Talk:The Beatles

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)

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)

Opportunities for commonality

Ladies and gentlemen! From the producers of such all-time favoritesfavourites as "the/The", "was/were" and "group/band", the latest saga has now been officially released: "ize/ise". British dictionaries confirm that both spellings are part of British English—quite unlike, say, "favorite" or "color"—and some of them give "ize" as the preferred or primary British English spelling of most or all of the words in question. Personally I do not mind which spelling is used—guided by the aforementioned references, we should consider them equally acceptable—but I simply appeal to my fellow editors to consider the principle behind Wikipedia:Mos#Opportunities_for_commonality, and to therefore accept the more globally used spelling when it is indeed legitimate British English. In addition, as a result of the recent edits, the article now contains quotations whose spelling has been changed from "ize" to "ise", disregarding MOS:QUOTE. My attempts to point all this out via edit summaries have so far failed, and my edit to restore the previous version of the article was simply reverted, twice, by two different editors. I am not prepared to edit-war over this, and, as I said, I don't have a strong preference (unlike some, it seems) for one or other of these two British English spellings, but it does not seem appropriate to allow a personal preference to deform quotes. Concerning those instances that are not in quotes, I appeal to others to overcome personal preferences in the light of the cited principle of commonality in this global encyclopedia we are all working on together. Should this develop into a debate over what British dictionaries say, we will need to make a clear distinction between preferences (which even dictionaries admit to) and the simple fact of whether a word appears in British English (in contrast with such things as "color" and "favorite" which most certainly do not). Enjoy! PL290 (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

My view is, the article clearly should be in British English. Although some dictionaries do say that "ize" is acceptable in Br Eng, it still strikes many people as American in flavo(u)r and is not nearly as common as "ise". I believe it is therefore simpler and less controversial to use "ise." Whether or not "ise" is less "globally used" is not relevant in my opinion as to whether it should be used in this article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a British article about a British subject matter which happens to be of global importance. But it is still about a British subject so "-ise" must be used. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

PL290's point was that "-ize" is British too, so your argument doesn't really make sense. —Akrabbim^talk 14:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. The current spelling is perfectly proper British English, and should be maintained on the basis of Wikipedia's well-established preference for both commonality and stability in matters of style. The change currently being advocated brings unnecessary controversy to the article and absolutely no benefit to the reader. DocKino (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that MOS:QUOTE says original spelling should be preserved but it is just a guideline and it is wrong to say as you did in your edit summary that it is "impermissible in any circumstance" to go against it. It's a bit of a red herring anyway, as of the ten examples of "ize" in the article, only two are part of quotes! Also, I believe the article was originally in the "ise" form, not the other way round.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

While Dictionaries may well say that both are permissible, the common spelling is with the "s". The argument against commonality is that "ize" (outside of some specific examples) is that it really is not common within the UK, and certainly is rarely used in instruments of record. Since this is an encyclopedia, it should then conform to the highest standard of the agreed English variant - and that would seem to standardise on using the "ise" spelling. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with "-ise". Also, when I reverted one of PL290's edits, I cited WP:RETAIN in my edit summary. I was thinking in particular of the phrase, "...the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used". This article has been around for a long time now, with the -ise spelling. I don't think we should or need to make mass changes. Also, "-ise" is the more commonly used spelling in Britain, so WP:ENGVAR would also apply. Radiopathy •talk• 22:57, 19 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

they rockthey rock even more