Jump to content

Talk:The Beatles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ClonedPickle (talk | contribs) at 04:01, 20 July 2009 (→‎Group or band - which one?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured articleThe Beatles is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good articleThe Beatles has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 18, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 30, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
August 29, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
August 29, 2006Good article nomineeListed
February 5, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
April 26, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
June 9, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
November 16, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
June 3, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Former featured article, current good article
Housekeeping Information

Beatles' Influence

The Beatles were a huge influence on so much of America. They had become so popular and inspiring to their audience that they were called “the new religion” (McKinney 143). The Beatles even influenced a lot of today’s popular bands such as The Byrds, The Bee Gees, The Electric Light Orchestra, Oasis, and there have been many other bands who have experimented with sounds that are relatively similar to that of The Beatles. Throughout time this has given these bands the reputation of being “Beatle-esque” (Gregory 142). Even the original rock and roll style was created by The Beatles. When they made their first appearance in America they were clad in leather jackets and jeans. Their manager was the one who convinced them to change their style and wear suits, but other artists and young people had already picked up on the leather jacket and jeans trend, and it have made it stick ever since (Gregory 142-143). This is evidence which proves The Beatles really had started it all as mentioned by a loving fan “A start, a new dawn. You see, the Beatles are the original. They started the look, everything. And they are the greatest group ever” (McKinney 86). The Beatles were very easy for people to relate to and no matter where you went you could find someone who would gladly admit to feeling this way (McKinney 52). The Beatles weren’t perfect. They said what they wanted to say, which encouraged so many people of that time and people of today to do also. The term Beatle-mania was also formed because of the influence The Beatles had on people (McKinney 51). It was used to describe the hysteria expressed by teenage girls who were very, very big fans of The Beatles. Now it is used as a name for tribute groups that impersonate The Beatles. To leave such a large impression on a group is a hard thing to do, and something most artists will never be able to accomplish. Most bands just fizzle out especially after they have split up, but just like everything else they did The Beatles surprised the world even more when the band remained popular long after the split.

Bibliography: McKinney, Devin. The Beatles In Dream and History. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2003. Gregory, Hugh. A Century of Pop a Hundred Years of Music that Changed the World. Chicago: Cappella Books, 1998.

The article already contains links to The Beatles' influence on music recording and The Beatles' influence on popular culture. The information does not need to be duplicated here. Ward3001 (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello...Concerning the influence and impact of the Beatles [[1]]

< Mikhail Gorbachev was the last General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the last head of state of the USSR, serving from 1985 until its collapse in 1991.

He said, "more than any ideology, more than any religion, more than Vietnam or any war or nuclear bomb, the single most important reason for the diffusion of the Cold War was...the Beatles.">

[[2]] : < Beatles 'brought down Communism'>

< One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest director Milos Forman says in the programme: "It sounds ridiculous but it's not. I'm convinced the Beatles are partly responsible for the fall of Communism."

Canadian-based academic Dr Yury Pelyoshonok, who grew up in the USSR in the 1960s, backs up his claim.

"The Beatles had this tremendous impact on Soviet kids. The Soviet authorities thought of The Beatles as a secret Cold War weapon," he says.

"The kids lost their interest in all Soviet unshakeable dogmas and ideals, and stopped thinking of an English-speaking person as an enemy.

"That's when the Communists lost two generations of young people. That was an incredible impact." >

[[3]]

-Artemy Troitsky said : < "The Beatles, Paul, John, George and Ringo have done more for the fall of Communism than any other western institution.">

[[4]]

< It's been 40 years since Koes Plus topped Indonesian charts with songs influenced by The Beatles..>...< However their Beatles' style caused legal problems for the members in 1965 and the government then accused the band of promoting decadent Western culture and jailed the members.>

[[5]]

< I have literally thousands of memories of the lads but certainly one of the most important is the following. Serving in the British Army in Borneo in 1965 I noticed that children knew almost no english.There was no television nor newspapers but there was radio.Whilst walking through a jungle clearing with some friends I was amazed to see and hear a group of children sat in a circle holding hands singing "I Should Have Known Better". We stopped to listen and when they had finished we clapped them, they smiled at us and said one word - BEATLES! I was astonished and moved then and still am whenever I recall this memory.>

[[6]]

< Mongolia To Erect Monument To The Beatles >

[[7]]

< Beatles Monument to Appear in Samara >

[[8]]

< Beatles Monument to be Officially Open in Yekaterinburg >

[[9]]

< The Lima district hosts what is billed as South America’s sole public monument to Lennon, a quirky, life-size statue of the bespectacled songwriter performing with guitar. >

[[10]]

< Communist Party daily Granma last year included the Beatles on a list of the most "relevant" figures of the 20th century, below Castro, Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin, and Argentine-born guerrilla Ernesto "Che" Guevara.>

[[11]]

< Plaque commemorates early Beatles’ gig >

[[12]]

< New Beatles museum opens in Hamburg >

[[13]]

< The Most Important People of the Century >

[[14]]

< Icons of the century >

I think it's a good information...Bye Bye --Roujan (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seltaeb

Can we put back the link to Seltaeb? It only needs a sentence and I suspect it gets completely overlooked unless it’s mentioned on the main page. Cheers, --Patthedog (talk) 08:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. The Seltaeb article is close to a GA, so somebody should look at it.--andreasegde (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2/3 of the former "America" section is now about Seltaeb, and the section is titled "America, and the Seltaeb episode". That's way too much. Seltaeb might warrant a mention in this article, but not 2 hefty paragraphs. The section title should be restored to "America". This is not an article about the history of merchandising. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seltaeb came about as a result of America, but it could be separated, yes. Given its effect on Epstein, and that of Epstein's demise on the band, it's far more than merchandising we're talking about here, which is why I thought to give it that much space. Perhaps it should be separated from America? America needs a better summary so warrants more space itself anyway. I've restored "America" as a section title. PL290 (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just reviewed the pp. 113-118 of The Love You Make—the source for the Seltaeb incident being a contributing factor in Brian's death—and it doesn't say anything about Seltaeb contributing to his 1967 depression. I can believe it was, but the cited source doesn't say so and the section here and the other article should be revised or a better source identified. Laying Epstein's death at the feet of Seltaeb is an overstatement. There were multiple contributing factors in Epstein's death.
In any case, the Seltaeb incident detracts from something that was more important: conquering America. Certainly it was more important to The Beatles—who knew nothing of Seltaeb at the time—and to the rock'n'roll world which until then had been dominated by American acts. Two hefty paragraphs on Seltaeb is too much. One short paragraph is more appropriate.
Perhaps a paragraph about Epstein's death somewhere in the "Studio years" section could mention his Seltaeb blunder and other factors that contributed to his depression, amphetamine addiction, and death.
In any case, the source issue is major; someone has interpreted something in pp. 113-118 that isn't there, or mis-cited the information, or something. It has to be removed or re-cited to a source that actually supports the assertion that Seltaeb contributed to Epstein's depression. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll remove it. America already needs doing more justice in this summary, and Seltaeb isn't helping that. We can introduce something about it in a more appropriate way in due course. Perhaps others have suggestions about the best way to do this but sorting out the citation issue is probably a prerequisite as it affects its significance. PL290 (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, the reference to Epstein’s depression regarding Seltaeb doesn’t deduce that he committed suicide as a result! I’ll get the relevant source for the “depression” reference, but it doesn’t change the fact that Seltaeb was a big deal and should be included in the main article. --Patthedog (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that the Seltaeb blunder wasn't important, but it's not on a par with their success in America. The topic is probably more important to the Epstein article. If a source can be found that says Seltaeb was an important factor in Epstein's 1967 depression, then it's important to the Beatles because Epstein's death was important. Absent that, it's a blunder by Epstein that cost them gobs of money but it's not on a par with losing publishing rights, for example. — John Cardinal (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not suggesting that it was more important or bigger than Jesus or whatever than their success in America. I was merely suggesting that it might merit a meagre sentence in the main article. Anyway, why aren’t you out celebrating the USA’s progression in the Confederations Cup? I will go through the Selteab article checking for mistakes ASAP, but the bones of it are sound and should be out there. Most people have no idea that it ever occurred and would find it interesting. Cheers,--Patthedog (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two sentences are in. Good grief, how easy was that?--andreasegde (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I think that the use of "I’m not suggesting that it [Seltaeb] was more important or bigger than Jesus or whatever" by Patthedog was extremely clever, and very funny indeed. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you don't know... :))--andreasegde (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Andreasegde. The "depression" thing was down to me and I will sort it. John was right to bollock me! --Patthedog (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, doesn’t the ref say page 217 for Peter Brown? On that page he describes Epstein’s lifestyle being consistent with someone who is greatly depressed (doesn’t use the word but he was obviously very unhappy) and naming Seltaeb as one of the causes for it. Seltaeb is consistently mentioned throughout many books as being a major worry for Epstein, so is it not fair to say it was a contributing factor regarding his depression? I will wait for a response before changing anything. --Patthedog (talk) 12:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Put like that it remains original research. It sounds extremely likely to be the case, but it needs a source before we can state it. Unhappy does not equate to depressed. PL290 (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, finding any direct references to his depression (I’m not a doctor, but let’s face it, he obviously suffered from depression) in any context is very hard. Books refer to his “paranoia” or “fear” etc and infer depression. So, I’ll probably put that “it was a contributing factor regarding his paranoia” or something. That sounds a little unkind, but Seltaeb affected him emotionally as it stoked his fears (that The Beatles wouldn’t renew their contract and Klein was lurking) and lowered his self esteem (that he was incompetent in business) and it formed a part of whatever it was that tormented him. I’m happy with the mention it gets in this article though, so this should probably be moved on to the Seltaeb discussion page now- viewers watching on BBC 1 should therefore retune to BBC 2. --Patthedog (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As we switch channels then, just to clarify my "unhappiness does not equate to depression" comment: I share the opinion that he obviously suffered from depression, so the comment was meant to be about the WP:OR of making the connection. I will await with interest further broadcasts on the other channel. PL290 (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now, on Channel 4, we will look at Brian Epstein and his being depressed, crestfallen, dejected, despondent, dispirited, down, downhearted, low-spirited, melancholy, sad, spiritless, unhappy, bummed out (my favourite) cast-down, down in the dumps (also good) in the dumps, in the pits, low-down, on a downer (it gets better all the time) ripped, taken down, torn up. Take your pick. :))--andreasegde (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Bummed out" sticks out(so to speak) although it does prompt the imagination a little too much - for my liking anyway. I think there was a scene in Mel Brookes’ “Blazing Saddles” that had a bar room brawl crashing through various other film sets? This argument / discussion reminds me of that a little bit as it spreads to other pages (see PL290 (talk). Let’s take it to Particle Physics next.--Patthedog (talk) 11:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It only spread there based on this edit. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We interrupt this broadcast to bring you an important announcement: an editor has managed to unearth the much-needed sources so has been able to update the main article with all the required seltaeB information. Great job, John. PL290 (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

“Ahem. On be’alf a’committee I would just like to add my congratulations also. I must admit it were touch and go there for a while, but the lad pulled it off in grand style. Well done son, yer played a foockin’ blinder!”.--Patthedog (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to say thank you on behalf of the group and ourselves and I hope we passed the audition.
Seriously, I am glad the two of you approve. The parts I added about Epstein's death and the Seltaeb influence on it could be improved, both in terms of the content and the sources, but it's a start. Overall, the article needs some work to recover from the split into sub-articles, but we are moving in the right direction. — John Cardinal (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Studio years

When some content was recently split to sub-articles, "Studio years" got a corresponding sub-article "The Beatles: the studio years". The latter has since been renamed "The Beatles' studio work" which loses the point. It's already been commented that the previous name was better, and I agree, but the problem may be that it only communicates the point once you know. I'm bringing this up here because I suggest we give the section here a better name, and rename the sub-article to correspond once more. The sections/sub-articles rightly don't fall into neat calendar-year groups (for example, during 1966 there are several different main themes, each already covered separately in the U.S. tours, Backlash & controversy, and the start of studio years). So, to avoid the title missing the point, how about looking at it from the other point of view: for instance "After concert years" and "The Beatles after concert years". Or perhaps even "After concert days" and "The Beatles after concert days".PL290 (talk) 08:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Touring might be a better term here than "concert"; it just seems like a more precise term. Radiopathy •talk• 07:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Section and sub-article now retitled, per Talk:The Beatles' post-touring studio years. PL290 (talk) 09:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading

I am overcome with joy that there are so many new articles being worked on, but the main article (this one) reads like a version of Hello magazine, and needs a very good clean with a stiff brush for style and facts. --andreasegde (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This significant article should not be left on WP:Former featured articles for ever. The splitting of detail to sub-articles has made it a manageable size: perfect for working on more closely now to take it back to FA, if efforts can be coordinated effectively to that end. PL290 (talk) 08:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever taken the rocky road that is called an FA review? Believe me, I would rather slit my gizzard with a blunt axe and have my internal organs fall onto the floor in a haphazard way than go through that process again. It’s not about the references, or anything else for that matter, it’s about whether the big boys upstairs think an article is worthy of their faint praise (which they never, ever give – preferring to spew their complaints out like a manic washing machine with the door open). They pummel the article you have diligently worked on, and stick a stiff rod up your rectum, but in the best possible taste, you understand. I wish you the best… --andreasegde (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should explain that I made over 3,000 edits to the Paul McCartney article, and it still didn't pass. The complaints were that it was too big, not enough info was in it (Doh?) and that they just don't like him very much. (The latter was a lie, but I think you'll get my drift...)--andreasegde (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Blackjacks

Can someone provide supporting citations about the early Liverpool group The Blackjacks? Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This would seem to be the nearest- Pete Best's old band, but never The Beatles. Rodhullandemu 19:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See here (bottom of p.21) and here. As the second one mentions, Lewisohn (Chronicle) says they (John & Pete Shotton) used the name "The Black Jacks" for only the first week, changing to "Quarrymen" before others joined. Mainstream Nerd (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True.--andreasegde (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson

Can someone change the references to Michael Jackson and the song catalog to the past tense? --JustW353

His death doesn't really change anything. His estate now owns or controls the publishing rights until his heirs get it. Changing it to past tense will make it seem like he sold the rights prior to his death. Until something is published which states what will happen, I suggest leaving it as is. freshacconci talktalk 18:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some minor mods, but I agree, it's too early to report what is going to happen to the song catalogue. Rodhullandemu 18:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article's openning two paragraphs

Since I never log-in (and probably never will), improvements can be made on this article's openning two paragraphs, should any editors may like to try, since I can't. Here's what I have (four things need to be changed for this article's improvement):

  • Paragraph 1; openning line should read: The Beatles were a pop/rock band formed in Liverpool, England in 1960. During their career, the group (hailing from Liverpool) consisted of...
  • Paragraph 2; should read: United States (as United States); also, All Time (as All-Time); and, finally, The Beatles topped it (as The Beatles topped that list.)

Hope this helps... Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should be an Admin. :))--andreasegde (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you my friend, I appreciate that. --76.198.234.254 (talk) 10:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done 'em, apart from the "All Time", because that is how Rolling Stone printed it.--andreasegde (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, again! Change, or rather improve, the article's very openning sentence to this (it must read exactly as this) and I will reward you with an Original Barnstar award that you should have originally received for your creation and work on the article Seltaeb:
The Beatles were a pop/rock band formed at their native home of Liverpool, England in 1960. Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have done it as I thought it should be.--andreasegde (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help!, Elvis and Rubber Soul

I think this section is way too much, and should be filtered into the article.--andreasegde (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently undergoing a good article reassessment. A former featured article.

Why does it still say this?--andreasegde (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Backlash and controversy

What about the protests at them performing in the Budokan in Japan?--andreasegde (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was and were

"The Beatles was a pop/rock group that formed in 1960."

It can't be "were".--andreasegde (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I disagree. There is strong consensus throughout Wikipedia that UK bands take plurals since they are treated as mass nouns. See, for example, the edit note at the top of Genesis (band) and discussion on rerlated Talk page. Even searching for "The Beatles were" in WP gives 213 hits; a search for "The Beatles was" gives 47 hits, generally referring to The Beatles (album) or The Beatles (TV series), and never to the band as an entity. Since the article is written in British English, it should stay that way. The alternative is to alter all the other articles to match, resulting in multiple edit-wars and possible yet another trip to WP:LAME for this topic. Let It Be, please. Rodhullandemu 15:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear (with respect, andreasegde). I also found evidence of warring over this on Pink Floyd. If you google the rationale for the British English use of plural verb for collective nouns, or look at American_and_British_English_differences#Formal_and_notional_agreement, you admittedly find some grey areas and contradiction between rules and examples given, but please let's settle for this convention and use "were". It's good enough. PL290 (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, proper nouns which have the form of a plural (e.g., removing the "s" can refer to an individual of the group) take a plural verb in both British and American English usage, even when not specifically referring to the individuals. Compare the number of Google results for "The Beatles were a group" (>1000000) to "The Beatles was a group" (<10). —Mainstream Nerd (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore my note about the Google hits, I think something about my Google preferences made it unreliable. However, recall Harrison's lyrics: "You may think the band are not quite right / But they are, they just play it like that" ("Only a Northern Song"). —Mainstream Nerd (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The openning line to this article should read as this:

Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


You are all gonna be put into a small box called a 'Nothing Box' (read about Alex). Both Lennon and McCartney said "It was a good, little rock n' roll band/group". Singular, not plural. Eat your hats, and darn your socks.--andreasegde (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's precedent for being flexible with it. "We were a good band"/"It was a good band". As Elvis Costello put it: "Oliver's Army are on their way / Oliver's Army is here to stay". -GTBacchus(talk) 00:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"We were a good band"/"It was a good band", is totally correct, GTBacchus.--andreasegde (talk) 10:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) "Small boxes" are no substitute for long-standing consensus and application here. When I remember the 1950s and early 1960s UK groups, they were always plural, as in Gerry & the Pacemakers or The Searchers. The first group to abandon "The", IIRC, were Traffic- but they were still referred to as a plural mass noun, as in "Traffic are" or "Traffic were"; and to an English audience, any other number is so grating as to be painful. If Lennon had said "we were a good, little rock n' roll band/group", nobody would have any complaint about that. There is enough nonsense already about Beatles articles without supporting this further nonsense. Rodhullandemu 00:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: "The team is here", or "The team are here". Which is right? --andreasegde (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly, the first; but usage differs according to context. Even on BBC News, they are inconsistent as to number. But that is not a concern of ours. There is strong historical consensus in Wikipedia that UK musical groups here are considered as mass nouns, and treated as plurals, and to upset that particular apple-cart seems to me to be particularly pointless. However, I may change my mind as usage develops, so please ask me again in another fifty years time, although you might need to do so via a seance. Meanwhile, let us stick with the status quo ante, please. Rodhullandemu 00:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andreasedge, you're way off here. Americans say "was", the British say "were". The Beatles were a British band, so it's "were". Simple as that. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very subtle difference, but the difference is there. The Beatles was a group, but The Beatles were Lennon, McCartney, Harrison and Starr. The use of 'was' could only be used a few times in this article, but to not use the correct verb is lazy. Like, that's wot I fink, anyways.--andreasegde (talk) 10:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not another grammar-based dispute, please. We had enough after the the/The arguments. We are here to build an encyclopedia, and add information to articles (I'm not accusing anybody here of not doing that, but it is pertinent to my point). If somebody wants to find out about The Beatles, they won't start tutting and shaking their head because they think we've used the wrong verb - they will just look for the information they need and move on. These disputes add nothing to the article, and shouldn't occur until we have every article under our care at FA standard - most of them are still stubs! So come, Beatle people, and let us rise out of the realms of stubbiness before we begin to discuss the minor subtleties of the English language. Why not work on the current collaboration of the month, or take a stub under your wing and personally try your very hardest to get it to B-Class? Or, why not help us build a pyramid of excellence, topped by a shining Featured article on The Beatles, and surrounded by sphinxes? So pull up your moptops and help us make this project the most fab of them all!
tl;dr summary: This argument is pointless, so work on articles instead. Dendodge T\C 10:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon Dendodge (and the rest of you nay-sayers) this is fun. If anybody doesn't want to answer these posts, then just don't reply, but I am not going to let go of this one. After all, the logo for The Beatles were on Ringo's bass drum, and The Beatles were the name of the group. You can't argue with that. :))--andreasegde (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I've just remembered, British Telecom are a large company in the UK.--andreasegde (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
andreasegde, The logo for The Beatles "was" on Ringo's bass drum (and it still is!), and The Beatles "was" the name of the group. Also, British Telecom (BT) "was" a large company, and Bell Telephone (also BT) "was" also a large company, now their just BLTs. Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear 76.198.234.254, it is called reverse psychology, with a little bit of humour thrown in for good measure. The Beatles were a good name for a group, don't you think? :)--andreasegde (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They sure "was" my friend, sure "was"!!! Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then we is agreeing 'bout what the thing is. I pity them coyotes that doesn't know what they is talkin' about. It's jus' plum ignorance, and lazy what go with it.--andreasegde (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Tis true. We werz always agreeing. --76.198.234.254 (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's either Vera, or Joe. Which one? "Nice to see ya, to see ya, nice!"--andreasegde (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a soapy dish...alcoholic side-effects!?!? Bless you!!! --76.198.234.254 (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff somehow previously placed in the previous section that actually has nothing to do with the "was" vs. "were" arguments

Good openning sentence for this article, Unschool. It's about time somebody got it right (i.e., refering to this article's "veteran editors"). Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean here; however, it seems somehow ridiculous that a consensus cannot be reached on how to describe The Beatles at the most basic level. About a year ago, there was a debate going on, and I boldly wrote] "The Beatles were a pop and rock band from Liverpool, England" as the opening sentence. That version persisted for a long time, until people thought it should be tinkered with. Why on earth cannot we stick with some basics? Rodhullandemu 23:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Why on earth cannot we stick with some basics?" Probably because "here's another place you can be: fixing a hole in the ocean"... many of us have been there (and will probably go again). PL290 (talk) 11:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stereo Box Set Image

I uploaded a promotional photo of the new remastered stereo box set for viewing. It has been tagged for speedy deletion, which I have contested. The purpose of this photo is to show a new item in the Beatles catalog. Please comment if you think this image is helpful and should stay.

The image is copyrighted by the person/company who created it. You have to prove either that you are the author of the image, or that the copyright holder consents to having it used (e.g. the source of the image contains a statement to that effect). ... discospinster talk 14:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lennon & McCartney Sutcliffe

The Stuart Sutcliffe Estate sell memorabilia and artifacts of Sutcliffe's, which includes a rare sheet of white paper on which is written the chords and lyrics to a song Lennon and Sutcliffe composed together: "As I stood on the doorstep of romance, You told me, Then you threw your loving arms around me, and you gave me, yes gave me, you gave Peace of Mind..." The Stuart Sutcliffe Estate

So now we know why Macca got upset with Sutcliffe.--andreasegde (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More like why Lennon got upset with Wooler. PL290 (talk) 11:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:))) Wooler forgave J. Lemon after having seven bells of faeces kicked out of him, and it being reported in a national newspaper. Now that's what you call a real man, or one sandwich short of a picnic.--andreasegde (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flagship

I have been working through this article to clean and polish it, because this article should be the flagship.--andreasegde (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, I have had to put quite a few of these, [citation needed], in. It's quite shocking, frankly.--andreasegde (talk) 11:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

09/09/09

I can't wait for 9 Sep 2009 to get here. I'll make sure I'm getting my CDs. For those young people out there, this will be a good time to discover The Beatles for the first time. For those older people (including myself and my Beatles colleage editors - most of whom I've yet had any communication with, but soon will), this will be a great time for us to personally re-discover their music. There is no music on Earth since the great European composers of Bach (1600's), Moazrt (1700's) and Beethoven (1800's), that really changed music like The Beatles (1900's) have. To my editor friends, we know that both this article and the discography article (and possibly the other side-articles) will definately change. I'm ready to work with all of you on this when it happens (yes, and that includes you too, Andre!) Best,--76.198.234.254 (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you sign in with a name you will. BTW, remastering the albums is selling coal to Newcastle, or a fridge to an Eskimo, IMO.--andreasegde (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My friend andreasegde, I think it'd be best if I stay working on discographies rather than main articles, of which you're an expert on (I might contribute through messages via talk page --like this one-- if the page is protected like that of The Beatles), because I'm just not sure anymore if to use the word "was" or "were". Best, Mr. --76.198.234.254 (talk) 06:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of humorous conversation

20:07, 16 July 2009 Radiopathy (talk | contribs) m (43,884 bytes) (→One After 090909: deleted per WP:Talk_pages#Important notes)

I knew, I just knew it. Call me an old duffer and a pig in a poke, but I knew it. I did, really.--andreasegde (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll you what; I'm going to save the deleted discussion on my page. So there, with knobs on.--andreasegde (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks andreasegde, good idea. I accept that Radiopathy was right to ban it, really, if fun is dirty and naughty, or it was excessively frivolous and irrelevant to improving the article. My intent was to boost morale, thereby precisely contributing to improving the article, but that could only work if all can receive the material in that spirit which evidently is not the case. Let's take heed and respect the wishes of others in this regard in future. To those finding it a funny and morale-boosting exercise though, please now switch channels to User_talk:Andreasegde#One_After_090909 where the vision may yet evolve further! Sir PL290 (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course he was right, but he's not getting a Xmas card.--andreasegde (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pop/rock

For God's sake's Andre, change the lead back to how it was, and take "and" out. It's not supposed to be "pop and rock", it's supposed to be "pop/rock"! I know you agree with me my friend, like I agree with you on "was and were". Thanks... Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Of all the article I watchlist, this is about the worst for unnecessary tinkering with minor details that I have ever seen. I'm not surprised in the slightest that many otherwise committed editors have long since given up the futile struggles here. We are volunteers, remember, and supposed to be a community, but I despair that this article will ever regain its featured article status while this trivial wrangling continues. I have better things to do than argue an established convention about "was" and "were", or genres. Keep it simple, Let It Be and don't rock the boat, otherwise I, for one, am out of here. Whilst that may mean you get your own way, well fucking hot dog, but does it improve the article? Rodhullandemu 23:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Rod! Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Put simply: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". That's where I stand. Rodhullandemu 23:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching this pop/rock thing and trying to avoid despairing about the article too, but my take is different: I've never heard of a group being called that with or without a slash! The Beatles were a rock group. Their musical style encompassed many genres (which we all keep hearing about too) including, of course, pop. But they were a rock group. PL290 (talk) 08:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear PL, rock is spun-off from pop, which as you know (pop that is) happens to be the older of the two, and encompassing a wider range of music, giving pop (genre) presedence over rock. Back in the 1960s, '70s, and 80s, this wording was often coupled together, with a dash in-between them, forming pop/rock. This type of grammer began to cesae in the early 1990s with the overall change in popular music itself, as the days of "good" music of the '60s, '70s and '80s was coming to an unfortunate end. Best,--76.198.234.254 (talk) 09:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OY, Mush! Don't start getting on your "Let's find a scapegoat" high horses with me.

  1. Is "was/were" or "pop/rock" such a big deal? Nobody's gonna change anything without concensus. Notice how I didn't get into an edit war about it? I've had experience, Sonny Jim.
  2. If 76.198.234.254 would get a soddin' account, he wouldn't have to keep posting complaints here. I changed it to pop/rock, Mr User.
  3. If Rodhull wants to sod off because of this, then that's his business (well-respected as he is) but I could find much better reasons.
  4. This article will ALWAYS have little differences and complaints, because of the group it's about. It's like going on holiday with your in-laws - it will never get better, no matter how many times you say you like them.
  5. It's like this: If people want to leave complaints here, then just let them. You don't have to answer. If there is an edit war, it will be taken care of by the boys upstairs.
  6. This project has never had the massive amount of input it is now experiencing (said the actress) so look on the bright side, and "cheer up", (Lennon) --andreasegde (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, 76.198.234.254, don't bring God into this, or people will come round your house and start burning your records.--andreasegde (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have records any more, my friend! Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IT DOESN'T MATTER! Nobody is going to care about whether we use a slash or the word "and". Come on, guys - can't we go one day without a grammar argument? I suggest that everybody here participate in The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, and concentrate on working on articles for a change.
Back to the point at hand - I think it looks better using "and", but the difference is minuscule and not worth arguing about. Dendodge T\C 19:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dendodge , don't contribute to the hysteria by shouting. I have been bloody working on articles, and not "for a change". --andreasegde (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Regarding the wording to the opening paragraph, I think I have a solution:

“The Beatles, a band that rocked Liverpool before blowing the rest of the world away were fucking awesome”. Or: “The Beatles, yeah? The fucking BEATLES for fuck’s sake! You want some?” Or: “You. yeah, you, ya fucking knob head! We’re talking Beatles here for Christ‘s sake, and if you don’t know who they were, then leave your head up your arse where it obviously belongs”.

I don’t mind which one is used.--Patthedog (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Socks are being well and truly laughed off. Now That's What I Call Humour III.  :))--andreasegde (talk) 10:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Records/CDs

Andre, I only have CDs, my friend! Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can sod off as well. My name is not Andre, and I am not your friend. You didn't send me a Xmas card.--andreasegde (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll send two cards to you my friend, Andre. It's like this: Tom Baker appeared in the best Dr. Who episodes, but Tristan Farnon portrayed the best Doctor! How's that? --76.198.234.254 (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poor old Johnny Gentle

Why is there nothing about Johnny Gentle and the tour of Scotland in this article or in The Quarrymen article? Not one mention. Tommy Moore? Who's he? Not a mention.--andreasegde (talk) 03:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, this is me thinking that anyone reading this actually knows who these two gentlemen are.--andreasegde (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They're nobody, Andre (like us). Tom Baker or Peter Davison? Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 11:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Gentle was a brand of condom. Tommy Moore only had a snare drum. Tell me though andreasegde, Ringo was left handed - but set up his kit in a r/h format, is that correct? --Patthedog (talk) 11:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gentle condom? No. Moore snare? no. Ringo? Yes, and that's why it's so hard to copy his fills, because he started them with his left hand on a right-handed kit (if there is such a thing...)--andreasegde (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Ringo's a lefty (I myself right-handed), but was both-handed when playing drums...maybe our friend Andre is too! Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 11:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This dick is getting on my mammary glands.--andreasegde (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, a good example would be perhaps the intro to Drive My Car? (Yes, and mine too!).--Patthedog (talk) 11:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll send the girl I had over last night to ypur place. Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 11:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Andre, by the time you're done, you might be calling each other "bland glands"!!! Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 11:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Andre, do you mean Johnny "the gentle" Lennon"? One and the same, maybe... --76.198.234.254 (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tommy Moore was one of Lennon's original school buddy members of the group. --76.198.234.254 (talk) 12:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Andre, I don't know. Dis-regard the above I said. Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We already have. Don't you have something important to do on The Bee Gees page? --andreasegde (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Course we know about the Moore Gentle insertion into the scheme of things. Dendodge said anyway. There are some funny words I don't understand appearing at a different place on this page, but perhaps it's because for the third day running I'm unable to read the screen when doubled up with tears of helpless laughter streaming down my face. PL290 (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put poor Johnny on the Macca page aeons ago (he's still there as one line) but had to cut it back for the FA boys upstairs. The Scottish tour should have a paragraph all to itself. Look at the timeline and see where the towns were (in order) that they played in. The back of beyond and over the hillside just don't come into it, no-how.--andreasegde (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, does it go on The Quarrymen page, or here? They were called Long John and The Silver Beetles in Scotland, after all. Don't all rush at once...--andreasegde (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I put it at the end of Lennon's ex-school group page, but it should be more, such as: Tommy Moore having his teeth knocked out by a guitar after the van crashed, Lennon visiting him in hospital the next day and telling he had to get up and do the gig no matter how poorly he felt, and poor Tommy going back to the bottling works in Liverpool as a forklift truck driver because his girlfriend told him to. Now that's what I call a story, and it's all true, BTW.--andreasegde (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd say Quarrymen (well actually I'd say Quarry Men, but that's another story). It has all the background, and already has a.k.a. Silver Beetles in its infobox; Long John could join them there. After all, let us remember what Patthedog reminded us: we are talking The Beatles here. PL290 (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I copied over a sentence from Macca, but I'll look for more. It was a classic crap tour, and very informative about how The Fabs lived up there. Sleeping on stairways, out of their trees most of the time, and having it away with anything that didn't have testicles.--andreasegde (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


No wonder Ringo's left-handed, 'cause he was snaring the "drums" with his right hand! --76.198.234.254 (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Young

Seriously, Andre, as you probably already know, Johnny Gentle is really Darren Young. But quite honestly, concerning Tommy Moore, that is a good question. I'll check my vast assortment of EMI discographical records I have and get back to you on this... Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andre, there is no Tommy Moore to be found...I've checked and checked, still nothing (though Tommy Steele toured with him breifly back in 1960). Also, Gentle's adoptive last name happens to be Askew. Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darren? Sounds like a child of the 80s. "Neighbours, everybody needs good neighbours..."--andreasegde (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for acting like a fool above, my friend. Darren Young "could" be an alias that Johnny Askew (a.k.a. Johnny Gentle) used. So, I may quite possibly have the two names turned around, meaning that Johnny Askew is the actual birth name and Darren Young the adoptive. Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was John Askew (see Larry Parnes) and Askew and I share the same birthday. It explains a lot.--andreasegde (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's good info, thanks Andre...Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First live appearance?

{{editsemiprotected}} Under "America" the wiki states that the first time The Beatles were on TV in the US was on the Ed Sullivan show - in fact they were first on the CBS News with Walter Cronkite FIRST. In an interview I saw when Walter passed (last night) he stated that he wanted that little piece of trivia to be acknowledged. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5170603n&tag=related;photovideo Thank you. NativeSonKY (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got a source that states that the Beatles appeared live with Cronkite? The way the article currently reads, it was a recorded segment on the CBS News, but their first live appearance was on Sullivan. —C.Fred (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


no Declined Nowhere in that clip does it mention the Beatles, much less that the broadcast was live. —C.Fred (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5170873n - at about 2:45 of the video "Walter Cronkite: In His Own Words" the Beatles are seen talking to the reporter saying "We hope we have a good run..." NativeSonKY (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But nowhere does it say that clip was live. I see no need to change the article, which reflects that the Beatles first appeared on American TV on the CBS Evening News and first appeared live on the Ed Sullivan Show. —C.Fred (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point - well taken - also didn't realize the #%@!storm I might have been walking into! Thanks for keeping it civil in my case! I didn't mean to cause you any pain, Uncle Albert  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NativeSonKY (talk • contribs) 14:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay. Erm, have a cup of tea and butter pie. :) And you've got a point about CBS Evening News being their first appearance; as I noted before, that is in the article. If it weren't, I would have added it. —C.Fred (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The Beatles first performance on TV in the US was on the Ed Sullivan show". Mine's a steak and kidney pie and a bottle of stout.--andreasegde (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"didn't realize the #%@!storm I might have been walking into!" - NativeSonKY. #%@!storm? You don't visit this page very often then... :)--andreasegde (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moore and Cronckite

I've checked my discographical records for both Tommy Moore and Walter Cronckite...can't seem to recall either one. Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no, it was Thomas Moore, and Willie Crankhite. Try again.--andreasegde (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Group or band - which one?

I know the fuddy-duddys like me will say "group", because Long John and Pauly always referred to them as a rock 'n roll group (Macca once said they were "a great act") but some of the lads in short keks will go for "band", as in rock band. I'll go either way, but no funny business after the lights are out... Straw Poll time, as it makes it less painful, especially if you're swinging both ways...

Group:

Band:


Either is fine and both can appear in the same article

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Beatles&oldid=303068843"