This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"Still others, including Lennon, have speculated that McCartney's failing long-term relationship with Jane Asher when he wrote "Hey Jude" was an unconscious "message to himself".[7] In fact, when Lennon mentioned that he thought the song was about him, McCartney denied it, and told Lennon he had written the song about himself.[8]"
At this point in the section there are two male Lennons who have been introduced. I assume that in this context "Lennon" refers to John Lennon, but I'm too lazy to check the references myself, so I'm not going to make the change myself. -Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.170.168 ( talk) 02:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
hey whats up? -Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.181.126.4 ( talk) 19:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I added a "Citation needed" to the first sentence that states Paul McCartney wrote the song. I'm aware that either Lennon or McCartney did write the song, but since we don't know which one (unless someone will find the citation) I'm just adding that. IMHO, it's always better to have more source citations than less. It's unfair to Lennon otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darmokandgalad ( talk • contribs) 00:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Great article. I've got a few comments and ideas for consideration and possible addition.
1. Regarding the Harrison guitar issue, where McCartney quashed his riffs, it seems the incident caused some long-term resentment, because in the Let It Be film where the two of them are arguing, Paul refers to it with a comment something like, "It's like the question of whether we should have guitar in Hey Jude - I honestly don't think we should". This, and the fact that "Revolution" was ousted as an A-side suggests the release was significant in the start of the group falling out musically.
2. The mention of the single being their first not to have a picture sleeve only applies to the US. This should be made clear as most prior UK singles (not all) came in Parlophone paper bags.
3. I think (someone might check) there are two distinct versions of the "Hey Jude" video, as they wear different clothes. If so, this is more than just several takes - it's a new wardrobe too! (On the other hand, it might be that the costume change was specifically for the filming of "Revolution".)
4. I have definitely read somewhere that the "Fucking hell" comment was from someone else, other than Lennon. It was an Apple artist, but I don't recall who - might have been Jackie Lomax. Can anyone confirm the truth?
5. I have also read that EMI had to develop some technological fix to be able to get so much play-time onto a 7-inch 45. See Walter Everett, "The Beatles As Musicians", p195.
6. Lastly, Everett again refers to John Ireland's much earlier composition "Te Deum" which shows remarkable similarity in its melody. It would be conjecture to suggest McCartney used it as a model, although it would bear comparison to his compositional method for "Golden Slumbers", but might be worth drawing attention to anyway. 217.43.81.99 ( talk) 08:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Is there some reason this article contains no mention of Wilson Pickett's 1969 version of "Hey Jude"? It was a top 25 hit in the US, it has received a lot of critical acclaim, and it established Duane Allman as a leading session guitarist. Wasted Time R ( talk) 12:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The last 4 minutes of the song are referred to inconsistently in this article as "coda," "outro," and "refrain." Both for the sake of consistency and to avoid confusion, I recommend against using the term "refrain" to refer to this section (at least initially). "Refrain" is often used synonymously with "chorus" (they are not the same, but I am not arguing definitions here, just clarity). As this article does not describe the song as having a chorus, if we use the word "refrain," we should specify what we mean.
The problem sentence is near the top of the "Musical Structure" section: "The main chord progression is "flipped on its head" for the refrain, as the C chord is replaced by E-flat." This sentence is composed awkwardly, and since I don't own the Hertsgaard book, I can't check the reference to see how it fit into context. I think, though, this sentence is referring to the outro/coda, and as such is misplaced in the section. It should come in the second paragraph.
My recommendation is to move the first sentence of the next paragraph (or something similar to it) to the top of the Musical Structure section, to give a broader overview of the song before diving into a deeper analysis of the bridge. It also makes clear that, in this particular case, the "refrain" is the outro.
24.5.162.57 ( talk) 08:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
After having watched the video many times, I'm still convinced they were not playing totally live, as there are no mics on Ringo's kit, and McCartney's vocal is sometimes double-tracked and then not. Ringo is seen playing a ride cymbal on the second verse when it's obviously a hi-hat, and there is an acoutic guitar in the background.
I just want to know how they did it? No headphones, no click track. Was it on a 4-3-2-1 monitor TV?-- andreasegde ( talk) 12:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Fantastic stuff, Crowley666 - the truth behind the 'Live' fiction. Did Frost have to do his introduction that many times?-- andreasegde ( talk) 19:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
It may be interesting to note that during the promo video, Paul sings a line from The Band's " The Weight", which had come out in June of 1968 (three months before the promo was shot). At the 5:24 mark in this video, he sings, "Take a load off, Fannie", and then, at the 5:30 mark, he sings "Take the load off, Fannie, and put the load back on, baby". — Gordon P. Hemsley→ ✉ 18:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Re: editing comments about lead. The version WesleyDodds keeps restoring has passive voice ("was written"), starts with when the song was recorded (not particularly important compared to when it was released), describes the structure of the song in inappropriate detail for the lead, and for the information shared with the newer version, takes more words to say less. I've reverted it. — John Cardinal ( talk) 13:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I assume the Lennon/McCartney credit has been placed where it has in the second sentence to qualify "written by Paul". But the intended emphasis of that sentence, that the song was "written by Paul to comfort Julian", is somewhat lost as a result. Is the Lennon/McCartney credit in fact vital in the intro, and if so, is there another acceptable location? PL290 ( talk) 15:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
An edit war is developing over the credit of this song. Legally it is Lennon/McCartney, although it is common knowledge that it is primarily a McCartney composition. The infobox should be for legal songwriting credit which means Lennon/McCartney. The Sony/ATV Music web site clearly shows the credit to be Lennon/McCartney at [1] Steelbeard1 ( talk) 12:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The infobox for song articles should follow the same standards as every song article with an infobox. "Hey Jude" is no exception. While the body of the article can explain who wrote the song, legal credit notwithstanding, the infobox for song articles MUST give the legal credit listed by the song publishing company which owns the song. Sony/ATV Music Publishing owns "Hey Jude" and they credit the song to Lennon/McCartney. Going back to " Give Peace A Chance" mentioned above, Sony/ATV Music Publishing does list that song as composed by Lennon only now. Steelbeard1 ( talk) 13:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the infobox should minimally include the Lennon/McCartney link which, if clicked through, explains the situation in general. In this particular case, where there is a strong argument for sole actual writing, I would not revert such a comment, but my preference would be to leave the discussion of the "actual writer" to the text. How would we determine when to do this: the L/M article, in fact, notes that even Hey Jude has some help from Lennon. (John User:Jwy talk) 18:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Re: "because Paul has tried to have songwriting credits for some of his Beatles songs changed in the past; he just didn't succeed." Such cases fail because there is a lack of evidence. — John Cardinal ( talk) 21:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Look at the record label or the CD booklet. The names in parentheses after the song title should be the names listed in the infobox. Steelbeard1 ( talk) 12:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs#Infobox_proposal where I've proposed a solution. PL290 ( talk) 13:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Re: "Can you back up your assertion? I was under the impression it was because Yoko didn't want John's name removed." Can you back up yours? There is evidence that the credit has not been changed. See BMI. — John Cardinal ( talk) 14:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Paul McCartney uses Hey Jude as a finale to concerts quite a lot, most notably as the grand finale to Live 8 - but it's the usual close for any Paul concert in the last couple of decades or so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Po8crg ( talk • contribs) 22:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I reverted a series of edits that changed the article for the worse.
— John Cardinal ( talk) 04:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
WesleyDodds has reverted my citation edits because he believes consensus is required for the changes I made. I disagree; the referencing guidelines specifically say that one shouldn't change the citation style if they are consistent, and they aren't. As they are now (after his revert), they are a mix of short and long footnotes. There are other issues, too. Date formats do not follow the current recommendation, multiple citations are styled incorrectly, etc.
WesleyDodds reverted two of my edits with one action, and the
first of my edits did not change the referencing style but only addressed some formatting errors in the citations. For example, |publisher=
is used when |work=
is correct. That part of the revert makes the article worse for no reason and that part of his revert should be reversed unrelated to the reference style discussion.
My other edit converted the article to short footnotes for all citations. The wikicode uses {{ Sfn}}, a template that significantly reduces the clutter from source citations in the article text. (See my unfinished essay that compares citation styles if you are interested in why that is true.) FYI: During the recent successful featured article review for The Beatles, the FA reviewers suggested using {{Sfn}} to address the same issue in "Hey Jude", and the group of editors pushing that article to FA status agreed that using {{Sfn}} would improve the article.
I propose that we change the reference style in this article from its current state to the more consistent style I implemented two weeks ago. When/if you reply, please indicate whether you Support or Oppose this change. Thanks. — John Cardinal ( talk) 16:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
{{sfn|Wenner|2000|p=110}}
" to "Wenner (2000), p. 110
", but those two things are not equivalent. First, to make plain text a reference, one has to add REF tags, so the plain text must change to "<ref>Wenner (2000), p. 110</ref>
". ({{sfn}}
constructs the REF tag automatically.) Second, if that page in Wenner is used more than once, an editor must assign a unique name to the REF tag, "<ref name="wenner110">Wenner (2000), p. 110</ref>
". REF names are not an exception; 70 of the 78 REF tags in the article have a NAME= parameter, and while some are unnecessary, there are 42 references that require one.{{sfn|Wenner|2000|p=110}}
<ref name="wenner110">Wenner (2000), p. 110</ref>
{{sfn}}
method has two other advantages over the plain text version. First, editors don't have to worry about whether or not the same page in Wenner is cited more than once, and if so, they do not have to find the other reference to determine if it has a REF name, and assign one if not. Secondly, the short footnote produced by {{sfn}}
is a clickable link to the full reference. {{sfn}}
produces more for less and helps to keep short footnotes consistent. I understand that many editors do not want to learn how to use templates, but this article already uses templates for both short and long footnotes and so unless an editor seeks consensus to use only plain text to create citations, some use of templates will be required to cite sources in this article regardless of the outcome of my proposal.{{sfn}}
part in the body of the article will be short and sweet whereas the current method used in this article introduces a long interruption into the text.{{sfn}}
method is a logical choice given the number of citations and the existing use of some short footnotes. —
John Cardinal (
talk) 15:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)Change can be a good thing, and if John Cardinal is happy to implement it here after consensus, then I don’t see a problem with it. Anyway, both arguments have been put forward, so why not just wait and see how the vote goes? -- Patthedog ( talk) 11:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I've reinstated the consistent use of short footnotes given multiple editors were in favor and only one opposed after a two-week period where editors could make comments. — John Cardinal ( talk) 22:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I doubt that when this article was featured, the original title of the song and its connection with Julian Lennon was mentioned in it quite so many times. I have removed
The song's original title was "Hey Jules", and it was intended to comfort Julian Lennon from the stress of his parents' divorce.
from the 'Inspiration and composition' section, as an identical statement appears in first para, and in any case the para goes on to further detail. Centrepull ( talk) 06:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it should be listed under "Psychedelic songs". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.215.145.233 ( talk) 00:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
According to Steve Matteo's book on Let It Be, after they'd finished shooting the promo for Hey Jude, the band sat up in the small hours watching playback with Denis O'Dell and Michael Lindsay-Hogg and drinking scotch & cokes, and they agreed that they'd had a good time and that they must do that sort of thing again soon - and that this was at least in part the genesis of the idea of filming a live performance which was to culminate (if that's the word) in Let It Be. I can't remember Matteo's source for this anecdote but he did give one (I don't own a copy of his book but I was reading it in a bookshop and it seemed reasonably well-sourced). Lexo ( talk) 17:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
The single did not have a picture sleeve in the UK or the US. It did have pic. sleeves in Europe and elsewhere but AFAICT this is not one of them. The challenge then is to find a reliable source that states that this pic. is indeed the single cover. — Wrapped in Grey ( talk) 21:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The article says it was released in 1968 as a "7 inch single." Was it a 33 1/3 or a 45? A 45 EP could run that long.The article does not make this clear. The "7" wikilink just goes to a general page about records and not a section on a particular size and speed. Edison ( talk) 17:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
There has been a dispute on the talk page of All My Loving about whether to include information about the song itself--its key, the chord structure, notable use of chords, melody, harmony to enhance mood or lyric intent etc. The contentious upshot is that the referenced (to Pollack, Pedler and Everett) musical structure section of that song is slated for deletion, but also that a notice will be placed suggesting that such sections be deleted from ALL wikipedia articles on Beatles songs. This seems a peculiar position and against the instructions about how to deal with a song's musical structure in the wikipedia song project, as well as a growing body of scholarships about the music of the Beatles. Perhaps some editors from this Featured Article might care to offer an opinion on the All my Loving talk page. NimbusWeb ( talk) 09:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Although the editor above says it's not at all about 'deleting these sections as sections", the following is a post from one of the fellow editors on All My Loving posted on the Something talk page: "It has been proposed to remove the section headed “Musical Structure” from this article (and others) following a discussion on All My Loving. Any comments you may wish to make would be appreciated here. --Patthedog (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)" NimbusWeb ( talk) 12:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Everyone knows that the Beatles' influence on music was incalculable, so it is perhaps pointless to single out this one song for discussion in that regard. Nevertheless, it clearly inspired a fad of lengthy recordings having an extended, repetitious, and often unrelated closing section. Perhaps the best example is Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In, but I could name half a dozen others from the three years following the release of "Hey Jude" (and none from before). I have commented on this before on the talk page for Atlantis (song). I wonder if any reliable source has ever written about this phenomenon or if it's one of those things that has seemed too obvious to mention. Richard K. Carson ( talk) 03:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Whoever's been quoted for this section has to be one of the most pretentious talentless individuals ever to touch the world of music. Putting the main F Bb C on its head? O RLY? The coda would then be considered to be in another key. But it's not. The coda to this song introduced a new 'jam' chord sequence that became one of the mainstays of improvised (and even composed) rock ever since. Of course you'd have to be a real musician to know that. And that's probably why this article worries more about trivialities than the truth. Another thing: don't dissect these works of art to smithereens. You people are too good at that. The walrus was Paul, Paul would have been 28 IF... Enough already. Let it be. And in the future don't write crap you know nothing about. Finding a quote isn't sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.134.61.83 ( talk • contribs)
The "verse chord analysis" accompanying the article is dead-wrong. The first bar is correct, but the next two bars are variations/inversions of a C-chord. The second measure is C for three beats, then a slur between flat-III/flat-V to III-V to IV-VI for a beat followed the third measure. The third measure is comprised of V-dominant VII (one count) and C(sus)4--all of this with C in the bass. The fourth measure returns to the tonic. And I heartily agree with the comment about "putting the main F Bb C on its head" as erroneous. It's a different mode (F Eb Bb F). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdrake2 ( talk • contribs) 00:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
There have been a lot of misconceptions of who played what in this song: I know that in the video George Harrison played bass (a six-string bass called a Fender Bass VI) but in the studio Paul McCartney played both the piano and the bass (i.e. double-tracking) with Harrison on lead guitar, as usual. So I agree with whoever wrote that thread; Please stop changing the band-line-up and leave that section as-is.-- Kevjgav ( talk) 07:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning that band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 23:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
In his recollection of his first performance of Hey Jude to John Lennon, Paul McCartney is quoted thus: it's a stupid expression; it sounds like a parent.
I heard him saying this on the Beatles anthology DVD's many times, and I think he's not saying parent, but parrot.
It seems to me that this also makes a lot more sense within the context, he meant to say: the movement's on your shoulder like a parrot is on a pirate's.
And that could sound kind of silly given the overall atmosphere of this song, I think that was his concern.
Dunglisher (
talk) 10:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, it appears someone has changed 'parent' to 'parrot'. Thank you. Dunglisher ( talk) 14:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
The article mentions a theory that Paul said it, but Paul was singing at that same time. Or was Paul's vocal track recorded separately? 108.1.112.207 ( talk) 21:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
His vocals would have been recorded separately from the backing tracks. 217.41.61.6 ( talk) 15:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Anybody wanna mention the differences in the new 2009 remasters mix on Past Masters? The main difference is Paul's singing going wilder and more emotional during the second part. -- 79.193.34.132 ( talk) 15:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
STOP changing the Line-up to the video version, in the Studio it was performed as ever, credits per beatles Bible:
Paul McCartney: vocals, piano, bass John Lennon: backing vocals, acoustic guitar George Harrison: backing vocals, lead guitar Ringo Starr: backing vocals, drums, tambourine Uncredited: 10 violins, 3 violas, 3 cellos, 2 double basses, 2 flutes, 2 clarinets, 1 bass clarinet, 1 bassoon, 1 contrabassoon, 4 trumpets, 2 horns, 4 trombones, 1 percussion
that's right so leave it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.243.77 ( talk) 14:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Many people think that George Harrison played bass in the song, and I think the confusion comes from the video, where it shows him playing a Fender Bass VI. The instruments shown in the video are different from those in the studio as well. In the video, Paul McCartney is playing a Challen Upright piano, whereas in the studio he used a C. Bechstein Concert Grand piano. John Lennon is playing an Epiphone Casino in the video and a Gibson J-200 in the studio. The biggest difference of all is that in the video George Harrison is playing a Fender Bass VI in the video and a Fender Telecaster in the studio. Paul McCartney played bass in the studio, and it was probably his usual Hofner 500/1.-- Kevjgav ( talk) 18:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I only skimmed the article, but noticed that (I think) that the Wilson Pickett version isn't mentioned there. His release included Duane Allman's guitar throughout.. landing kudos from Eric Clapton prior to their meeting. Here' commentary by Clapton too: [2]]. -- Leahtwosaints ( talk) 22:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I think this should at least get a mention, shouldn't it? OlJa 02:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
The opening paragraph states that "Hey Jude" evolved from "Hey Jules" - which was written for Julian Lennon, but a sentence further down says 'Although McCartney originally wrote "Hey Jude" for Julian, John Lennon thought it had actually been written for him.' This is confusing to the reader, as the article does not say the 'finished version' was intended for Julian. I had tried to clarify this sentence, but my edit was reverted by user:Synthwave.94 without explanation. It's not clear to me whether Lennon though the original version or the finished version was about him, so would someone else mind working on a form of words to clarify this confusing sentence. Obscurasky ( talk) 11:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 13 external links on Hey Jude. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://repertoire.bmi.com/title.asp?blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&page=1&keyid=562357&ShowNbr=0&ShowSeqNbr=0&querytype=WorkIDWhen 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) 23:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on Hey Jude. 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.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on Hey Jude. 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) 07:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
In this edit, I tried to add information to this article, an article mentioned in Requiem für einen jungen Dichter in the lede. Please look if you find it worth adding, also where in the context and in which detail. There are several sources as indicated in the edit summary. "In fact, the two momentarily converge when Zimmermann quotes The Beatles' song Hey Jude (something of a horrific pun, especially given the Requiem's use of the German language and of Hitler's voice in particular)." [3]. Or: "Im Requiem begegnen sich Zitate aus Tristan und Isolde, Hey Jude und Beethovens Neunter, Free-Jazz-Einlagen des Manfred-Schoof-Quintetts, Meeresrauschen und Originaleinspielungen von Hitler, Dubček und Papst Johannes XXIII., Texte aus dem Grundgesetz und Schriften Mao Tse-tungs sowie Lyrik von Kurt Schwitters, James Joyce, Ezra Pound." [4] -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hey Jude. 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) 18:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I've done some research and found out that "What a Wonderful World" / "Cabaret" by Louis Armstrong was the best selling single of that year. Here's a link to prove it http://www.uk-charts.top-source.info/top-100-1968.shtml Bob3458 ( talk) 18:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Oceantracks: You were right about this after all. Just listened to the track through headphones: the bass guitar part does continue, seamlessly, over the transition into the coda, and carries on through to the end of the song. With my revert, I was adhering to Walter Everett's description as a source, but without checking whether he was right. There's no end of incorrect or confused coverage about the Beatles' songs – as much as there is decent coverage – so I think we can simply remove the detail (and save the author the embarrassment). Thanks to FlightTime for their support, but as it turns out, this is a case of the source getting it wrong. JG66 ( talk) 09:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be chronologically better if the Release section followed the Promotion section, rather than the other way round? Currently it jumps from commentary on the song's commercial success to some of the promotional measures that helped ensure it, then to its critical reception, which to me flows like info on its (commercial and critical) reception being interrupted by material on the promotion that should have come earlier.-- TangoTizerWolfstone ( talk) 05:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:BEATLES#Craig Cross. Ojorojo ( talk) 18:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC) — Ojorojo ( talk) 18:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"Still others, including Lennon, have speculated that McCartney's failing long-term relationship with Jane Asher when he wrote "Hey Jude" was an unconscious "message to himself".[7] In fact, when Lennon mentioned that he thought the song was about him, McCartney denied it, and told Lennon he had written the song about himself.[8]"
At this point in the section there are two male Lennons who have been introduced. I assume that in this context "Lennon" refers to John Lennon, but I'm too lazy to check the references myself, so I'm not going to make the change myself. -Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.170.168 ( talk) 02:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
hey whats up? -Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.181.126.4 ( talk) 19:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I added a "Citation needed" to the first sentence that states Paul McCartney wrote the song. I'm aware that either Lennon or McCartney did write the song, but since we don't know which one (unless someone will find the citation) I'm just adding that. IMHO, it's always better to have more source citations than less. It's unfair to Lennon otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darmokandgalad ( talk • contribs) 00:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Great article. I've got a few comments and ideas for consideration and possible addition.
1. Regarding the Harrison guitar issue, where McCartney quashed his riffs, it seems the incident caused some long-term resentment, because in the Let It Be film where the two of them are arguing, Paul refers to it with a comment something like, "It's like the question of whether we should have guitar in Hey Jude - I honestly don't think we should". This, and the fact that "Revolution" was ousted as an A-side suggests the release was significant in the start of the group falling out musically.
2. The mention of the single being their first not to have a picture sleeve only applies to the US. This should be made clear as most prior UK singles (not all) came in Parlophone paper bags.
3. I think (someone might check) there are two distinct versions of the "Hey Jude" video, as they wear different clothes. If so, this is more than just several takes - it's a new wardrobe too! (On the other hand, it might be that the costume change was specifically for the filming of "Revolution".)
4. I have definitely read somewhere that the "Fucking hell" comment was from someone else, other than Lennon. It was an Apple artist, but I don't recall who - might have been Jackie Lomax. Can anyone confirm the truth?
5. I have also read that EMI had to develop some technological fix to be able to get so much play-time onto a 7-inch 45. See Walter Everett, "The Beatles As Musicians", p195.
6. Lastly, Everett again refers to John Ireland's much earlier composition "Te Deum" which shows remarkable similarity in its melody. It would be conjecture to suggest McCartney used it as a model, although it would bear comparison to his compositional method for "Golden Slumbers", but might be worth drawing attention to anyway. 217.43.81.99 ( talk) 08:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Is there some reason this article contains no mention of Wilson Pickett's 1969 version of "Hey Jude"? It was a top 25 hit in the US, it has received a lot of critical acclaim, and it established Duane Allman as a leading session guitarist. Wasted Time R ( talk) 12:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The last 4 minutes of the song are referred to inconsistently in this article as "coda," "outro," and "refrain." Both for the sake of consistency and to avoid confusion, I recommend against using the term "refrain" to refer to this section (at least initially). "Refrain" is often used synonymously with "chorus" (they are not the same, but I am not arguing definitions here, just clarity). As this article does not describe the song as having a chorus, if we use the word "refrain," we should specify what we mean.
The problem sentence is near the top of the "Musical Structure" section: "The main chord progression is "flipped on its head" for the refrain, as the C chord is replaced by E-flat." This sentence is composed awkwardly, and since I don't own the Hertsgaard book, I can't check the reference to see how it fit into context. I think, though, this sentence is referring to the outro/coda, and as such is misplaced in the section. It should come in the second paragraph.
My recommendation is to move the first sentence of the next paragraph (or something similar to it) to the top of the Musical Structure section, to give a broader overview of the song before diving into a deeper analysis of the bridge. It also makes clear that, in this particular case, the "refrain" is the outro.
24.5.162.57 ( talk) 08:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
After having watched the video many times, I'm still convinced they were not playing totally live, as there are no mics on Ringo's kit, and McCartney's vocal is sometimes double-tracked and then not. Ringo is seen playing a ride cymbal on the second verse when it's obviously a hi-hat, and there is an acoutic guitar in the background.
I just want to know how they did it? No headphones, no click track. Was it on a 4-3-2-1 monitor TV?-- andreasegde ( talk) 12:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Fantastic stuff, Crowley666 - the truth behind the 'Live' fiction. Did Frost have to do his introduction that many times?-- andreasegde ( talk) 19:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
It may be interesting to note that during the promo video, Paul sings a line from The Band's " The Weight", which had come out in June of 1968 (three months before the promo was shot). At the 5:24 mark in this video, he sings, "Take a load off, Fannie", and then, at the 5:30 mark, he sings "Take the load off, Fannie, and put the load back on, baby". — Gordon P. Hemsley→ ✉ 18:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Re: editing comments about lead. The version WesleyDodds keeps restoring has passive voice ("was written"), starts with when the song was recorded (not particularly important compared to when it was released), describes the structure of the song in inappropriate detail for the lead, and for the information shared with the newer version, takes more words to say less. I've reverted it. — John Cardinal ( talk) 13:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I assume the Lennon/McCartney credit has been placed where it has in the second sentence to qualify "written by Paul". But the intended emphasis of that sentence, that the song was "written by Paul to comfort Julian", is somewhat lost as a result. Is the Lennon/McCartney credit in fact vital in the intro, and if so, is there another acceptable location? PL290 ( talk) 15:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
An edit war is developing over the credit of this song. Legally it is Lennon/McCartney, although it is common knowledge that it is primarily a McCartney composition. The infobox should be for legal songwriting credit which means Lennon/McCartney. The Sony/ATV Music web site clearly shows the credit to be Lennon/McCartney at [1] Steelbeard1 ( talk) 12:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The infobox for song articles should follow the same standards as every song article with an infobox. "Hey Jude" is no exception. While the body of the article can explain who wrote the song, legal credit notwithstanding, the infobox for song articles MUST give the legal credit listed by the song publishing company which owns the song. Sony/ATV Music Publishing owns "Hey Jude" and they credit the song to Lennon/McCartney. Going back to " Give Peace A Chance" mentioned above, Sony/ATV Music Publishing does list that song as composed by Lennon only now. Steelbeard1 ( talk) 13:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the infobox should minimally include the Lennon/McCartney link which, if clicked through, explains the situation in general. In this particular case, where there is a strong argument for sole actual writing, I would not revert such a comment, but my preference would be to leave the discussion of the "actual writer" to the text. How would we determine when to do this: the L/M article, in fact, notes that even Hey Jude has some help from Lennon. (John User:Jwy talk) 18:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Re: "because Paul has tried to have songwriting credits for some of his Beatles songs changed in the past; he just didn't succeed." Such cases fail because there is a lack of evidence. — John Cardinal ( talk) 21:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Look at the record label or the CD booklet. The names in parentheses after the song title should be the names listed in the infobox. Steelbeard1 ( talk) 12:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs#Infobox_proposal where I've proposed a solution. PL290 ( talk) 13:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Re: "Can you back up your assertion? I was under the impression it was because Yoko didn't want John's name removed." Can you back up yours? There is evidence that the credit has not been changed. See BMI. — John Cardinal ( talk) 14:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Paul McCartney uses Hey Jude as a finale to concerts quite a lot, most notably as the grand finale to Live 8 - but it's the usual close for any Paul concert in the last couple of decades or so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Po8crg ( talk • contribs) 22:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I reverted a series of edits that changed the article for the worse.
— John Cardinal ( talk) 04:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
WesleyDodds has reverted my citation edits because he believes consensus is required for the changes I made. I disagree; the referencing guidelines specifically say that one shouldn't change the citation style if they are consistent, and they aren't. As they are now (after his revert), they are a mix of short and long footnotes. There are other issues, too. Date formats do not follow the current recommendation, multiple citations are styled incorrectly, etc.
WesleyDodds reverted two of my edits with one action, and the
first of my edits did not change the referencing style but only addressed some formatting errors in the citations. For example, |publisher=
is used when |work=
is correct. That part of the revert makes the article worse for no reason and that part of his revert should be reversed unrelated to the reference style discussion.
My other edit converted the article to short footnotes for all citations. The wikicode uses {{ Sfn}}, a template that significantly reduces the clutter from source citations in the article text. (See my unfinished essay that compares citation styles if you are interested in why that is true.) FYI: During the recent successful featured article review for The Beatles, the FA reviewers suggested using {{Sfn}} to address the same issue in "Hey Jude", and the group of editors pushing that article to FA status agreed that using {{Sfn}} would improve the article.
I propose that we change the reference style in this article from its current state to the more consistent style I implemented two weeks ago. When/if you reply, please indicate whether you Support or Oppose this change. Thanks. — John Cardinal ( talk) 16:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
{{sfn|Wenner|2000|p=110}}
" to "Wenner (2000), p. 110
", but those two things are not equivalent. First, to make plain text a reference, one has to add REF tags, so the plain text must change to "<ref>Wenner (2000), p. 110</ref>
". ({{sfn}}
constructs the REF tag automatically.) Second, if that page in Wenner is used more than once, an editor must assign a unique name to the REF tag, "<ref name="wenner110">Wenner (2000), p. 110</ref>
". REF names are not an exception; 70 of the 78 REF tags in the article have a NAME= parameter, and while some are unnecessary, there are 42 references that require one.{{sfn|Wenner|2000|p=110}}
<ref name="wenner110">Wenner (2000), p. 110</ref>
{{sfn}}
method has two other advantages over the plain text version. First, editors don't have to worry about whether or not the same page in Wenner is cited more than once, and if so, they do not have to find the other reference to determine if it has a REF name, and assign one if not. Secondly, the short footnote produced by {{sfn}}
is a clickable link to the full reference. {{sfn}}
produces more for less and helps to keep short footnotes consistent. I understand that many editors do not want to learn how to use templates, but this article already uses templates for both short and long footnotes and so unless an editor seeks consensus to use only plain text to create citations, some use of templates will be required to cite sources in this article regardless of the outcome of my proposal.{{sfn}}
part in the body of the article will be short and sweet whereas the current method used in this article introduces a long interruption into the text.{{sfn}}
method is a logical choice given the number of citations and the existing use of some short footnotes. —
John Cardinal (
talk) 15:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)Change can be a good thing, and if John Cardinal is happy to implement it here after consensus, then I don’t see a problem with it. Anyway, both arguments have been put forward, so why not just wait and see how the vote goes? -- Patthedog ( talk) 11:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I've reinstated the consistent use of short footnotes given multiple editors were in favor and only one opposed after a two-week period where editors could make comments. — John Cardinal ( talk) 22:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I doubt that when this article was featured, the original title of the song and its connection with Julian Lennon was mentioned in it quite so many times. I have removed
The song's original title was "Hey Jules", and it was intended to comfort Julian Lennon from the stress of his parents' divorce.
from the 'Inspiration and composition' section, as an identical statement appears in first para, and in any case the para goes on to further detail. Centrepull ( talk) 06:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it should be listed under "Psychedelic songs". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.215.145.233 ( talk) 00:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
According to Steve Matteo's book on Let It Be, after they'd finished shooting the promo for Hey Jude, the band sat up in the small hours watching playback with Denis O'Dell and Michael Lindsay-Hogg and drinking scotch & cokes, and they agreed that they'd had a good time and that they must do that sort of thing again soon - and that this was at least in part the genesis of the idea of filming a live performance which was to culminate (if that's the word) in Let It Be. I can't remember Matteo's source for this anecdote but he did give one (I don't own a copy of his book but I was reading it in a bookshop and it seemed reasonably well-sourced). Lexo ( talk) 17:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
The single did not have a picture sleeve in the UK or the US. It did have pic. sleeves in Europe and elsewhere but AFAICT this is not one of them. The challenge then is to find a reliable source that states that this pic. is indeed the single cover. — Wrapped in Grey ( talk) 21:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The article says it was released in 1968 as a "7 inch single." Was it a 33 1/3 or a 45? A 45 EP could run that long.The article does not make this clear. The "7" wikilink just goes to a general page about records and not a section on a particular size and speed. Edison ( talk) 17:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
There has been a dispute on the talk page of All My Loving about whether to include information about the song itself--its key, the chord structure, notable use of chords, melody, harmony to enhance mood or lyric intent etc. The contentious upshot is that the referenced (to Pollack, Pedler and Everett) musical structure section of that song is slated for deletion, but also that a notice will be placed suggesting that such sections be deleted from ALL wikipedia articles on Beatles songs. This seems a peculiar position and against the instructions about how to deal with a song's musical structure in the wikipedia song project, as well as a growing body of scholarships about the music of the Beatles. Perhaps some editors from this Featured Article might care to offer an opinion on the All my Loving talk page. NimbusWeb ( talk) 09:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Although the editor above says it's not at all about 'deleting these sections as sections", the following is a post from one of the fellow editors on All My Loving posted on the Something talk page: "It has been proposed to remove the section headed “Musical Structure” from this article (and others) following a discussion on All My Loving. Any comments you may wish to make would be appreciated here. --Patthedog (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)" NimbusWeb ( talk) 12:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Everyone knows that the Beatles' influence on music was incalculable, so it is perhaps pointless to single out this one song for discussion in that regard. Nevertheless, it clearly inspired a fad of lengthy recordings having an extended, repetitious, and often unrelated closing section. Perhaps the best example is Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In, but I could name half a dozen others from the three years following the release of "Hey Jude" (and none from before). I have commented on this before on the talk page for Atlantis (song). I wonder if any reliable source has ever written about this phenomenon or if it's one of those things that has seemed too obvious to mention. Richard K. Carson ( talk) 03:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Whoever's been quoted for this section has to be one of the most pretentious talentless individuals ever to touch the world of music. Putting the main F Bb C on its head? O RLY? The coda would then be considered to be in another key. But it's not. The coda to this song introduced a new 'jam' chord sequence that became one of the mainstays of improvised (and even composed) rock ever since. Of course you'd have to be a real musician to know that. And that's probably why this article worries more about trivialities than the truth. Another thing: don't dissect these works of art to smithereens. You people are too good at that. The walrus was Paul, Paul would have been 28 IF... Enough already. Let it be. And in the future don't write crap you know nothing about. Finding a quote isn't sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.134.61.83 ( talk • contribs)
The "verse chord analysis" accompanying the article is dead-wrong. The first bar is correct, but the next two bars are variations/inversions of a C-chord. The second measure is C for three beats, then a slur between flat-III/flat-V to III-V to IV-VI for a beat followed the third measure. The third measure is comprised of V-dominant VII (one count) and C(sus)4--all of this with C in the bass. The fourth measure returns to the tonic. And I heartily agree with the comment about "putting the main F Bb C on its head" as erroneous. It's a different mode (F Eb Bb F). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdrake2 ( talk • contribs) 00:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
There have been a lot of misconceptions of who played what in this song: I know that in the video George Harrison played bass (a six-string bass called a Fender Bass VI) but in the studio Paul McCartney played both the piano and the bass (i.e. double-tracking) with Harrison on lead guitar, as usual. So I agree with whoever wrote that thread; Please stop changing the band-line-up and leave that section as-is.-- Kevjgav ( talk) 07:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning that band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 23:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
In his recollection of his first performance of Hey Jude to John Lennon, Paul McCartney is quoted thus: it's a stupid expression; it sounds like a parent.
I heard him saying this on the Beatles anthology DVD's many times, and I think he's not saying parent, but parrot.
It seems to me that this also makes a lot more sense within the context, he meant to say: the movement's on your shoulder like a parrot is on a pirate's.
And that could sound kind of silly given the overall atmosphere of this song, I think that was his concern.
Dunglisher (
talk) 10:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, it appears someone has changed 'parent' to 'parrot'. Thank you. Dunglisher ( talk) 14:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
The article mentions a theory that Paul said it, but Paul was singing at that same time. Or was Paul's vocal track recorded separately? 108.1.112.207 ( talk) 21:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
His vocals would have been recorded separately from the backing tracks. 217.41.61.6 ( talk) 15:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Anybody wanna mention the differences in the new 2009 remasters mix on Past Masters? The main difference is Paul's singing going wilder and more emotional during the second part. -- 79.193.34.132 ( talk) 15:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
STOP changing the Line-up to the video version, in the Studio it was performed as ever, credits per beatles Bible:
Paul McCartney: vocals, piano, bass John Lennon: backing vocals, acoustic guitar George Harrison: backing vocals, lead guitar Ringo Starr: backing vocals, drums, tambourine Uncredited: 10 violins, 3 violas, 3 cellos, 2 double basses, 2 flutes, 2 clarinets, 1 bass clarinet, 1 bassoon, 1 contrabassoon, 4 trumpets, 2 horns, 4 trombones, 1 percussion
that's right so leave it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.243.77 ( talk) 14:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Many people think that George Harrison played bass in the song, and I think the confusion comes from the video, where it shows him playing a Fender Bass VI. The instruments shown in the video are different from those in the studio as well. In the video, Paul McCartney is playing a Challen Upright piano, whereas in the studio he used a C. Bechstein Concert Grand piano. John Lennon is playing an Epiphone Casino in the video and a Gibson J-200 in the studio. The biggest difference of all is that in the video George Harrison is playing a Fender Bass VI in the video and a Fender Telecaster in the studio. Paul McCartney played bass in the studio, and it was probably his usual Hofner 500/1.-- Kevjgav ( talk) 18:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I only skimmed the article, but noticed that (I think) that the Wilson Pickett version isn't mentioned there. His release included Duane Allman's guitar throughout.. landing kudos from Eric Clapton prior to their meeting. Here' commentary by Clapton too: [2]]. -- Leahtwosaints ( talk) 22:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I think this should at least get a mention, shouldn't it? OlJa 02:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
The opening paragraph states that "Hey Jude" evolved from "Hey Jules" - which was written for Julian Lennon, but a sentence further down says 'Although McCartney originally wrote "Hey Jude" for Julian, John Lennon thought it had actually been written for him.' This is confusing to the reader, as the article does not say the 'finished version' was intended for Julian. I had tried to clarify this sentence, but my edit was reverted by user:Synthwave.94 without explanation. It's not clear to me whether Lennon though the original version or the finished version was about him, so would someone else mind working on a form of words to clarify this confusing sentence. Obscurasky ( talk) 11:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 13 external links on Hey Jude. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://repertoire.bmi.com/title.asp?blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&page=1&keyid=562357&ShowNbr=0&ShowSeqNbr=0&querytype=WorkIDWhen 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) 23:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on Hey Jude. 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.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on Hey Jude. 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) 07:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
In this edit, I tried to add information to this article, an article mentioned in Requiem für einen jungen Dichter in the lede. Please look if you find it worth adding, also where in the context and in which detail. There are several sources as indicated in the edit summary. "In fact, the two momentarily converge when Zimmermann quotes The Beatles' song Hey Jude (something of a horrific pun, especially given the Requiem's use of the German language and of Hitler's voice in particular)." [3]. Or: "Im Requiem begegnen sich Zitate aus Tristan und Isolde, Hey Jude und Beethovens Neunter, Free-Jazz-Einlagen des Manfred-Schoof-Quintetts, Meeresrauschen und Originaleinspielungen von Hitler, Dubček und Papst Johannes XXIII., Texte aus dem Grundgesetz und Schriften Mao Tse-tungs sowie Lyrik von Kurt Schwitters, James Joyce, Ezra Pound." [4] -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hey Jude. 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) 18:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I've done some research and found out that "What a Wonderful World" / "Cabaret" by Louis Armstrong was the best selling single of that year. Here's a link to prove it http://www.uk-charts.top-source.info/top-100-1968.shtml Bob3458 ( talk) 18:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Oceantracks: You were right about this after all. Just listened to the track through headphones: the bass guitar part does continue, seamlessly, over the transition into the coda, and carries on through to the end of the song. With my revert, I was adhering to Walter Everett's description as a source, but without checking whether he was right. There's no end of incorrect or confused coverage about the Beatles' songs – as much as there is decent coverage – so I think we can simply remove the detail (and save the author the embarrassment). Thanks to FlightTime for their support, but as it turns out, this is a case of the source getting it wrong. JG66 ( talk) 09:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be chronologically better if the Release section followed the Promotion section, rather than the other way round? Currently it jumps from commentary on the song's commercial success to some of the promotional measures that helped ensure it, then to its critical reception, which to me flows like info on its (commercial and critical) reception being interrupted by material on the promotion that should have come earlier.-- TangoTizerWolfstone ( talk) 05:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:BEATLES#Craig Cross. Ojorojo ( talk) 18:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC) — Ojorojo ( talk) 18:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)