This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Beatlemania article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 19, 2019, February 9, 2022, and February 9, 2023. |
I don't know whether the lyrics 'British Beatlemania' in the song We Didn't Start the Fire by Billy Joel are worth mentioning in this article. I haven't added it, I'd rather get some opinions first.
i.e. the line "The term later became the name of various tribute groups dedicated to singing the songs of The Beatles. These groups have had John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr impersonators." I don't agree that this necessitates a citation; it's very common knowledge, and would not require a citation even by the rigorous standards of academic writing. The Beatlemania tribute bands performed all over, and even had a healthy television ad campaign promoting the tours. Having to cite that line would be akin to having to cite a statement that the Beatles themselves toured as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.212.112.116 ( talk) 15:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This article deserves a better title: "Beatles Tribute Bands", or something in that vein. "Beatlemania (groups)" is too vague - it could refer to groups which play music in the style of the Beatles, or were contemporaries of the Beatles (see Merseybeat). 217.34.39.123 08:59, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This page should be moved to Beatlemania, which is now just a redirect to The Beatles. It's basically unsearchable now. The same article should discuss briefly the beatlemania phenomenon in a little more depth. - R. fiend 3 July 2005 05:02 (UTC)
There is a possibility of a learned piece here regarding the phemomenea of Beatlemania as manifested by the (usually) teenage female fans. The hysteria, including fainting and involunatary urine release (is that "learned" enough?), was a highly uncommon event before The Beatles. I think Frank Sinatra had some similar incidents in the early Bobby Soxer days, but they were less frenetic (or at least the reporting of same was not as lurid). Interestingly such behaviour was not reported at Elvis Presley concerts. The only real precessors I can think of are the "Religious orgys" in late medieval times, where acolytes - again normally females - would work themselves into a (non sexual!) ecstatic state.
I feel this should fall under The Beatles umbrella for two reasons; firstly, The Beatles were the first recorded focal point by which this behaviour became apparent, and created the term which has (as mentioned in the article) been subsequently adopted for other groups/individuals and, secondly, "Beatlemania" had an influence on the Beatles themselves. I would argue that much of the early interest by the media regarding the Beatles focused as much on the fans response - the reporting of incidences of "Beatlemania" - as for the music and its popularity. The media exposure that followed created the environment by which any and all aspects of The Beatles were deemed newsworthy, thus creating a self fuelling publicity device building the fame of The Beatles. As commented on in other articles, this behaviour also encouraged The Beatles to give up touring and live performances as they became aware that the audience was not listening to the music and were indifferent to the quality of the playing. As they were then able to devote their creative energies in using the studio environment they were then able to make the advances they did.
As a generally (Western) cultural aspect, "Beatlemania" can be tied into womens financial/economic emancipation/liberation, the advent of "The Pill", and general changes of perception regarding women that was occuring at the time. As I said, this would possibly be a project for someone with a psychology or behavioural background who would know the appropriate scientific sources, and be able to deliver a coherent piece. In any event, there would be enough references to sex and teenage girls to draw the interest of some casual Wiki browser - it would have worked with me! LessHeard vanU 08:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Could someone incorperate the fact that girls at beatles concerts would regualrly piss themselves and the people who owned the venues would have to clean it off of the seats. Not only is it very true, it is also very, very funny.-- Crestville 15:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Ha, yeah. But what does it all mean, Basil? I think given screaming girls were an essential element to Beatlemania, it shouldn't be too hard.-- Crestville 12:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
From the Wikipedia page for the Who Quadrophenia 5.15 song:
"According to Townshend, the opening stanza ("Eau-de-cologning") was a specific reference to a 1963 concert in Blackpool by the Beatles, infamous for the number of teenaged girls in the audience who, so rapt in sexual exhilaration, urinated themselves."
The ushers "sniffing" the urine would spay something to cover up the smell.
Should this article be a stub? Just from reading it once and admittantly not knowing alot about The Beatles myself, I can casually see here that there is not very much information on the phenominon. Personally I would like some information regarding:
You know... stuff like that. I think this article could be much more interesting and as it stands today, should it be a stub article, until more information can be added? Gohst 01:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Twice now I've added Crouchamania as a similar example of the phenomenon. Twice it's been removed in a quite high-handed and frankly patronising way with comments of "nowhere near" and "idiocy". I amended the entry the second time to make it clearer to anyone who may be quite blinkered why it should be there, yet it was still removed. If Wikipedia is to remove the perception that huge sections are written by members of a "clique" who will not allow others to have an opinion on what is and isn't valid then I think something of a better explanation of this removal would be helpful. I've not put the entry back yet, as I am giving you the opportunity to explain. There's an example of some band most of the world will have never heard of, why is that there? If Beatlemania is (as seems from this discussion page) basically a phenomenon where teenage girls piss themselves at the sight of members of a boy band then it needs to be explained more clearly in the article itself. Read the article itself and explain why Crouchamania isn't a valid example. -- Realred 07:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that only some of the crud in the last section should even be here. Certainly a summary of record sales as a whole should be mentioned but not in so much depth. Should some of it be carted off to The Beatles discography, or just deleted? (this comment was added by User:207.62.186.233 20:15 11 July 2006)
Isn't "The Beatlemania era" these days often seen, in an historical context, as a period in the artistic development of the band? Perhaps the article should talk about the albums that they recorded in that period, the musical style that was prevelant etc Spebudmak 21:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
While the term is credited to a promoter, I've heard the story it was by a Canadian journalist (whose name I can't recall), which led to an album (the white album?) being released (uniquely) here as Beatlemania. True? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 14:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Should Beatlemania really be called a portmanteau when it simply can be analysed as a compound? It's been a while since I read word formation theory but the way I see it the word Beatlemania clearly consists of two separate morphemes and not just one like motel. -- 83.179.25.167 ( talk) 23:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, the first link in the references appears not to be working. 83.179.25.167 ( talk) 23:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Beatlemania 1960s.png, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 21:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Beatlemania/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
*I first looked at this yesterday and didn't really know what to say. Of course Beatlemania is an important concept (although in a way it's just a word, a dictdef if you will). Strip out the list of chart performances |
Last edited at 00:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 09:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Beatlemania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Beatlemania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand why we need 3 articles about the band's popularity 1963-66. Beatlemania in the United Kingdom and The Beatles in the United States contain basically all the info that is at Beatlemania. The first two are even formatted like "Part 1" and "Part 2" - the coverage on "UK" ends at 1963 whereas "US" picks up immediately afterward. These should be merged. -- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 17:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey, User:JG66, how much longer are you going to keep adding to this article, which is turning into an encyclopedia by itself! (OK, that's a bit of an exaggeration) You've increased it by more than 25% since you started a couple weeks ago; I'm not sure I've ever seen such an extended barrage of consecutive (non-trivial) edits to a single article by a single editor in all my wiki-years. It's tough to keep up! One of your summaries mentions plans to split some off into other articles - what's that about? - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 17:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
This page has several unresolved footnote references:
There are a couple more. How should these footnotes be corrected? -- Mikeblas ( talk) 01:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Beatlemania article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 19, 2019, February 9, 2022, and February 9, 2023. |
I don't know whether the lyrics 'British Beatlemania' in the song We Didn't Start the Fire by Billy Joel are worth mentioning in this article. I haven't added it, I'd rather get some opinions first.
i.e. the line "The term later became the name of various tribute groups dedicated to singing the songs of The Beatles. These groups have had John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr impersonators." I don't agree that this necessitates a citation; it's very common knowledge, and would not require a citation even by the rigorous standards of academic writing. The Beatlemania tribute bands performed all over, and even had a healthy television ad campaign promoting the tours. Having to cite that line would be akin to having to cite a statement that the Beatles themselves toured as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.212.112.116 ( talk) 15:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This article deserves a better title: "Beatles Tribute Bands", or something in that vein. "Beatlemania (groups)" is too vague - it could refer to groups which play music in the style of the Beatles, or were contemporaries of the Beatles (see Merseybeat). 217.34.39.123 08:59, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This page should be moved to Beatlemania, which is now just a redirect to The Beatles. It's basically unsearchable now. The same article should discuss briefly the beatlemania phenomenon in a little more depth. - R. fiend 3 July 2005 05:02 (UTC)
There is a possibility of a learned piece here regarding the phemomenea of Beatlemania as manifested by the (usually) teenage female fans. The hysteria, including fainting and involunatary urine release (is that "learned" enough?), was a highly uncommon event before The Beatles. I think Frank Sinatra had some similar incidents in the early Bobby Soxer days, but they were less frenetic (or at least the reporting of same was not as lurid). Interestingly such behaviour was not reported at Elvis Presley concerts. The only real precessors I can think of are the "Religious orgys" in late medieval times, where acolytes - again normally females - would work themselves into a (non sexual!) ecstatic state.
I feel this should fall under The Beatles umbrella for two reasons; firstly, The Beatles were the first recorded focal point by which this behaviour became apparent, and created the term which has (as mentioned in the article) been subsequently adopted for other groups/individuals and, secondly, "Beatlemania" had an influence on the Beatles themselves. I would argue that much of the early interest by the media regarding the Beatles focused as much on the fans response - the reporting of incidences of "Beatlemania" - as for the music and its popularity. The media exposure that followed created the environment by which any and all aspects of The Beatles were deemed newsworthy, thus creating a self fuelling publicity device building the fame of The Beatles. As commented on in other articles, this behaviour also encouraged The Beatles to give up touring and live performances as they became aware that the audience was not listening to the music and were indifferent to the quality of the playing. As they were then able to devote their creative energies in using the studio environment they were then able to make the advances they did.
As a generally (Western) cultural aspect, "Beatlemania" can be tied into womens financial/economic emancipation/liberation, the advent of "The Pill", and general changes of perception regarding women that was occuring at the time. As I said, this would possibly be a project for someone with a psychology or behavioural background who would know the appropriate scientific sources, and be able to deliver a coherent piece. In any event, there would be enough references to sex and teenage girls to draw the interest of some casual Wiki browser - it would have worked with me! LessHeard vanU 08:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Could someone incorperate the fact that girls at beatles concerts would regualrly piss themselves and the people who owned the venues would have to clean it off of the seats. Not only is it very true, it is also very, very funny.-- Crestville 15:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Ha, yeah. But what does it all mean, Basil? I think given screaming girls were an essential element to Beatlemania, it shouldn't be too hard.-- Crestville 12:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
From the Wikipedia page for the Who Quadrophenia 5.15 song:
"According to Townshend, the opening stanza ("Eau-de-cologning") was a specific reference to a 1963 concert in Blackpool by the Beatles, infamous for the number of teenaged girls in the audience who, so rapt in sexual exhilaration, urinated themselves."
The ushers "sniffing" the urine would spay something to cover up the smell.
Should this article be a stub? Just from reading it once and admittantly not knowing alot about The Beatles myself, I can casually see here that there is not very much information on the phenominon. Personally I would like some information regarding:
You know... stuff like that. I think this article could be much more interesting and as it stands today, should it be a stub article, until more information can be added? Gohst 01:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Twice now I've added Crouchamania as a similar example of the phenomenon. Twice it's been removed in a quite high-handed and frankly patronising way with comments of "nowhere near" and "idiocy". I amended the entry the second time to make it clearer to anyone who may be quite blinkered why it should be there, yet it was still removed. If Wikipedia is to remove the perception that huge sections are written by members of a "clique" who will not allow others to have an opinion on what is and isn't valid then I think something of a better explanation of this removal would be helpful. I've not put the entry back yet, as I am giving you the opportunity to explain. There's an example of some band most of the world will have never heard of, why is that there? If Beatlemania is (as seems from this discussion page) basically a phenomenon where teenage girls piss themselves at the sight of members of a boy band then it needs to be explained more clearly in the article itself. Read the article itself and explain why Crouchamania isn't a valid example. -- Realred 07:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that only some of the crud in the last section should even be here. Certainly a summary of record sales as a whole should be mentioned but not in so much depth. Should some of it be carted off to The Beatles discography, or just deleted? (this comment was added by User:207.62.186.233 20:15 11 July 2006)
Isn't "The Beatlemania era" these days often seen, in an historical context, as a period in the artistic development of the band? Perhaps the article should talk about the albums that they recorded in that period, the musical style that was prevelant etc Spebudmak 21:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
While the term is credited to a promoter, I've heard the story it was by a Canadian journalist (whose name I can't recall), which led to an album (the white album?) being released (uniquely) here as Beatlemania. True? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 14:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Should Beatlemania really be called a portmanteau when it simply can be analysed as a compound? It's been a while since I read word formation theory but the way I see it the word Beatlemania clearly consists of two separate morphemes and not just one like motel. -- 83.179.25.167 ( talk) 23:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, the first link in the references appears not to be working. 83.179.25.167 ( talk) 23:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Beatlemania 1960s.png, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 21:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Beatlemania/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
*I first looked at this yesterday and didn't really know what to say. Of course Beatlemania is an important concept (although in a way it's just a word, a dictdef if you will). Strip out the list of chart performances |
Last edited at 00:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 09:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Beatlemania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Beatlemania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand why we need 3 articles about the band's popularity 1963-66. Beatlemania in the United Kingdom and The Beatles in the United States contain basically all the info that is at Beatlemania. The first two are even formatted like "Part 1" and "Part 2" - the coverage on "UK" ends at 1963 whereas "US" picks up immediately afterward. These should be merged. -- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 17:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey, User:JG66, how much longer are you going to keep adding to this article, which is turning into an encyclopedia by itself! (OK, that's a bit of an exaggeration) You've increased it by more than 25% since you started a couple weeks ago; I'm not sure I've ever seen such an extended barrage of consecutive (non-trivial) edits to a single article by a single editor in all my wiki-years. It's tough to keep up! One of your summaries mentions plans to split some off into other articles - what's that about? - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 17:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
This page has several unresolved footnote references:
There are a couple more. How should these footnotes be corrected? -- Mikeblas ( talk) 01:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)