Latest revision as of 19:04, 3 February 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the I'll Be Back (song) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

The Beatles Low‑importance

This Beatles-related article is within the scope of WikiProject The Beatles, which focuses on improving coverage of English rock band The Beatles and related topics on Wikipedia. Users who are willing to participate in the project should visit the project page, where they can join and see a list of open tasks.The BeatlesWikipedia:WikiProject The BeatlesTemplate:WikiProject The BeatlesThe Beatles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia.

To-do list:

For WikiProject The Beatles

A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Articles on each Beatle tour (Category:The Beatles concert tours). See: Missing articles.
Expand : The Lost Lennon Tapes, notable radio series which has spawned many bootlegs. Apple Records See also: Adopt an article
Stubs : See: Category:The Beatles song stubs
Update : Pics/Graphics wanted: Kenwood.
Verify : Beatle wives
Other : Project: Add {{WikiProject The Beatles}} to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members and coordinate tasks. Enter articles assessed as stubs onto this list, also list articles needing cleanup and other work here.

This article does not yet have a related to do list. If you can think of any ways to improve the article, why not create one?

Sources?

"Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source." — John Cardinal 04:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

genre

the song sounds more like folk-rock, than simply rock. should the genre be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.36.135 (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This certainly doesn't sound like rock and roll. It sounds more like folk rock or possibly beat (although I don't have a good idea of what beat music sounds like). C.Syde (talk | contribs) 23:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3/4 time

I know of no evidence, nor are any citations presented, that "I'll Be Back" was originally conceived in 3/4 time. The take played in 3/4 time presented on Anthology 1 could have been a one-off attempt. In fact, I'd propose that the difficulty John Lennon had in singing the part that tripped him up on that take stemmed entirely from the song's not having been written in 4/4; it really is inherently hard to sing it in 3/4. Besides, if the song were really substantially copied from "Runaway" by Del Shannon (another assertion with which I have a hard time, as there are substantial differences), a song which is in 4/4 time, I don't see how "I'll Be Back" could have been conceived in 3/4. If no one has a substantive argument (which I welcome), I intend to remove this assertion after a couple of weeks. MicroProf 22:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don’t think the song was written in 3/4 time, but just attempted as a possible arrangement. Just remove the first sentence if no one else objects - the rest is valid. The songs verse chords are the same as “Runaway” but not the melody. Songwriters often use other songs as a device for initial inspiration.--Patthedog 10:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait for others to present evidence, if there is any. Just for the record, I inadvertently wrote "not having been written in 4/4" but meant 3/4 there.

As for the comparison with "Runaway," I understand what you're saying. I acknowledge that the beginning of the verse of each song has similar chord structure, but this breaks down soon. This strikes me as nothing more than influence, possibly worth mentioning in passing but not worth elaboration. MicroProf 17:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-written

McCartney claims this is one of three John Lennon songs from the 'A Hard Day's Night' soundtrack(or album, or whatever...) that he co-wrote with John, although he admits that this one was largely John's idea. McCartney refers to 'If I Fell' in more or less the same fashion, whereas he treats the song 'I'm Happy Just To Dance With You', also mostly attributed to Lennon, as a 50/50 composition.--84.208.240.143 05:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big surprise

The line "I've got a big surprise" could be seen as another example of Lennon's smutty, double entendre humour. I don't think he's taking this lyric very seriously (common during this period). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.136.191.204 (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A song medley for LOVE

They should have combined this song with "Wait" for LOVE. C.Syde (talk | contribs) 23:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{Talk header|search=yes}}
-{{WPBeatles
+{{Notice|Consensus per [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/The_Beatles#Closure  this RfC closure] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/The_Beatles this RfM closure] is to use "the Beatles" mid-sentence.}}
-|class=Stub
+{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
-|importance=
+{{WikiProject The Beatles|importance=Low|apple =|martin =yes|display=Beatles|song =yes|attention =|needs-infobox=}}
-|apple =
+}}
-|martin =yes
-|also-beatles =yes
+<!--{{WikiProjectSongs}} removed, {{WPBeatles}} contains same functionality-->
-|display=Beatles
-|song =yes
-|song-importance =
-|attention =
-|needs-infobox=
-}}<!--{{WikiProjectSongs}} removed, {{WPBeatles}} contains same functionality-->
 == Sources? ==
@@ Line 20: / Line 15: @@
 the song sounds more like folk-rock, than simply rock.
 should the genre be changed?  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.142.36.135|86.142.36.135]] ([[User talk:86.142.36.135|talk]]) 17:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+This certainly doesn't sound like rock and roll. It sounds more like folk rock or possibly beat (although I don't have a good idea of what beat music sounds like). '''[[User:C.Syde65|<span style="color:maroon;">C.Syde</span>]]''' ([[User talk:C.Syde65|<span style="color:black;">talk</span>]] &#124; [[:Special:Contributions/C.Syde65|<span style="color:black;">contribs</span>]]) 23:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 == 3/4 time ==
@@ Line 34: / Line 31: @@
 The line "I've got a big surprise" could be seen as another example of Lennon's smutty, double entendre humour. I don't think he's taking this lyric very seriously (common during this period).  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/41.136.191.204|41.136.191.204]] ([[User talk:41.136.191.204|talk]]) 16:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+= A song medley for LOVE =
+They should have combined this song with "Wait" for LOVE. '''[[User:C.Syde65|<span style="color:maroon;">C.Syde</span>]]''' ([[User talk:C.Syde65|<span style="color:black;">talk</span>]] &#124; [[:Special:Contributions/C.Syde65|<span style="color:black;">contribs</span>]]) 23:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)