Talk:The Beatles/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

New Article??

I've been thinking about something George Harrison said in the Anthology; that comedy was a big part of the Beatles "thing". Do people think it's worth an article? The Beatlemania article doesn't mention it and I recall that the Beatles wit was one of the things that seemed unusual - most band members in the early 1960s, to be honest, seemed pretty dim - how times change :) Apepper (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I recall McCartney saying that comedy was going to become an important factor in their music. Worth looking into, I think. --Patthedog (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll start looking through my Beatle books; some things are coming to mind though:

• Lennon at the Royal Variety Show asking the audience to "rattle their jewellery"
• The Beatles on the Morecambe & Wise show.
• Beatles press conference at JFK.
• The Beatles being described as the new Marx Brothers after Hard Day's Night.
• Mark Lewisohn has several quotes from radio & TV appearances, including George being asked for a good Earthy name for a band - he suggested "sod".

Any more??, anyone! Apepper (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I’ve been trying to find some Beatle quotes that would confirm this, as yet, to no avail. As far as their music reflects this, I would suggest songs like: Drive My Car, Taxman, Norwegian Wood, Doctor Robert, Yellow Submarine, Bungalow Bill, Lovely Rita, Piggies, Mean Mr. Mustard / Polythene Pam, Her Majesty. A dark sarcasm rather than slapstick that seemed to work well in their song writing. But interestingly, their film, Magical Mystery Tour, a barometer of their humour at that time and which was created in much the same way that they went about writing and recording their songs, was considered a disaster. I think they believed too much in their own hype by then, and had overstretched themselves. Certainly, some of their old press conferences are a little embarrassing to watch now, and aren’t funny at all. Perhaps others have suggestions here?--Patthedog (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If comedy was indeed a big part of the Beatles "thing" (and I would agree that it was), shouldn't it really permeate the existing articles rather than being a separate article? I don't think the humour is separable from the individuals, their songwriting and their performance and it would be artifical to try and make that separation. Bluewave (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

My plan is try a trial section and see how long it gets; if it's not too long, it could be part of the main Beatles article. Apepper (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think in many matters the principle Bluewave cites is an important one, but when it comes to wit and humour, recounting these incidents all too often simply results in a collection of non-notable trivia. Enjoyable trivia, but trivia nonetheless. Take this extract from the JFK scene:

• Reporter: Look at this camera, Ringo! Will you do it once more?
  • Starr: I haven't stopped doing it for the first time!
• Reporter: How do you account for your success?
  • Lennon: We have a press agent.

In a book several hundred pages long, those enjoyable cameos are appropriate; but I think in a Wikipedia article, which must summarize an entire history in a reasonable space, they are not. I think a new article would be the right approach, if it can be done in such a way that it doesn't simply end up as a non-notable collection of trivia. PL290 (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair point. I see what you mean. Nevertheless, I think that particularly the section about their songwriting could include at least a mention of humour, with some examples. However, I don't really feel knowledgable enough to make a big contribution to it myself, so I'll happily go along with the decisions of those who do! Bluewave (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

...and just to add to Patthedog's list of songs, surely Glass Onion was a joke at the expense of people who over-analysed their songs and were always looking for hidden meanings. Also, at the time of it's popularity, I remember my friends and I finding Day Tripper quite funny, with the sly way The Beatles almost-but-not-quite sang "she's a prick-teaser". And surely some of the backwards lyrics hidden in the songs were jokes. Bluewave (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we need particularly important occasions; the JFK news conference & Royal Variety appearance come to mind, maybe the Apple launch conference. 212.84.96.84 (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a copy of the Anthology CDs to check, but isn't there some studio banter and stuff like John singing in silly voices to take the piss out of one of Macca's more sentimental songs? Bluewave (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If you do start a new article (say, The wit of The Beatles) I suggest you leave lyrics and films out of it, or there's a danger of shoehorning several things into a box labelled "Beatles wit/humour/comedy" where they don't really all fit. Press conference repartee; certain song lyrics; humour in Beatles films; although these have the four Beatles and their "funniness" as the common factor, they are not really one and the same topic. Some of this stuff really does belong in existing articles. Got WP:reliable sources on "Glass Onion" lyrics? Improve the "Glass Onion" article. Comedy in Beatles films? Expand The Beatles in film if needed (it already mentions resemblance to the Marx Brothers). PL290 (talk) 12:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It’s generally accepted that they had a collective charm that manifested itself as humour, and which was picked up by George Martin even before he noticed their musical talent at their EMI audition. George Harrison’s famous “I don’t like your tie” remark was probably the reason he decided to sign them! Also, without doubt they charmed the socks off the really tough New York press, who had initially turned up to bring these “upstarts” down a peg or two, only to find, just like Martin had, that “sparks flew off them”. So their sense of humour did make a significant difference to the possible outcome. We know that comedy was especially important to Lennon , who greatly admired The Goons, but his on stage spastic impressions were horribly crass, and oddly tolerated at the time (they wouldn’t be now, that‘s for certain). There are stories associated with all of these incidents which aren’t (I don‘t think) in the other articles, that could be elaborated upon. “Finger pie” and “tit, tit, tit” maybe considered mere vulgarities, but while the BBC searched for drug references, The Beatles giggled about sneaking these, and as stated above, other schoolboy smut, unnoticed into their songs. Would there be any harm in doing as Apepper has suggested, and just seeing where this could go? It could always be removed later if it’s fruitless, but I think even then, it might produce some interesting material that could be assimilated elsewhere.--Patthedog (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite so; if people are motivated to make something of it, I think there's absolutely no harm in creating a new article just as Apepper has suggested, and seeing "where it will go" ... PL290 (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

So, Apepper, you have the green light to go ahead and create your trial section. I’m sure we’ll all contribute to it.--Patthedog (talk) 11:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

...and don't forget to put an update on this talk page so we know where to find the new article once you've created it. PL290 (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

...I'm starting work(!) If I don't get too many distractions, I hope to have something by next week - I'll put a link here when it's ready for the wiki-elves to start their magic. Apepper (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

...I've written around a page of A4 so far; I've covered obtaining a recording contract and their early TV appearances in the UK. My copy of Shout by Phillip Norman has fallen to pieces so if someone has a copy to provide references for a couple of quotes, I'd be very grateful - one describes their performance on Thank Your Lucky Stars, the other is Lennon's joke about "rattling your jewellery" - rather surprisingly, I can't find the full quote in Lewisohn's books or Hunter Davies's biography. Apepper (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC) I have found a reference to the Rattling Jewellery quote in Hunter Davies, so if someone has the description of the Thank your lucky stars appearance, I'd be jolly grateful...Apepper (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I've started the article as a trial on my page [[1]]. I don't quite understand the ref error reported - I copied the reference style from the existing beatles article. Apepper (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I took the liberty of fixing the refs for you. If you do a diff from before my edits through my last edit, you'll see the changes. They were mostly minor corrections. The biggest issue was you didn't have {{Reflist}} in the article. — John Cardinal (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

...Thanks - that would have taken me ages to work out. I'll try and do some more tomorrow... the first USA visit has plenty to offer. Apepper (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Lots more added to the article; origins of wit section added - more to be done there - and sections on Hard Day's Night and Arriving in the USA. I don't know much about their US TV appearances - did they talk much during numbers?

Next on my list is how playing in Hamburg and the rougher parts of Liverpool forced them to develop charm - to talk their way out of trouble, apart from anything else. I have a George Martin reference for that, but I'd like it as a quote from one of the band if possible. I'm considering adding something about their appearance on Morecambe & Wise - it was the Beatles favourite TV appearance, it's fairly well documented - as they were accompanied by Michael Braun who was writing an early biography and it's Morecambe & Wise - with the Beatles on the show, you had probably the six most loved entertainers in UK history together! Apepper (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph on the Morecambe & Wise show and a section on the printed media; I've added some "fact" tags for some quotes which are in Shout!; I don't have a copy any more so if someone has one, I'd be jolly grateful if they could fix up the quotes. I also have a memory of Paul telling Mark Lewisohn that Morecambe & Wise was his favourite TV appearance, but I can't find the quote - I've tried the Complete Recording and Complete Chronicle, again if someone can remember where this was, I'd be grateful.

I think that all that remains to add is a section on how stopping touring meant they didn't have to try and be funny every time they were interviewed. I have a memory of the end of touring changing the ex-touring Beatles to "smiling if they want to" Beatles. I can't find that quote either! But hopefully over the next few days... Apepper (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I've nibbled a bullet and created the article as a Wikipedia The_Beatles_Wit. Apepper (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Since other users besides you edited the WIP page as well, shouldn't it be moved instead of copy-pasted, for copyright reasons? (WP:Copying within Wikipedia) —Akrabbim^talk 21:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the trial copy and replaced it with a link to the main article. Apepper (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The article has been marked as candidate for deletion as it is said to contain original research. You can see the criticism at the top of the article source, the discussion about deletion is [2] I disagree with the claim - it seems clear from the quotations from the band members, George Martin and others that the Beatles' wit was unusual and played an important part in their success - they may not have even been given a recording contract without it, it was important in their acceptance by the American press. I would guess the place to debate the keep/delete is on the previous link. Apepper (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The article has been deleted :(! My next plan is to look at the main article to see if I can add something there - re-reading George Martin book, it seems to imply that the Beatles charm and wit was what got them signed; the music wasn't that impressive. That seems to me to be a worthwhile fact to note in the article. Apepper (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought that you did a good job, probably as good as it was going to get. The problem was trying to research it properly, all those little anecdotes tucked away in many books. You’re right to continue with it within the main article I think, and maybe it will take root there. Sorry I wasn’t able to help. --Patthedog (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Ringo/Best/White

I wrote referenced concise, short, material, that keeps getting undone for what appears no reason.

• George Martin did not complain about Best's drumming - infatual, so removed. References given.
• Martin wanted an experienced studio sessions drummer who knew the studio ways - as was the norm then. This was not mentioned, I did and its is relevant.
• It implied that Best was fired because of Martin's say so - infactual.
• The Writing style is fine and flows. As a note: Avoid interjections as it breaks up the reading. Wiki is full of it. Read The Elements of Style by Struck & White.
• Ringo was 2nd choice drummer over Tommy Hutch - fact and very relevant.
• White played on two records - relevant, so it was mentioned.
• Ringo, Best and White played one song - 3 versions. All eventually released - not mentioned as too much detail.
• Best recorded in the studio The Beatles first hit, 'Love Me Do' - Relevant. Which was also released over 30 years later - not mentioned as too much detail.
• Best was fired in controversial circumstances - mentioned. George Harrison got a black eye because of it - not mentioned,as too much detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liverpool-8-boy (talk • contribs) 12:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll only comment on the one item for now: the issue of Starr being second choice is only sourced by one dubious source. I've never seen it mentioned elsewhere. It appears to be mainly a claim by Hutch himself, which makes the claim rather suspect given the lack of other sources. Perhaps this is some revisionism on his part or is based on his interpretation of events (i.e. he was asked to fill in until Ringo was available, but his version of the story gives him greater standing). In any case, addition of this kind of information would require much better sourcing as WP:BLP very much applies here. As for style, we follow WP:STYLE and there is a specific style in particular for featured article-level writing. Please leave the snooty "read Struck and White" lecturing out of this. freshacconci talktalk 12:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Bill Harry was founder of Mersey Beat magazine and its editor and a reporter as well. He was at art college with John Lennon - a friend. If anyone knows it, Bill does. I would not call Bill "dubious" in any way whatsoever, and would regard that as a sneer towards Bill, who is highly respected. Bill would not put in a book what was not true. If it is alleged he would say so. He knew just about everything that was going on from the inside in the city's music scene at the time, continuously writing in his note book. Since, Tommy Hutch has repeated that he was offered the job by Epstein. Hutch is now/was a property developer in Liverpool and shuns the limelight. He filled in the three booking as he was on Epstein's books. Epstein almost certainly offered him the job because he was on his books, good and he had a band about to do studio recordings, and he had played with The Beatles previously and knew them all. Pete Best is contactable via his web site. It might be worth asking if Tommy was offered his job. The reason for Best's hasty removal is still controversial - he was never given a reason. Most believe it was because of his mother Mona Best, who was the defacto manager before Epstein and was still interfering - being referred to as "that Woman" by Epstein. She also had a 2 week old baby to The Beatles road manager Aspinall when Best was fired. All a bit messy. Only one man alive now probably knows the real reasons, and he probably didn't know Hutch had been offered the job, as they just wanted Best out and any decent drummer in. As for style, Strunk & White should be adopted - concise and flows. Liverpool-8-boy (talk) 13:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• "Infactual" is not a word.
• Martin did complain about Best's drumming. This is well known and well sourced.
• The reverted edit added nothing to the passage about Martin's desire for a session drummer other than the superfluous, imprecise verbiage "which was normal procedure at the time".
• The word "writing" is not capitalized when it appears in the middle of a properly written sentence. The word "intejections" is plural and takes a plural pronoun ("they", not it") in good writing. The Elements of Style is the title of a book and is italicized. The coauthors of that book are Strunk and White. ... And someone thinks they have a single word to say about "style"?
• The Tommy Hutchinson bit of trivia is completely misrepresented. He filled in for a couple of gigs after Best was let go and while Starr played his final shows with Rory Storm and the Hurricanes, to whom he gave three days' notice (Andy Babiuk, Beatles Gear [2002], p. 69). Neither of the most recent major histories of The Beatles' career issued by mainstream publishers--the new edition of MacDonald's Revolution in the Head: The Beatles' Records and the Sixties and Gould's Can't Buy Me Love: The Beatles, Britain and America--says a single word about Hutchinson. "Very relevant"? What a joke.
• It is already mentioned that White played on two records--and mentioned without terribly poor writing ("wholly drumming").
• We have an entire article devoted to "Love Me Do" for those who are interested in the details of its recording history. The fact that Best played on a version of it that went unreleased for thirty years is obviously trivial in the context of an encyclopedia article that must summarize the band's entire career.

There is one point here clearly relevant to improving the article:

• It was the Starr version of "Love Me Do" that was released as a single (see Gould, Can't Buy Me Love, pp. 135–36). The article currently implies incorrectly that it was the White version.

There is one other point worthy of consideration:

• Some Beatles/Best fans were very displeased by his firing (to the point that Harrison did receive a black eye in a subsequent "punch-up" at The Cavern [The Rough Guide to Rock, p. 72]). It's arguably worth indicating that. DocKino (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Liverpool-8-boy, Bill Harry was a close friend of Best's and is hardly a neutral on the subject. You should probably read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Your edits are in danger of coming across as a Wikipedia equivalent of those "Pete forever, Ringo never" Cavern Club chants.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Casbah Coffee Club & Mona Best

This article doesn't even mention The Casbah Coffee Club or Mona Best, which and who were so influential in The Beatles early years. The coffee bar was given Grade II listed building status by English Heritage. Liverpool-8-boy (talk) 14:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

We have entire articles on The Quarrymen and Pete Best to cover these matters. Mona Best was not, in fact, "so influential" that it is necessary to mention her in this article, which must cover the band's entire career. For instance, her name appears a total of three times in Gould's 660-page book--that is hardly the sort of attention that indicates that her inclusion in this overview article would be appropriate or productive. DocKino (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Beatles were together as teenagers. Their influential and where they frequented are important. The Casbah was influential, so much English Heritage slapped an order on it. The Casbah needs at least a sentence as it is important in the timeline. Then people can click to that page if they wish. Mona Best was virtually the manager of the band, so worthy of a mention. Well Gould missed some important bits out didn't he? 79.65.68.217 (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No, he didn't. But he had 660 pages to work with. This article does not. The encyclopedia does, however: read more about these delightful little bits of history in The Quarrymen.—DocKino (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Charts Statistics

Group The Beatles obtained 66 singles number 1 all over the world : 64 singles number 1 during their career - 1962/1970 - and two others after their careers

[3]

--Roujan (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

McCartney and keyboards

I think that, at the start of the article, keyboards should be added to McCartney. I understand that we can't include every instrument a "beatle" plays but McCartney's keyboards are very present in many of their songs be it piano (let it be, drive my car, good day sunshine...), mellotron (strawberry fields) or others (great use in Abbey Road). Manoalorts (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sales Of Remastered Beatles Albums

[4]

A spokesman said the firm had sold around 15 million remastered Beatles albums in recent months.

--Roujan (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The link you provided is to an article that is no longer available. Do you have another source? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No, immediately i don't have another source. I'll give you another source when I find. --Roujan (talk) 10:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Some information : The Beatles have broken multiple chart records around the world following the 9-9-09 CD release [[5]]. --Roujan (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ten days ago and six months after the 09.09.09, i've posted a link : < A spokesman said the firm had sold around 15 million remastered Beatles albums in recent months >

Less than 24 hours after this was no longer available. But now, I found another link : [6] < For example, 14 remastered albums from The Beatles catalog sold 13 million copies worldwide in the four months after they were released last September.> Four months after = 13 million....Six months after = around 15 million... it seems credible. --Roujan (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

< The Beatles sold 17 million remastered CDs last year.> [7] --Roujan (talk) 08:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Pitchfork?

Why bother mentioning what Pitchfork thinks of Revolver? Pitchfork was founded almost 30 years after Revolver was released. Surely criticism of the album at the time has more historical value. To the extent that music criticism has any value at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.186.173 (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Individual song labels

The labels for all Lennon/McCartney songs seem to read Apple, Parlophone and/or Capitol Records. Although the albums were distributed by these labels, the individual songs are published by other companies whilst the copyright is owned by EMI, therefore these labels have no relationship with the individual tracks. E.g. originally Northern Songs Ltd. and now by Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC as noted on the remastered box sets. I propose that all of these be changed to reflect either the original or present day ownership. Paul McMarkney (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This is about record labels, not music publishers. Apple, Parlophone and Capitol are record labels. Northern Songs, Maclen Music and Sony/ATV Music were/are music publishers. Apple is owned by The Beatles or their estates. Parlophone and Capitol are owned by EMI. Now do you get it? Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Record labels only have rights to distribute. The category 'Label' needs to be renamed because this is incorrect, it should be named 'owner' or 'copyright holdler'. The record labels only distribute albums and singles, not all of the entire Lennon/McCartney discography. At no point do Apple Records, Capitol Records or Parlophone Records own the songs, if anyone does then it is Apple Corps Ltd. or Northern Songs Ltd. Paul McMarkney (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Furthermore, in your logic perhaps you can explain why Octopus's Garden is listed under Apple Records too, this is owned by Startling Music Ltd. And I'm referring to the individual track, not Abbey Road Paul McMarkney (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The term "label" refers to the record label meaning the owner or licencee of the physical recorded work as opposed to the owner of the song that was recorded. Did I make myself clear? EMI owns the master tapes. Sony/ATV owns most of the songs. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we're both missing the point of each other's argument. For those physical releases, the songs seem to be correct, but the ones that aren't released on any other format than an album, should have some reference to their owners... I have just gone through the Anthology book, the copyright of songs like In My Life, Lucy, Two Of Us and I've Got A Feeling are copyright owned by Sony/ATV Music and published by Sony/ATV Music Publishing, therefore there should be some mention of that in the information box listed with the rest of the important info. Paul McMarkney (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Once again, the recordings of songs recorded for EMI by The Beatles, whether they are released or not, including alternate takes still in the vaults are property of EMI. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

what is the point in contributing when you don't listen to other ideas, I am proposing that we make some mention for all songs about the owners. If EMI own them then why is there no mention of that in the information? The publishing ought to go there too because fans will want to know this sort of stuff, who owns what songs in the Beatles' back catalogue, who publishes which songs etc. Paul McMarkney (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the format of the infobox only makes provisions for record companies, not music publishers. BTW, the Tony Sheridan material is owned by the Polydor Records unit of Universal Music Group. That is noted in the My Bonnie article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Page loading efficiency and style

I recently edited this page in a minor way and it took more than 30 seconds between the time I hit the "Save page" button and the time I saw the resulting page. Ouch. The vast majority of this time was spent inside the Wikipedia servers (not inside my browser or doing network transmission); this can be determined by reading the little comment at the bottom of the HTML, for example, "<!-- Served by srv174 in 24.185 secs. -->".

A major reason this page takes a long time to load to the use of the standard Wikipedia citation templates such as {{cite web}}. Recently developed faster & smaller Vancouver system templates such as {{vcite web}} would make the page significantly faster to generate (roughly 40% faster in my tests) as well as significantly smaller in terms of the HTML generated (the resulting page is 19% smaller, in terms of number of bytes of HTML). Let's use them here; they're already in use in Autism, Wildfire, etc., and have resulted in major savings both for time and for the size of the generated HTML. You can see the proposed change here and the proposed new version here. Eubulides (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Impressive—sounds similar to the improvement you brought to Elvis Presley by making the same change there. It sounds as though we should now move The Beatles over to these newer {{vcite web}} etc. templates, within the {{sfn}} framework we have. Similarly John Lennon. I'd like to hear John Cardinal's view before we take the plunge on these two, in case he's aware of any aspects that haven't been discussed yet. PL290 (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it's the way to go. Worked a charm on Ellie. DocKino (talk) 08:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we go ahead with this change. I was hoping to get John Cardinal's input but he's not around, and anyway he'll have been aware of the similar Presley change and would have commented then if he wanted to. PL290 (talk) 12:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The Beatles Harmonica Kit

I was wondering where we could put a sub-section about The Beatles Harmonica Kit by Hohner.[8] --Rock'N'More (talk) 02:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Standardized discography

Since the Beatles discography was standardized by EMI, I do not think that we should favor the original British discography. Although the members of the band considered those albums definitive, the British discography is no more "official" than the American discography and neither is as official as the standardized discography, which is endorsed by EMI. I propose that we list the thirteen studio albums that EMI considers the band's definitive discography, including "Magical Mystery Tour," and follow the record company's lead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leroyinc (talk • contribs) 17:41:48, 8 March 2010

Please refer to the archives, where this has been discussed before. EMI's position is commercial, whereas WP's is encyclopedic. PL290 (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

isn't Magical Mistery Tour an album? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.240.151.236 (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

psychedelic rock

Beatles were a main psychedelic rock band and perhaps also arto rock progressive rock. This should go on genres.--Eduen (talk) 03:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Whenever I've seen genres discussed before (here and other articles), the general preference has always been to limit the infobox to main genres only—typically just one or two entries. There are lots of kinds of rock, but rock covers it. PL290 (talk) 09:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

But... The Beatles were playing rock n roll and pop in the beginning, then psychedelic and folk rock, then some progressive too, and in the end a little hard rock... How can you conclude that in "Rock/Pop"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.249.67 (talk) 08:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Eduen and this anonymous one. For me, "Rock, pop" is very limiting 'cause some Beatles' songs (especially from Revolver and Sggt Peppers) does'nt fit the genre "pop" or "rock", whereas this second can't encompass for example the psychedelic rock, which is another something very different. NandO ^ta_lk! 17:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Billy Preston

What do you think in add Billy Preston in Associated acts? NandO ^ta_lk! 17:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

From my reading of the guideline, that would not be appropriate. Preston was a session musician, not an act, for his album work with the band. It's true that Get Back (song) is credited to "The Beatles with Billy Preston", so he was an act in his own right for that, but that was a one-off single, which the guideline says does not count. PL290 (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Years active

Should this not include 1995 and 1996 during the Anthology series when the band reunited to record the rest of "Free As A Bird" and "Real Love"? Or are The Beatles only considered active when all four "recognised" members were alive and active together? Either way, it was still The Beatles in 1995/6; plenty of bands have known to change or continue with different line-ups.79.65.178.90 (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This question comes up from time to time, and basically, no, the band broke up in 1970. They did not become active again. The 1990s material was just part of a documentary project looking back on the time when they were active. PL290 (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Associated acts

I think you should add there: Wings (Paul's), The Fireman (Paul's), Plastic Ono Band (John's), Traveling Wilburys (George's) and Rory Storm and the Hurricanes (Ringo's). What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilmccartney (talk • contribs) 20:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Genres

[9]here i already discussed the changes. The point of having a section called "genres" is to show how the band sounds. As far as "Rock and pop" of all the characterizations of bands ive seen here in wikipedia i think this one has to be the worst since it is extremely miserable.--Eduen (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It is common infobox practice for articles concerning popular musical acts of the rock era that cover a broad range of genres to list only rock and pop. Compare, for instance, the infobox in the Featured Article on The Kinks. The consensus is that a list of half a dozen or more genres is likely to bemuse the reader and yet still not be comprehensive. That is certainly the consensus on this page. DocKino (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

this doesnt look like a consensus[10]. if a band had an eclectic musical vision or a experimental one the wikipedia article must show this. and for instance theres an enormous difference between baroque pop and bubblegum pop as well as between beat music and blues rock. in the end worring excessively about "bemusing readers" could also end up underestimating the readers and one of the main characteristics of The Beatles was precisely the fact that they decided to go beyond the formulaic rock and pop conventions of their era. Readers should face the fact that the Beatles modified their sound constantly and that they experimented a lot. Oversimplifying this fact could even end up misinforming readers. Keeping this as you want it could make one think the Beatles were not too different from a band like The Monkees which also only has as genres Rock and Pop.--Eduen (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I mean no disrespect to you when I say this, but I expect from watching the perpetual, widespread genre churn in the encyclopedia that editors grow weary of dealing with it, and may not always bother to respond by writing out their thoughts when the question comes up on a particular article talk page yet again. Hence you won't necessarily see the consensus demonstrated by looking there. But if you watchlist any number of articles whose subject is a musical act, you'll see that it is a general consensus in the encyclopedia. Genre churn is a fact of life; editors come along and add detailed genres because the infobox looks intended to invite that, but they get removed for the reasons given above. It's the nature of an infobox: it can't tell the whole story. For that, readers must read the article. If you feel differently though, you could raise the matter on the talk page of our style guide for music-related articles, where it could be dicussed centrally instead of on the talk page of one particular musical act. PL290 (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 67.35.255.211, 6 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} It says that Sutcliffe suggested the name "Beetles". In fact Joh Lennon came up with the name in a drug induced dream. This is confirmed by "The Beatles Anthology".

67.35.255.211 (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide full details on this source (eg, author, publisher, date, page, etc.) to verify? —fetch·comms 00:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

American spelling

I see this recent edit changed a word to American spelling. I searched the article for 'ize' and found that most of the relevant words are in this form. According to WP:ENGVAR, since The Beatles were an English band, surely the spelling convention here should be British English throughout? --Nigelj (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Not as simple as it looks. There are several variations, even within British English, and no consensus on Wikipedia to prefer -ise over -ize. Rodhullandemu 15:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah! We're using archaic UK spelling as the norm here? --Nigelj (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

British spellings must be used as The Beatles is a British subject. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

@Nigelj - the choice is basically between Oxford spelling and the others. But since it seems that you haven't read the link I provided, it seems plain that we should distinguish between those words with Greek etymology and others. I wouldn't object to a consensus between the variants available to us. Rodhullandemu 18:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The link provided by Rodhullandemu leads to a description of the plain fact: -ize is not "archaic", and is no less proper in current British usage than is -ise. Given that there is no present-day consensus on this matter among leading British sources, the relevant Wikipedia guideline indicates that -ize is to be preferred on the basis of opportunities for lexical and orthographical commonality. If anyone wishes to pursue a change in the guideline, that is their prerogative, but unless and until such a change takes place and/or Oxford spelling is abandoned in Great Britain, the matter should be considered closed here. DocKino (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

About the personnel

Some pages list the personnel "According to Ian McDonald" and others "According to Mark Lewisohn". And what it´s worst, an album article list the personnel according to one of them, but in every song article, the personnel is listed according to the other one.

McDonald is not accurate. Lewishon is more reliable. I think the personnel should be the result of comparative studies: first source: Lewisohn, then McDonald, ok, then Dowlding, who seems to replicate McDonald; in order to clarify, Martin, Emerick, Pollack, Babuik, Everett and Paul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.122.146.28 (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to know what evidence you have to back up this claim. I can think of at least one song where MacDonald is more accurate: Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, where Lewisohn incorrectly says a Hammond organ was used and MacDonald correctly says it was a Lowrey organ.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn´t say Lewishon is God. There´s some mistakes in his book as well, but is more accurate. At least, Lewishon claims he heard all the original tapes. Where did Ian found his info? He didn´t say anything at all, he didn´t quote any specific source. Evidence? Read the books. All I´m saying is that we need to compare the sources and create an accurate personnel list for every album and for every song.::

That seems to me to to be a lot of unnecessary effort. We are never going to know exactly who played every instrument on every song, and I see no reason why we should regard MacDonald as unreliable. I repeat, where are your examples of his inaccuracies?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"I repeat, where are your examples of his inaccuracies?". "That seems to me to to be a lot of unnecessary effort". His inaccuracies are all over the book. Instead of writing down all the inaccuracies, we better edit every page, but you dont´t want to. Ok. Stick to MacDonald in spite of the evidence: Lewishon, Babiuk, Everett, Pollack, McCartney, Lennon, Martin and Emerick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.122.146.28 (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I´ve checked every album page again, and everthing seems fine: "Personnel according to Mark Lewisohn", except Rubber Soul and Revolver. All we had to do is correct those two pages and then just correct every song article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.122.146.28 (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I notice you still haven't provided any specific inaccuracies. Please do so; I'm genuinely interested:) Revolution in the Head 's reputation is extremely high and this is the first I've heard of it being in any way unreliable.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

McDonald book deserved it´s reputation because of his analysis of the sixties, his cultural aproach; but the personnel is not always reliable. Tomorrow I´m gonna bring my book and show you some examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.122.146.28 (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Some examples of MacDonald inaccuracies: P. 55, "Love me do". Lennon rythm guitar and George lead guitar. No, in this song there are only acoustic rythm guitars. P. 97, "Not a second time". Paul bass and George acoustic guitar. No, neither Paul or George play on this one. P 162, "Norwegian wood". Lennon acoustic rythm guitar. No. Actually, Lennon played both 6-string acoustic and 12-string acoustic. P. 169, "In my life". Paul electric piano (?), Starr bells (?). No. In this song there aren`t electric piano or bells. At least he put the interrogation sing. P. 186, "Tomorrow never knows". George guitar and sitar. No. The guitar parts for this songs are actually tape-loops, and the buzzing sound is just a tamboura, not a sitar at all. P. 210, "Here, there and everywhere". Paul acoustic guitar. No. At least there are two guitar on this one, and one of those is an electric, for sure. Do you want more examples? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.241.223.80 (talk) 01:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what edition of Revolution in the Head you have but I have the second revised edition from 2005 and the entry for "Love Me Do" says, "Harrison: acoustic rhythm guitar" so he does not claim that there is lead guitar. On "Not a Second Time" he acknowledges that "some sources deny (McCartney's) presence during the recording" but points out that "his bass can be heard low in the mix." On "Here, There and Everywhere", an electric guitar is listed. It seems that many of the inaccuracies in your edition of the book have been corrected. In any case, there is always going to be a certain amount of (educated) guesswork, as there is no complete, definitive documentation available, and MacDonald is careful to use question marks in brackets to indicate when he is unsure. You may well be correct that Lewisohn is more accurate overall. If you want to go through all 271 entries in Category:The Beatles songs and compare what we have with what Lewisohn and everyone else has, then be my guest. But I still think our time would be better spent on other things.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"It seems that many of the inaccuracies in your edition of the book have been corrected". On the contrary, my edition is the third revised edition, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.40.5.38 (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There is actually no difference in the text between those two editions; yours is merely a reprint with a different cover, so I don't understand how we can be reading different things. Anyway, this discussion is getting nowhere, so I'll bow out now.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

So do you think we are in a borgesian universe? There´s no diference between second (2005) and third editions (2007)? Ok. I should blame Amazon. Probably they send me an altered copy. You asked for some inaccuracies. I showed you and now "this discussion is getting nowhere". McDonald is wrong. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.40.5.38 (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as how MacDonald died after preparing the second revised edition, it's somehow unlikely that a "third edition" will be different...--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest a case-by-case approach is needed, not a general categorization of one or other biographer. If you feel a particular article presents inaccurate facts, or that there is a dispute about those facts, bring it up on that article talk page. There, the specific issue can be looked at and handled in whatever way is appropriate—perhaps by choosing one biographer over the other, or, alternatively, by including information from multiple biographers and stating they disagree, per WP:NPOV. PL290 (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I just suggest we should take Lewisohn as the primary source, since he is the only one who has acces to all the original tapes, then let´s compare his notes with Dowlding and McDonald (pretty much identical), then Everett, one of the best scholars out there and so on... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.122.146.28 (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Brian Epstein

I think they should add more info on brian epstein with the beatles like lifestyle, sexual orientation, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Master of Articles (talk • contribs) 21:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much already covered in his own article. Rodhullandemu 21:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

AMAs: Artist of the '60s

The American Music Awards are one of the most important awards in the music. In their over 36 years of life, opened only this poll and the winners of it were recognised with the title of "Artists of the Decade" (one artist for every decade of the Rock & Roll era). This poll was considered reliable because adopt the same method of the votations of the normal AMAs: it's needed a registration where a person give all his dates, so, it's possible to vote only one time. S&J (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Typography

In the bulleted list of albums, we had

• The Beatles (aka White Album) (1968)

And now we have

• The Beatles (The White Album) (1968)

It's a small point, but it still doesn't look right to me. How about dropping the italics on the common name? Putting it in single quotes? I don't think we can keep the italics and put it in single quotes - it'll just go bold (oh actually, that is possible with raw HTML)

1. The Beatles (The White Album) (1968)
2. The Beatles ('The White Album') (1968)
3. The Beatles ('The White Album') (1968)

What looks and reads best? My vote goes for 3, I think. --Nigelj (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This came up before: see usage throughout the article. I've made it consistent with that. PL290 (talk) 10:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

About genres

I want to put other genres in the Wiki, please send me an answer.--Rolando69 (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the vagueness of your proposal, this has been thrashed out ad infinitum, and much metaphorical blood has been spilled on this page. To avoid unnecessary suicides, consensus has been reached that (a) it is ridiculous to list a multiplicity of genres because there is no point in doing so (b) "rock" and "pop" are adequate genres, whereas any subclassifications will tend to be styles within those genres, not genres in themselves. (c) less is more. Rodhullandemu 22:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The Beatles were a band

We have discussed in great detail, with much passion, whether "The Beatles" should be considered a plural noun, taking the appropriate verb form, and by consensus have agreed that this should be the case. (:See, for example archives 11 and 21.) Further, the band, sadly, no longer is, so we refer to them in the past tense. Therefore, the correct, and agreed-upon formulation is The Beatles were an English pop and rock band.... This usage of plural noun is followed throughout the article and should not be changed. I have reverted the edit accordingly. Of course this can be discussed again, if anyone really wants to, but I doubt there will be traction for the dissonant wording "The Beatles is a band". I'll say ahead of any discussion that I totally oppose such a change. Tvoz/talk 06:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the article is written in British English, so it is as you say. PL290 (talk) 08:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Were is correct in American English too. ~DC _{Let's Vent} 08:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The wording didn't say The Beatles are a band.. My edit says: The Beatles, an English pop and rock band formed in 1960....

and yours: The Beatles were an English pop and rock band formed in 1960... Mine is better...it sounds better, feels better, and doesn't say they were or are so it should just stay.(Vegavairbob (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC))

Perhaps “was” is being overlooked here? “The Beatles was four lemon squeezers from Liverpool, and couldn’t ‘alf write a ding dong”. I think you’ll find this solves the problem.--Patthedog (talk) 10:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't solve anything(Vegavairbob (talk) 10:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC))

I don’t know - I think you’re being a little too picky. Ah well, have it your own way - only trying to help.--Patthedog (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization

"the Beatles" is used multiple times throughout the article, even though "The Beatles" is also used, and the article's talk page states "The Beatles" shall be used (if you use Firefox, you can press control + F, type "the Beatles," and check "Match case" to find where it is used). I am unable to fix this because the article is locked.

Also, under "Discography," the Beatles' second album is named "With The Beatles." I understand the Beatles should be referred to as "The Beatles," but considering this is part of a title, I do not think "the" should be capitalized. 98.203.152.242 (talk) 06:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

There were two occurrences of "the Beatles" that needed fixing, which I've done, thank you. There's a reference to the Beatles phenomenon; here, "Beatles phenomenon" is the noun, so that one's correct. All the rest are the ones in quotes; you tend to get that because that's how most of the rest of the world renders the band's name in running prose. (Many Wikipedia band articles still don't—it comes under scrutiny as a stylistic anomaly from time to time, but that's the way it is at the moment.) Per our style guideline, we don't change capitalization or punctuation etc in quoted material.

On the album title in the discography, that's how the WP article With The Beatles is titled. The linked Allmusic and Pitchfork reviews render it With the Beatles, as you did; it's part of the same general syndrome of band names rendered "The ..." in running prose in Wikipedia articles.

The issue came up quite recently in a style guide discussion, and one editor drew attention to the Chicago Manual of Style's guideline:

Capitalization, Titles

Q. For rock fans, such as myself, it is sometimes important to know whether one is to capitalize the "the" preceding a rock group’s name. For instance, the group "the Who." In the middle of a sentence, do I say "the Who" or "The Who," given that the "the" is an integral part of the title and furthermore is the first word in the title?

A. When the name of a band requires the definite article, lowercase it in running text:

When I first saw the Who, they had short hair; when I last saw them, that was again true.

I can’t believe the Rolling Stones didn’t retire with all their money years ago.

The day I was introduced to the The was the day I learned that irony was finished.

It is true that "the" often gets capitalized on album covers, but our rule is to capitalize the first and last word in any title, which fits in with that practice (the The has usually employed a lowercase "the" nested above an uppercase "The" on its covers). Exceptions to the proper "the" rule are names that are captured within italics or quotation marks within running text. Hence,

Have you ever heard "The Real Me," that song by the Who?

I have three copies of The Soft Parade, one of the Doors' lesser-known albums. Chicago Manual of Style Q&A

There seems to be growing support for the view that we should now bring our articles up to date with what most of the world does, and drop the peculiarity of the "The" in running prose. PL290 (talk) 07:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

What opinions are there currently about making this change to Beatles articles? I suggest we go ahead and do it. PL290 (talk) 11:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus was reached not that long ago to use "The Beatles." We do not have to follow the Chicago Manual, we have our own MoS. I don't see any point in going through the whole controversy all over again.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That's just the point: our own MoS has never supported the rendering we currently use! And for some months now, it's been specifically proscribed by our WikiProject Music standards. Those are the styleguide discussions I was referring to, which interested parties will have been following. The Chicago excerpt above simply illustrates what most of the world does anyway. So. We should not feel the subject is somehow taboo simply because certain editors made vociferous demands in the past. Times move on. Time to end the controversy, put it back how it used to be, and wave goodbye to this blemish. PL290 (talk) 08:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. In the two months since the more commonly used rendering was mooted above, no one's opposed it. That's strong indication that we now have consensus to comply with our MoS (which is good news, as that's something a Featured Article is expected to do). So let's go ahead and implement this. In accordance with our guideline, let's keep it as "The Beatles" wherever it's wikilinked, bolded, or italicized or quoted in isolation, but in running prose, let's talk about the Beatles from now on:

Names (definite article)

An authoritative source will determine whether the word "the" is part of a band's name. ... Mid-sentence, the word "the" should not be capitalized in continuous prose, except when quoted or beginning a phrase in italics or bold. Capital "The" is optional in wikilinks, and may be preferred when listing: The Beatles, The Velvet Underground...

(Wikipedia Manual of Style on band names)

PL290 (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Former members redux

Consensus was established a long time ago that the "members" consist of John, Paul, George and Ringo and "former members" consist of Stu and Pete. From their first record "Love Me Do" in 1962 to the breakup in 1970, the lineup of The Beatles was consistent. So to avoid confusion, it's keep the lineup as JPG&R. Stu left The Beatles in 1961 and Pete was sacked in favour of Ringo in 1962 before they recorded their first Parlophone record. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with this myself. Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The British Invasion

It is an unquestionable fact that the unprecedented success of The Beatles in North America launched the British Invasion so mentioning their launching of the British Invasion in the appropriate subheading is appropriate. What do others think? Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact sounds right, however the section does not talk about the "British Invasion" per say, it just talks about the Beatles. Moxy (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It does in the second paragraph of the section in question. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It simply mentions it in one fragmented sentence. Clear the paragraph as a whole is about their first American gigs, shows etc. I think to call the section "British Invasion" the majority of the paragraph would have to talk about the "British Invasion". Moxy (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I can see both points of view here. Clearly the band's US breakthrough is what triggered the British Invasion, and is inseparable from the latter. I agree the section title needs to reflect and emphasize that fact, and for this reason, the suggested Early American releases and performances is not adequate. However, other than by implication, the section doesn't focus very much on the British Invasion per se. I'm not convinced that's a problem, but if it is, here's another suggestion, which overcomes it with a lateral twist: Invasion of the United States. PL290 (talk) 09:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not completely accurate as it affected other countries such as Canada and Australia. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

World Invasion! I don't know. My, this Baccardi Silver Sangria is delicious! Best, --Discographer (talk) 06:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

As I think Discographer intends to point out, you will not find Canada or Australia mentioned in the article about the British Invasion: On February 7 the CBS Evening News ran a story about The Beatles' United States arrival that afternoon in which the correspondent said "The British Invasion this time goes by the code name Beatlemania". Cronkite was talking about the US. Likewise, his coined term applies to the US. Subsequent effects on the rest of the world are another matter. To stay with the point: the section in question has as its focus the band's US breakthrough, a key moment in history which spearheaded the British Invasion of the US. It is fitting for that chapter in the band's history to be called the British Invasion. The section title was fine as it was. I've restored it. PL290 (talk) 10:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the heading. Calling it "The British Invasion" isn't "fine as it was" at all - it is, in fact, completely misleading. Afterwriting (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

And I've reverted your edit. I agree with PL290. I don't like "International releases and concerts", I'm afraid. Rather bland.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"The British Invasion and Worldwide Fame" Radiopathy •talk• 23:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Example genres

"ranging from folk rock to psychedelic pop", those genres are often quite similar really. A much better example would be foxtrot (like Honey Pie), hard rock (like Helter Skelter), avant-garde (like Revolution 9) and/or progressive rock (like I Want You (She's so Heavy) (debatable)). Helpsloose 20:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Please keep in mind our policies and guidelines that apply: per WP:LEAD, the lead section should summarize the article. And per WP:V and WP:OR, the main article text gives examples of applicable genres, supported by inline citations to reliable sources. Only those should be mentioned in the lead. It's possible one or two more of the many possible examples could be added to the Genres section, if there's agreement that it's necessary and they're backed up by suitable citations and worked effectively into the narrative. I'm not convinced it's necessary, but should that idea gain support, then it would be possible to mention those in the lead. PL290 (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Just something I found that could be useful: Hard rock and prog rock: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:jifwxql5ldae Foxtrot: http://www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/TC/Content_7135/beatles.pdf, http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/m4.shtml Avant garde: http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/r9.shtml I'm not that good editing articles, but maybe I'll try later if no one disagree? When using "worked in many genres ranging from", one should try to find genres that aren't too similar. Psychedelic pop/rock and folk-rock are two closely related genres (Listen to bands like the Byrds, Jefferson Airplane, and even the Beatles). Maybe change it to "many genres including folk rock and psychedelic pop" or even remove it completely. It originally had "Tin Pan Alley to psychedelic rock", a much better example, (but still not good enough in my opinion), and why did that change happened without citing any sources or discussing on the talk page? Helpsloose 01:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Tin Pan Alley is not an actual musical genre, but I agree with your idea of having two genres in the lead that are farther apart from one another musically than the current examples. Radiopathy •talk• 02:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

How about "including skiffle, rock, ballads and psychedelia"? --Nigelj (talk) 09:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a genre http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/596493/Tin-Pan-Alley, but I don't know if they really did a song of that genre. skiffle, rock, ballads and psychedelia is a better example than the current, but I still think two or three examples are enough in the intro.Helpsloose 19:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree the current two are a bit similar. By selecting other genres from those already cited within the primary text, it would be possible to expand the sentence along the following lines:

Rooted in skiffle and 1950s rock and roll, the group later worked in many genres, from pop and country through folk rock and psychedelic pop to hard rock—often incorporating classical and other elements in innovative ways.

It seems a bit clunky, but maybe someone can improve it. PL290 (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Country music??! The Beatles? Is somebody having a laugh?[11] That needs to be removed, they were not even American, let alone Country and Western, or Rockabilly. --Nigelj (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The cited sources say otherwise. Have a hunt for the word in the article (including Lennon's quote); you may be in for a surprise! PL290 (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Most of the mentions in the article talk about influences, and I'd like more context about the sense in which Lennon said that Beatles for Sale was 'a Beatles country-and-western LP'. Another way to look at this is to search the Country music article for 'Beatles'. Nada. If they had been a country band, wouldn't that genre want to claim them and chart their influences on country music? They were not a country-and-western band in anything like the senses that they were a skiffle, a pop, a psychedelic and a rock band. I would be hesitant putting folk music and classical music into that lead sentence too, but country in the sense of country-and-western? No. --Nigelj (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Agian i see no agreement here to change the lead..i see 2 people talking about it a 3 that is moking the idea and a 4th that think is a bad idea and now me ..so pls explain what your doing!!!Moxy (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Country is cited 5 times in the article, but it doesn't have to go in the lead. The sentence I put together is one example of how we could mention a wider range of genres in the lead, which others requested. More voices needed! PL290 (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"...pop and ballads to psychedelic rock". Radiopathy •talk• 00:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that's the best suggestion yet. PL290 (talk) 07:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. That's fine now. --Nigelj (talk) 08:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Beatles opening sentence can "flow" and still be correct

Ok I corrected my edit..now they both are correct..Pick one

The Beatles, an English pop and rock band formed in Liverpool in 1960, were one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed acts in the history of popular music.

The Beatles were an English pop and rock band, formed in Liverpool in 1960, and one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed acts in the history of popular music.

My version is the first one..reworded for better flow. The second one is from the article.(Vegavairbob (talk) 11:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC))

Ah, the opening sentence! I think your version is okay (apart from the comma after "band", which I've now removed). My only slight hesitation is that, per our guideline, we should keep in mind the purpose of the opening sentence of any article, which is first and foremost to define, and secondly to establish notability. This tweak shifts that balance slightly. But only slightly. PL290 (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I missed the comma..left over from pasting..wasn't intentional. Please explain "to define, and secondly to establish notability" and the slight shift. Thanks (Vegavairbob (talk) 11:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC))

Just that it subtly shifts the sentence into a statement about their notability (one of the most successful), mentioning incidentally that they were a band (the definition). Comma pairs like the first two act a bit like brackets: they serve to parenthetically offset something from the main point being made. But as I said, it's only a slight shift and I think it's okay. PL290 (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Got it! Very interesting. Thanks (Vegavairbob (talk) 11:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC))

…but seriously, if the point was to lose “were” i.e. “and doesn't say they were” then why does the current revision say “were one of the most”? So I say the sentence had more elegance as it was originally - it’s now a little clumsy and ought to be restored. And furthermore, what has happened to the “pop/rock” description? We didn’t have rock bands in England back in 1960, and The Beatles wrote some of the best pop songs ever composed. Well...? --Patthedog (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Patthedog - Read both versions...the "were" is not stressed as much since its the fourteenth word in the article instead of the third word in the article, still is "correct" , plus it just flows better. This article can still be improved; it's not locked up yet and this watchdogging should be reserved for vandalisim. I will improve it where I can. (Vegavairbob (talk) 01:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC))

Actually, I'd say the first [oops] second of the two alternative lead sentences flows better, because the flow is not immediately broken be the parenthetic phrase between the two commas. "The Beatles were an English pop and rock band..." is a straightforward statement of fact and a great way to start the article. The other version looks unnecessarily convoluted in order to solve what I'd see as a non-problem. Bluewave (talk) 09:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You must mean the second version then that says "The Beatles were an English pop and rock band..."? Which I think was how it used to begin. If so, then I agree with you. And I think you are also right about it not being a problem in the first place. Anywhere else in the article and it probably wouldn’t be worth all this discussion, however, it’s the opening sentence and sets the tone.--Patthedog (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bluewave and Patthedog that the main idea is established better in the original version and, for what it's worth, the "flow" is better as well. This is a Featured Article and needs to be looked after carefully. Radiopathy •talk• 14:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Re Patthedog's correction...Er yes, thanks for pointing out my mistake. I have refactored my post above. Of course I meant the second! Bluewave (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, sorry Vegavairbob, 'fraid it was better as it was. I've restored the first sentence from 30 June. PL290 (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The Beatles were an English pop/rock band...sounds better than The Beatles, an English pop/ rock band...? The lead sentence should not be worded stressing were as the third word (instesd of the fourteenth word). By the fourteenth word "were" is not emphasised as much. Why should "were" not be emphasised? because The Beatles are...everywhere, including these articles edited every day. My lead sentence is more appropriate whether or not it's used. (Vegavairbob (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC))

This needs to be addressed again; the current version of the lead is a bit awkward and I propose changing it back to "The Beatles were an English rock band, formed in Liverpool]in 1960, and one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed acts in the history of popular music." Radiopathy •talk• 00:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead sentence

There appears to be an ad hoc effort underway to change the established lead sentence of this Featured Article:

The Beatles were an English rock band, formed in Liverpool in 1960, and one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed acts in the history of popular music.

to:

The Beatles were an English rock band, formed in Liverpool in 1960 as a beat group, who became one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed acts in the history of popular music.

I see nothing at all in Talk that can possibly be construed as establishing a consensus for such a change. I, for one, am opposed to it. I have restored the status quo and will enforce it unless and until a new consensus is actually forged.—DocKino (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

After this, I thought (I hoped) the issue was settled. The first example is, IMHO, the most concise and least awkward of the two. Radiopathy •talk• 19:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I never realised until today that the terms "beat group" and "Merseybeat" are not even mentioned in the article at all, which I find extraordinary. Reading the early years section you could get the impression that there were no other bands in Liverpool at all at the time, when there were hundreds. A major omission.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

While I don't think it belongs in the lead sentence, it would make sense to add a line to the first part of the "History" section including one of these terms.—DocKino (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite so. I've added a mention of Merseybeat. PL290 (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it 1957-1970, or 1960-1970?

Someone keeps changing it to 1960-1970 in the year they were active. The Beatles formed as The Quarrymen in 1957, and they disbanded in 1970. Simon^KSK 00:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

See The Quarrymen. Radiopathy •talk• 00:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This gets tedious, and it's all explained here. This ground has been so well-trodden that it's beginning to become tiresome. The Beatles, under that name, started in 1960- that's why we have a separate article for The Quarrymen. End. of. Rodhullandemu 00:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It was all a misunderstanding. I thought some vandal was vandalizing the page. Sorry. Simon^KSK 00:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Pop/ballads

As ballads constitute much of pop music, posing the two terms as distinct "genres" is very awkward. I suggest the phrase in the lede be revised to:

Rooted in skiffle and 1950s rock and roll, the group later worked in many genres ranging from pop ballads to psychedelic rock...

How does that sound?—DocKino (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If they're so similar, why are there two wikilinks? The idea was to have genres that were further apart musically than "folk rock to psychedelic pop", per Talk:The_Beatles#Example_genres. I'd rather that we propose more/different/better genres than to morph two of the current ones. Radiopathy •talk• 19:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course, the two words have different meanings and each is deserving of its own article. But in this sort of context, there is such an overlap between the terms that the sentence reads as awkward and redundant—in short, unprofessional—when they are described as separate genres. And "pop ballads" certainly satisfies the desire to offer a genre quite distant musically from "psychedelic rock". I wouldn't necessarily be averse to adding a well-chosen third genre here, but "pop and ballads" simply doesn't fly.—DocKino (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Dockino, so it’s ok for you to make changes as you see fit, but if you don’t happen to agree with someone else’s edit then you bleat on about consensus and simply change it back. That’s democratic.--Patthedog (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fine, but DocKino, I agree with Patthedog, you shouldn't change it until consensus is made. Simon^KSK 21:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone actually like to make the case that there is not a major overlap between "pop" and "ballads" in this context, which renders the phrase "pop and ballads" redundant, awkward, and unprofessional? DocKino (talk) 03:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the question is: would you like to explain why, in spite of consensus being reached, you have reverted prior to discussion and without an alternative, and why you won't allow the consensus version to stand during discussion? Radiopathy •talk• 04:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that any time genres are discussed, terminology is the problem. The names are chamaeleon-like, vague, overlapping, or contradictory in different contexts. I was content with your change, and since no objections were raised at the time, I assumed others were too. PL290 (talk) 08:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

In all honesty, I don't care for my choice of genres and would like to discuss it more. But the more important issue is what do we do about the bullying and unilateral changes that this article has undergone recently? I, for one, will not just walk away. Radiopathy •talk• 21:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen any sign that we should somehow stop discussing genres, or that anyone should walk away—certainly not. The discussion so far has been very productive: an editor challenged us to consider finding a wider range of genres than the rather narrow "folk rock to psychedelic pop", as a result of which (while noting the need for any genres used to be sourced somewhere in the article) we moved to "pop and ballads to psychedelic rock" (which I and several other editors wrote here was a great improvement). We then shifted to a tweaked variant, "pop ballads to ...", after a passionate view was expressed that the overlap made the word "and" problematic. Now, I believe that view is debatable: as I said above, genres names are chamaeleon-like, vague, overlapping, or contradictory in different contexts. Anyone is free to challenge and debate the assertion that the overlap is problematic. I don't feel the need to myself, because I think it's undoubtedly a reasonable view, and I'm content with the result. As far as I'm concerned, though, that certainly doesn't trash the previous suggestion in any way; meanwhile the tweaked variant, very evidently, now has consensus. Look what happened when I added Country a little earlier in the proceedings—all hell broke out, and it was reverted multiple times. I couldn't have kept it by any amount of "bullying and unilateral changes", even if I'd particularly wanted Country to remain. Yes, by all means, please let's go on discussing genres, and of course trying them out if we feel bold. Let's see if we can find something even better than what all the good suggestions so far have helped us to achieve. PL290 (talk) 08:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) The tweaked variant does not have consensus; these are the two comments that were made in the wake of DocKino's change:

Dockino, so it’s ok for you to make changes as you see fit, but if you don’t happen to agree with someone else’s edit then you bleat on about consensus and simply change it back. That’s democratic.--Patthedog (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fine, but DocKino, I agree with Patthedog, you shouldn't change it until consensus is made. Simon^KSK 21:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any reason that the consensus version can't stand while the discussion continues. Radiopathy •talk• 15:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with that assessment.

• The responses you reproduce relate to opinions about the way things were done. Neither response objects to the tweak, and one expresses support for it.
• It doesn't make sense to refer to the previous version as "the consensus version" now that the tweaked version has clearly gained consensus itself. It has been the established version since 19 July.

I thought we were moving forwards here, not backwards. What about the other genres you said you wanted to suggest? PL290 (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious that this is some kind of joke to you. Why can't you just leave the article alone until the issue is resolved? Radiopathy •talk• 21:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

British English edit war

There appears to be an edit war brewing about the use (or not) of British English. This involves break-up versus breakup and -ise versus -ize verb endings.

Breakup is not a word in British English and does not exist in British English dictionaries[12][13][14]. There are two forms to the word in British English. As a phrasal verb, it is written break up[15][16][17] - this is also true in American English[18]. As a noun, it is written break-up[19][20][21] - breakup is American English[22].

The majority of verbs that can utilise, or utilize ;) , an -ise or -ize ending can use either in British English[23][24][25]. However, there are number of notable exceptions that only use -ise, and they are listed in the first of the links I've provided.

I would suggest that we leave the verbs with an -ize ending as they currently are as this an acceptable use in British English, but change the word breakup to either break-up or break up depending on if it a noun or verb in the article. What do others think? --JD554 (talk) 08:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. PL290 (talk) 09:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Doc9871 (talk) 10:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 15:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. And, thank you, JD, for your well-sourced summary of the central issues.—DocKino (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

To promote both proper style and uniformity on this matter, I have applied as appropriate the changes indicated by this discussion to the three other Featured Articles on my watchlist written in British English where Oxford spelling (or simply the preference for -ize) is well-established: John Lennon, The Kinks, and Sex Pistols.

I would like to note as well that the verbs that JD identifies as "notable exceptions that only use -ise", only use -ise in American English, as well. In other words, if Oxford spelling is applied, there is no difference at all between British English and American English as regards -ize vs. -ise: this very much promotes the spirit of our guideline that encourages stylistic commonality. DocKino (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

One more note: The change to "breakup" we've agreed on here will be easily applied, with one exception: the subsection title "Post-breakup". We want to avoid the visually awkward "Post-break-up". How do we want to rephrase it? "After the break-up", perhaps? "Since the break-up"? DocKino (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

'Post-split'. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we've got a consensus. Regarding the potential Post-break-up scenario, I think "After the break-up" is a suitable section title. If there are no objections I'll make the changes in the next couple of hours. --JD554 (talk) 08:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

By all means. And again, your thoughtful presentation and sourcing has been truly invaluable. DocKino (talk) 08:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:RETAIN and -ise

I prefer to participate in a thread that isn't tainted with the term "edit war", since that is a gross misrepresentation of the issue.

The issue of whether or not to use the -ise suffix in this article is covered in WP:RETAIN, in the clause "...the variety chosen by the first major contributor should be adopted." As you can clearly see from the article's history, the variety that was first chose was the -ise variety. There should be no need for further discussion, but I'm posting this here and allowing time for discussion so that no one jumps to the conclusion that I'm bucking consensus by reverting the article, because policy clearly supports my position. Radiopathy •talk• 16:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

My response above was not influenced by the phrase 'edit war.' To me - an American - the suggestion seems a reasonable one, but I am not privy to how grating the -ize is to a "non-American" English reader. RETAIN clearly makes sense to me for the choice of British vs. non-British variant as a whole (although not applicable here as it is clearly a British topic). It is less clear how useful it is in the -ise/-ize choice. My preference would be -ize. But I won't be insisting/editing to make it so. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 20:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

In regards to this article, WP:RETAIN comes down on the side of -ise: it specifically states that the variety that was chosen or used by the first major contributor should be maintained throughout. The earliest edit we have access to clearly shows that the choice was -ise - "epitomise". Generally, the WP:ENGVAR clause about strong national ties to a subject would be the guideline: when one is creating an article whose subject is strongly associated with Britain, one chooses spellings that are used in Britain (or America, Canada, etc). Radiopathy •talk• 02:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You've resorted to a sub-sub-clause of WP:RETAIN. The guideline actually begins, "When an article has evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety it employs, the whole article should continue to conform to that variety." Long before you decided that the style of this article needed to be changed, it had evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety it employs: -ize. At that point, you had no business changing it to a different style. DocKino (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It is clear from the dif I have provided that the style was already established in 2001. You need to demonstrate that the -ise form was not used first - and you can't. Your arguement, like your interpretation of WP:COMMONALITY, is horribly flawed. Radiopathy •talk• 02:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I also don't care for the obvious lack of civility you've demonstrated through all of this. I would like to know who you are that you can tell me what I have "no business" doing on Wikipedia. Radiopathy •talk• 03:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You leave redundant and misapplied template warnings on my page, accuse me of being "fanatical", and now whine about a "lack of civility"? Please.

You misunderstand WP:RETAIN. The guideline directs us to go in search of the first major contributor if an article has not "evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety it employs". This one clearly had evolved sufficiently, so your search for the "first major contributor" is moot. By the time you arrived with your stylistic preferences, the article had evolved sufficiently for it be clear which variety it employs. If you had only been willing to abide by WP:RETAIN, you would have left the spelling of -ize words alone. DocKino (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) By uncivil, I mean trying to intimidate me by telling me what I have "no business" doing, implying that my "stylistic preferences" are at the root of your disruption here on Wikipedia...and...oh, yeah...this exchange at WP:MOS.

You have yet to demonstrate that the -ise form was not the first one used in this article. That is what you are being asked to do. I don't want to hear about my stylistic preferences. Don't bother speculating about the state of the article when I first came to Wikipedia. Forget about who templated who. Show us conclusively that the -ize form was used first - don't do or say anything else. Radiopathy •talk• 03:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"Don't do or say anything else"? That's your demonstration of civility? Funny stuff, 'pathy.

Well, it seems you may be incapable of understanding WP:RETAIN. Its primary demand on us is to recognize what style an article possesses when it has evolved sufficiently to have one and to abide by that style. This article had a clear style that you improperly sought to change. That's simple enough. If the article had not yet evolved to the point where it had a clear style as regards -ize vs. -ise, then it would have been appropriate for you to seek out the "first major contributor", identify the style s/he happened to use, and apply it universally. But as the article had evolved to the point where it had a clear style, your actions were inappropriate per WP:RETAIN. It is regrettable that you fail to understand that, but there's only so many different ways I can try to explain it to you. DocKino (talk) 04:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I will make myself as clear as possible: you contend that this article should use Oxford spelling because the article had evolved with that style. You have been asked several times to provide difs that conclusively show that the article did not evolve using the -ise form. Since you are challenging the reversion to the -ise form, the burden of proof in on you to show that the -ise form was not the first one used. Please provide your proof. Radiopathy •talk• 04:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS is a policy, WP:COMMONALITY and WP:RETAIN are guidelines. Arguing over "this is how it was so this is how it should be" is a red herring as consensus has now been established to use -ize verb forms, as that is an acceptable use in British English given the links I've provided in the section above. Consensus can of course change, but I've yet to see any evidence of why it should do so in this case. --JD554 (talk) 08:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Radiopathy, do you, in the end, have the slightest clue? This article has a clear, established style—the style it had when it achieved Featured Article status, the style it had right before you arrived here with OhC's script. You want to change that clear, established style. If "burden of proof" were at issue, that burden would obviously be on you. But there is no question of burden of proof here. As I have repeatedly explained, per the WP:RETAIN guideline you should not have run the script and left the clear, established style alone. As JD has just explained, per the WP:CONSENSUS policy you should not have run the script and left the clear, established style alone. Will you please stop burdening us with your baseless plaints now? You're beginning to sound, you know...fanatical. DocKino (talk) 08:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

@DocKino-You've provided a dif from 2009; however, this article dates back to 2001. In the intervening years, surely there was a moment when a clear style became apparent? Now, stop side-stepping the issue and and answer the question: where are your difs that show that the -ize suffix was the clear, established style? You're dancing around the issue and hurling insults, but have yet to answer the question.

@JD554-You don't have consensus here. You can't decide that four people's opinions trump policy. The -ise style prevailed until DocKino came here and mandated the change to -ize, and so the -ise style should carry forward. Radiopathy •talk• 14:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

To which policy are you referring? As I mentioned above, both WP:RETAIN and WP:COMMONALITY are guidelines. --JD554 (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• I support keeping -ize per Doc and JD. ~DC _{Let's Vent} 15:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not about consensus. Please read the entire thread before you comment. Radiopathy •talk• 20:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Please assume I did. This is about consensus. ~DC _{Let's Vent} 17:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW Doc, on the day I created my user ID, 2 August 2008, this article had four - count 'em - four instances of -ise and one of -ize. You said that by the time I arrived here the established style was -ize. How do you figure? Radiopathy •talk• 21:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No one cares when you, I, or Jesus H. Christ himself registered on Wikipedia. Please provide us the diff where you first addressed the style of this article—whether by way of an edit to the article itself or a comment here on the Talk page. That is the point when your view of the article's style arguably becomes relevant. We can discuss how things went from there. But let's be very clear: to unilaterally apply a script to an article that manifests a proper spelling style that arbitrarily alters that style—which is exactly what you did here on July 26—is, you know, bad. DocKino (talk) 06:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No one objected to the -ise suffix until you appeared out of the blue and told the rest of us it shall be -ize from this day forth and ye shall not protest because I'll call you all sorts of nasty names. You've deliberately misinterpreted WP:COMMONALITY to rationalize your one-man show, and now you refuse to acknowledge what WWP:RETAIN says, choosing instead to continue the barrage of insults. This did not become relevant when I came here, or when you did, or when JD554 declared mistakenly that we have consensus. The consensus is that the -ise form was the first dominant style, and according to WP:RETAIN, shall remain in this article. Radiopathy •talk• 14:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

There was no mistake on my part - you appear to be the only one arguing against -ize here. Like I said, "consensus can change", and it appears to have done from your preferred version. --JD554 (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is it suddenly my preferred version? You need to strike through that comment. And the only one edit warring here is DocKino; no one objected to the -ise version until he decided, without discussion and with a deliberately false interpretation of WP:COMMONALITY, to impose the - ize version on the rest of us. You thread above, with "edit war" and "consensus" amounts to little more than a kangaroo court; you can't trump policy. Radiopathy •talk• 14:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe the way 'edit war' as used in the previous section radically changes the replies there. Yes, it might have been better just to note "there appears to be disagreement about..." - that's how I read it and think most editors did. The noise-to-signal ratio of this section (and this whole topic here) has discouraged much input from me. But another try: Consensus can invoke exceptions to policy (which are available in this case). Consensus can change. If you disagree with those propositions, there is not much to talk about. If you accept that it is possible that a consensus of editors here can effect the change to -ize, I suggest a new section with a !vote dropping the phrase 'edit war' (and discussion kept to the proposal) would encourage input from more editors. I'd like to hear from others in the -ise camp who might have been scared off by the "noise." I, for one, am happy that something triggered this discussion. Let's make it a clear and civil one. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 16:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

1975 meet on Saturday Night Live

In 1975, they met again one last time on Saturday Night Live. I got this from The Beatles Book. I want to edit the years active area of the page, so it will say 1960 - 1970, 1975. is this alright with you, guys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.187.31 (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Meeting on one occasion does not imply "active". There have been lengthy previous debates on what "active" means (see the archives of this page), and the consensus would appear to be that it refers to recording and performing together, and releasing material; hence the later collaboration of the three Beatles remaining to produce "Free as a Bird", for example, has not been considered as being "active" (as a band). By comparison, I bumped into my ex-wife not so long ago, and we had a drink and a chat together; but no way would you consider that as being "active". Hope that helps. Rodhullandemu 22:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if my present wife would agree with that assessment!--Patthedog (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Besides, the four didn't meet on SNL. G was on. P&J were watching it together and considered wandering into the studio unannounced, but they remained couch 'taters. Or did I miss something. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 23:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they told a few jokes and sang "When Irish Eyes are Smiling" - don't you remember? Radiopathy •talk• 14:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Genre (again)

I think the Beatles weren't exactly POP... I mean, look at their songs "Penny Lane", "Martha My Dear", "Honey Pie"; Yes, it is obvious it's not ROCK but it's not pop either... I mean compare these to Michael Jackson. They don't have the beat of pop songs. They're more like just ballads or psychedelic pop, not simply pop. And it won't hurt you to add "rock & roll (early)" too... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilmccartney (talk • contribs) 07:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Track listing edit war

There seems to be a track listing edit war breaking out on Beatles articles. The track listings are being removed if they're unsourced, per WP:V. I suggest we need to stop and plan a sensible course of action. The status quo is that these track listings are frequently tinkered with; they constantly show up in the watchlist with one or other singer being added or removed and so forth. This is not good. However, I suggest that rather than take the drastic step of removing them altogether, which ought really to be reserved for contentious claims (particularly WP:BLP issues), we set to work on sourcing those that aren't sourced. A good start might be to start a section in Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles, and add each such article to a list there whenever someone is concerned about one. Editors with access to the relevant sources can then tackle the list, sign an entry there to say it's taken, and correct the article, adding the inline citation to the source. What do others think? PL290 (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we're a bit injudicious with the term "edit war" around here. Radiopathy •talk• 22:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The term does tend to be used fairly loosely, yes, particularly when there are signs that an edit war might break out and someone wants to generate awareness before it develops into a bigger problem. Don't take it personally! I think it's clear to everyone that no one in particular is being accused of actively edit-warring at the moment, whether over track listings, British English, or pop and ballads. So far, it's all business as usual as far as I can see. These "edit war warning" posts just help to keep it that way, by giving wider awareness of a disagreement before it escalates too far and upsets people unnecessarily. PL290 (talk)

Indeed, I wasn't actually accusing anyone of edit warring above, but I saw the potential for one to happen given the changes and reverts that have happened at John Lennon, Sex Pistols and here. I was just trying to stop one developing. If Radiopathy felt I was making accusations, I can only apologise, that was not my intent. --JD554 (talk) 08:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

As there were no objections to this suggestion, I took the opportunity, prompted by one more example of personnel churn (who played what etc.), of starting the section on the project page. Editors are encouraged to add further entries there when unsourced personnel and track listings etc. show up, to bring them to the attention of others who are able to contribute by reviewing and sourcing the relevant section. PL290 (talk) 07:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Revolver

The recent addition of Revolver to the lead brought a couple of issues, so I've reverted it. Obviously, removing the extraneous "a" from "widely regarded as a masterpieces" was not a big deal, but the main problem is one of context. The focus of the narrative at that point is their studio years. Irrespective of calendar years, that term is generally understood to refer to the period after they quit touring. Revolver was, as we know, released while they were still touring. So—although it's undoubtedly true that it, too, is recognized as a masterpiece—mentioning it here doesn't really work. I'm not convinced it's necessary to start listing other great albums in the lead, as the structure of the lead has settled down nicely and works well as it is. PL290 (talk) 07:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the inclusion of Revolver is not necessary, but this has got me thinking that the lead might benefit from an edit that would both (a) remove the implication that their "finest material" in general arose only during their studio years (I think Rubber Soul and Revolver are both universally considered among their "finest material") and (b) improve the chronological sequence of the lead, by eliminating the forward-then-back that occurs at the end of the second paragraph and the beginning of the third. What I'm suggesting is actually quite simple: it involves the move and the editing of what is currently the first sentence of the third paragraph, to produce this (the edit from "a masterpiece" to "their masterpiece" reflects the fact that while, as you suggest, other Beatles albums are also considered masterpieces, the critical establishment still regards Sgt. Pepper as the premier Beatles masterpiece):

... Gaining international popularity over the course of the next year, they toured extensively until 1966, then retreated to the recording studio. During their studio years, the Beatles produced the album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967), widely regarded as their masterpiece. After their break-up in 1970, each found success in an independent musical career. McCartney and Starr remain active; Lennon was shot and killed in 1980, and Harrison died of cancer in 2001.

Four decades after their break-up, the Beatles' music continues to be popular. The Beatles have had more number one albums on the UK charts. ...

Do you think this would constitute an improvement, or not? DocKino (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Just leave well enough alone. This sort of thing happens with songs and genres as well - everyone has their favourite. The solution is to revert. Radiopathy •talk• 22:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that sums it up (though however good an article is, Featured Article or not, improvement is never ruled out and is always desirable: we should remain willing to continue the D of WP:BRD]).

I understand the points made and will respond to each:

• "some of their finest material" is not too great a problem because it not only allows, but implies, that some also preceded the studio years; the point being made is that, far from fading into oblivion when they stopped touring, they flourished;
• Identifying their masterpiece would trigger much heated argument henceforth over whether it should say Pepper or Revolver;
• The chronology question doesn't strike me as problematic in this case, and I think that by trying to address it, the suggested alternative loses something of the engaging nature of what's currently there.

PL290 (talk) 08:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"Pop / Rock" or just "Rock"?

I like the description “pop /rock” in the opening sentence as opposed to just simply “rock”. I think the former neatly describes The Beatles music over time, suggesting as it does, their progression from the classic three minute pop song towards their later more experimental compositions. “English rock band” is somewhat misleading though, as they didn’t exist in England in 1960, and sounds too American (to me) for what is supposed to be an English subject. I’d like to put it back, but don’t intend to get into heated discussions over it as I had nothing to do with this otherwise exemplary article. --Patthedog (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think 'pop' should be included as a lot of Beatles' songs were certainly not rock, particularly from 1967 onwards. It would be practical to list every style they did in the lead, but they were cerainly the pop music of their time. (I think English should be British as well, but that's another story) Bevo74 (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I have also though it was odd to say English considering most say they started the "British invasion". To most out sided the UK English is a term for speech (they speak English)... but from what i see from the past talks the UK people see a big difference in saying English VS British so i guess it up to outsiders to read-up on the difference (as it should be its an encyclopedia).. As for poprock not sure here as they do evolve in-style and its all Pop music of the time, were rock covers the diversity of there music, "poprock" is just a subgenre of Pop music in-general. just mty2 cents Moxy (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with pop/rock, like I did a year ago. I think that bests sums it all up. Best, --Discographer (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

For those of us who were alive during the 60s and 70s... we can remember when the word 'pop' wasn't such an insulting label. For some, like The Beatles, The Who, The Kinks etc... 'pop' was a genuine art-form. Unfortunately, today, the word pop is tied to the Britneys, Madonnas and boy-bands... and the result is that it is an insult. As for The Beatles... they made/make the word pop a legitimate art. Wiki libs (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"Pop/rock" is ungainly, and an unnecessarily awkward way to begin an encyclopedia article on a band whose cultural context was very much that of rock. The lead section goes on to make perfectly clear that their musical scope encompassed all sorts of popular music. There's no need at all to bring to make this unhappy style part of the article's opening. DocKino (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Sure, they played pop and rock, like the infobox says and the article elaborates upon, but as to what they were, if you ask me, rock band describes it perfectly. Rock bands play pop too. It's the language that has the right meaning today, even if different language might have been used in the '60s. PL290 (talk) 11:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• We seem to have lost from the lead "pop" qua beat music, which they undoubtedly were to begin with. "Rock" came much later. When they started, "rock" meant "rock & roll", which is different. Rodhullandemu 00:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It was removed as “Rock” was deemed sufficient. But I would (unsurprisingly) have to agree with you, and have already outlined my reasons why above. I think the tenor of this sentence is flawed; The Beatles, to begin with at least, played rock and roll covers and composed pop songs - the opening sentence appears to try and reinvent them, as if any reference to pop is a bad and embarrassing thing.--Patthedog (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand where you're both coming from. And there's no "pop is bad or embarrassing"—quite the opposite, at least as far as I'm concerned. It just comes down to the lead sentence expressing the key facts, in engaging prose, in today's language. These terms are not mutually exclusive: today, "rock" encompasses a lot, including the rock 'n' roll it originally referred to. And, per the opening words of the pop music article, pop is "particularly associated with the rock and roll and later rock style". Even the beat music article opens by saying beat music is a form of rock. On a side note, I think Rod's idea of separating what you're trying to express from the initial clause has potential, should we really conclude we need to say more than "rock". PL290 (talk) 11:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont see any consensus to change the lead and fill it with many genres..From what i see at Wikipedia:Consensus this is not it here. I see no ok to add country ..just a chat from a month ago that died, bands cant chose there own genres Moxy (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This particular discussion is about the opening sentence. For the discussion about example genres, please see below. PL290 (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You ought to pay great care to the difference between "Popular Music" and "Pop Music", as The Beatles and every other Rock act belongs to the former but very rarely the latter. Study the sources carefully to see which of these terms they actually cite. Personally I disagree to "Pop Music" since it is a modern term with a totally different meaning than in the 60s where it was just short for "Popular" CentraCross (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)