Talk:The Beatles

Archives
2004–August 2005 October 2005–January 2006 February 2006–April 2006

Opening Paragraph

I have some problems with the opening statements here, since they're not quite up to the level of basic rock criticism in my opinion and aren't totally accurate or professional.

Their earliest compositions were mainly rock ‘n’ roll or R&B-rooted pop songs with the occasional ballad. But they grew increasingly eclectic as composers, arrangers, and performers over the years. This isn't inaccurate, however it GREATLY underestimates--in fact, basically ignores--the level of innovation present in their early music. I know early Beatles music isn't particularly hip these days, but their early songs were unprecedented for rock at the time, and were more notable--musically and historically--than simple 'rock or R&B rooted pop songs'; true, they took cues mainly from rock'n'roll and R&B, but those are broad terms that had different meanings in the early 60s than they do now; their early music was exciting because it fused elements from rockabilly, early R&B, blues, girl groups, early motown, traditional pop, etc.--tons of popular music from the 50s and 60s. I think this sentence is sort of POV and dissmissive of their early output--albeit unintentionally.

They composed songs and arranged them in a wide array of musical styles – occasionally fusing genres. Their best, in fact almost all of their music was by it's own nature innovative. Arrangements aren't usually solely indicative of a certain style of music. People are fond of saying that bands "wrote in" certain style, but this is a puzzling and inaccurate characterization. They did not "occasionally fuse genres"--they're music, from Please Please Me on, took cues from a huge number of sources, and that number increased as they developed. In essence, most of their music was pop/rock that fused elements from several or more sources. They're early music was influenced by a ton of 50s and 60s style of rock and R&B (mentioned in passing above) and by Help and Rubber Soul they were absorbing folk, country, mid-60s Soul and R&B, and even vague baroque and classical influences and pushing into folk-rock and psychedelic rock. By Revolver--don't even get me started. So saying they "wrote in a wide array of musical styles" and only "occasionalyl fused genres" is a bizarre sentence. Perhaps "fusing genres" is a strong term, since it implies a clear, audible synthesis of 2 musical styles into a totally new idiom for posterity--but the Beatles by their nature were immensely eclectic and experimental and while a scattering of songs were deliberately written to sound like previous styles of music (especially McCartney--"Oh Darling," "Honey pie," etc.), the vast majority of their music was by nature innovative and was influenced by a huge number of "musical styles." This sentence makes it seem as if their work was mostly derivative, which it was certainly not.

The constant factor in the vast majority of their songs was their focus on melody. Again, not technically untrue--but this is an amateurish inclusion for several reasons. It's trying to express that they Beatles were supremely melodic songwriters and winds up sounding silly. First of all, the focus in virtually ALL music from the 60s and before was melody. Some was more melodic, to be sure--but melody is one of the building blocks of ALL music (excepting certain genres like rap an techno and so on--but even then melody is key--people usually don't just listen to drones). And listen to the way the sentence is constructed-- "focus on melody" was a "factor" in "their songs"; This doesn't make sense-- focus on melody is an action of the songwriter; you could say "melody was a constant factor in their songs"--but this sounds ridiculous since melody is one of the building blocks of music. You could say "The beatles focused on melody in their songs" but so did ALL songwriters during the 60s and before and after. I understand the sentiment behind this poorly constructed sentence--the Beatles were expert songwriters who's songs were very melodically sophisticated or simply sing-a-long-able; but this sentence--perhaps written out of fear of being too POV--doesn't express that sentiment. Keep in mind that saying that the Beatles music was exceptionally melodically sophisticated and so on is NOT POV since you can technically prove this by going over their music and breaking the way the songs are constructed down and compare them to their peers in rock before and after.

Lennon and McCartney often said that they loved Bach´s music. Irrelevant

Despite the wide array of musical styles they utilised, The Beatles´ recordings were readily identifiable because of their distinctive vocals. Again, technically true--but this sounds to me like someone had a weird, personal idea but couldn't quite put it into words. Yes, Lennon and McCartney were expressive, distinctive vocalists, but saying that their recordings were identifiable because of this implies that if their voices had not been distinctive (a troubling and nonsensical prospect in and of it self--everyone's voice is different), then their recordings would not have been readily identifiable--which is ridiculous on it's face. The sentence is also just silly and incongruous in the context of the paragraph. Also, saying someone "utilized" a musical style is wierd--you don't USE music, you're influenced or inspired by it. When they wrote "Norwegian Wood," they didn't USE pop and then USE folk and then USE Dylan and then USE indian music by adding a sitar; they instead incorporated elements of each into their own original song. This isn't nitpicking since it's a grammatically and philosophically problematic action--USING music--in this case.

In addition to their core pop and rock styles, The Beatles' catalogue included songs which were flavoured with folk, country, rockabilly, blues, soul, doo-wop and many other musical genres. Once again, not inaccurate, but like a detailed above--MOST of the Beatles music was exceptional or innovative in some way and was influenced by a wide variety of sources. This makes it seem like SOME of their songs were "flavoured" with these sounds--they did not than "flavor" their music with other styles, and this--once again--shortchanges their importance. It's like saying "Bob Dylan flavoured his songs with poetic lyrics"--no, the poetic lyrics were an integral part of his innovations and legacy.

They were also pioneers of new musical directions such as psychedelia (Strawberry Fields Forever) and hard rock (Helter Skelter, Revolution). They definately didn't "pioneer" hard rock--in fact, that's kind of music that you could actually say they dabbled in. They didn't invent psychedelia, but of course they were important in it's development...which leads into...

Their use of chamber and baroque orchestrations (scored by producer George Martin) on recordings such as Yesterday, Eleanor Rigby, In My Life and For No-One was another first in contemporary popular music. Again this sentence is crude and doesn't give the full picture. To start with the obvious, orchestration in "contemporary" (contemporary when, exactly?) popular music was certainly NOT a first by the time of the Beatles (Motown, Spector, Traditional Pop, etc). What you could/should say is that they were instrumental in introducing new recording techniques and more complex studio arrangements specifically into rock--that's accurate; they pioneered more recording techniques than any other group of musicians in the 20th century--and that is onyl hinted at here and reduced to "orchestrations"; more than orchestration, they experimentd with new instruments, effects, overdubs, sounds, amplification, etc.; essentially, using the studio as an instrument in making records.

I don't mean to seem snobby or detail-obssessed, but I honestly think that if you know about the Beatles you'll realize that the complaints I have stated here aren't minor nitpicking over wording. It's musical history and people have tendency to just fudge it--I think because they believe it's all or mostly interpretation; it's not, much of this stuff distorts the Beatles accomplishments for readers and like with any historical document--the way you word even seemingly minor events and overviews is very important.

Stuart Sutcliffe

Why is he not mentioned at all? De mortuis... 05:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Not to sound challenging, but what do you know? Or anyone else? Anything useful? Significant? If so, I don't see why he is not worth mentioning. If there is more that we could put, more power to anyone with information. :) I, personally, do not know too much, though, so good luck! TommyBoy76 00:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

Well, we could say that he paid for most of the band's gear, which is why he was allowed to "play" Bass Guitar, until Macca had enough, gave him his guitar, took his Bass Guitar away and started playing Bass himself! Lion King 17:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"Stu Sutcliffe, especially for a non-musician who didn't write anything, was possibly more influential. His art college background appeared to have cultivated a "cooler" image than the rocker inclined other band members. Whilst Epstein put the Beatles into suits, they had already discarded the leather jackets and quiffs at Sutcliffes instigation. It was also Sutcliffes German girlfriend who performed the "Beatles Haircut" which became their first iconic image (Pete Best deferred, which was another reason why he became estranged from the group). Lastly and most importantly, as already discussed elsewhere, it was the need for McCartney to switch to bass after already developing as a melodic guitar player when Sutcliffe left that had the greatest effect. McCartney used the bass as part of the overall instrumentation, rather than just providing a rythmic background. His mastery of the somewhat simpler parts required also allowed him to concentrate on his vocal harmonising in the live performances." This is what I wrote only some weeks ago. Whilst it seems that the "haircut" story is at least open to debate, the fact that McCartney was a more than competent guitarist when he switched to bass is very important to the development of The Beatles. Ultimately, he was a very good friend of John Lennon who used to talk about art with him - and undoubltedly introduced up avenues which The Beatles explored in their music.LessHeard vanU 19:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I like it. Cheers. TommyBoy76 22:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

According to Tony Sheridan Paul started playing bass when Sutcliffe was still in the band. Sutcliffe was indeed concerned with The Beatles "look", it was all he was concerned with. Paul was fed up with him posing on stage, wearing sunglasses, staring at Astrid all night and either making a dreadful row or no sound at all. This was all too much for Paul who was always moaning about Sutclliffe's complete lack of any musical ability, so he took the bass away from him, handing him his clapped out "Lucky 7" to mime with. Cheers, Lion King 18:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This is correct. It's backed up by Cynthia Lennon who said; "Paul and Stu were starting to get on each other's nerves and were constantly bickering at each other. Paul picked on Stu for his lack of talent and the fact he wore sunglasses in fact anything he could think of to niggle Stu". "Beatlemad".

I've always though McCartney was jealous of how Stu Sutcliffe was a closer friend to Lennon than he was so got irritated more then was neccesary. Just my own opinion, not solid fact. Sutcliffe probably influenced Lennon a fair bit and in the end contributed to how The Beatles evolved in the earlier days visually at least. Malice1982 23:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Macca wasn't jealous because Sutcliffe was a closer friend to Lennon, it was because he was LENNON'S FRIEND. Lennon had conned his art prize money out of him to pay for most of the band's gear, and had insisted on him being the bass guitarist although he could hardly play a note. Vera, Chuck & Dave 13:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

When John met Paul

Malice1982 has edited the paragraph regarding the Wooton ??? Fete meeting by saying that Macca impressed Lennon by playing "20 Flight Rock" (Eddie Cochrane) note for note. My understanding - from the book "Shout...." - was that Lennon was impressed by the fact that Macca was using guitar chords/tunings, rather than the banjo tuning that Lennon (and thus the other Quarrymen) knew. Since Malice82 is so specific I have left the edit in, but does anybody know the source of this claim? LessHeard vanU 08:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see it sourced. I suggest a {{citeneeded}} tag be added and Malice1982 be notified. If not cited fairly soon, I'd revert the change. ++Lar: t/c 14:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I left a message on his/her talkpage after my comment above - if nothing by the end of the weekend...LessHeard vanU 16:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for not responding sooner. I read about this in one or other Beatles books that also stated Lennon was impressed by McCartney's ability to use real chords rather than the 4 string chords Lennon played as taught by his Mother on Banjo. It was indeed in the Anthology series also.

I really don't recall the book I first read about it in, but I remember it had some great photos of their journey to Hamburg and some information on lesser known characters in the Beatles history, such as Lord Woodbine. It also contained Lennon in his underpants with a bowler hat on and a newspaper under his arm in the street at night. Well known images now, but new to me at the time. Malice1982 23:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Beatles fan page External Links?

It would be nice if there was at least one fan created web page in the External Links for those (like myself currently) who are looking for a good Beatles website with lyrics avaliable. Any ideas of which site/s could be added or is this a bad idea? --Jimmyjrg 08:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You can't use search engines? Wikipedia's not a link farm, and lyrics pages are almost always massive copyright violators that we'd just as soon not be associated with. - DavidWBrooks 12:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Then why do we link to them in song articles? I think it'd be fine to have a lyrics page included. Johnleemk | Talk 14:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I think if a stunning fan site was known to us then, yes, include it. However, I'm not for adding one just for the sake of it - I'm with David. Wikipedia is not a link repository nor are we Google. If our readers want "Beatles lyrics" may I suggest they type that phrase into Google? --kingboyk 15:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

There are also a great many very good fansites; if we link one then we would have to link the others. Since there is a link to the "official" website, which is likely to have links to all the good/approved sites, then these sites are accessable from Wikipedia.LessHeard vanU 16:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Name theory

I've reverted an unsourced name theory [1]. I'd like to see sourcing for such theories if possible ++Lar: t/c 22:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I think such things need a fairly high level of sourcing. The official story (that they were imitating The Crickets and decided to pun on "beat") is perfectly clear, plausible, and comes from the horse's mouth. Why do people have a need to hypothesize some other explanation? Carlo 23:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If they didn't, Paul Is Dead would be a pretty slim article! (But isn't it significant that "Beatles" sums up to 666 in counterpunctual gematria? Coincidence: You decide!!) = DavidWBrooks 00:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If by "coincidence" you mean "significance" then.... who cares? The reason for keeping the "Paul is Dead" article is that it has some historical value, not that it may have even the slightest resemblance to fact.LessHeard vanU 10:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I was joking. Where's that emoticon key? - DavidWBrooks 11:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Lol. Thanks for a good belly laugh. Let's not get off-track now. I agree with Carlo. TommyBoy76 21:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

I, too, was being "light hearted" - but I find using the emoticon keys I am used to does funny things to my text.(I usually type "grin" or similar at the end of my message in these instances)*knowing wink*LessHeard vanU 22:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a serious flaw in this theory, namely that The Wild One was banned in the UK 'til 1968. Did Lennon or any other member see it in Germany? Maybe, but by then they were already called The Beatles.

Good point. If they had seen it in Germany then we'd be arguing if they were "ve Beatles" or "Ve Beatles", I suppose.*grin*LessHeard vanU 22:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

"The Wild One" was banned until 1968 in the UK? I don´t belive that (a POV, unffortunately). I will check it out.

andreasegde 18:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, THAT IS A FACT. It was not shown in the UK until 1968 - it was banned because it was thought all the British Bikers would start apeing the behaviour of the gang in the film. Vera, Chuck & Dave 12:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC) PS.Your own article states that it was banned! Vera, Chuck & Dave 12:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)PPS The Wild One - not The Beatles article.

Perhaps too sexy.

George Harrison is looking surprisingly sexy in that group shot at the top of the page. Rowr. (Momus 17:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC))

Lol, if you say so. We've been talking about changing the pic anyway, but a better free image hasn't come up yet. --kingboyk 17:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

To each their own. :) EVula 18:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

why did the page get messed up?

and why did their main pic change? it was PERFECT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.154.192.129 (talk • contribs) 12 May 2006.

The person who changed it said it had to do with copyright. As for me, I like both pictures, but strongly feel that having NO picture from the first part of their career, with the Beatle haircuts, has been a serious omission, and that is rectified with the new picture. Carlo 21:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sections banner

I am tempted to remove the banner requesting sections - since they can be found, close to the table of contents, if a user was to scroll down. Unless someone gives a good reason to keep it, I will remove it later.LessHeard vanU 12:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess that the editor is wanting subsections, to break up some very long sections - and s/he's probably right. I'm not sure it's in such a bad state it needs to be tagged as such though. I'll remove the tag now and perhaps if someone has a spare moment they could see if the article needs any extra sections or not. --kingboyk 12:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the difficulty is pointed out by the comments in the section below - this main article should be an overview, with more detail in specific articles. As previously discussed, many editors jump in and start contributing information that the article "lacks" - since it likely is already in a specific article. Managing this article and moving text to a more "appropriate" place is likely to be an ongoing Project.LessHeard vanU 19:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Yep, agree totally. --kingboyk 20:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Me too, ditch it. This article has the right number of sections in my view. ++Lar: t/c 20:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find who place the banner there by looking at the history? Can anyone tell me, and is it a good idea to talk to whoever did it - to find out why?LessHeard vanU 21:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I found it using diffs. It's hard work because there are so many changes so you have to sort of binary search the diffs. User:Psantora added it. I have no idea if it's worth talking to him at this point but it couldn't hurt... ++Lar: t/c 22:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I shall do so tomorrow - and ask if they would like to help.LessHeard vanU 23:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes that was me. Sorry, I probably should have talked about it here first. I was mostly referring to the history section, but both the influences and music and studio style evolution are fairly long and could use some more structure as well. The below discussion about the history section is exactly what I was getting at tho. I don't really know much more about The Beatles than most people (which is quite a lot, really ;) ) but I'll do what I can to help too. Paul^C/_T+ 02:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel it should be clarified "somewhere" that The Beatles article here is both an introduction and a synopsis to a related group of articles - and that additions to the text may be already/best added elsewhere. Perhaps the "see xxxx links next to the section headers should be made clearer?

There are no "See xxxx" links in the long, structureless sections I mentioned above... (Please sign comments with ~~~~.-How do you use the {{unsigned}} template?)Paul^C/_T+ 03:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

History needs to be shortened

Since a separate, 43-KB article History of The Beatles exists, the history section in this article should be greatly shortened. It's so long that somebody who knows nothing about the group (yes, such folks exist!) will be swamped and give up.

Just as with happens in main articles about, say, countries or states, this history section should be perhaps a half-dozen paragraphs; folks can follow the link to the history article for more details. Of course, making such cuts is easier said than done; shortening well is much harder than throwing in more details. - DavidWBrooks 14:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

We're aware of the problem - please see Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/The Beatles history. If you'd like to make a proposal, leave a suggestion or of course actually make a start, please feel free. --kingboyk 14:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Right-o ... I'll ponder slashing and burning - er, I mean, making judicious and intelligent trims. - DavidWBrooks 15:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Some time back the members of "the project" discussed putting a banner on the edit page (regarding vandalism). Would something similar - suggesting a would-be editor check that the information they are about to contribute already exists, or should be placed, in a more specific article - be worthwhile?LessHeard vanU 19:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I placed an HTML comment there a long time ago asking people not to contribute overly detailed material to the section. Unfortunately, I don't think many heeded that request. Johnleemk | Talk 13:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I've cut 7 MB so far, and you can hardly tell! Whoof! I'll pause for a while and make sure nobody objects. - DavidWBrooks 15:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

MB? That would mean you've trimmed History of the Beatles 150 times over! Johnleemk | Talk 17:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

MB, KB ... what's the difference among friends? - DavidWBrooks 18:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Between friends, just x1000. Anyone else and it's x1024! :P --kingboyk 19:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The Beatles Complete Scores section

Quick question to regular editors of this article. Is it just me or does the "Complete Scores" section sound like and advertisement? Seems to me there are hundreds of Beatles song books. Is this one so unique it warrants it's own section? Just wondering. Cheers! Anger22 11:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)