rest of the English-speaking world, "England", "Britain", "Great Britain" and "UK/United Kingdom" are used interchangeably, right or wrong (obviously wrong). We usually refer to the English as "Brits". And as it's been mentioned above, other terms exist, such as "British Invasion", "BritPop" and "Young British Artists (YBAs)" which sets a world-wide-view precedent. In other words, The Beatles were an English band that launched of British Invasion. It's confusing. I don't know what the answer is. English is correct, but I can't dismiss "British" so easily. I don't think consensus will be reached with this... freshacconcispeaktome 15:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the point has been lost somewhere. The issue was not Liverpool, England or Liverpool, UK or Liverpool, Britain. It was British or English. I don't think consensus will be reached either and the data will be subjected to endless change which will keep us all entertained! As a matter of interest though is the Wiki Category:English musical groups, one member of which is, The Beatles!--Egghead06 (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Do I see a sequel to the "the Beatles" vs. "The Beatles" debacle? Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't think so but if you want some variation on the Liverpool, England/Britain theme, read the article for Frankie goes to Hollywood. They were from the UK!!--Egghead06 (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
When I talk about the old EMI unit Columbia Graphophone Company, I give the short name of English Columbia instead of British Columbia which is a Canadian province. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It's the name, the thing they were known for, the city they came from, and then the country. Read the infobox. Of course it was called British Invasion, or Brit-pop, because it looks/sounds better than Eng-pop, UK-pop or English Invasion. Calling them a British pop group smacks of nationalistic fervour, and should be nipped in the bud. Oscar Wilde is described as an Irish poet, but was born to Anglo-Irish parents. Get rid of the flags, folks. --andreasegde (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"The Beatles were John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr, who were a pop and rock group from Liverpool, England." I think that is as clear as anyone could want. --andreasegde (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Und das macht sie natürlich Englander! LOL! Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Ich stimme zu, Feuerwehr Mann. --Oh not him again (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Vas ist line? or ist das vaseline - ooh err it ain't arf 'ot Cliff! Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It has now been changed to "The Beatles were a pop and rock group from Liverpool, England." I find this admirable, and I approve this message. --andreasegde (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully this description is now adequate to distinguish them from the other Beatles. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Poll: Were The Beatles an "English" band or "British" band?

The question has arisen as to how the Beatles should be described in the lead--whether they should be identified as "English" or "British". I'd like to ask contributors to add or revise the arguments below and to help determine consensus to place a vote (with minimal other commentary/discussion there for ease of counting) in the section below. (British Isles (terminology) may be relevant for understanding the difference between the two terms.) Robert K S (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, see WP:polls are evil. This needs to be discussed not voted on. The term "British" could be applied to Charlotte Church, The Proclaimers, The Undertones, Billy Connolly etc, etc but isn't. Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with both points, but (a) a poll is a practical way of assessing consensus, in much the same way as an AfD, and (b) all your examples are of artists who are principally known for their regional affiliations within the UK (to try & put it neutrally). --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Requisite post of Wikipedia:Voting is not evil; the intent here was simply to separate the rationales from the numbers of editors agreeing with the two sides to see what overall direction a subsequent discussion should take. (This issue began with the assumption of consensus for one side based on its longevity in the article.) Robert K S (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • And don't forget the "nutshell" summary from WP:polls are evil which says that "Wikipedia decisions are not made by popular vote, but rather through discussions by reasonable people working towards consensus. Polling is only meant to facilitate discussion, and should be used with care." I think we're all reasonable people who can handle the dangers of a straw poll. There is a discussion happening, and we all realize (I think) that the (so far) "majority" !votes in favour of "British" mean nothing in and of themselves. freshacconcispeaktome 19:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
If there is not a strong consensus one way or the other in a couple of days, an RfC needs to be posted to get a broader spectrum of opinions than editors who just happen to run across this discussion. No one should "jump the gun" and conclude that there is a consensus just because there are a few more "votes" on one side. In many ways here, as it was decades ago, The Beatles are forerunners of other trends, so a decision here doesn't just affect this article. It's likely to be generalized to many individuals and groups who are associated with Great Britain. Ward3001 (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, except for the last part about "many inidividuals and groups". I think a consensus resolution here would really only carry weight as a precedent in similar discussions regarding articles about other British rock groups. Robert K S (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
That was my point, if I didn't make that clear. There are many individuals and groups associated with Great Britain. Changes to The Beatles is likely to affect their articles. This is not a small matter. Ward3001 (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Individuals are already covered by the guidelines at WP:MOSBIO and British individuals in particular are discussed in the essay Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. What we discuss/decide here shouldn't have any effect on articles about individuals one way or another. Robert K S (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Wrong. WP:MOSBIO is subject to change, just like any guideline. What happens here can affect articles on bands (and there a lots of bands), and then have an influence on policies for solo musicians. Ward3001 (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
You're needlessly taking this a step or two further than what is necessary/intended. We're examining whether the Beatles should be referred to as an English band or a British band for the purposes of this article. We're not trying to solve the entire British nationality controversy on Wikipedia. If you're interested in that, try the talk page for MOSBIO. Robert K S (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I simply asked that no one jump to a conclusion of consensus without an RfC. You're the one who had to get your last word in by taking issue with something. I will stop editing this entire section if you will. But I doubt that you can do that. Ward3001 (talk) 03:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous! Forcing a choice as if they were mutually exclusive. Was Johnny Cash an Arkansan or a Merkin?Jatrius (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Moved to more logical chronological position. According to his article, Johnny Cash was American. I doubt he'd have been called a pubic wig, which is what a merkin is. Nobody is forcing a choice here because although UK and Britain are roughly the same, they are not exactly the same. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Arguments for "English"

  • All four Beatles were from England, a subset of the United Kingdom, making "English" a more precise and not incorrect adjective for the band.
  • "English" was stable in the article for at least all of 2007.
  • Many other articles for English bands use "English" instead of "British".
  • Many bands are identified as Scottish (e.g. Simple Minds, Franz Ferdinand) or Welsh (Lostprophets), therefore having other bands British would mean these should be described as British too.
    • (Counterargument: What's decided for the Beatles wouldn't necessarily apply to every band in Great Britain, just as there is no consensus for enforcing uniformity for nationalities of Britons in biographical articles. However, it would serve as a precedent for the articles of bands like Oasis, The Rolling Stones, The Kinks, and other British Invasion and Britpop groups.)
      • (Rejoinder to counterargument: First of all, I think the counterargument [and my reply here] should be deleted because we could keep countering the arguments, counterarguments, counter-counterarguments endlessly. It's POV-pushing to put a negative in the pro-section for "English", especially when it's added by a proponent of the "British" term (conveniently unsigned). It's fine with me for someone to delete my comment here if and only if the counterargument above is deleted. That having been said, calling something simply a precedent when it comes to The Beatles misrepresents their impact on so many other musicians, and thereby their influence in Wikipedia articles.) Ward3001 (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I just don't agree with the logic that calling one band British means that all bands should be described as British. It's a poor argument and now it has lead to a mess. Robert K S (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Your entire statement immediately preceding this is entirely your POV. You have expressed your vote. Anyone with a sense of fairness would leave it at that. But you can't. You have to have the last word, because your point of view must be heard over all others. If it weren't considered vandalism I would delete the counterarguments. But you started it. And you can't have a simple discussion with everyone weighing in equally. You have to continue tinkering with the system so that it fits your point of view. Let me suggest to someone -- anyone -- that all counterarguments be deleted, including those I have added. And let me suggest to you, Robert K S, that you stop editing this section and let others express their opinions without your constantly trying to get the last word in. And finally, if anyone else agrees with me on any of this, please let Robert K S know on his talk page. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Arguments for "British"

  • All four Beatles were of British nationality as subjects of the United Kingdom. "British" is the technically more accurate adjective to describe a citizen of that nation.
    • (Counterargument: It's POV to describe "British" as more accurate. Both are accurate. "English" is more specific.)
  • "English" and "British" carry different connotations in the context of music and the arts movements of the 1960s. The principal music genre into which the Beatles are categorized and the term for other bands of this genre uses "British", not "English". Hence we have British rock, British invasion, British New Wave (in cinema), Britpop, but not "English" those. "British" is the most common descriptor in the literature for bands like the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Kinks, etc.
  • "British band" (quotes included) returns 406,000 Google results; "English band" returns 122,000. Include "The Beatles" in the search and the results favor "British" 74,900 to 10,800.
    • (Counterargument: This argument is partially a statistical artifact. There are more British bands than there are English bands.)

Poll

"English"

"British"

  • Robert K S (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • freshacconcispeaktome 18:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Looking at Category:Music_by_nationality, there is a category for British music and none for English music. Also, the Guinness Book of British Hit Singles describes the Beatles as "UK", which makes them British, not English. Although neither source is to be regarded as authoritative, merely persuasive, I am persuaded. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • British. Bands such as The Beatles (and Oasis) have regularly used the Union Jack on their drum kits, guitars etc. The bands may be English but they are representitive of the UK. David Coulthard or Colin McRae being other prime examples —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fenian Swine (talk • contribs) 2008-02-12T14:27:02
  • When and where and on what, did the fabs use a Union Flag? I also see that nearly all the bands that are listed on your page are described as: "English Rock Bands" What say you to that, Fenian Swine:) Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 01:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • These groups are British. This 'English' thing is creeping in as some nationalistic thing because so many people no longer feel British due to mass immigration and try to hang on to something (in this case an old pop group) which allows them to feel they still belong. It's a dangerous path to take Egghead06 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Plus, aren't all 4 Beatles of Irish background? Labeling them specifically English is too limiting. freshacconcispeaktome 18:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I see no trace of Irish ancestry in relation to Ringo. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm not sure to what extent it's relevant here, but ethnic boosterism and the unnecessary insertion of irrelevant ethnicity information in the lead of Wikipedia articles are real problems. WP:MOSBIO guidelines instruct that nationality should be included in the lead but not ethnicity, unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Those guidelines don't necessarily apply to band pages, but in the absence of a similar set of guidelines governing the structure of the lead for articles about musical groups, they should be taken into consideration. See Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. Robert K S (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The culture they drew from was British, rather than specifically English. Point of fact, the primary culture was Scouse - and Liverpool is in the envious position of having very close proximity with Scotland, Ireland and Wales (not Cornwall, though...) Final point; first record (backing Tony Sherridan) was a rocked up Scottish ballad. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I beg to differ old chap, as the culture they musically drew from was totally international (if not mainly American). They loved Elvis, Buddy Holly, Carl Perkins and Country music (Ringo mostly) as well as local Music hall and Variety acts.--andreasegde (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

A little light humour works wonders - read on...

I vote for a rota system. Change from "British" to "English" and back again once every 7 days. --78.148.228.247 (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It’s very important to get the facts right here. Everyone knows that the Beatles were four cockney working class chimney sweeps who grew up in olde Liverpool Town. “Can I write you a song, mister?” the cheeky little urchins would cry out to bowler hatted gentry, until one day they were adopted by a kindly Jewish pickpocket. --Patthedog (talk) 10:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
As opposed to middle-class chimney sweeps or upper-class chimney sweeps?--Egghead06 (talk) 11:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I’ll tell you what, the chimney sweeps around here are very posh. You should see them all dancing on the rooftops in their top hats and tails.--Patthedog (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The first and last time you will see "Chim-chiamanee, Chim-chiamanee, Chim-chim-charoo", on any Beatles page. I hate musicals... --Dick van Dyke's guilty cock-er-nee conscience (talk) 13:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Oi Mush! I ain't 'avin that! 'old it crash bang wallop wota pitcher - 'ows yer Farver? - Brown Bread! Tommy Steele 15:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Oi me droogs? I still don't get your point here? The humour comes later is it? --Kaizer13 (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Don’t knock musicals! What about “There's No Fiddler Like Half a Doodle Dandy” or Cole Porter's musical “Kiss Me Arse”? And of course meaningful lyrics such as “……"all day long I'd biddy biddy bong"…” --Patthedog (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I saw a movie advertised once- nuns, goats, leather & Nazi uniforms- bloody "Sound of Music", wasn't it! --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't panic my droog, perhaps you have to be a malenky bezoomny to pony the joke. If you've been to London, you'll viddy it. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I will bet any other project 1,000 thingys that they don't have as much fun as this one. Now let's talk about the Beekles coming from Liddypool, which is part of the European Onion. What do I care? :)) --He's off again... (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to explain my hatred of musicals: Two nice (but highly unlikely) people sitting together, and then all of a sudden the whole bleedin' place goes mad, with people dancing on tables and swinging umbrellas like crazy, but after three minutes everyone sits down and pretends that nothing happened at all. Did they all suffer drug flashbacks or what? I would have to be forced - dragging and kicking - to a supposed Beatles musical, if you don't mind me saying so... :) --andreasegde (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Unless of course……you were to write it! Think of it like Mel Brooks "The Producers".--Patthedog (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Heaven forbid, then that you should ever have to sit through "Sgt Pepper (the movie)" - I mean, The Bee Gees, Peter Frampton & Frankie Howerd? Do me a favour! And that's without mentioning "All This and World War II". --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I hate myself for asking this, but are there really articles about Beatles' musicals? (In the deep corners of my mind I think I have spied one or two, but I refuse to accept that I have. The Heeby-Gee-Bees and Peter Luncheon are lurking in the shadows, methinks... :) --andreasegde (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Be afraid....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Across_the_Universe_(film) --Egghead06 (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Bugger, I saw that poster somewhere. Bono and The Edge singing whatever (with the whole cast and extras)... It makes my skin crawl. How can they sleep at night? (Sorry, that was about Paul by John... :) For some strange ego-fuelled reason they think they can do it "Better all the time". A copy of the Mona Lisa is still a copy. Why do they do/try it? The original is always better all the time, as is the book before the film. --andreasegde (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I ask you, have you ever seen "Across the Universe." If you have, then you should note that the movie actually has a plot. While containing Beatles songs in a musical format, it works the song around the plot, which is highly interesting and is not faulty whatsoever. The director did an excellent job in making a Beatles film so intriguing and moving. This is coming from someone who 'as actually seen the movie. Thanks. Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kodster! (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

John Lennon was not a member of The Beatles when they broke up.

He left in 1969, so he should be in 'Former Members' Zazaban 23:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Lennon's departure was not announced to the general public so he did not officially leave The Beatles until McCartney publicly announced the group's breakup.Steelbeard1 00:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Did the Beatles tour, perform or record without Lennon? How many albums did they release after he left? Who took his place? Listing Lennon as a "former" member would be ridiculous (unless you list them all that way, since technically none of them are current members). Faithlessthewonderboy 01:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather you didn't come in guns loaded to a month old debate. Zazaban 05:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
If I did, I apologize, that certainly wasn't my intention. But let's keep things civil, yeah? :) Faithlessthewonderboy 08:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Lennon was not a member of the Beatles when they recorded Free As A Bird, however I think the idea of someone being a member of a band isn't as clear cut as people think, apart from bands that can apparently 'sack' members such as East 17 DavidFarmbrough 12:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
But Lennon wrote and recorded the song nearly twenty years before the others finished it. Surely you wouldn't say that Free as a Bird is a song by The Beatles ft. John Lennon? Faithlessthewonderboy 19:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I understood they were all members until McCartney's lawsuit at the end of 1970 disbanded the group legally. It's true Lennon withdrew after Abbey Road, and did not record on the group's last session for "I, Me, Mine" at the start of 1970. However he still worked behind the scenes getting "Let It Be" out in 1970 (with collusion from Phil Spector), so I think it's misleading to suggest he left in 1969. He stated his intent to leave, but didn't part ways until the last album was already out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.161.52 (talk) 12:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The group broke up because Lennon stated (privately) his intention to leave it. They agreed to make no public announcement until the forthcoming Let It Be album had its run. McCartney violated the agreement in publicly announcing the break-up, and he did so to promote the sales of his first solo record McCartney (recorded in secret) and to jump-start his solo career. He also deliberately mischaracterized the break-up, suggesting that he, McCartney, was the one quitting. In any case, Lennon is no more or less a "former member" than Harrison, Ringo, and McCartney--or for that matter than Sutcliffe and Best. TheScotch (talk) 10:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Bob Dylan didn't introduce them to cannabis?

Please see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/955196.stm I'll let an expert give the verdict, I don't know which is true, although naturally the Beatles' own words would be better. 85.82.180.82 (talk) 18:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

From a previous disscusion (further up this page) you will see that there is some evidence to suggest that they had smoked low grade "cannabis", but this in no way would have been comparable to the high THC content stuff that was available to Dylan and other Americans. It would be like compairing a Shandy to 4 or five double 80 proof Vodka's. Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 19:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
You can read this disscusion under the heading: "Recreational drug use" Cheers, Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 19:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I had searched but I gave up about halfway down the page. But it is still my opinion that it counts as drug use, and should at least be mentioned in the article. Anyway, I won't do anything more about it then, it's up to you guys :) 85.82.180.82 (talk) 21:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the thanks, and I apologise for not directing you to the relevant posts in the first place, I was somewhat distracted! Cheers, Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 23:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

MBEs

Is there really a need for a modern-day image of Buckingham Palace to demonstrate where TB received their MBEs? Maybe one of the TB with the awards, but what's the point of a recent photo of the location? Booglamay (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Because trying to get one past the fair-use patrol is impossible. It's from Commons, so it's allowed.--andreasegde (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
You missed the point. What is the point of having a photo of Buckingham Palace in the first place? 68Kustom (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Cos that's where you have to go when you are appointed a MBE? H.M. presents you with the Insignia at the palace? She don't pop it in the post? Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 11:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
That's exactly my point - why make redundant information - there's a link to the MBE page - users can find out about MBEs there. This isn't an article on MBEs, and the paragraph in this article is sufficient. Buckingham Palace is not exclusive to the Beatles, and therefore needn't be included. Booglamay (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I must agree with Booglamay on this one. Should we insert a photo of the current JFK Airport simply because it was The Beatles' first big entrance into the USA? I understand including images of locations that are associated almost exclusively with The Beatles, such as 3 Savile Row, but if we include images of general locations where they achieved various milestones in their careers, the article will be mostly photos. I realize fair-use images are hard to get, but let's not go overboard and include every fair-use image we can find. Ward3001 (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Photos

There's only one photo of the Beatles taken around 1964. There is no photo of them in their later years with longer hair, but there is a photo of Buckingham Palace, which seems out of place and unnecessary. Would anyone mind if I got replaced the Buckingham Palace photo (of which there is one at the palace article) with a later photo of the Beatles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.58.130 (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Providing the image is free and released under the GDFL with appropriate attributes... yeah! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Two points. I think any fair use image of TB after 1964 should be in addition to the 1964 image. Both images are representative of them at different points in their careers. Secondly, although I'm OK with removing Buckingham Palace, you might want to consider other opinions (see above) before doing so. Ward3001 (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

This page is a little long, how about adding it to MiszaBot's auto-archiving list, such that discussions with no contributions newer than (say) 30 days get archived automatically? Stephenb (Talk) 13:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes please.--andreasegde (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've added the template at the top (not visible unless the page is edited), archiving any discussions older than 30 days, starting at new Archive 14. Let's see if it works Stephenb (Talk) 16:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I've moved a lot of old stuff into a new archive and refactored the top of the page so it doesn't seem so cluttered. Miszabot should be able to do the rest, but people do seem to come along and add stuff to old threads, which will prevent this happening. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"They've got to buy them before they can burn them"

Taking a quick Google round, I find this attributed to McCartney OR Harrison, but not Lennon. It may take a while to assess the reliability of these sources, but in the meantime the issue should be regarded as moot, and not the subject of edit-warring; that will only end in tears. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Unable to find a reliable source outside a blog that says it's McCartney, however, the following all attribute the quote to Harrison:

[1] (Barry Miles, The Beatles Diary) [2] (Craig Cross, The Beatles day by Day) [3] (Jay Warner, On this day in Music History) [4] (Peter Blecha, Taboo Tunes). Whether these all share one source, which may itself not be reliable, is moot. However, as far as WP:V and WP:RS go, we should cite Harrison as the speaker of this quote unless a better source is found. Of the above, I consider Blecha to be the most reliable because at least he cites his sources. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ringo, George, John, Paul.

Who was really the lead singer? John or Paul because in the article it says one thing but in a book about the rock band it said something different. Please respond if you think you truely know. I really love the Beatles different genres of music. If you look where it says genres there is a whole lot listed. Beatlesrock (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the article doesn't identify a lead singer for all of their music. There is no single lead singer. Secondly, Talk pages are for discussions related to improving the article, not for you to express you love of The Beatles. Ward3001 (talk) 04:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I suppose the short answer is that The Beatles had four lead singers: all four sang lead on most albums. Ringo usually had one lead per LP, often written specifically for him. George had 1 or 2 leads, early on written for him, then later his own songs. I recall seeing an interview with George Martin where he mentioned that at the beginning of their recording career he was trying to decide who should be the lead singer, John or Paul. He then decided that there was nothing wrong with having two lead singers. So, strictly speaking, they had two lead singers, with the other two taking lead occasionally. BTW, I like the "Ringo, George, John, Paul" arrangements of names: it reminds me of the map of the world with Antarctica on "top". It seems wrong, but obviously isn't. freshacconcispeaktome 14:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The lead singer was whoever was singing lead at the time/on any given song. I suppose nobody has counted how many times Lennon sang lead, as opposed to Macca, but that's what made them a bit special. How many singers are there in The Eagles?--andreasegde (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Oy! When did Ringo replace White? Some chap wrote in when Martin hired White over the other's recommendation but didn't say when White was finally deposed by Ringo (ref. 2nd paragraph under RECORD CONTRACT). I searched the article using "ringo" but didn't spot it. Did I just blow by it?! JimScott (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

White only played drums on Love me do & its b-side as a one-off. He was never a permanent member, so he wasn't deposed by Ringo. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Aha! The article certainly doesn't make that clear! Are you planning to edit that section? JimScott (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. Touché! --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Lineup history

Shouldn't we include a lineup history for The Beatles, if only to be consistent with most other musical band articles? Sutcliffe wasn't around long, but he was instrumental. Fdssdf (talk) 04:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see much point. Well over 90% of it would be "The Fab Four", and the whole thing wouldn't convey that much information. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 11:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's put back the classic intro into the opening paragraph

Okay this is the introduction that was used when this was a featured article.


"The Beatles were a British rock music group from Liverpool, England held in very high regard for both their artistic achievements and their considerable commercial success, and have amassed an enormous worldwide fanbase that continues to exist to this day.. Comprising John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr, the group shattered many sales records and charted more than fifty top 40 hit singles. They were the first British pop act to achieve major and ongoing success in the United States, scoring twenty #1 hits in the USA alone, becoming the biggest musical act of the twentieth century. EMI estimated in 1985 that the band had sold over a billion records worldwide[1]. Their ballad "Yesterday" — written and sung by Paul McCartney (though officially credited as written by Lennon-McCartney) — is the most-covered song in the history of recorded music(about 2500 versions of it exist). 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. They composed songs and arranged them in a wide array of musical styles – occasionally fusing genres. The constant factor in the vast majority of their songs was their focus on melody. Despite the wide array of musical styles utilized, Beatles recordings were readily identifiable because of their distinctive vocals. In addition to their core pop and rock styles, The Beatles canon included songs flavored with folk, country, rockabilly, blues, soul, doo-wop, ska and many other musical genres. They were also pioneers of new musical directions such as psychedelia (with "Strawberry Fields Forever") and early heavy metal (with "Helter Skelter"). Their use of George Martin’s chamber and baroque orchestrations on songs such as "Yesterday" and "Eleanor Rigby" was another first in contemporary popular music. They also pioneered many innovative production techniques and their epoch-making 1967 LP Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is often cited as one of the first concept albums. Their clothes, hairstyles and choice of musical instruments made them trendsetters throughout the decade; their growing social awareness, reflected in the development of their music, saw their influence extended far beyond the music scene into the social and cultural revolutions of the 1960s; and their enduring popularity with successive generations of both fans and musicians has cemented their reputation for being one of the most influential music artists of all time. The group disbanded in 1970 amid much strife. Thirty-five years later, in 2005, the American entertainment industry magazine Variety named them the most iconic entertainers of the 20th century[2]. "

Why not use that? Badboysbadoyswhatugonnado (talk) 02:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Because the current opening is vastly superior. When this article was featured the criteria for FA status was not nearly as stringent as it is today. The article is currently better than it was when it was featured, it's just that, again, the FA criteria is higher than it used to be. Cheers, faithless (speak) 02:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Because it is poorly written, more like a fanzine than an encyclopedic lead. Hopefully standards have improved in the meantime, but with no disrespect to the editors who put that together, it wouldn't pass muster for a FA these days. "Amid much strife"? Good grief! --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


Okay but what is so flawed about that paragraph? I'm sorry but all of that information is true, or at least generally all of it is true. I'm sorry to break it to you guys but The Beatles are unarguably the most important, legendary, revolutionary, influential band in the history of man. If you guys like to sugercoat their achievements that's your problem but the intro WILL be put back in. Badboysbadoyswhatugonnado (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

For a start this intro WILL only be put back in if there is consensus amongst editors that it goes back in. Unilateral declarations like this are unwelcome in a collaborative project. I'd suggest that we take the best of the intro as it is now, and the best of the above, and combine them to improve the article as a whole. It's not a case of sugarcoating at all, it's a case of writing a good intro that conforms to WP:LEAD. But we need to try achieving a consensus first. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The current opening is unquestionably better than the previous one; do you not realize that? I agree that the Beatles are the greatest band of all time, but that is an opinion, not a fact. Your last remark can be construed as uncivil. Please adjust your tone. The previous intro is just plain bad. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan page. faithless (speak) 00:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, badboys or whatever your name is, you have officially lost the plot mate. Sugarcoating? What in gods name are you talking about? That ridiculous paragraph that you think is so wonderful is the only thing that is sugarcoated. "England held them in a high regard"? Are you serious? They WERE a popular band. It's over mate, go to a fan page. And if you don't understand what wikipedia is all about then please don't comment on the discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.238.140 (talk) 10:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

ondioline on "Baby You're a Rich Man".

the article implies an ondioline keyboard was used on this song yet when the ondioline wiki page is opened this clarifies the matter and in fact states thats a clavioline keyboard was used as such this link seems pointless and perhaps the beatles entry should be updated.


i realise this may seem trivial,

apologies.

vin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinto212 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Why are dates communicated as seasons?

I have started to notice in a lot of different articles, statements which refer to an event happening in a particular season of the year. Now if the season is somehow relevant to the statement, then I can see how it needs to be included, however when the season has no relevance whatsoever, I find this to be completely unsatisfactory for an encyclopedia for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is unneccessary and irrelevant information and secondly, unless the country of the occurance is stated, a season is meaningless. Seasons happen at different times for every country therefore when people read a statement like the one below, they do not know what to make of it.

Under the heading 'Breakup: Let It Be', it says "The Beatles recorded their final album, Abbey Road, in the summer of 1969"

I feel there should be some sort of guideline regarding the use of seasons. If a season is used as a way of referring to a quarter of a particular year, a country needs to be stated also to give people a gauge to go by. --58.179.238.140 (talk) 12:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It goes to context - the Beatles are a British related subject so in context the example you are referring to is British. It is easier to generalise "summer" than to say "X day in June to X day in August" since the records are a bit hazy - when did studio rehearsals, which were taped for playback purposes, end and recording for the album proper begin, and when is the first example a recording that ended up on the record and when was the last? - since the band generally rehearsed, recorded, remixed, overdubbed, discarded, in a fairly unregimented manner. In this instance, unlike for example the first album, a definitive time period is impossible to clarify.
As for some sort of guideline regarding naming seasons; why not? Just recognise that context is often a more important criteria than accuracy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
See WP:SEASON, although I agree with the LessHeard opinion in this instance, it is unclear if we match this guideline explicitly. Maybe mid-1969 would be better. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

itunes

Hey why arent the beatles on itunes? I heard that it was because Jackson was refusing to allow it but i think thats a load of rubbish, does anyone have any info on it.. Cheers Realist2 (talk) 00:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. See here: [5]. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
According to this The Beatles should be on itunes in "early 2008" whatever that means. I know a deal was hammered out in 2006 to be launched on itunes, but it's taking a while. It doesn't have anything to do with Jackson: he owns the publishing rights, not the actual recordings. Any deal with itunes would come through Apple, which I believe is the source of all the problems: Apple Inc. vs. Apple Computers (owners of itunes) have been in courts for years. They finally settled things in '06 and I guess The Beatles will make their way to itunes sometime this year. freshacconcispeaktome 00:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

More tabloid lies about jackson being mean spirited then i guess, no supprise, nothing chances fast, cheers this will come in helpful. Realist2 (talk) 00:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael_jackson#Finances<-- here is a quick copy and paste from the King of Pop article, theres some stuff on his involvement in the beatles catalog, correction northern catalog, it might be helpful , it might not, there are some sources there. Realist2 (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. To save stressing the servers, I've converted the cut&paste into a link as there's no point having the same text in two places. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Brenda Lee

Hi, Brenda Lee says in an interview used as source in her in her article that the little known Beatles opened her UK and German tour in the early sixties. She then goes on to say that she took a Beatles demo to her record company but they turned them down. She then states that six months later they had a huge hit with I Want to Hold Your Hand, but when that was released in the USA The Beatles were already huge stars. Can anyone shed any light on this please? Pat Pending (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi protection

What the hell happened here today, all that vandalism looks suspicious to me. Request for semi protection is in order if it occures again. Im going to request semi protection for the Jacko talk page latter so if you want me to make a second request let me know. See ya. Realist2 (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. As an admin who regularly applies protection to pages subject to vandalism and blocks those repsonsible, I assure you it will not go unnoticed here. And, for reasons I needn't explain to you, semi-protection would be pointless. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not know you were an admin, i think there should be a new rule on wiki where all admins user names should appear in bold RED that way their easier to track down when you need their help. Realist2 (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of ways of getting in touch with Admins, depending on what you need. For vandalism, WP:AIV usually gets a fast response. For page protection, here is the place to go. As for signatures, they vary so much in colour and font that Admins having red ones would be lost within the rainbow of others. Meanwhile, to verify adminship, go here : [6]. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. Realist2 (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Word of notice/advice

I only just became aware of this today. Mariah Carey has just over taken elvis for the most US #1 singles by a solo artist. Elvis has 17 , mariah has 18. Of course the beatles still have their 20 but my friends it looks highly posibble the the beatles will lose their crown by the end of the year. TheY really need to get their singles on itunes ASAP. Realist2 (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

And can you tell us just how does this comment attempts to improve the article, please, bearing in mind WP:TALK? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

So that if or when the event occurs it gets sourced, something the page lacks a little, im sure you will agree. Realist2 (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You need to read WP:CRYSTAL. If it happens, it will be sourceable. Until then, this article does not deal in speculation. It is not a blog. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

George having a 102 fever?

I'd edit this myself, but I don't have the authority.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure George Harrison was on the Ed Sullivan show during the first performance. The article does state that Neil replaced him, but after reviewing pictures from that night and a video on yahoo videos of that same performance, it's quite obvious that George was the one there and not this Neil guy. If you want to see the video, just go to yahoo and type in The Beatles on the Ed Sullivan show or something like that. The first appearance should show up and you'll see it there.

Can someone who is able to change that? Or maybe just let me know if I'm wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandrie rocks (talk • contribs) 02:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't read very carefully. The article says that "this Neil guy" replaced him for the rehearsal, not the show. Ward3001 (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ed Sullivan

Can't the pic used in the infobox used on the Ed Sullivan Show article under "The Beatles"? Speedboy Salesman (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)