Talk:The Beatles/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

"New" Paul McCartney letter as it pertains to The/the Beatles.

I'm curious what editors think about the letter that surfaced recently, by McCartney to a mystery drummer. Paul appears to use a lower case "the" mid-sentence, and an all upper case when he singed it THE BEATLES. Does this have any bearing on the long-standing difference of opinions on the matter?

http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Latest-News-Wires/2011/1017/Paul-McCartney-letter-offered-tryout-to-mystery-drummer

— GabeMc (talk) 01:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. I support "the Beatles" on purely grammatical grounds. Even if I leaned the other way, I don't think Macca's usage would sway me. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 01:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Jackson's acquitistion of the catalog

This article says that Jackson out-bid a joint bid from Ono/McCartney, but on the Northern Songs article, it says that McCartney thought the catalog was too pricey and Ono did not bid at all. Can someone please reconcile the two. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Neither statement appears to be actually sourced, so that's a toughie. I'll do some research and see what I can find out. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 06:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

McCartney and Ono made a joint bid for ATV in 1981 that was unsuccessful. In 1984 the company was offered for sale again and was purchased by Jackson but there was no joint bid by McCartney and Ono at that time. To say that Jackson outbid a joint bid by McCartney and Ono is incorrect. Piriczki (talk) 13:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Query

If you go to the article Paul is Dead and click on "What links here" on the side, it says there is a link to that article from this one. But I can't find it in here. Where is it?--WickerGuy (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It would appear it's only linked through the template in the footer. Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Small but substantive edit to lead section

I just edited this:

They achieved mainstream success in the United Kingdom in late 1962, with their first single, "Love Me Do". Gaining international popularity and acquiring the nickname "Fab Four" the following year, they toured extensively until 1966.

to this:

They achieved mainstream success in the United Kingdom in late 1962 with their first single, "Love Me Do", and acquired the nickname "Fab Four" the following year. By 1964 they were international stars, and they toured extensively through mid-1966.

It's too easy, I believe, to read the former version as stating that they became internationally popular in 1963. The text of our article, at least, does not support that. The only internationally relevant information it addresses for 1963 is a five-day tour of Sweden, which hardly qualifies, I think. Anyone have an issue with the edit, or any suggestions for further improvement? One thing I was pondering was whether it would be valuable to introduce the term "British Invasion" into the second of the two sentences in question. DocKino (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the Beatles were not international stars until early 1964, most sources agree, although one could argue that it really began in late 1963. As per your suggestion to introduce the term "British Invasion" into the second of the two sentences, that sounds good to me, and it is quite notable that they were not the only British band that made it global at that time. I think it's proper to frame Beatlemania in the context of the larger "British Invasion", and it is especially notable that the Beatles, while perhaps not the first UK artist to achieve success in the US, they certainly are the most important to the early stages of the "British Invasion". — GabeMc (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

If you do use the term "British Invasion", please do so in a way that doesn't suggest that the US is the only country that matters. It's very US-centric terminology. We Brits were here all the time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle, I think by definition, a "British Invasion" band is a UK act that had success in the US, circa 1964-1966. So really, it's no more US-centric than stating that rock and jazz began in the US, it's simply a fact. — GabeMc (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the new wording. I also believe that it's clear in the article that 'British Invasion' is an American term describing the success that many UK bands had in the US, and that it doesn't discount The Beatles' success in the rest of the world. Radiopathy •talk• 00:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The wording by DocKino is fine. @GabeMc - it's simply the terminology "British Invasion", without clarification, that's problematic. It's got nothing to do with jazz, r&r, etc, originating in the US, which everyone accepts. Referring to it as, say, ".. the success of acts from Britain, known in the US as the "British Invasion"...." would be fine. But the term "British Invasion", without any context, is simply not globally acceptable, because it refers to how the music was received within the US only. No-one in Britain - unless they were describing events in the US, specifically - would call the success of British acts at that time a "British Invasion", because it doesn't apply here (that is, in Britain), for obvious reasons. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle, no, it's nothing to do with jazz or rock per se, those are just examples, how about this. In 1944 the Allies invaded France, and though it had worldwide repercussions, the invasion took place in France, not globally. The term "British Invasion" is an American term to specifically describe UK acts that gained popularity in the US. It has nothing to do with the music scene in Britain, or France, or Germany, or one might say the "British Invasion" began in Hamburg, Germany, in 1960. It's really no different then the "skiffle craze" in the UK, which is a UK term for a UK phenomenom. Not that Wiki is a RS,. but look at the British Invasion page, it clearly states: "The British Invasion is a term used to describe the large number of rock and roll, beat, rock, and pop performers from the United Kingdom who became popular in the United States during the time period from 1964 through 1966." — GabeMc (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

As I was partially responsible for writing the paragraph in question, I suppose I should chime in -- The Beatles weren't really "international" stars in '63. Most in the United States hadn't heard of them. They were certainly entirely unknown in most of the rest of the world as well. The biggest event in terms of jump-starting their popularity was unquestionably the '64 American tour. I support the revised paragraph. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 03:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

People have raised some very good points. Something concise but clear like the following I think would work, if consensus is that it's a worthwhile addition. An edit from this:

By 1964 they were international stars, and they toured extensively through mid-1966.

to this:

By 1964 they were international stars, leading the "British Invasion" of the US pop market, and they toured extensively through mid-1966.

My sense is that in the history of pop music, the impact of British bands on the largest pop music market in the world is significant enough to merit mention in the lead of the article on that movement's spearhead. So there's that question and then the one, of course, of phrasing: I think it is important, if it's to go in, that it not be long-winded. DocKino (talk) 09:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This sounds good to me DocKino, I would suggest this minor change however: " ... the US pop market. They toured the world extensively through mid-1966." This would help make it clear that they toured not just the US market during this period. — GabeMc (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes to both DocKino's and GabeMc's contributions. Radiopathy •talk• 01:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree--I think that's very good, GabeMc. DocKino (talk) 08:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I like everyone's suggestions! However, I think this might flow better with the surrounding text:

By 1964 they were international stars, leading the "British Invasion" of the United States pop market. They toured extensively through mid-1966, and during their subsequent "studio years", produced what critics consider some of their finest material including the album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967), widely regarded as a masterpiece.

Thoughts? Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 02:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I like it Evan. But I still say we need to make it clear that they toured the world through 1966, and not just the US, as it kinda sounds like now. And I can't help but feel "masterpiece" is a little too close to puffery. I think we should frame Pepper more along the lines of "influencial" or "important" or even "ground-breaking", but to call it a "masterpiece" seems a bit much, though I agree, it is IMHO, and I know the current language in the lead calls is such. — GabeMc (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. My suggestion was largely a lazy copy-paste job on my part with some edits to match the others' suggestions. So:

By 1964 they were international stars, leading the "British Invasion" of the United States pop market. They toured the world extensively through mid-1966, and during their subsequent "studio years" produced what critics consider some of their finest material, including the widely influential 1967 album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

How's that? Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 05:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

That looks better to me Evan, this version is superior to the current language, IMHO. It makes me wonder though, would "By 1964 they achieved international success," be better than, "By 1964 they were international stars,"? — GabeMc (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes it would. But, let's drop the comma after "success" and drop in a "had" between "they" and "achieved" to make it seem more like one complete thought. "By 1964 they had achieved international success leading the "British Invasion" of the United States pop market." Here's another thought -- would "American pop market" make more sense than either "United States" or "US pop market"? I'm not sure if the MoS addresses that. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 06:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to go with United States, as there is more than one country in the Americas. How about changing, " ... produced what critics consider some of their finest material," to " ... produced what some critics consider their finest material,"? Ala:

By 1964 they had achieved international success leading the "British Invasion" of the United States pop market. They toured the world extensively through mid-1966, and during their subsequent studio years produced what some critics consider their finest material, including the widely influential 1967 album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

— GabeMc (talk) 08:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was thinking re: the US/United States/American thing. I have absolutely no problem with your wording, but I do have another issue to bring up -- are the quotation marks around "studio years" really necessary? Unless it's a direct quote (and it doesn't look like it is) I don't see why they need to be there. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 08:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Evan, I think you are correct about the unnecessary quotation marks around studio years, they should be removed. — GabeMc (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm good with all this, except I believe "had achieved international success" is inferior to "were international stars." No information is gained with the longer-winded version, and it sounds...a bit long-winded and like a Wikipedia cliché. "International stars" is accurate and a very well supported summary of the information contained in the primary text. Most of all, we have "achieved mainstream success" in the immediately preceding sentence. Let's let plain language hold sway here. DocKino (talk) 09:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band will be in italics, correct? GoingBatty (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That's right, Batty! Thanks for pointing that out.

The way I see this, we have two options going for us. First, the one Gabe, Doc, and I hammered out:

By 1964 they had achieved international success leading the "British Invasion" of the United States pop market. They toured the world extensively through mid-1966, and during their subsequent studio years produced what some critics consider their finest material, including the widely influential 1967 album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

and the revised suggestion by Doc:

By 1964 they had become international stars leading the "British Invasion" of the United States pop market. They toured the world extensively through mid-1966, and during their subsequent studio years produced what some critics consider their finest material, including the widely influential 1967 album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

So, I hope I'm not misrepresenting anyone's opinions here. If I am, feel free to punish me with trouts. :) I would support a consensus for either of these options, but I do think I lean toward the "international stars" version after further consideration. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 19:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Another annoying thought: Should that be "by the end of 1964" rather than "by 1964? That version seems to make it sound like they had achieved all that by 1 January 1964, at which time the British Invasion hadn't even begun. I think we could safely say that their international popularity (or "stardom") was firmly established by the beginning of '65, though. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 19:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not married to, " ... achieved international success ... ", though I do think " ... had become international stars ... " is also a little close to puffery, but it's not a deal breaker for me in terms of support. I think the "achieved mainstream success" in the immediately preceding sentence could easily be copy edited out. Evan, as per "by the end of 1964" rather than "by 1964"? I think "by early 1964", or "by early February 1964" would be the most accurate, as they certainly had arrived in a big way by 7-9 February 1964. However, their songs began to be played by on US radio by the end of 1963, so really, it started then, but I think the official "Invasion" should be dated to February 1964. — GabeMc (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

All looks good to me. I'd change it myself, but I figure I'll wait for others to chime in so we can have something closer to consensus. How's this for a proposed change?

By early 1964 they had achieved international success leading the "British Invasion" of the United States pop market. The band toured the world extensively through mid-1966, and during their subsequent studio years produced what some critics consider their finest material, including the widely influential 1967 album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

The only change I made from the earlier suggestion was to change "1964" to "early 1964" and change "they" to "the band" at the beginning of the second sentence in order to avoid the constant and somewhat annoying use of "they". Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 05:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I like your changes Evan, they improve the flow of the prose. As one last arguement against using, " ... had become international stars ...", which I find slightly fanboyish, and un-encyclopedic (it's sounds more like a biography then an encyclopedia, just my opinion).

How about this:

They gained popularity in the United Kingdom in late 1962 with their first single, "Love Me Do", and acquired the nickname "the Fab Four" the following year. By early 1964 they had achieved international success, leading the "British Invasion" of the United States pop market. The band toured the world extensively through mid-1966, and during their subsequent studio years produced what some critics consider their finest material, including the widely influential 1967 album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

Any thoughts? — GabeMc (talk) 06:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm fine with that! As I said before, I support "achieved international success" over the "international stars" version. I had meant to make that clear above, but I mistakenly left that bit in there. I think I copy and paste too much! : ). I'm fine with your suggestion, and actually think it's the best proposed so far. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 06:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Good, well, let's wait to see if Doc has any suggestions/objections before we change the article. — GabeMc (talk) 06:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be a nudge about this, but the contortions we go through to avoid anyone anywhere possibly accusing us of puffery yield turgid, lifeless writing and are entirely unnecessary. "They gained popularity" is Wikipedia-cliché, mediocre expression--especially when it's echoed a sentence later by "They had achieved X success". "They became stars" is strong, proper, direct, better English and very well supported by the very well sourced text. Think about how the people we admire express themselves in the world outside Wikipedia. Does an excellent author choose to write "They gained popularity" over "They became stars"? Does an excellent speaker choose to say "They gained popularity" over "They became stars"? It is OK to say in plain words what happened. That's not puffery. That's good English composition. DocKino (talk) 08:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Haven't followed this debate throughout, but they did not "become stars" when "Love Me Do" became a minor hit in the UK. They gained popularity and "became stars" over the next year or so, particularly once "From Me To You" made no. 1 in the UK in May 1963. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle, to clarify, I think Doc might have mixed up the text strings here, and Doc, please correct me if I am wrong. I am suggesting we use, "They gained popularity ... " instead of, "They achieved mainstream success ...". And I am suggesting we replace, "... they had become international stars ...", " with " ... they had achieved international success ... ". — GabeMc (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

@DocKino, I hear you, I do, you make a good point about lifeless writing, and I agree, the quality of the writing should not suffer for fear of WP guidelines. I'm curious though, why is, "They gained popularity ... " more of a Wikipedia-cliché/mediocre expression than, "They achieved mainstream success ..."? How married are you to " ... had become international stars ..."? — GabeMc (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

@Doc, while I would prefer to avoid the term "stars", I am willing to agree with you for the sake of compromise, also, this would avoid the repetition of the word, "success" in the paragraph, how about this:

They gained popularity in the United Kingdom in late 1962 with their first single, "Love Me Do", and acquired the nickname "the Fab Four" the following year. By early 1964 they had become international stars, leading the "British Invasion" of the United States pop market. The band toured the world extensively through mid-1966, and during their subsequent studio years produced what some critics consider their finest material, including the widely influential 1967 album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

Any thoughts? — GabeMc (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking that's very well done, and we should move forward with that. DocKino (talk) 06:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Just one thing -- be sure to leave the bolding on "Fab Four", as it is now. :) Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 06:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose this is a quibble, and if no-one wants to take it on board that's fine, but in the UK the boom in their popularity happened during 1963, not late 1962. "Love Me Do" was, in itself, a minor hit that would have been quickly forgotten were it not for their increasingly successful follow-ups through 1963. The text that says that they "gained popularity... in late 1962" doesn't seem to reflect the growing Beatlemania of 1963 in the most accurate way possible. What do people feel about something like: "They gained popularity in the United Kingdom after their first single, "Love Me Do" was a hit in late 1962, and acquired the nickname "the Fab Four" as Beatlemania grew in Britain over the following year." Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, except don't link Beatlemania, already linked in first graf of the lead. DocKino (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure - I hadn't checked. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I like Myrtle's revision. Please Please Me was actually quite a bit bigger than Love Me Do, at least in the UK. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 09:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Over the first year, each single was a bigger hit than the previous one. Myrtle ?! Guy aka Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Just chiming in at the end of this thread. I have no particular opinion over the contents here, but would it be possible to keep the language as "they toured extensively until mid-1966" rather than "through mid-1966"? From a British English viewpoint "they toured extensively through mid-1966" could be misunderstood as them touring extensively in mid-1966 but at no other time. Let me know if this would be possible — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, everyone. This is just to let you all know that I'm going to be out for a few days, possibly a week. I'm with Stradivarius on the "until" bit, so whatever you guys decide (within the bounds of our established common ground) has full absentee support from me. :) Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 04:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

A couple points here:

• 1) @Ghmyrtle, thanks for the fine suggestions, I agree that Beatlemania should be mentioned in this graph, as building during 1963, that's exactly what the graph needed. I think to call "Love Me Do" a hit in 1962 is a bit contentious however. The song charted in London's four major weeklies, and was moderately successful, a #1 in Mersey Beat, but as it is now the text string sounds like the song was a hit in the UK in general, in 1962, which is debatable, it only charted for a week in any significant London paper, plus the rumours about Epstein buying 10,000 copies to make it chart make the claim of "hit" suspect.
• 2) @Mr. Stradivarius, you make a good point here, and thanks for joining the discussion. My concern here is that "until mid-1966" sounds more like June or July than the end of August, at least to me. So the problem could be solved by being more specific with the date, but it might raise the issue of inconsistant date specificity within the graph however, i.e. "late 1962", "early 1964", "1967 album", "early 1964", "29 August 1966" or "late August 1966".
• 3) @Evan, why does the "Fab Four" neeed to be in bold?

How about:

They gained popularity in the United Kingdom after their first single, "Love Me Do", briefly charted in several major London musical weeklies in late 1962. They acquired the nickname the "Fab Four" as "Beatlemania" grew in Britain over the following year. By early 1964 they had become international stars, leading the "British Invasion" of the United States pop market. The band toured the world extensively until late August 1966, when they performed their final commercial concert. During their subsequent studio years they produced what many critics consider to be some of their finest material, including the widely influential 1967 album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

Any thoughts? — GabeMc (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the reference to "...briefly charted in several major London musical weeklies...", and support DCGeist's reversion of that text in the article. Although regional charts existed in the UK at the time, the clear emphasis was on the national charts, as published by Record Retailer, the pop music weeklies and the BBC. Although there were significant variations between those charts - and nefarious goings-on existed to ensure high chart placings - they were and are regarded as the only charts that really matter, and the fact they were published nationally in London is irrelevant. The Record Retailer chart, in which "Love Me Do" reached its peak of no. 17 on 27 December 1962 ([1]), is now regarded as standard - and it was in that chart for 18 weeks, surprisingly, so not "brief". And Bill Harry describes the story that Epstein bought 10,000 copies as a myth - [2]. So, the text should say something like: "They gained popularity in the United Kingdom after their first single, "Love Me Do" became a minor hit in late 1962...." Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle, the text string, "...briefly charted in several major London musical weeklies...", is a paraphrase from Harry, "TBE", 2000, page 869: "The single reached its highest position of No. 17 in one London music paper for one week only, was No. 27 for one week in another, but at least managed to make its presence felt in all four London musical weeklies, reaching No. 24 in Disc and No. 32 in Record Mirror, in addition to the Melody Maker and New Musical Express placings." I believe Harry is incorrect here, it hit No. 17 in Record Mirror, and it's odd that Harry does not mention the Record Retailer numbers at all. He may have them mixed up with Melody Maker.

The source you provided here seems to agree with Harry's claim that the song charted for one week only, though I think that's the US release referring to being #1 for a week, and the source, about.com, is user generated, so it isn't really a reliable source anyway, so I'm not sure what your source is for, " ... it was in that chart for 18 weeks." I'm not disputing the info per se, I just don't know the reliable source for it.

As far as the claim that Epstein artificially boosted the song's chart position, while Riley and Brown and others may well be wrong about this, Epstein, as a primary source, is not the most reliable person to use to refute that claim. I also know Lennon refuted the claim, but he might not have known, or he might have lied, both are equally possible, IMHO. According to Alistair Taylor, personal assistant to Epstein, later general manager at NEMS and Apple Corps, "Brain bought boxes and boxes of 'Love Me Do' ... [l]ater , when it came onto the charts, he bought several thousand more, hoping to push it higher, and draw more attention to it, but after a while we realized that it could only go so far."(Spitz, 2005, pages 357-358). Notice Taylor says "we"? Harry can call it a rumour all he wants, but he wasn't there, but Taylor's is a first-hand account, and he claimed to be an eye witness to the rumoured "padding" of "Love Me Do" by Epstein. Nevertheless, I agree with you and DCGeist, there is no need to be overly detailed here. I think your suggestion to use the text string, " ... became a minor hit in late 1962." solves this issue nicely, and is well supported by the sources.

How about this?

They gained popularity in the United Kingdom after their first single, "Love Me Do", became a minor hit in late 1962. They acquired the nickname the "Fab Four" as "Beatlemania" grew in Britain over the following year. By early 1964 they had become international stars, leading the "British Invasion" of the United States pop market. The band toured the world extensively until late August 1966, when they performed their final commercial concert. During their subsequent studio years they produced what many music critics consider to be some of their finest material, including the widely influential 1967 album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

Any thoughts? — GabeMc (talk) 01:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. The source for "Love Me Do" entering the UK chart on 11 October 1962, remaining there for 18 weeks and peaking at no. 17 is Betts, Graham (2004). Complete UK Hit Singles 1952-2004 (1st ed.). London: Collins. p. 63. ISBN 0-00-717931-6. - it's one of the standard sources on UK charts and uses the Record Retailer chart for that period. The reference on the About.com site is to the US release in 1964 reaching no.1 there, not the UK. Whatever the truth of how it reached the UK charts, it did reach the charts - which makes it, by definition, a hit. The fact that it was in the charts for 18 weeks - an unusually long length of time in the UK chart of that time (which was a Top 50) for a record that got no higher than no. 17 - shows that it must have been genuinely popular and selling through word of mouth and radio plays, rather than hype. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reliable source Ghmyrtle, Harry must have this one wrong (it wouldn't be the first time) and he neglected to mention the Record Retailer stats. And I agree, it's 18 weeks on the chart is certainly not "brief". In fact it would appear only three other Beatles singles stayed on a chart longer in the UK, "From Me To You" (21 weeks), She Loves You" (33 weeks), and "I Want To Hold Your Hand" (22 weeks). I'll go ahead and implement the changes to the lede, as we appear to have a clear concensus now. — GabeMc (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks great. I made three tiny, nonsubstantive changes for visual style, grammar, and writing style. with a net change of 0 bytes. DocKino (talk) 09:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

British/English

The Beatles belonged to everyone in Britain. Remember the "British Invasion ".

They should be called a British band not English.

john medda 27/11/11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmedda (talk • contribs) 21:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The Beatles

Should more information be added about each individual? I think it would be usefull to add how and where The Beatles met. Also how they not only knew each other, but were friends before they even decided to start the band. Moonstarfairy (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerardw (talk • contribs)

Those things are all described in more detail in the article The Quarrymen. --Nick R^Talk 01:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Lennon, Cynthia (2005). "John". London: Hodder & Stoughton. ISBN 978-0-340-92091-6.

Can anyone verify the page numbers to the two cites to: Lennon, Cynthia (2005). "John". London: Hodder & Stoughton. ISBN 978-0-340-92091-6? Because either these are incorrect cites, or this version of the book is vastly different than both the Crown, and the Three Rivers editions. Also, this ISBN is a limited edition signed book that retails in the US for $200-$300, so should we be using such a rare edition (1000 copies worldwide) to cite the article when the Crown and Three Rivers editions can be bought for $5-$10? — GabeMc (talk) 04:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't have the book, but it would seem more reasonable to source it to the most widely available edition for ease of verifiability. We'd need to verify the page numbers, though, like you said. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 04:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)