![]() | This 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. |
Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
I do not have sufficient permissions to improve this article. The first sentence reads like an advertisement. This qualification is outside the scope of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaineglover ( talk • contribs) 16:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@ Obscurasky: Thank you for raising this issue at my talk page, but I think it might be best to discuss it here, and ensure everyone gets to weigh in. Personally, I still can't see any reason for the removal of hyphens you've done since my revert.
Your point about "numbers are not normally hyphenated" – I'm sorry, but I believe that is totally incorrect. Numbers are hyphenated after twenty; in fact, that's the reason why editorial style in writing often dictates that numerals should be used, if not from 10 (to mark the change to double figures), then from 21 onwards. That is: to avoid any need for hyphenated numbers, because invariably, once there are instances of something like "a 21-year gap", there would be a situation whereby the number itself is hyphenated, but so too is the compound adjective/adjectival phrase in which it appears. And, contrary to another change you've just made, I think the hyphen in a long phrase such as "a local record-store owner and music columnist" would be very useful, to avoid the reader tripping over any item in that description. If we were saying "a local shopkeeper and music columnist" then there'd be no chance of that, but the pertinent point is he's the owner of a record store – a multi-word description – plus, "local" provides an additional concept, quite removed from the "record-store" modifier.
Anyone one else, btw, please weigh in … JG66 ( talk) 15:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Just throwin' it out there, either Freda Kelly (officially employed at Brian's NEMS and later Apple) or the original The Beatles Fan Club she ran as The Beatles's secretary may be relevant enough for their own article, to be included in the People associated with the Beatles box at the bottom or in the Related articles section. I've just seen this 86-minute 2013 documentary [19] about her and with her, focussing on her work for the lads from 1961-1972. The film even includes a few kind recent words spoken by none other than Mr. Richard Starkey in appreciative tribute to her, so I suppose at least the latter may establish her relevance within the Beatleverse. -- 2003:71:4E6A:B463:E461:79B2:5C3B:DF32 ( talk) 10:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
The section is unclear as to what actually happened after Michael Jackson's death regarding the rights to the Beatles song catalogue. It's always been a bit hazy after the 1995 ATV/Sony merger which of the songs were owned by Jackson and which by Sony, and our article for Sony/ATV Music Publishing doesn't say anything about The Beatles rights after Jackson's death, not even in relation to Sony's recent acquirement of EMI. Are the Beatles songs back in the same hands as the Abbey Road studios now, etc.? Those are the things still missing from the Song catalogue section here. -- 2003:71:4E6A:B456:2089:80C7:3624:FCC4 ( talk) 03:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Should Tony Sheridan be listed in associated acts? They backed him as the Beat Brothers, which seems as associated as Billy Preston, who is listed because he backed them. Also, why is Plastic Ono Band listed, but not Wings, or The All-Starr Band, or Traveling Wilburys? 68.9.148.17 ( talk) 14:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you both for clarifying. I asked about Tony Sheridan because of that "The Early Tapes"/"The Beatles' First" album where they played together. They functioned as his backing band, so that seemed like a strong case for an association (they'd certainly be an associated act for him). I wasn't advocating for including the other bands so much as I was thinking of Plastic Ono as being more of a solo thing, but I take the point that John was still in the band at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.148.17 ( talk) 02:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
In the section The Beatles#Awards and achievements it says the Beatles' sales are 600 million to over one billion units worldwide. The claim of one billion discs and tapes comes from the Guinness Book of World Records and dates to 1985. Although Guinness says this figure is according to EMI, it still appears dubious. Guinness had previously said Beatles sales by the end of 1978 were estimated at 100 million singles and 100 million albums. As of 1985, the Beatles U.S. album sales totaled 74,786,835 not counting two albums distributed by United Artists. Add those in and the total is about 80 million. Since U.S. sales accounted for about half of worldwide sales, a reasonable estimate of worldwide album sales as of 1985 would be about 160 million. In 1972 EMI estimated worldwide sales at 85 million albums and 120 million singles and EPs for a total of 205 million, boosted slightly by counting EPs as two units. This would make a total of about 280 million (160 + 120) worldwide as of 1985, assuming singles sales probably wouldn't have been that significant after 1972. As of 2004, Apple claims the Beatles have sold "more than 600 million records, tapes and CDs." The figure of one billion is completely out of line with EMI's 1972 totals, Guinness' 1978 totals, Capitol's 1985 totals, and Apple's most recent total. Piriczki ( talk) 17:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
If interested, please offer support for a WikiProject focused on psychedelic music.-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 01:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Revolver was the last Beatles album to be released while they were still touring, the last to be released before John met Yoko, the last to be released where Harrison gave it his full interest (we see him lose interest on Sgt. Pepper), and the last before they began growing mustaches and took on a more psychedelic, "hippie" look beginning with the Strawberry Fields Forever/ Penny Lane single.
Not to mention, on The Red Album and The Blue Album compilations, it's filed under the "Red"(1962-66) section. And George Harrison has said in interviews that he always thought of Rubber Soul(considered in this article to be an "early" Beatles release) and Revolver as a twofer. So, I don't see why Revolver is lumped into the 1966-70 section, when it really belongs more with the "touring era" albums like Rubber Soul, rather than Sgt. Pepper and beyond.-- 73.79.233.45 ( talk) 02:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I hear a song on 101.6 IBC FM which has "Rock After Midnight" every day at midnight. When I listen to the song, it sounds like an answer song in which its duration and its hook were similar to " Hey Jude". I don't know for the title song that I hear on the radio station which was inactive and later replaced by the university radio station that very not popular. Because I will know, can you search songs where its music structure were similar to "Hey Jude"? Wisnu Aji ( talk) 07:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Beatles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Beatles actually had started in the 1950s, with John Lennon and some of his friends. You also need to inform about Stu Sutcliffe and Pete Best. 207.244.138.38 ( talk) 20:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
See this book, page 233-235 contains an explanation of how the CD releases were intended to harmonize the Beatles catalog into a simplified canon. For people who objected to the paragraph on sourcing grounds, does this suffice, or do we need more sources? -- Jayron 32 02:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
It seems the earliest known moving footage of John, Paul, and George together has been found: [20], [21], [22] It dates to 1958 and shows them in the background of a Liverpool police training film during a police sporting event. The house of the McCartneys stood right next to the training ground and the three of them'd always stand on top of the concrete outhouse in the McCartney backyard to skip buying tickets for the show as Paul has related in Barry Miles's So many years from now. Theirs was the only house in that row to have such a concrete outhouse, and you can clearly see three or four teenage figures standing on that outhouse in the background. Paul's brother Mike has seen the footage and confirmed that it's their house and that it's definitely him, Paul, and George, and that most likely, John was also there with them. Any place for this within this article or any of the sub-articles? I sure hope they'll find the original negative of the film because it'd have a lot more resolution than this worn-out print that's not even telecined too well! So they could zoom in much more on the original neg to show them better. -- 2003:71:4E19:1889:A48E:8EFC:A6ED:DBAF ( talk) 03:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I brought this up before at Talk:The Beatles/Archive 32#Record labels in infobox but it didn't result in much discussion beyond a suggestion to limit it to companies with which they had recording contracts. The Beatles were signed to several recording contracts over the years. Those were with Polydor Records (through Bert Kampfert Productions) 1961–62, Parlophone (assigned to EMI) 1962–66, EMI (1967–76), Apple Records (actually a distribution agreement and not a recording contract with Apple as they were still under contract to EMI), Capitol Records (also a distribution agreement) 1969–1976. All other labels that have been listed in the infobox at various times were subsidiaries or licensees. Piriczki ( talk) 15:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Beatles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Zigui and the Spiders ( talk) 15:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Ringo wasn't a Beatle in 1960, put when he joined please (1962)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on The Beatles. 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) 17:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I added one sentence to the Legacy section, mentioning there are over a dozen tribute bands to the Beatles, linking to Category:The Beatles tribute bands, and it gets reverted on account of insufficient sourcing. A bit peculiar considering there are indeed well over a dozen WP articles about Beatles tribute bands in this WP category. The evidence is there in plain sight. So why contend that further sourcing is required ? GeeTeeBee ( talk) 12:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Would you criticize classical musicians playing Bach or Beethoven for being unoriginal ?and I replied. Mlpearc Phone ( open channel) 15:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
The Beatles has been scheduled for the above date as today's featured article. I'd appreciate it if someone could check the article one more time to make sure it's up-to-date. You're welcome but not obligated to edit the main page text; I'll be trimming it to around 1100 characters. Thanks! - Dank ( push to talk) 00:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I've started reading through the article and I was struck that the album sales figure of 600 million doesn't seem to have changed for years and I can't see a citation. Apepper ( talk) 17:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Is there any way we can reduce the size of those recently added images of Lennon and McCartney under 1970s? They look bloody enormous. JG66 ( talk) 17:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I suggest a change in the timeline to reflect the breif time in which George was absent from the band during the Get Back Sessions.
I think George should be credited with late-era keyboard playing - his work on Abbey Road with synthesizers was innovative and influential. The organ also became his main chordal instrument for awhile when he was working with the sitar, and he played organ/keyboards on a number of tracks including While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Blue Jay Way, and Old Brown Shoe.
In addition, McCartney and Lennon also played keyboards regularly and McCartney took over for Ringo on drums for the short period that Ringo had quit the band. Lennon also played harmonica regularly during the group's early years.
Those are my proposed changes to the timeline, adding those instruments. I made the changes, but my edits were reverted due to a lack of consensus. Zabboo ( talk), 17:44, 9 July 2017, (UTC)
The beatles recorded many rock and roll songs, pop rock songs, folk rock songs, and psychedelic rock songs. So i added genre rock and roll, pop rock, folk rock, psychedelic rock in this page. LSM1204 ( talk) 16:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Added a book. -- Daveler16 ( talk) 03:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I’m considering creating a page listing every gig the Beatles performed on tour, i.e. Town Hall, Alloa, Scotland 20th May 1960 backing Johnny Gentle through to Candlestick Park, San Francisco, USA 30th August 1966. There are already some tour pages but they are listed under specific information such as The Beatles' 1965 US Tour or Roy Orbison / The Beatles' Tour etc, so you’d need to know what to look for. This would be a straight list taken from Bill Harry’s Beatles Encyclopedia, which is very comprehensive, and would put all that data under one roof. Do others think it would be worth the trouble, or does something like it already exist somewhere on the site? Thanks, Patthedog ( talk) 17:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
What about adding Dezo Hoffmann to the "People associated with the Beatles" template? He's shot most of the 1963 footage with the lads seen in the Anthology music video for It won't be long. There once was a 5-10 minutes TV interview with him on YouTube where he talks about how he's stayed with them for about two weeks and where he goes into details on how they've shot those home movies with his camera (claiming that it was an "auto-focus camera" when in 1963, it was rather most likely a fixed focus camera), but I can't find it anymore. -- 79.242.203.134 ( talk) 16:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on The Beatles. 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) 12:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
1956: John Lennon's first band, The Quarrymen was founded in 1956. Later Paul joined, then George, then Pete Best but was replaced by Ringo. Technically, it was the same band, founded in 1969. Then they changed their name a few times. Johnny and the Moondogs, The Beat Brothers (with Tony Sheridan), The Silver Beatles and then The Beatles. But it was the same group. Well, it was more members in The Quarrymen, (Colin Hanton, John Duff Lowe, Rod Davis, Len Garry, etc.) but they later left the band. So I would say The Beatles technically is the same band as The Quarrymen, The Moon Dogs and Silver Beatles.
1969: The Beatles recorded both of their last CDs in 1969, but Let It Be was just released in 1970, but they had already broken up. The Beatles broke up in 1969, right?
1994: Paul, George and Ringo teamed up one last time for the Anthology series in 1994 and remixed "Free As A Bird" and "Real Love".
That's why I changed the page to 1956-1969, 1994. But I it was wrong for me to do that? What do you guys think?
-- NRKfan ( talk) 00:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Article states "Released in March 1963, the album initiated a run during which eleven of their twelve studio albums released in the United Kingdom through 1970 reached number one.[56]" but the article Beatles Discography lists 11 from 13 total. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makewa ( talk • contribs) 05:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I believe the genres " pop" and " rock" are very broad and do not describe The Beatles well to a reader. Many songs can be put in place of Pop and Rock, and for a new reader this could be unclear. An addition of Psychedelic Pop and Psychedelic Rock seems necessary, or any other specific genre/sub-genre. Boötes ( talk) 22:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
This appears to be an "empty" Cat which has 24 articles in it? Where has this come from, what purpose does it serve and how can it be removed? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 21:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
There is a sentence in the lead that says that the Beatles “came to be perceived as an embodiment of the ideals shared by the counterculture of the 1960s." The phrase has no citation, and it is not repeated in the article, so it can’t be verified, and I suspect that it may have been invented by an editor, and as such it would be an instance of what Wikipedia calls “original research”. It has other problems, because it is an incredibly broad generality, and also vague as can be: The “counter culture” could mean a large number of things, and the “ideals” of that large and various group, could also mean a large number of various ideas -- the possibilities have been compounded. And to suggest that the Beatles were seen to “embody” all that vague stuff seems unlikely — because embody is a strong word, as it suggests that that a role is taken on in a very complete manner. So, I deleted the phrase. Then my deletion was reverted by an editor, Bencherlite, who said (in the edit summary) the content is “Sourced in the body of the article, discuss on talk if you still disagree.” The question is then: If it’s sourced in the body of the article, where would it be sourced? This article has over four hundred citations, and, the phrase I deleted is not repeated anywhere in the article. So, @ Bencherlite:, if you would like to say where you think it’s sourced (in order to discuss it, as you suggested), please do. Thanks. Ciceronianclausula ( talk) 11:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Getrobbed has been editing the article to change references to "the White album" to The Beatles. I believe the consensus is to use The Beatles for first mention, explain that the album is commonly referred to as the White Album, and thereafter refer to the album as the White Album. Besides conforming to common usage in secondary sources this also helps to minimize confusion between the Beatles as a band and the album titled The Beatles. Any proposed changes contrary to this consensus should be discussed here on the talk page rather than being made in the article. Strawberry4Ever ( talk) 19:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I have modified the lead sentence that was attributed to an unreliable source "allmusic" (see WP:RSN discussions [23]) and I could not find any sources for such claim, I have changed it slightly similar to what the FA passed [24] version had said. The sources refer the Beatles as "one of the most influential". [25] [26] Excelse ( talk) 05:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
No, Unterberger is not wrong in this case. I'm against removing "widely regarded as the foremost [...]" because it's more profound and notable than "one of the most influential and acclaimed". Everyone already knows that the Beatles are one of the biggest bands ever. What makes them different is how consistently they rank at number one.-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 16:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
The impact of the Beatles – not only on rock & roll but on all of Western culture – is simply incalculable. As musicians they proved that rock & roll could embrace a limitless variety of harmonies, structures, and sounds; virtually every rock experiment has some precedent on Beatles records … One of the first rock groups to write most of its own material, they inaugurated the era of self-contained bands and forever centralized pop. And as personalities, they defined and incarnated '60s style: smart, idealistic, playful, irreverent, eclectic. Their music, from the not-so-simple love songs they started with to their later perfectionist studio extravaganzas, set new standards for both commercial and artistic success in pop. Although many of their sales and attendance records have since been surpassed, no group has so radically transformed the sound and significance of rock & roll.
The acrimonious dissolution of the Beatles, like that of no other group before or since, symbolized the end of an era that they had dominated and helped to create. It is inconceivable that any group in the future can shape and influence a generation in the same way as these four individuals.
JG66 ( talk) 07:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)It's nearly impossible to overstate the magnitude of the Beatles' influence – not just on music, but upon virtually every aspect of popular culture in the years since the band's worldwide breakthrough in 1964 … Their initial impact would have been enough to establish the Beatles as one of the era's most influential cultural forces, but they didn't stop there … In 1964, the Beatles captured the world's imagination, and carried their public along on a six-year adventure whose artistic developments paralleled the social and cultural changes of those tumultuous years. The group managed to simultaneously be their era's pre-eminent musical innovators as well as the most popular recording act of their time, and their status remains unchallenged to this day. Their adventurous experimentalism established the Beatles as pied pipers of the Aquarian age, shepherding rock's maturation from blues-based forms to a more eclectic and self-consciously serious approach. The band members' interest in political and spiritual consciousness influenced many of their listeners to explore those areas, cementing the Beatles' status at the center of the social revolutions of the 1960s … Beyond their musical achievements and their influence in such areas as hair length and fashion sense, the Beatles' runaway commercial success played a pivotal role in the music business's growth into a multimillion-dollar industry.
The examples given above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution.-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 00:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
References
"most influential music band" or "most influential music group" indeed sounds better. Excelse ( talk) 04:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I think "folk rock" and "psychedelic" should be added to the list of genres in the infobox - both represent vitally important periods in the Beatles' career that aren't apparent with "rock" and "pop" as the only listed genres.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabboo ( talk • contribs)
Zabboo: Hang on, I think that's a bit premature. Pinging Boötes (who made a similar point as me re "a solid chunk of their music", although, imo, "psychedelia" is the more appropriate term) and WWGB, both from the November discussion. JG66 ( talk) 07:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I think the addition of "psychedelia" is spot on, and it should end there. "Folk rock"? No. Sure, they dabbled. And even their dabbling produced some of the best ever work in whatever field they deigned to dabble in. But they did not move folk rock the way they did rock, pop, or psychedelia. DocKino ( talk) 12:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Disagree, Beatles performed various rock music genres. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonsun147258 ( talk • contribs) 13:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
The Beatles performed various genres such like Merseybeat, Folk rock, Pop rock, Blues rock, Art rock, Baroque pop and Psychedelia, But it's only loosely labeled as "Rock" and "Pop".
Regarding some recent changes made in this subsection, by Garagepunk66 and then myself. In short, because the paragraph begins with mention of the United Artists film deal, and especially the potentially lucrative soundtrack album(s), it made sense to me, after GP had made some additions there, to comment on the UA Hard Day's Night soundtrack album, just to acknowledge its existence, before focusing on the UK/rest-of-world album.
Personally, I think it's straightforward – and by the time we get to the Erlewine quote, we know he's referring to the HDN album as the Beatles intended it, not the UA soundtrack release. This being an FA, I figured we should discuss it here. Any thoughts, anyone? I suppose the relevant thing is how the issue was handled previously, before GP's changes. With my subsequent edits, I've taken things back to how they were pre-20 Feb, for the most part, but I also added something on the UA vs EMI albums. JG66 ( talk) 05:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Beatles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to give out an AllMusic source of the Beatles please. 24.247.218.39 ( talk) 04:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Spintendo
20:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)@ Jjamesryan: Hello - You reverted my edit. "Beatle" and "beatles" both redirect here and are common misspellings of beetle/s, so I added to the hatnote whilst condensing it to make it shorter. I thought I used the 5 basic rules of WP:HATNOTEs. Can you explain your reversion please. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 06:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Beatles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello! I want to ask your help. Please, put the important information into article The Beatles (in some relevant section). I can not do it personally, because I am - simple IP (I see "view source"). If you wish, you can make the text better. Thank you! I am waiting. This information:
The World Beatles Day is celebrated on January 16. This holiday was approved by UNESCO in 2001. The list of UNESCO does not contain such date, because the members of The Beatles are alive. The event is not very known in a result. [1] [2] [3] [4] - 2.94.186.117 ( talk) 15:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Ivetsaksone ( talk) 06:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
In early 1976 '''Alan Amron''' created The international committee to reunite the Beatles [8]partnering with world famous sports legend Muhammad Ali asking everyone in the world for a dollar. [9]The notion of a Beatles reunion under Ali’s sponsorship came from Alan Amron and Joel Sacher, two Long Island, New York businessmen who formed the International Committee to Reunite the Beatles last year “They were the catalysts,” said Spiros Anthony. [10]The New York Daily News front page news story "Ali to the Beatles: "Come Together." [11]
'''Sid Berstein''' a known music concert promoter, ran a $28.000 dollar ad in a 1976 Sunday edition of the New York Times newspaper, to enduce a Beatles reunion. [12] Comparing Sid Bernstien and other Beatles reunion efforts: [13] [14]Beatle Ringo Starr dismissing promoter Sid Bernstein's $230 Million proposal for a Beatles reunion. saying "It's too long to read." [15] "... Amron's scheme is also the only current one that holds even a hint of promise for bringing the Beatles back together." Beatle George Harrison said, "Will it happen? I suppose so". [16] [17]Amron's International Committee to reunite the Beatles was first before Bernstein. [18]
'''Bill Sargent''' a concert promotor, also tried to get the Beatles to do a reunion concert, his efforts notably failed. [19] [20] Ivetsaksone ( talk) 14:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Years later '''Project Interspeak''' had also run a full page ad, in the calendar section of the Los Angeles Times, to reunite the Beatles. The ad simply said to "Stay Tuned to this Page", nothing ever happened. [21] Beatles Paul McCartney called it "a rumor" and said "I'm happy to do a concert for the whales. I think they shouldn't be hunted to extinction, but frankly I just can't see a Beatles reunion in it." [22] [23] Ivetsaksone ( talk) 07:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
References
Under the associated acts section for The Beatles, why isn't "Wings" listed, but Plastic Ono Band is? Plastic Ono Band was a band fronted by John Lennon after the Beatles and Wings was a band fronted by Paul McCarntey after the Beatles. I think if Plastic Ono Band is listed under "Associated Acts", then Wings should too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getrobbed ( talk • contribs) 07:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi people. This is my design, recently performed using no-copyrighted sets, available on wikimedia. If you think it's great, we can use it. If not, we can work it. Regards Διεγο Απόλλων Άρης (Alejandro) ( talk) 21:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC) 21:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Why is a collage image used, rather than a normal image where the Fab Four are together? I cannot find a permalink to any consensus to use the current image. -- Kailash29792 (talk) 05:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Should we add "Wings" for associated acts for the Beatles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getrobbed ( talk • contribs) 00:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Folks, the pictures of the band in the article's infobox are terrible. I'm well aware that there are very few public domain photos of the Beatles, but I believe I've found a better alternative. I've uploaded a photo of the Beatles performing in Belfast in 1964 called The Beatles Belfast.jpg that I think would be a suitable replacement. It's a bit wide, but I think it's a far better representation of the group than the terrible profiles in the current article, with George's tongue sticking out etc. Zabboo talk 06:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
With the death of Geoff Emerick I went to see if he was on the template 'People associated with the Beatles, and found the template had been recently deleted after a deletion "discussion" by five editors! This is a good template, full of information, and now, if you look at George Martin's article, there is no template linking him to the Beatles. Did the "regulars" here know about this, and can it be brought back for another go? Thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 21:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I feel we should add more people like Eric CLapton. Nirvanaisbae ( talk) 13:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC
Hi there! I noticed under "Sources" that there are two books by John C. Winn included. However, the links to these books take readers to a website where there is only partial access to the book. In the spirit of Wikipedia and open access, I recommend using sources that allow readers full access to content.-- Halostock97 ( talk) 18:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Curiously, Wings has been left out of the "Associated Acts" section of the info box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.15.188.76 ( talk) 00:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I think the collapsible articles section should be condensed into a more manageable format personally, to include every subcategory into one main box, rather than separate ones (for albums, films, etc). I notice that editors of The Rolling Stones page have done this as well, but it's just unnecessarily confusing and presents their history in an uneven manner. Look at the pages for Bob Dylan or the Grateful Dead, both are presented in much easier, comprehensive formats. I think one large section is better than multiple small ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.15.188.76 ( talk) 00:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Beatleswillneverdie has been adding an abundance of song "cover art" images they've found from Google without bothering to check if they're actually real or official (see File:Revolution_9.jpg). At best, some of these images are of weird foreign pressings of songs that were never issued as singles in the US or UK (see File:Honey dont.jpg). I don't believe the vast majority of their uploads should be used since they're misleading and cannot be verified (every fair use rationale says that they're "the original cover" which is vague BS). Unfortunately it's much too tedious for me to revert all their edits, and I'm not sure how to go about removing these images, so hopefully someone else can sort this out... Ilovetopaint ( talk) 16:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Beatles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change 7 grammy awards to 25 grammy awards. Keepser ( talk) 19:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
WWGB – a bit surprised by your edit. I appreciate the source is less than ideal but please see this overview. The situation explained there is the way I understand it in British English, anyway; for example: "If a collective noun is seen as a whole, sole, impersonal unit, then singular verbs are more common" vs "If it is seen as a collection of people doing personal things, then plural verbs are more common ..." Not only that but we have, in the same lead here, "the group were integral to the evolution of pop music". JG66 ( talk) 08:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
The band had nearly exhausted their backlog...from a version in 2015, establishing the British English form from an early stage. This is earlier than "group was" which was added in violation of the usual British English form as used in other Brit band articles. Dr. K. 05:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
The band's stylistic range expanded in another direction with their 1966 B-side "Rain",...and
began work assembling an album, given "free rein" as the band "all but washed their hands of the entire project".[230],
The band expanded their use of vocal overdubs on Help! and incorporated classical instruments...,
First aired on Boxing Day, the Magical Mystery Tour film, largely directed by McCartney, brought the group their first major negative UK press.. Dr. K. 05:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Can't log it, so I'll post here on a small matter of non-urgency.
"A Hard Day's Night" is mistakenly described as a "mockumentary." It's a film with a script that can be better described as a "fictional account." "This Is Spinal Tap" is a true "mockumentary," where actors who are musicians are interviewed and the audience is aware of the camera, with the film entirely improvised and fictional - based on the actors' whims and a loosely-based premise.
Someone ought to make the change when they get around to it. Carry on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:283:8001:CD0:D55:2A5C:111C:D487 ( talk) 16:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. I've updated the text to say "musical comedy" instead, as per the film's WP article. (Was tempted to add something about it being 'a day in the life', but thought it a bit too cheeky.) Key of Now ( talk) 21:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I think it would be best to have a hatnote or distinguish template at the top of the article for “beetle”. Currently, the word “beatle” redirects to this page, and I think it would be fair to serve those who misspell it, some people may not even know that those two spellings mean two completely different things. Any thoughts? Mrbeastmodeallday ( talk) 09:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
@ JG66: Many readers are new to written English or are otherwise bad at spelling. “beatle” and “beetle” are phonetically pronounced the same, and the word “beatle” redirects to this article “The Beatles”. Because a search for “beatle” redirects here, it seems right to include “beetle” as a distinguish template. Yes it may seem odd and unnecessary to us, but not everyone is as good at spelling and English as you and I are. Plus some people may be looking for “beetle” and may never have heard of “The Beatles” and may get confused. Overall, it would be helpful in aiding readers to navigate the encyclopedia. Mrbeastmodeallday ( talk) 16:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:The Beatles is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at this MfD discussion page until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 22:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I know that for legal reasons, sheet music has to have both names on it, even when only one was involved.
But can we just credit, for example "Yesterday" to "Paul McCartney" as a songwriter, since he's the one who actually wrote it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeatlesWhiteAlbum ( talk • contribs) 20:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I just had a thought. Do you think the Beatles should be classified as Indie Rock? After all, I read numerous articles that seem to give defiant proof of them being the originators of that genre. If not, maybe a small reference that indicates their influence? Voicebox64 ( talk) 06:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I was gonna add Wings, the Traveling Wilburys, and the All-Star Band Dbspencr ( talk) 05:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
800 million records is a inflation. They have sold 600 million according to many sources including Apple Music. List_of_best-selling_music_artists#250_million_or_more_records 8eatle ( talk) 11:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, Michael Jackson's manager and record companies have stated he sold in between 750 million records to 1 billion. However, Wikipedia users have called this "unreliable". 8eatle ( talk) 14:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Who deleted the associated acts and why? Dbspencr ( talk) 02:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
The following uses of this field should be avoided: For groups: the solo careers of its members. It's also been discussed on this page many times; check the archives.-- Pawnkingthree ( talk) 12:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Then why is Plastic Ono Band an associated act? That’s Johns solo band Dbspencr ( talk) 13:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I justified why Wings belongs here in my edit. “Paul McCartney was a member of the Beatles. After the Beatles broke up, he started a band named “Wings.” Often at Paul’s concerts, he will play a mix of Beatles songs and Wings songs. In fact, if you go on the Wikipedia page for Wings, in the list of associated acts, there is only one: The Beatles. So the Beatles and Wings share a member, their songs are often paired together, and Wikipedia even states that they are associated with each other in one article. Therefore, Paul McCartney and Wings are an associated act with the Beatles.” Now the justification for not including Wings was that the members solo acts weren’t associated acts. That’s fine with me, but if that’s the case, Plastic Ono Band does not belong here either. I get that John is your favorite Beatle and you dislike Paul, but that doesn’t justify your repeated vandalism of this article. And it is vandalism: “The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia.“ Stop vandalizing the page. Either allow Wings as an associated act, or delete Plastic Ono Band Dbspencr ( talk) 13:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Well I can’t really reach consensus if I can’t give a reason it should be included, can I, Einstein? Wings is a separate band that shares one member with then Beatles, Plastic Ono Band is also a separate band that shares one member with the Beatles. They should have the exact same status as associated acts. Either they should both be included, or neither should be included. Dbspencr ( talk) 14:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Except Plastic Ono Band started in 1969, while the group was breaking up. The fact that they didn’t legally dissolve the Beatles until 1970 doesn’t change history. Plastic Ono Band was John’s solo project, just as Wings was Pauls Dbspencr ( talk) 14:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Plastic Ono Band used George and Ringo as essentially session musicians, they were not members. The only permanent members of the Plastic Ono Band were John Lennon and Yoko Ono Dbspencr ( talk) 14:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Jarniewicz, Jerzy; Alina Kwiatkowska (eds.) (2010). Fifty Years with the Beatles. The Impact of the Beatles on Contemporary Culture. Lodz: Lodz University Press. ISBN 978-83-7525-465-5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:116f:40e2:2e00:747a:2545:c96c:696e ( talk) 16:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello there! I started a discussion on the page Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music on 7 July, and it hasn't received any responses. This RfC concerns the use of the word "The" in band names in parentheses in the titles of articles about songs and albums. Further elaboration can be found on that discussion page. I would appreciate thoughts from anyone who may be interested in the discussion. Thank you. – Matthew - ( talk) 20:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
I do not have sufficient permissions to improve this article. The first sentence reads like an advertisement. This qualification is outside the scope of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaineglover ( talk • contribs) 16:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@ Obscurasky: Thank you for raising this issue at my talk page, but I think it might be best to discuss it here, and ensure everyone gets to weigh in. Personally, I still can't see any reason for the removal of hyphens you've done since my revert.
Your point about "numbers are not normally hyphenated" – I'm sorry, but I believe that is totally incorrect. Numbers are hyphenated after twenty; in fact, that's the reason why editorial style in writing often dictates that numerals should be used, if not from 10 (to mark the change to double figures), then from 21 onwards. That is: to avoid any need for hyphenated numbers, because invariably, once there are instances of something like "a 21-year gap", there would be a situation whereby the number itself is hyphenated, but so too is the compound adjective/adjectival phrase in which it appears. And, contrary to another change you've just made, I think the hyphen in a long phrase such as "a local record-store owner and music columnist" would be very useful, to avoid the reader tripping over any item in that description. If we were saying "a local shopkeeper and music columnist" then there'd be no chance of that, but the pertinent point is he's the owner of a record store – a multi-word description – plus, "local" provides an additional concept, quite removed from the "record-store" modifier.
Anyone one else, btw, please weigh in … JG66 ( talk) 15:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Just throwin' it out there, either Freda Kelly (officially employed at Brian's NEMS and later Apple) or the original The Beatles Fan Club she ran as The Beatles's secretary may be relevant enough for their own article, to be included in the People associated with the Beatles box at the bottom or in the Related articles section. I've just seen this 86-minute 2013 documentary [19] about her and with her, focussing on her work for the lads from 1961-1972. The film even includes a few kind recent words spoken by none other than Mr. Richard Starkey in appreciative tribute to her, so I suppose at least the latter may establish her relevance within the Beatleverse. -- 2003:71:4E6A:B463:E461:79B2:5C3B:DF32 ( talk) 10:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
The section is unclear as to what actually happened after Michael Jackson's death regarding the rights to the Beatles song catalogue. It's always been a bit hazy after the 1995 ATV/Sony merger which of the songs were owned by Jackson and which by Sony, and our article for Sony/ATV Music Publishing doesn't say anything about The Beatles rights after Jackson's death, not even in relation to Sony's recent acquirement of EMI. Are the Beatles songs back in the same hands as the Abbey Road studios now, etc.? Those are the things still missing from the Song catalogue section here. -- 2003:71:4E6A:B456:2089:80C7:3624:FCC4 ( talk) 03:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Should Tony Sheridan be listed in associated acts? They backed him as the Beat Brothers, which seems as associated as Billy Preston, who is listed because he backed them. Also, why is Plastic Ono Band listed, but not Wings, or The All-Starr Band, or Traveling Wilburys? 68.9.148.17 ( talk) 14:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you both for clarifying. I asked about Tony Sheridan because of that "The Early Tapes"/"The Beatles' First" album where they played together. They functioned as his backing band, so that seemed like a strong case for an association (they'd certainly be an associated act for him). I wasn't advocating for including the other bands so much as I was thinking of Plastic Ono as being more of a solo thing, but I take the point that John was still in the band at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.148.17 ( talk) 02:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
In the section The Beatles#Awards and achievements it says the Beatles' sales are 600 million to over one billion units worldwide. The claim of one billion discs and tapes comes from the Guinness Book of World Records and dates to 1985. Although Guinness says this figure is according to EMI, it still appears dubious. Guinness had previously said Beatles sales by the end of 1978 were estimated at 100 million singles and 100 million albums. As of 1985, the Beatles U.S. album sales totaled 74,786,835 not counting two albums distributed by United Artists. Add those in and the total is about 80 million. Since U.S. sales accounted for about half of worldwide sales, a reasonable estimate of worldwide album sales as of 1985 would be about 160 million. In 1972 EMI estimated worldwide sales at 85 million albums and 120 million singles and EPs for a total of 205 million, boosted slightly by counting EPs as two units. This would make a total of about 280 million (160 + 120) worldwide as of 1985, assuming singles sales probably wouldn't have been that significant after 1972. As of 2004, Apple claims the Beatles have sold "more than 600 million records, tapes and CDs." The figure of one billion is completely out of line with EMI's 1972 totals, Guinness' 1978 totals, Capitol's 1985 totals, and Apple's most recent total. Piriczki ( talk) 17:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
If interested, please offer support for a WikiProject focused on psychedelic music.-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 01:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Revolver was the last Beatles album to be released while they were still touring, the last to be released before John met Yoko, the last to be released where Harrison gave it his full interest (we see him lose interest on Sgt. Pepper), and the last before they began growing mustaches and took on a more psychedelic, "hippie" look beginning with the Strawberry Fields Forever/ Penny Lane single.
Not to mention, on The Red Album and The Blue Album compilations, it's filed under the "Red"(1962-66) section. And George Harrison has said in interviews that he always thought of Rubber Soul(considered in this article to be an "early" Beatles release) and Revolver as a twofer. So, I don't see why Revolver is lumped into the 1966-70 section, when it really belongs more with the "touring era" albums like Rubber Soul, rather than Sgt. Pepper and beyond.-- 73.79.233.45 ( talk) 02:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I hear a song on 101.6 IBC FM which has "Rock After Midnight" every day at midnight. When I listen to the song, it sounds like an answer song in which its duration and its hook were similar to " Hey Jude". I don't know for the title song that I hear on the radio station which was inactive and later replaced by the university radio station that very not popular. Because I will know, can you search songs where its music structure were similar to "Hey Jude"? Wisnu Aji ( talk) 07:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Beatles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Beatles actually had started in the 1950s, with John Lennon and some of his friends. You also need to inform about Stu Sutcliffe and Pete Best. 207.244.138.38 ( talk) 20:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
See this book, page 233-235 contains an explanation of how the CD releases were intended to harmonize the Beatles catalog into a simplified canon. For people who objected to the paragraph on sourcing grounds, does this suffice, or do we need more sources? -- Jayron 32 02:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
It seems the earliest known moving footage of John, Paul, and George together has been found: [20], [21], [22] It dates to 1958 and shows them in the background of a Liverpool police training film during a police sporting event. The house of the McCartneys stood right next to the training ground and the three of them'd always stand on top of the concrete outhouse in the McCartney backyard to skip buying tickets for the show as Paul has related in Barry Miles's So many years from now. Theirs was the only house in that row to have such a concrete outhouse, and you can clearly see three or four teenage figures standing on that outhouse in the background. Paul's brother Mike has seen the footage and confirmed that it's their house and that it's definitely him, Paul, and George, and that most likely, John was also there with them. Any place for this within this article or any of the sub-articles? I sure hope they'll find the original negative of the film because it'd have a lot more resolution than this worn-out print that's not even telecined too well! So they could zoom in much more on the original neg to show them better. -- 2003:71:4E19:1889:A48E:8EFC:A6ED:DBAF ( talk) 03:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I brought this up before at Talk:The Beatles/Archive 32#Record labels in infobox but it didn't result in much discussion beyond a suggestion to limit it to companies with which they had recording contracts. The Beatles were signed to several recording contracts over the years. Those were with Polydor Records (through Bert Kampfert Productions) 1961–62, Parlophone (assigned to EMI) 1962–66, EMI (1967–76), Apple Records (actually a distribution agreement and not a recording contract with Apple as they were still under contract to EMI), Capitol Records (also a distribution agreement) 1969–1976. All other labels that have been listed in the infobox at various times were subsidiaries or licensees. Piriczki ( talk) 15:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Beatles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Zigui and the Spiders ( talk) 15:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Ringo wasn't a Beatle in 1960, put when he joined please (1962)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on The Beatles. 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) 17:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I added one sentence to the Legacy section, mentioning there are over a dozen tribute bands to the Beatles, linking to Category:The Beatles tribute bands, and it gets reverted on account of insufficient sourcing. A bit peculiar considering there are indeed well over a dozen WP articles about Beatles tribute bands in this WP category. The evidence is there in plain sight. So why contend that further sourcing is required ? GeeTeeBee ( talk) 12:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Would you criticize classical musicians playing Bach or Beethoven for being unoriginal ?and I replied. Mlpearc Phone ( open channel) 15:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
The Beatles has been scheduled for the above date as today's featured article. I'd appreciate it if someone could check the article one more time to make sure it's up-to-date. You're welcome but not obligated to edit the main page text; I'll be trimming it to around 1100 characters. Thanks! - Dank ( push to talk) 00:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I've started reading through the article and I was struck that the album sales figure of 600 million doesn't seem to have changed for years and I can't see a citation. Apepper ( talk) 17:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Is there any way we can reduce the size of those recently added images of Lennon and McCartney under 1970s? They look bloody enormous. JG66 ( talk) 17:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I suggest a change in the timeline to reflect the breif time in which George was absent from the band during the Get Back Sessions.
I think George should be credited with late-era keyboard playing - his work on Abbey Road with synthesizers was innovative and influential. The organ also became his main chordal instrument for awhile when he was working with the sitar, and he played organ/keyboards on a number of tracks including While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Blue Jay Way, and Old Brown Shoe.
In addition, McCartney and Lennon also played keyboards regularly and McCartney took over for Ringo on drums for the short period that Ringo had quit the band. Lennon also played harmonica regularly during the group's early years.
Those are my proposed changes to the timeline, adding those instruments. I made the changes, but my edits were reverted due to a lack of consensus. Zabboo ( talk), 17:44, 9 July 2017, (UTC)
The beatles recorded many rock and roll songs, pop rock songs, folk rock songs, and psychedelic rock songs. So i added genre rock and roll, pop rock, folk rock, psychedelic rock in this page. LSM1204 ( talk) 16:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Added a book. -- Daveler16 ( talk) 03:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I’m considering creating a page listing every gig the Beatles performed on tour, i.e. Town Hall, Alloa, Scotland 20th May 1960 backing Johnny Gentle through to Candlestick Park, San Francisco, USA 30th August 1966. There are already some tour pages but they are listed under specific information such as The Beatles' 1965 US Tour or Roy Orbison / The Beatles' Tour etc, so you’d need to know what to look for. This would be a straight list taken from Bill Harry’s Beatles Encyclopedia, which is very comprehensive, and would put all that data under one roof. Do others think it would be worth the trouble, or does something like it already exist somewhere on the site? Thanks, Patthedog ( talk) 17:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
What about adding Dezo Hoffmann to the "People associated with the Beatles" template? He's shot most of the 1963 footage with the lads seen in the Anthology music video for It won't be long. There once was a 5-10 minutes TV interview with him on YouTube where he talks about how he's stayed with them for about two weeks and where he goes into details on how they've shot those home movies with his camera (claiming that it was an "auto-focus camera" when in 1963, it was rather most likely a fixed focus camera), but I can't find it anymore. -- 79.242.203.134 ( talk) 16:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on The Beatles. 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) 12:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
1956: John Lennon's first band, The Quarrymen was founded in 1956. Later Paul joined, then George, then Pete Best but was replaced by Ringo. Technically, it was the same band, founded in 1969. Then they changed their name a few times. Johnny and the Moondogs, The Beat Brothers (with Tony Sheridan), The Silver Beatles and then The Beatles. But it was the same group. Well, it was more members in The Quarrymen, (Colin Hanton, John Duff Lowe, Rod Davis, Len Garry, etc.) but they later left the band. So I would say The Beatles technically is the same band as The Quarrymen, The Moon Dogs and Silver Beatles.
1969: The Beatles recorded both of their last CDs in 1969, but Let It Be was just released in 1970, but they had already broken up. The Beatles broke up in 1969, right?
1994: Paul, George and Ringo teamed up one last time for the Anthology series in 1994 and remixed "Free As A Bird" and "Real Love".
That's why I changed the page to 1956-1969, 1994. But I it was wrong for me to do that? What do you guys think?
-- NRKfan ( talk) 00:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Article states "Released in March 1963, the album initiated a run during which eleven of their twelve studio albums released in the United Kingdom through 1970 reached number one.[56]" but the article Beatles Discography lists 11 from 13 total. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makewa ( talk • contribs) 05:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I believe the genres " pop" and " rock" are very broad and do not describe The Beatles well to a reader. Many songs can be put in place of Pop and Rock, and for a new reader this could be unclear. An addition of Psychedelic Pop and Psychedelic Rock seems necessary, or any other specific genre/sub-genre. Boötes ( talk) 22:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
This appears to be an "empty" Cat which has 24 articles in it? Where has this come from, what purpose does it serve and how can it be removed? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 21:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
There is a sentence in the lead that says that the Beatles “came to be perceived as an embodiment of the ideals shared by the counterculture of the 1960s." The phrase has no citation, and it is not repeated in the article, so it can’t be verified, and I suspect that it may have been invented by an editor, and as such it would be an instance of what Wikipedia calls “original research”. It has other problems, because it is an incredibly broad generality, and also vague as can be: The “counter culture” could mean a large number of things, and the “ideals” of that large and various group, could also mean a large number of various ideas -- the possibilities have been compounded. And to suggest that the Beatles were seen to “embody” all that vague stuff seems unlikely — because embody is a strong word, as it suggests that that a role is taken on in a very complete manner. So, I deleted the phrase. Then my deletion was reverted by an editor, Bencherlite, who said (in the edit summary) the content is “Sourced in the body of the article, discuss on talk if you still disagree.” The question is then: If it’s sourced in the body of the article, where would it be sourced? This article has over four hundred citations, and, the phrase I deleted is not repeated anywhere in the article. So, @ Bencherlite:, if you would like to say where you think it’s sourced (in order to discuss it, as you suggested), please do. Thanks. Ciceronianclausula ( talk) 11:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Getrobbed has been editing the article to change references to "the White album" to The Beatles. I believe the consensus is to use The Beatles for first mention, explain that the album is commonly referred to as the White Album, and thereafter refer to the album as the White Album. Besides conforming to common usage in secondary sources this also helps to minimize confusion between the Beatles as a band and the album titled The Beatles. Any proposed changes contrary to this consensus should be discussed here on the talk page rather than being made in the article. Strawberry4Ever ( talk) 19:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I have modified the lead sentence that was attributed to an unreliable source "allmusic" (see WP:RSN discussions [23]) and I could not find any sources for such claim, I have changed it slightly similar to what the FA passed [24] version had said. The sources refer the Beatles as "one of the most influential". [25] [26] Excelse ( talk) 05:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
No, Unterberger is not wrong in this case. I'm against removing "widely regarded as the foremost [...]" because it's more profound and notable than "one of the most influential and acclaimed". Everyone already knows that the Beatles are one of the biggest bands ever. What makes them different is how consistently they rank at number one.-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 16:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
The impact of the Beatles – not only on rock & roll but on all of Western culture – is simply incalculable. As musicians they proved that rock & roll could embrace a limitless variety of harmonies, structures, and sounds; virtually every rock experiment has some precedent on Beatles records … One of the first rock groups to write most of its own material, they inaugurated the era of self-contained bands and forever centralized pop. And as personalities, they defined and incarnated '60s style: smart, idealistic, playful, irreverent, eclectic. Their music, from the not-so-simple love songs they started with to their later perfectionist studio extravaganzas, set new standards for both commercial and artistic success in pop. Although many of their sales and attendance records have since been surpassed, no group has so radically transformed the sound and significance of rock & roll.
The acrimonious dissolution of the Beatles, like that of no other group before or since, symbolized the end of an era that they had dominated and helped to create. It is inconceivable that any group in the future can shape and influence a generation in the same way as these four individuals.
JG66 ( talk) 07:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)It's nearly impossible to overstate the magnitude of the Beatles' influence – not just on music, but upon virtually every aspect of popular culture in the years since the band's worldwide breakthrough in 1964 … Their initial impact would have been enough to establish the Beatles as one of the era's most influential cultural forces, but they didn't stop there … In 1964, the Beatles captured the world's imagination, and carried their public along on a six-year adventure whose artistic developments paralleled the social and cultural changes of those tumultuous years. The group managed to simultaneously be their era's pre-eminent musical innovators as well as the most popular recording act of their time, and their status remains unchallenged to this day. Their adventurous experimentalism established the Beatles as pied pipers of the Aquarian age, shepherding rock's maturation from blues-based forms to a more eclectic and self-consciously serious approach. The band members' interest in political and spiritual consciousness influenced many of their listeners to explore those areas, cementing the Beatles' status at the center of the social revolutions of the 1960s … Beyond their musical achievements and their influence in such areas as hair length and fashion sense, the Beatles' runaway commercial success played a pivotal role in the music business's growth into a multimillion-dollar industry.
The examples given above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution.-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 00:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
References
"most influential music band" or "most influential music group" indeed sounds better. Excelse ( talk) 04:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I think "folk rock" and "psychedelic" should be added to the list of genres in the infobox - both represent vitally important periods in the Beatles' career that aren't apparent with "rock" and "pop" as the only listed genres.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabboo ( talk • contribs)
Zabboo: Hang on, I think that's a bit premature. Pinging Boötes (who made a similar point as me re "a solid chunk of their music", although, imo, "psychedelia" is the more appropriate term) and WWGB, both from the November discussion. JG66 ( talk) 07:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I think the addition of "psychedelia" is spot on, and it should end there. "Folk rock"? No. Sure, they dabbled. And even their dabbling produced some of the best ever work in whatever field they deigned to dabble in. But they did not move folk rock the way they did rock, pop, or psychedelia. DocKino ( talk) 12:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Disagree, Beatles performed various rock music genres. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonsun147258 ( talk • contribs) 13:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
The Beatles performed various genres such like Merseybeat, Folk rock, Pop rock, Blues rock, Art rock, Baroque pop and Psychedelia, But it's only loosely labeled as "Rock" and "Pop".
Regarding some recent changes made in this subsection, by Garagepunk66 and then myself. In short, because the paragraph begins with mention of the United Artists film deal, and especially the potentially lucrative soundtrack album(s), it made sense to me, after GP had made some additions there, to comment on the UA Hard Day's Night soundtrack album, just to acknowledge its existence, before focusing on the UK/rest-of-world album.
Personally, I think it's straightforward – and by the time we get to the Erlewine quote, we know he's referring to the HDN album as the Beatles intended it, not the UA soundtrack release. This being an FA, I figured we should discuss it here. Any thoughts, anyone? I suppose the relevant thing is how the issue was handled previously, before GP's changes. With my subsequent edits, I've taken things back to how they were pre-20 Feb, for the most part, but I also added something on the UA vs EMI albums. JG66 ( talk) 05:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Beatles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to give out an AllMusic source of the Beatles please. 24.247.218.39 ( talk) 04:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Spintendo
20:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)@ Jjamesryan: Hello - You reverted my edit. "Beatle" and "beatles" both redirect here and are common misspellings of beetle/s, so I added to the hatnote whilst condensing it to make it shorter. I thought I used the 5 basic rules of WP:HATNOTEs. Can you explain your reversion please. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 06:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Beatles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello! I want to ask your help. Please, put the important information into article The Beatles (in some relevant section). I can not do it personally, because I am - simple IP (I see "view source"). If you wish, you can make the text better. Thank you! I am waiting. This information:
The World Beatles Day is celebrated on January 16. This holiday was approved by UNESCO in 2001. The list of UNESCO does not contain such date, because the members of The Beatles are alive. The event is not very known in a result. [1] [2] [3] [4] - 2.94.186.117 ( talk) 15:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Ivetsaksone ( talk) 06:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
In early 1976 '''Alan Amron''' created The international committee to reunite the Beatles [8]partnering with world famous sports legend Muhammad Ali asking everyone in the world for a dollar. [9]The notion of a Beatles reunion under Ali’s sponsorship came from Alan Amron and Joel Sacher, two Long Island, New York businessmen who formed the International Committee to Reunite the Beatles last year “They were the catalysts,” said Spiros Anthony. [10]The New York Daily News front page news story "Ali to the Beatles: "Come Together." [11]
'''Sid Berstein''' a known music concert promoter, ran a $28.000 dollar ad in a 1976 Sunday edition of the New York Times newspaper, to enduce a Beatles reunion. [12] Comparing Sid Bernstien and other Beatles reunion efforts: [13] [14]Beatle Ringo Starr dismissing promoter Sid Bernstein's $230 Million proposal for a Beatles reunion. saying "It's too long to read." [15] "... Amron's scheme is also the only current one that holds even a hint of promise for bringing the Beatles back together." Beatle George Harrison said, "Will it happen? I suppose so". [16] [17]Amron's International Committee to reunite the Beatles was first before Bernstein. [18]
'''Bill Sargent''' a concert promotor, also tried to get the Beatles to do a reunion concert, his efforts notably failed. [19] [20] Ivetsaksone ( talk) 14:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Years later '''Project Interspeak''' had also run a full page ad, in the calendar section of the Los Angeles Times, to reunite the Beatles. The ad simply said to "Stay Tuned to this Page", nothing ever happened. [21] Beatles Paul McCartney called it "a rumor" and said "I'm happy to do a concert for the whales. I think they shouldn't be hunted to extinction, but frankly I just can't see a Beatles reunion in it." [22] [23] Ivetsaksone ( talk) 07:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
References
Under the associated acts section for The Beatles, why isn't "Wings" listed, but Plastic Ono Band is? Plastic Ono Band was a band fronted by John Lennon after the Beatles and Wings was a band fronted by Paul McCarntey after the Beatles. I think if Plastic Ono Band is listed under "Associated Acts", then Wings should too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getrobbed ( talk • contribs) 07:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi people. This is my design, recently performed using no-copyrighted sets, available on wikimedia. If you think it's great, we can use it. If not, we can work it. Regards Διεγο Απόλλων Άρης (Alejandro) ( talk) 21:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC) 21:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Why is a collage image used, rather than a normal image where the Fab Four are together? I cannot find a permalink to any consensus to use the current image. -- Kailash29792 (talk) 05:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Should we add "Wings" for associated acts for the Beatles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getrobbed ( talk • contribs) 00:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Folks, the pictures of the band in the article's infobox are terrible. I'm well aware that there are very few public domain photos of the Beatles, but I believe I've found a better alternative. I've uploaded a photo of the Beatles performing in Belfast in 1964 called The Beatles Belfast.jpg that I think would be a suitable replacement. It's a bit wide, but I think it's a far better representation of the group than the terrible profiles in the current article, with George's tongue sticking out etc. Zabboo talk 06:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
With the death of Geoff Emerick I went to see if he was on the template 'People associated with the Beatles, and found the template had been recently deleted after a deletion "discussion" by five editors! This is a good template, full of information, and now, if you look at George Martin's article, there is no template linking him to the Beatles. Did the "regulars" here know about this, and can it be brought back for another go? Thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 21:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I feel we should add more people like Eric CLapton. Nirvanaisbae ( talk) 13:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC
Hi there! I noticed under "Sources" that there are two books by John C. Winn included. However, the links to these books take readers to a website where there is only partial access to the book. In the spirit of Wikipedia and open access, I recommend using sources that allow readers full access to content.-- Halostock97 ( talk) 18:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Curiously, Wings has been left out of the "Associated Acts" section of the info box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.15.188.76 ( talk) 00:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I think the collapsible articles section should be condensed into a more manageable format personally, to include every subcategory into one main box, rather than separate ones (for albums, films, etc). I notice that editors of The Rolling Stones page have done this as well, but it's just unnecessarily confusing and presents their history in an uneven manner. Look at the pages for Bob Dylan or the Grateful Dead, both are presented in much easier, comprehensive formats. I think one large section is better than multiple small ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.15.188.76 ( talk) 00:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Beatleswillneverdie has been adding an abundance of song "cover art" images they've found from Google without bothering to check if they're actually real or official (see File:Revolution_9.jpg). At best, some of these images are of weird foreign pressings of songs that were never issued as singles in the US or UK (see File:Honey dont.jpg). I don't believe the vast majority of their uploads should be used since they're misleading and cannot be verified (every fair use rationale says that they're "the original cover" which is vague BS). Unfortunately it's much too tedious for me to revert all their edits, and I'm not sure how to go about removing these images, so hopefully someone else can sort this out... Ilovetopaint ( talk) 16:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Beatles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change 7 grammy awards to 25 grammy awards. Keepser ( talk) 19:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
WWGB – a bit surprised by your edit. I appreciate the source is less than ideal but please see this overview. The situation explained there is the way I understand it in British English, anyway; for example: "If a collective noun is seen as a whole, sole, impersonal unit, then singular verbs are more common" vs "If it is seen as a collection of people doing personal things, then plural verbs are more common ..." Not only that but we have, in the same lead here, "the group were integral to the evolution of pop music". JG66 ( talk) 08:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
The band had nearly exhausted their backlog...from a version in 2015, establishing the British English form from an early stage. This is earlier than "group was" which was added in violation of the usual British English form as used in other Brit band articles. Dr. K. 05:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
The band's stylistic range expanded in another direction with their 1966 B-side "Rain",...and
began work assembling an album, given "free rein" as the band "all but washed their hands of the entire project".[230],
The band expanded their use of vocal overdubs on Help! and incorporated classical instruments...,
First aired on Boxing Day, the Magical Mystery Tour film, largely directed by McCartney, brought the group their first major negative UK press.. Dr. K. 05:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Can't log it, so I'll post here on a small matter of non-urgency.
"A Hard Day's Night" is mistakenly described as a "mockumentary." It's a film with a script that can be better described as a "fictional account." "This Is Spinal Tap" is a true "mockumentary," where actors who are musicians are interviewed and the audience is aware of the camera, with the film entirely improvised and fictional - based on the actors' whims and a loosely-based premise.
Someone ought to make the change when they get around to it. Carry on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:283:8001:CD0:D55:2A5C:111C:D487 ( talk) 16:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. I've updated the text to say "musical comedy" instead, as per the film's WP article. (Was tempted to add something about it being 'a day in the life', but thought it a bit too cheeky.) Key of Now ( talk) 21:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I think it would be best to have a hatnote or distinguish template at the top of the article for “beetle”. Currently, the word “beatle” redirects to this page, and I think it would be fair to serve those who misspell it, some people may not even know that those two spellings mean two completely different things. Any thoughts? Mrbeastmodeallday ( talk) 09:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
@ JG66: Many readers are new to written English or are otherwise bad at spelling. “beatle” and “beetle” are phonetically pronounced the same, and the word “beatle” redirects to this article “The Beatles”. Because a search for “beatle” redirects here, it seems right to include “beetle” as a distinguish template. Yes it may seem odd and unnecessary to us, but not everyone is as good at spelling and English as you and I are. Plus some people may be looking for “beetle” and may never have heard of “The Beatles” and may get confused. Overall, it would be helpful in aiding readers to navigate the encyclopedia. Mrbeastmodeallday ( talk) 16:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:The Beatles is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at this MfD discussion page until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 22:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I know that for legal reasons, sheet music has to have both names on it, even when only one was involved.
But can we just credit, for example "Yesterday" to "Paul McCartney" as a songwriter, since he's the one who actually wrote it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeatlesWhiteAlbum ( talk • contribs) 20:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I just had a thought. Do you think the Beatles should be classified as Indie Rock? After all, I read numerous articles that seem to give defiant proof of them being the originators of that genre. If not, maybe a small reference that indicates their influence? Voicebox64 ( talk) 06:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I was gonna add Wings, the Traveling Wilburys, and the All-Star Band Dbspencr ( talk) 05:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
800 million records is a inflation. They have sold 600 million according to many sources including Apple Music. List_of_best-selling_music_artists#250_million_or_more_records 8eatle ( talk) 11:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, Michael Jackson's manager and record companies have stated he sold in between 750 million records to 1 billion. However, Wikipedia users have called this "unreliable". 8eatle ( talk) 14:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Who deleted the associated acts and why? Dbspencr ( talk) 02:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
The following uses of this field should be avoided: For groups: the solo careers of its members. It's also been discussed on this page many times; check the archives.-- Pawnkingthree ( talk) 12:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Then why is Plastic Ono Band an associated act? That’s Johns solo band Dbspencr ( talk) 13:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I justified why Wings belongs here in my edit. “Paul McCartney was a member of the Beatles. After the Beatles broke up, he started a band named “Wings.” Often at Paul’s concerts, he will play a mix of Beatles songs and Wings songs. In fact, if you go on the Wikipedia page for Wings, in the list of associated acts, there is only one: The Beatles. So the Beatles and Wings share a member, their songs are often paired together, and Wikipedia even states that they are associated with each other in one article. Therefore, Paul McCartney and Wings are an associated act with the Beatles.” Now the justification for not including Wings was that the members solo acts weren’t associated acts. That’s fine with me, but if that’s the case, Plastic Ono Band does not belong here either. I get that John is your favorite Beatle and you dislike Paul, but that doesn’t justify your repeated vandalism of this article. And it is vandalism: “The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia.“ Stop vandalizing the page. Either allow Wings as an associated act, or delete Plastic Ono Band Dbspencr ( talk) 13:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Well I can’t really reach consensus if I can’t give a reason it should be included, can I, Einstein? Wings is a separate band that shares one member with then Beatles, Plastic Ono Band is also a separate band that shares one member with the Beatles. They should have the exact same status as associated acts. Either they should both be included, or neither should be included. Dbspencr ( talk) 14:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Except Plastic Ono Band started in 1969, while the group was breaking up. The fact that they didn’t legally dissolve the Beatles until 1970 doesn’t change history. Plastic Ono Band was John’s solo project, just as Wings was Pauls Dbspencr ( talk) 14:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Plastic Ono Band used George and Ringo as essentially session musicians, they were not members. The only permanent members of the Plastic Ono Band were John Lennon and Yoko Ono Dbspencr ( talk) 14:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Jarniewicz, Jerzy; Alina Kwiatkowska (eds.) (2010). Fifty Years with the Beatles. The Impact of the Beatles on Contemporary Culture. Lodz: Lodz University Press. ISBN 978-83-7525-465-5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:116f:40e2:2e00:747a:2545:c96c:696e ( talk) 16:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello there! I started a discussion on the page Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music on 7 July, and it hasn't received any responses. This RfC concerns the use of the word "The" in band names in parentheses in the titles of articles about songs and albums. Further elaboration can be found on that discussion page. I would appreciate thoughts from anyone who may be interested in the discussion. Thank you. – Matthew - ( talk) 20:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)